The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Escherichia coli: the best biological drinking water indicator for public health protection
Abstract
Public health protection requires an indicator of fecal pollution. It is not necessary to analyse drinking water for all pathogens. Escherichia coli is found in all mammal faeces at concentrations of 10 log 9(-1), but it does not multiply appreciably in the environment. In the 1890s, it was chosen as the biological indicator of water treatment safety. Because of method deficiencies, E. coli surrogates such as the 'fecal coliform' and total coliforms tests were developed and became part of drinking water regulations. With the advent of the Defined Substrate Technology in the late 1980s, it became possible to analyse drinking water directly for E. coli (and, simultaneously, total coliforms) inexpensively and simply. Accordingly, E. coli was re-inserted in the drinking water regulations. E. coli survives in drinking water for between 4 and 12 weeks, depending on environmental conditions (temperature, microflora, etc.). Bacteria and viruses are approximately equally oxidant-sensitive, but parasites are less so. Under the conditions in distribution systems, E. coli will be much more long-lived. Therefore, under most circumstances it is possible to design a monitoring program that permits public health protection at a modest cost. Drinking water regulations currently require infrequent monitoring which may not adequately detect intermittent contamination events; however, it is cost-effective to markedly increase testing with E. coli to better protect the public's health. Comparison with other practical candidate fecal indicators shows that E. coli is far superior overall.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Montealegre, M. C., Roy, S., Böni, F., Hossain, M. I., Navab-Daneshmand, T., Caduff, L., Faruque, A. S. G., Islam, M. A., & Julian, T. R. (2018) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.01978-18 · Cited by 55
Antony, A., Paul, M., Silvester, R., Aneesa, P. A., Suresh, K., Divya, P. S., Paul, S., Fathima, P. A., & Abdulla, M. (2016) · Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology · doi:10.22207/jpam.10.4.48 · Cited by 33
Wright, J., Dzodzomenyo, M., Wardrop, N., Johnston, R., Hill, A., Aryeetey, G., & Adanu, R. (2016) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph13030303 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Edberg, S. C., Rice, E. W., Karlin, R. J., & Allen, M. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Microbiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- 106S-116S
- ISSN
- 1364-5072 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1963962444
- Cited by
- 907
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Escherichia coli: the best biological drinking water indicator for public health protection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2000.tb05338.x
- The paper
- Edberg, S. C., Rice, E. W., Karlin, R. J., & Allen, M. J. (2000). Escherichia coli: the best biological drinking water indicator for public health protection. Journal of Applied Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2000.tb05338.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.