The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analysis of Bacteria Contaminating Ultrapure Water in Industrial Systems
Open accessAbstract
Bacterial populations inhabiting ultrapure water (UPW) systems were investigated. The analyzed UPW systems included pilot scale, bench scale, and full size UPW plants employed in the semiconductor and other industries. Bacteria present in the polishing loop of the UPW systems were enumerated by both plate counts and epifluorescence microscopy. Assessment of bacterial presence in UPW by epifluorescence microscopy (cyanotolyl tetrazolium chloride [CTC] and DAPI [4′,6′-diamidino-2-phenylindole] staining) showed significantly higher numbers (10 to 100 times more bacterial cells were detected) than that determined by plate counts. A considerable proportion of the bacteria present in UPW (50 to 90%) were cells that did not give a positive signal with CTC stain. Bacteria isolated from the UPW systems were mostly gram negative, and several groups seem to be indigenous for all of the UPW production systems studied. These included Ralstonia pickettii , Bradyrhizobium sp., Pseudomonas saccharophilia , and Stenotrophomonas strains. These bacteria constituted a significant part of the total number of isolated strains (≥20%). Two sets of primers specific to R. pickettii and Bradyrhizobium sp. were designed and successfully used for the detection of the corresponding bacteria in the concentrated UPW samples. Unexpectedly, nifH gene sequences were found in Bradyrhizobium sp. and some P. saccharophilia strains isolated from UPW. The widespread use of nitrogen gas in UPW plants may be associated with the presence of nitrogen-fixing genes in these bacteria.
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
Cites
Improved tools for biological sequence comparison.
Pearson, W. R., & Lipman, D. J. (1988) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.85.8.2444 · Cited by 11,227
Cited by
Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses
Salter, S. J., Cox, M. J., Turek, E. M., Calus, S. T., Cookson, W. O., Moffatt, M. F., Turner, P., Parkhill, J., Loman, N. J., & Walker, A. W. (2014) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z · Cited by 3,463
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: an Emerging Global Opportunistic Pathogen
Brooke, J. S. (2012) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00019-11 · Cited by 1,434
Advances in Electronic-Nose Technologies Developed for Biomedical Applications
Wilson, A. D., & Baietto, M. (2011) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s110101105 · Cited by 400
The Not-so-Sterile Womb: Evidence That the Human Fetus Is Exposed to Bacteria Prior to Birth
Stinson, L. F., Boyce, M. C., Payne, M. S., & Keelan, J. A. (2019) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2019.01124 · Cited by 389
Common Contaminants in Next-Generation Sequencing That Hinder Discovery of Low-Abundance Microbes
Laurence, M., Hatzis, C., & Brash, D. E. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097876 · Cited by 318
Metadata
- Authors
- Kulakov, L. A., McAlister, M. B., Ogden, K. L., Larkin, M. J., & O'Hanlon, J. F.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1548-1555
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2103643749
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Analysis of Bacteria Contaminating Ultrapure Water in Industrial Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.68.4.1548-1555.2002
- The paper
- Kulakov, L. A., McAlister, M. B., Ogden, K. L., Larkin, M. J., & O'Hanlon, J. F. (2002). Analysis of Bacteria Contaminating Ultrapure Water in Industrial Systems. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.68.4.1548-1555.2002
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.