Water Environment Federation (WEF) Discussion ForumsWater Environment Federation (WEF) Discussion Forumshttp://www.wef.org/TechnicalDiscussions/jfuller@wef.orgSat, 06 Sep 2008 20:05:46 GMT20http://www.wef.org/TechnicalDiscussions/Topic8993-15-1.aspxbsims has it exactly right, when in doubt farm it out.Tue, 13 May 2008 20:49:08 GMTBrenthttp://www.wef.org/TechnicalDiscussions/Topic8993-15-1.aspxOur laboratory used to run this analysis for our organization's compost facility. My advice to you would be to run. Run away as fast as you can. This test requires too much work for too few results. It's very labor intensive, the QC is a pain in the you-know-what, and overall, it is just a time-waster when you consider everything else that has to be done in a laboratory. I commend you for trying to take this on, but a small lab, especially a one-man operation, would probably be better off subcontracting the sample to a large commercial laboratory. In my opinion, There is too much tedious b.s. involved with this procedure for a small operation to be able to do it in a cost-effective manner.Thu, 08 May 2008 12:16:12 GMTbsimshttp://www.wef.org/TechnicalDiscussions/Topic8993-15-1.aspxF coliforms Part II</P><P>In method 1680 the CFU/ml of the Ecoli spiking solution is calculated by plating the spiking solution and counting colonies after incubation. </P><P>Is there some reason I couldn't just use Colilert to enumerate the spiking solution? Do you think this is a allowable modification per the Part 136 regs? Wed, 07 May 2008 12:55:11 GMTscaphttp://www.wef.org/TechnicalDiscussions/Topic8993-15-1.aspxEPA 503 allows for fecals via LT (presumptive) and EC (confirming) OR A-1 broth (confirmed test). Check your PM's.Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:56:47 GMTH2O_Techhttp://www.wef.org/TechnicalDiscussions/Topic8993-15-1.aspxScap:</P><P>If interested and depending on whether you are required to meet permit requirements, I ran a study a couple of years ago comparing multiple tube vs colilert. The correlation coefficient was r=.9584 between the two methods. I would not recommend membrane filtration due to the fact that you may have solids problems. If you decide to run multiple tube then lauryl tryptose for presumptive and EC for fecal coliforms. Transfer directly from positive presumptive to EC (water bath is necessary). If interested in the comparison study use the following link<BR></P><P><A href="http://www.wef.org/technicaldiscussions/Topic8134-15-1.aspx">http://www.wef.org/technicaldiscussions/Topic8134-15-1.aspx</A>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:54:34 GMTVictorhttp://www.wef.org/TechnicalDiscussions/Topic8993-15-1.aspxI feel your pain. I am not aware of a system out there to test for coliforms on biosolids. IDEXX makes a system for coliform MPN method but it was designed for drinking waters. You might want to call them and see if they have come up with some new system. It has been a few years since I worked in the micro lab. </P><P>As far as media and supplies, VWR or Fisher are your best bets. Media from Becton Dickinson (BD) or Difco are the great and easy to prepare. I hope you have an autoclave, otherwise, your price tag just went up quite a bit more.</P><P>Hang tight and good luck!Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:02:46 GMTdhmhhttp://www.wef.org/TechnicalDiscussions/Topic8993-15-1.aspxI need to start testing our biosolids for coliform. I plan on using EPA 1680. Please help this overworked lab tech in a one man WWTP lab by providing me with info about where to purchase culture tubes, durham tubes, media etc...</P><P>Are there any premade systems out there which will spare me the time of preparing, sterilizing and setting it all up by hand?</P><P>Thank's!Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:48:44 GMTscap