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.