Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 326

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Direct counts of aquatic bacteria by a modified epifluorescence technique1

Daley, Ralph J., Hobbie, John E.·1975·Limnology and Oceanography

Abstract

Various excitation and emission filters, microscope lamps, membrane filters, and field storage techniques used for direct counting of bacteria by epifluorescence microscopy have been compared. A rapid, simple modification of the Acridine Orange procedure using a new light filter combination, Sartorius cellulose membrane filters, and distilled water rinse gave the brightest cell fluorescence, darkest background, least fading, and highest counts for both estuarine and freshwater samples. Field fixation with Formalin permits storage of bacterial samples for 1 to 2 weeks without changes in bacterial numbers.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4319/lo.1975.20.5.0875

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 326

Metadata

Authors
Daley, R. J., & Hobbie, J. E.
Venue
Limnology and Oceanography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1975-09
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
875-882
ISSN
  • 0024-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5590
OpenAlex
W2070790580
Cited by
326
References
0
FWCI
12.53
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: Direct counts of aquatic bacteria by a modified epifluorescence technique1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4319/lo.1975.20.5.0875
The paper
Daley, R. J., & Hobbie, J. E. (1975). Direct counts of aquatic bacteria by a modified epifluorescence technique1. Limnology and Oceanography. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1975.20.5.0875

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.