A correction was made to: EPA Method 1615. Measurement of Enterovirus and Norovirus Occurrence in Water by Culture and RT-qPCR. II. Total Culturable Virus Assay. The values for Reagent Grade Water shown in Figure 2 were changed from a mean value of 111% with a standard error of 8% to a mean value of 82% with a standard error of 26%.
A correction was made to: EPA Method 1615. Measurement of Enterovirus and Norovirus Occurrence in Water by Culture and RT-qPCR. II. Total Culturable Virus Assay. The values for Reagent Grade Water shown in Figure 2 were changed from a mean value of 111% with a standard error of 8% to a mean value of 82% with a standard error of 26%.
The penultimate sentence of the last paragraph of the Representative Results section was changed from:
These controls performed similarly with a mean recovery of 111% and a coefficient of variation of 100% (Figure 2),
to:
These controls had a mean recovery of 82% and a coefficient of variation of 110% (Figure 2).
The third sentence of the fourth paragraph of the Discussion section was changed from:
The mean recovery from the LFB samples of 111% with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 100% also met the method performance acceptance criteria even though they are higher than that observed for PE samples during the ICR,
to:
The mean recovery from the LFB samples of 82% with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 110% also met the method performance acceptance criteria even though they are higher than that observed for PE samples during the ICR.
A correction was made to: EPA Method 1615. Measurement of Enterovirus and Norovirus Occurrence in Water by Culture and RT-qPCR. II. Total Culturable Virus Assay. The values for Reagent Grade Water shown in Figure 2 were changed from a mean value of 111% with a standard error of 8% to a mean value of 82% with a standard error of 26%.
The penultimate sentence of the last paragraph of the Representative Results section was changed from:
These controls performed similarly with a mean recovery of 111% and a coefficient of variation of 100% (Figure 2),
to:
These controls had a mean recovery of 82% and a coefficient of variation of 110% (Figure 2).
The third sentence of the fourth paragraph of the Discussion section was changed from:
The mean recovery from the LFB samples of 111% with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 100% also met the method performance acceptance criteria even though they are higher than that observed for PE samples during the ICR,
to:
The mean recovery from the LFB samples of 82% with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 110% also met the method performance acceptance criteria even though they are higher than that observed for PE samples during the ICR.
Genehmigung beantragen, um den Text oder die Abbildungen dieses JoVE-Artikels zu verwenden
Genehmigung beantragen