In article <20000717205202.13122.00001418 at ng-bg1.aol.com>, netomoney at aol.com
says...
>>A reply would be greatly appreciated.
>>In a standard 1:10 dilution, two duplicate plate counts of 1mL are prepared.
>The plate count results are zero, therefore the result is reported as less
then
>10.
>>If a 1:300 dilution is performed, six 5 mL replicate plates are prepared, and
>no counts are observed. Which is correct to report? Less then 60 or less
then
>10?
>>If replicate counts are performed, does that increase the sensitivity of the
>test? For a normal 1:10 dilution with 2 replicate 1 ml counts performed,
would
>it correct to report results as less then 5, since 2 mL was actually plated,
or
>are the number of replicates disregarded?
>
Above questions are "interesting" ONLY as thought 'games."
As a practical matter there are very few instances where it makes much
(if any difference) how the above are reported. The bottom line is that
NO bacteria were recovered-- which just might mean you used the wrong
stuff/conditions etc. to grow them; or it might mean there really is nothing
there; or it might mean less than some number.
Yes, I do understand that for certain water or food quality testing
there are a maximum allowable number of organisms. These tests are however
so standardized that you don't really need to bend your mind worrying
about the theory.
Did the above come up on a quiz?
I've seen worse sins than minor inaccuracies in reporting as could happen
in the above scenario. One 'screw-up" is the guy who puts something
in enrichment broth and then does a plate counts on the enrichment broth.
Then, claims that this is valid because if you start with a higher number
of organisms in a sample placed in enrichment, the ultimate number of organisms
found in there would be a function of what was put in.
Keep your eye on the ball. Pay attention to what is really important.
That is usually the practical information acquired by doing a test.
