Talk:Fecal coliform

Microbiology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The

The large body of text needs to broken down with subheaders to resemble the encylopedia layout. Perhaps someone with expertise could help out? Gordeonbleu 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broke down large body of text. Agree that page should be merged. Need further revision of entire document, especially Analysis section. Need more links. --Yacht boy 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pets???

Shouldn't the pets section just read "Animals"? A bear can shit in a stream just as easily as a dog can shit in a parking lot and cause bacteria to flow indirectly into a stream. It seems to be almost an attack on the practice of keeping pets to specifically list them as a cause for water contamination as opposed to simply animals.

"Health Hazards"

Lemme get this straight, the bacteria is indicative of water that is toxic but isn't toxic alone? Starhood` 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of these bacteria sanitary problems, or even fecal contamination, but the fecal coliform assay needs to be interpretted carefully according to the nature of what is being tested.

The word toxic generally refers to something that contains a toxin, toxcity is not indicated by the presence of any bacteria.

Fecal coliforms are micro-organisms that cause a positive reaction in the fecal coliform assay. The Fecal coliform assay is a test for type I E. coli, which is an indicator microorganism for fecal contamination (presence of Salmonella, Shigella, Cholera and others). At the time of the inception of the fecal coliform assay, it was not recognized that other organisms would cause false positive results, and the test was already in widespread use before it's limitations were known. Also at that time E. coli was classified as E. coli partly due to a non-pathogenic nature, and indicator micro-organisms are often thought/referred to as non-pathogenic. It is possible to test for these non-pathogenic indicator organisms in a bio-containment level 1 (BCL-1) lab, whereas the pathogens that are indicated by the presence of indicator micro-organisms are often BCL-2 or even BCL-3, which require extra equipment and training. Also tests for indicator micro-organisms are often performed in proximity of water or food intended for human consumption, and so it is not desired to propagate dangerous organisms. In addition testing for pathogens in relation to food and water, would produce records that show the presence of pathogens which inspires fears of legal trouble. In anycase testing for indicator organisms is preferred to testing for the pathogens themselves. Also, bear in mind that even though it's called a fecal coliform test, due to it's limitations (primarily the common widespread presence of non-E. coli coliforms) it's often used as a simple non incriminating test for sanitation effectiveness, and cleanliness. That is when it's used at all, it's falling out of favor, and the coliform assay is more common.James.folsom 21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Poo Germs" Why are we saying "poo germs". i feel that this lacks the consistency of a scientific article and should be replaced with posibly fecal bacteria. im going to go ahead and change it and if u feel the desire to discus go ahead... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.119.125 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess

What is the subject of this article? Is it:

a type of bacteria?
a particular assay?
fecal contamination of water?
all of the above?
none of the above?

There are a number of other articles which seem to cover related material:

I don't think the material is currently distributed correctly; there is omission, duplication, and resorting to "see also". jnestorius^(talk) 16:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Coliform index into Fecal coliform

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge; objections, no support; no support for alternative proposal. Klbrain (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology/Tasks since 2006. Uses the same assay with the same assumption: if it grows under these conditions, it probably has something to do with poop. Artoria 2e5 🌉 15:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as stated. A better target would be Bacteriological water analysis, which I think would be reasonable thing to do on the grounds of short text and context. Klbrain (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and while I agree that Bacteriological water analysis is a better target, I think the best option is to avoid any merge in this case. Someone looking for information on the Coliform index specifically seems likely, and I think this topic merits its own article. Turtletwo (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.