vvEPA
         United States
         Environmental Protection
         Agency
            Office of Research
            and Development
            Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA815-K-99-62-
March 1999
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
OF PROPOSED PROTOZOAN
DETECTION METHODS

-------

-------
       CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF
    PROPOSED PROTOZOAN DETECTION
                      METHODS
                        Alfred P. Dufour1
                        Maryann Feige2
                    H.D. Alan Lindquist1, Editor
                        Michael Messrier2
                          Stig RegH2
                        Crystal Rodgers2
                      Frank W. Schaefer1, III
                        Steven Schaub2
                        James Sinclair2
                        Larry J. Wymer1
'Office of Research and Development

2Office of Water

-------

-------
      CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROTOZOAN DETECTION
                                      METHODS

 Introduction:
        Currently, the only EPA approved method for detection and quantitation of protozoan
 cysts and oocysts in source and drinking water, is the "ICR Protozoan Method for Detecting
 Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts in Water by a Fluorescent Antibody Procedure (ICR
 Microbial Laboratory Manual, Section VII, EPA/600/R-95/178, April 1996).  Experience with
 the ICR protozoan method has shown that it usually underestimates the levels and occurrence of
 Giardia sp. and Cryptosporidium sp., the two protozoan parasites that it was designed to detect.
 False positives and false negatives have been found during testing in a number of laboratories.
 The ICR method has also been criticized for being complex and difficult to perform, yielding
 highly variable results, demonstrating differential response in a variety of water matrices, and
 being costly (Clancy, et al. 1997, Schaefer, 1997). To address these issues, alternate methods
 have been proposed and preliminarily tested.  Not all of the alternatives are complete methods.
 Some are method components meant to substitute for the sampling, processing, staining or
 detection steps used in the ICR method.
       The result of the development of methods and method components has been a profusion
 of procedures that have not been tested in a consistent manner. Many of these methods have not
 been validated in a multi-laboratory, round robin  format. A mechanism must be developed to
 evaluate these proposed methods and method components.  The recent development of draft EPA
 method 1622 (SEP 98 DRAFT - Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA
 (270 KB) -(EPA 821-R-98-010) may provide a useful guideline for evaluating proposed
 methods. Method 1622 is a performance based method that includes multiple options for
 sampling and processing that may be selected.
       The problem in evaluating methods is that great variances exist in the testing of the
 proposed methods. There are significant variations in the water matrices, the concentration of
 protozoan cysts, or oocysts, and the method for enumeration of these protozoan spikes, the
 quality of the spike material, and even the descriptions of the methods that have been provided
 by developers.  As a result, there is little comparability in the data that have been developed for
 each proposed technique or method.
       To evaluate the prospective utility of proposed methods and techniques it is necessary to
 establish a logical paradigm for categorization and preliminary evaluation to determine if further
 testing or investigation is warranted. Within the framework proposed, method replacements for
 the ICR method may be expeditiously screened. This framework is designed to be robust enough
 to allow comparison of widely divergent methods. This paradigm allows fair evaluation of a
number of prospective proposals, allowing those with a demonstrated likelihood of being better
than the ICR method to be tested further, while providing a set of necessary benchmarks for
method and technique developers to accomplish before consideration for further testing.  This
 framework will include a table that may be filled in by evaluators listing important characteristics
of proposed methods. Knowing this framework will allow method developers to focus their
energies on collecting the relevant data, and will guide them in the future research on method
improvements.

-------

-------
        The technical criteria for evaluation of performance of each method is based on testing in
  a defined water matrix with defined oocyst populations, at a specified spiking rate, based on a
  standardized method of spike enumeration. All of these criteria are reasonably obtainable.
  Methods selected by this framework should be further tested under a yet to be developed
  protocol using performance evaluation criteria, and a variety of water matrices. Description of
  this type of testing is beyond the scope of this protocol.
        Although C. parvum and G. lamblia are specifically addressed in the criteria for
  evaluating methods proposed here, it should be possible to use these criteria to evaluate methods
  proposed for detection of other protozoa. Adaptation of this method for other protozoa will have
  to be thoughtful. Any adaptation to include further species should include species specific
  parameters for preparation of seed for  spiking experiments, and may require modification in
  other criteria as well.
        It is also not possible to include in any single document, or set of criteria, all of the
 nuances of the application of those criteria.  Evaluation of methods is ultimately an exercise in
 decision making, which involves factors other than a strictly technical evaluation of the methods.
 These criteria are intended only to help ensure that each method has an opportunity for a
 scientifically sound evaluation of its respective technical merit.
        Finally, these criteria are designed to evaluate entire methods. Individuals wishing to
 have specific components of a method evaluated by the criteria outlined in this document must
 include those components in the context of a complete method. Any method component,
 however promising, does not exist independently of the entire method in which it is used. This
 does not preclude re-assortment of method components at a future date to develop a better
 method..

 Technical criteria:
 Statistical performance of method:
        A variety of statistical measures are required to evaluate each method. These measures
 must be reported on the basis of having run the entire method from sampling to the detection and
 identification.  In this way, the statistical measures will have validity and be useful for
 comparison. Spiked sample sets must include blanks to determine if false positive results occur.
       The only acceptable method for running spiked samples is to obtain a sufficient quantity
 of reagent water for a typical application of the method, and to seed this quantity of water at a
 variety of concentrations with cysts and oocysts from known sources maintained in defined
 conditions. These must be counted by hemocytometer count (EPA 821-R-98-010, September
 1998), or by another method demonstrated to give results of equal or greater precision and
 accuracy to hemocytometer counting.
       All parameters in the statistical performance of the method must be based on at least 10
 spiked samples and one blank sample prepared in reagent grade water being run through the
 entire method.  Spike material must be obtained from a documented source of laboratory animal
derived  cysts and oocysts, purified by at least three levels of purification with the final method
being cesium chloride purification (Arrowood and Donaldson, 1996) or equivalent. Cysts of G.
lamblia  should be 2 weeks old or less and should have at least 90% phase bright (highly
birefringent) organisms, and oocysts of C. parvum must be less than three months old and have

-------

-------
  at least 80% phase bright organisms. The cysts and oocysts should not be preserved, but should
  be stored in a medium for decontamination, for example water containing antibiotics.  Care
  should be taken to avoid influencing the viability or infectivity of test organisms during
  purification and storage.
        Spike material must be counted using a bright line hemocytometer using appropriate
  technique (EPA 821-R-98-010, September 1998).  A suitable aliquot is then added to the sample
  of reagent grade water.  Reagent grade water has a resistivity of 18 megaohms or greater, and is
  substantially free from bacterial contamination by filtration through a 0.2 micron pore sized
  filter. Sterility of this water must be checked at regular intervals by culture. The final spike dose
  is to be 10 cysts and oocysts per liter, and the minimum sample volume should be 10 liters,
  although larger volumes may be tested if the method design is intended for use with larger
  volume applications. Spiked water samples must be used within 12 hours of enumeration of the
  spike material. After spiking a carboy with a seed of organisms, an inoculum of equal volume to
 the volume of oocyst stock spiked into the water sample must be enumerated by a method other
 than the initial method of counting.  This may include staining the oocysts in this inoculum and
 counting stained cysts and oocysts, or some other method of enumeration. This is to ensure the
 accuracy of the spike dose.
        The hemocytometer counts must be recorded in a signed and dated laboratory notebook,
 available for inspection at the time a method is presented. Failure to present this data shall result
 in a score of 0 for all statistical parameters. In addition, for every 10 samples run through the
 complete method, at least one blank must be run.  Blanks may be used for statistical significance
 only if at least ten blanks are run.  Although blanks may be run at a higher rate than one in
 eleven, care must be taken to intersperse blanks and positive samples to attempt to blind the
 analysis. All samples and the blank should be prepared by an investigator other than the
 individual analyzing the data, in an attempt to operate the test in a blind fashion. In the event
 that the spike for any sample is prepared by an individual who is the analyst for that sample, the
 fact that the test was not run in a blind fashion must be reported.
       This procedure is not designed for the specific testing of method components.  If method
 components are to be tested, they should be included in a complete method. An example of this
 would be to include a new processing step into Method 1622, using one of the recommended
 filtration devices, the new method component for processing, and one of the Method 1622
 analysis protocols.

 Specific Criteria
       A set of criteria defining significant technical parameters and characteristics to be used as
 evaluation measures for proposed methods was developed to determine if further testing of
 proposed methods should be undertaken. These parameters were separated into criteria with
 each criterion being assigned a number of response levels designed to be inclusive of the possible
 set of responses. It is understood that it may not be possible to account for every contingency
 when designing a comprehensive set of responses to a variable, and that good scientific
judgement should be used when assigning appropriate scores to methods that fall outside the
 parameters of the response set for any criterion.

-------

-------
  Requirements for Data Generation to Measure the Statistical Performance
         A variety of statistical measures are required to evaluate each method. They must be
  reported on the basis of having conducted the entire method from sampling to detection and
  identification to have validity or usefulness for comparison. All parameters in the statistical
  performance of the method must be based on at least 10 spiked samples and one blank sample
  prepared in accordance with the following guidelines.
        All spiked samples and blanks are to be prepared using reagent grade water with a
  resistivity of 18 milliohms or greater, and is substantially free from bacterial  contamination by
  filtration through a 0.2 micron pore sized filter. Sterility of this water must be checked at regular
  intervals by culture. The sole exception to the use of distilled water is the case wherein the
  absence of particulates is an interference to the correct operation of the proposed method In this
  case, chemically defined particulate may be added at a defined rate to allow the method to work.
        Spike material must be obtained from a traceable source of laboratory animal derived
  cysts and oocysts. A traceable source of oocysts should be reasonably available to all  qualified
  researchers, should maintain documentation of the species of animal from which the parasites
  were initially isolated, the species of laboratory animals within which the parasites have been
  passed, and the methods used in propagation of the parasite. Parasite spike material should be
 purified to a nearly homogeneous population of monodispersed parasites with final processing
 method of cesium chloride purification (Arrowood, and Donaldson, 1996) or  equivalent  Cysts of
  d°^ TSt bC l6SS than 3 W6eks °ld ^ °6cysts ofC Parvum must be le*s than six months
 old.  While these organisms should not be preserved, they should be stored in a medium designed
 to retard the growth of bacteria, for example, reagent grade water containing antibiotics.
        All protozoan cysts or oocysts must be enumerated by hemocytometer count or by
 another method demonstrated to give results of equal or greater precision and accuracy than
 hemocytometer counting.  Enumeration by hemocytometer refers to material being counted using
 a bright line hemocytometer designed for phase optics.  After the hemocytometer chamber is
 filled with an appropriate volume and the hemocytometer placed on the microscope stage  it must
 be allowed to settle for 2 minutes, then protozoa are counted using phase contrast optics at no
 less than 200 x total magnification. Estimates are made by counting the four,  1 mm2 comers of
 the hemocytometer grid etched into the platform. Cysts or oocysts touching either the top or
 bottom, and either the right or left line are included, those touching the opposite line are
 excluded. At least 50, and not more than 120, cysts and oocysts must be counted per
 hemocytometer platform. If cysts and oocysts are not monodispersed, then the cyst or oocyst
 preparation must be treated to provide for monodispersion (i.e. by addition of 0.01% (v/v) Tween
 20 and vortexing for 2 minutes) and recounted.  The average of 6 hemocytometer platforms
 counted in this way is taken and used to calculate the dilution required to prepare a concentration
 of 10 cysts and/or oocysts per 1 liter. A suitable portion is then added to the sample of reagent
 grade water.  The final spike dose is calculated to be 10 cysts and/or oocysts per liter, and the
 minimum sample volume should be 10 liters,  although larger volumes may be tested'if the
 method design is intended for use with larger volume applications.  Spiked water samples must
 be used within 12 hours of enumeration  of the spike material.
       Well documented raw data should be available for inspection at the time a method is
presented. If this type of data is not available, the evaluation of statistical parameters will not be

-------

-------
  possible.
         In addition, for every 10 samples analyzed by the complete method, at least one blank
  must be included.  Blanks may be used for statistical significance only if at least ten blanks are
  used.  Care must be taken to intersperse blanks and positive samples.  If possible, all samples and
  the blank should be prepared by an investigator other than the individual analyzing the data  in an
  attempt to operate the test in a blind fashion.  In the event that the spike for any sample is
  prepared by an individual who is the analyst for that sample, the fact that the test was not
  conducted in a blind fashion must be reported.
        This procedure is not designed for the specific testing of method components  If method
  components are to be tested, they should be included in a complete method. An example of this
  would be to include a new processing step into Method 1622, using one of the recommended
  filtration devices, the new method component for processing, and one  of the Method 1622
  analysis protocols.

  Scoring Criteria
 Statistical Performance of Method
        All of the technical parameters must be adhered to in testing to develop statistical
 parameters.  Failure to adhere to these guidelines will result in a score of 0 for all technical
 statistical parameters.

 Percent recovery:
 The percent recovery is the percent of the initial spike dose recovered at the end of a method
 trial  In order for percent recovery to be valid, it must be noted as a method percent recovery in
 which the spike was added to a water sample, and the entire method performed, from initial
 concentration to final sample enumeration. A spiked sample that is used to test the efficacy of a
 method component may provide a component percent recovery, but not a method percent
 recovery.
  Percent recovery:
 Not reported or 0%
 <25%:
  25-<50%
  50-<75%
 75- 100%
                                                                          Rank
                                                                            0
Limit of detection:
The number of cysts and oocysts that may be reliably detected per unit volume reported as #
cysts and oocysts per liter by species is the limit of detection.

-------

-------
   Limit of Detection:
                                                                                 Rank
   Not reported or >10,000/1
   10,000->1,000:
    1,000- >100
      100-  >10
 Precision:
 Precision relates to repeatability, and is the percent coefficient of variation (standard deviation as
 a percent of mean) for the method when performed in its entirety using spiked samples.
  Precision:
                                                                                Rank
  Not reported, or > 100%
                                                                                  0
  <100-75%
  <75- 50%
  <50- 25%
     <25%
Lower 95% confidence limit:
This confidence limit represents the minimum number of cysts or oScysts that will be detected in
95 of 100 trials if the method were to be performed using the conditions specified in this
document. The limit is calculated from the sample mean using the central limit theorem and is a
single tailed test derived from the percent recovery data.  An example calculation of this would
be: the average recovery - [1.645 • (the standard deviation of the recovery/the square root of the
sample size)].
 Lower 95% confidence limit
                                                                               Rank
 Not reported, or <0

           > 0-25

          >25-  50

           >50 - 75

               >75
0
                                                                                 4

-------

-------
 Specificity:
 Specificity is the true negative rate. True negatives can only be determined by using a
 confirmatory test. All of the cysts and oocysts in an inoculated sample of reagent grade water
 should in fact be cysts and oocysts. Therefore specificity should be a measure of the ability to
 confirm the identity of cysts or oocysts.  For example, in the ICR method, it may not be possible
 to confirm by,differential interference contrast (DIG) all objects that react with the fluorescent
 antibody and are therefore only presumed positive. This presumptive nature may confound
 analysis of the results of the method. It is the nature of certain test types that confirmation may
 be easier or more difficult.  This difference may change or be magnified as the matrix becomes
 more complex.  Many proposed methods will not have addressed the matrix effect or ability to
 confirm presumptive objects. When only known positive material is added, the specificity is the
 ratio of confirmed to presumptive objects as a percent.
  Specificity:
Rank
  Not feported, or 0%
                                                                                   0
              <25%
           25- <50%
           50- <75%
           75- 100%
False positive rate:
The false positive rate is the apparent detection of cysts and oocysts in known blank samples.
Since, in some samples, less than 100 percent of the sample volume may routinely be analyzed,
this is generally a presence/absence criterion. This is reported as the number of positives
detected in blank trials randomly interspersed with positive trials.
False positive rate:
Not reported, or blank samples not performed, or false positives ;> 20%
False positives present but fewer than 10 blank samples were analyzed
No false positives present, but fewer than 10 blank samples analyzed
More than 10 blanks analyzed, and percent of false positives >5%, and <20%
More than 10 blanks analyzed and percent of false positives < 5%
Rank
0
1
2
3
4
Collaborative testing:
Collaborative multi-laboratory testing is exemplified by the ASTM format (D 2777-96,  1996).

-------

-------
  If possible all statistical measures should be derived from collaborative testing. In the earliest
  stages of testing, there should be at least confirmation of methods and results by one or more
  independent laboratories. If no independent laboratory testing has been carried out the score for
  this category would be zero, however, independent laboratory testing to achieve a 1 or 2 score
  need not be in the above described multi-laboratory collaborative format.
  Collaborative testing
                                                                                  Rank
  No independent laboratory testing undertaken
  Independent laboratory confirmation underway
  Independent laboratory confirmation undertaken successfully
  Collaborative multi-laboratory (ASTM-like) testing begun, not yet finished
  Collaborative, multi-laboratory testing completed
 Nature of Data Generated:
 This is a description of the data provided by the method. It must include the following-
 Organism:
 This is a taxonomic description of that which is detected by the method. The taxonomic level to
 which a target organism is reliably identified and the method of this determination should be
 described. Taxonomic status of Giardia sp.  cysts and Cryptosporidium sp. oocysts may be
 confirmed by examination under DIG microscopy.  The use of 4,6-diamidino2-phenyl-indole
 dihydrochlonde (DAPI)  staining in Method  1622 is also intended as a confirmatory technique
 All antibody based methods reported to date have shown some level of cross reactivity with other
 species. Because of the difficulty of confirming protozoan presumptive identification and the
 lack of specificity of antibody based methods, any proposed complete method must include some
 mechanism of confirmation of taxonomic status, beyond antibody recognition Modern
 molecular methods offer the possibility of highly specific identification techniques. In the case
 of methods incorporating these techniques, it is necessary to ensure that the identification
 encompasses all isolates  of a species that are infective to humans. Any new, proposed method of
taxonomic confirmation other than enhanced contrast microscopy should be validated against
DIG microscopy in a multi-laboratory study.

-------

-------
   Organism:
   The method to identify an organism to genus is not confirmed by multi-laboratory
   study, or it does not include a method to confirm the identification of the organism
   or the method does not detect all strains of the target species known to be infective
   to humans
   Identification to genus of the organism(s) is by non-selective methods
   Organisms of interest are identified to genus with a selective test (that selectively
   identifies target organisms of interest from background particles), and an
   independent confirmatory test

   Two independent testing mechanisms, at least one is valid to species level
   identification, and at least one is a selective test

   Organisms of interest identified, and confirmed by an independent test as a strainfs)
   significant to human health
                                                                                     Rank
0
1

2
 Viability:
 Viability should always be described in terms of evolutionary significance.  In this sense a
 viable organism has the ability to pass genetic material on to the next generation  A    '
 demonstration of the ability to excyst represents excystation ability. The ability to infect a cell is
 fJe!rr?       ,   ^^ A tCSt ^ demonstrates ** « organism hasfce ability to
 infect and cause clinical disease has shown clinical infectivity.  A test demonstrating the

 r.tThTrf   , arger nrber °f ViaWe CyStS  °r °6cyStS than was Present in the inactive dose, or
 a test that directly correlates with this is a viability test. The reference method for demonstrating
 viability is parasite proliferation via infecting susceptible animals resulting in cyst or oocy     "

 havt nSrat cr  tf  '   * ^ * **"** Pr°liferation> or det-tion of infective forms that
 have proliferated m the appropriate tissue on necropsy. Surrogate viability indicators are tests
 hat have been tested alongside the reference method and have been found to be correlated wih
the reference method. Most surrogate viability indicators, may be found to deviate from this
correlation under certain specific conditions. If the method is not designed to give viability
information, then this column should be left blank.

-------

-------
   Viability:
                                                                                     Rank
   Viability data indicated by a surrogate viability indicator that has not been validated
   against the reference standard (animal infectivity model)
   Surrogate viability indicator tested against one defined set of conditions and poorly
   correlated to reference standard, or found to be poorly correlated to the reference
   standard under conditions expected in the type of sample analyzed
  Surrogate viability indicator data validated against reference standard, under one
  defined set of conditions
  Surrogate viability indicator data validated against reference standard using
  numerous conditions, correlating well with the reference standard in several of these
  conditions
  Surrogate viability indicator data validated against reference standard, high
  correlation between the test and animal infectivity found in all of a broad range of
  conditions tested, or method includes the reference test
 Method Description
 The description of the method must be thorough enough to allow evaluation of the completeness
 availability and practicality of the method.
 General description:
 The general description should be sufficient to allow a scientist or technician, unfamiliar with the
 method, but with relevant experience to perform the method and achieve results comparable to
 those reported by the developers. The format used is to be determined by the method developer
 but should include: scope and application, summary of method, definitions, interferences safety
 equipment and supplies, reagents and standards, sample collection, preservation and storage    '
 quality control, calibration and  standardization procedure, data analysis and calculations  me'thod
performance, pollution prevention, waste management, references, tables, diagrams flowcharts
and validation data.  The description should serve as a complete, self contained instruction set for
evaluating a source or drinking  water sample, from sampling through analysis, interpretation and
reporting of results.  Failure to include any of these steps will result in a finding that the method
description is incomplete.
                                            10

-------

-------
   General description:
                                                                                  Rank
   Incomplete, not given
                                                                                   0
   Well described but not complete
   Apparently complete enough to allow independent testing
   Complete, tested by one independent laboratory
   Complete, tested by independent laboratories, and it is written in a format recognized
   by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or by an international consensus
   methods validation organization (such as the American Society for Testing and
   Materials or AOAC International)
 3

 4
 Sampling:
 The section on sampling must include information as to the range of sample volumes within
 which the method will perform as described including sample holding times and preservation
 techniques, ability to filter sample at sampling location, or at the laboratory. Other special
 limitations on sampling should be described here.
  Sampling:
  Not described, or described in general terms, or described with no test data
  presented, or well described but would not allow testing in suitable range of water
  types/volumes for practical use

  Not completely described, some test data presented, full
  range of parameters unknown
  Well described would allow water testing in an acceptable range of conditions
  Tested by multiple laboratories, demonstrated to be effective with either source or
  drinking water
 Tested in a collaborative multi-laboratory study demonstrating that sampling of both
 source and drinking water yields similar statistical recovery results
                                                                                 Rank
 1


2
3


4
 Managerial Criteria:
This element is intended to encompass the range of managerial concerns that may arise during
the implementation of methods, either in a collaborative multi-laboratory effort, or during actual
implementation of a method. These managerial considerations should be addressed within the
methods description, however, since these considerations may exceed the requirements of the
methods description format chosen by the developer, they may be included in a separate
document. This information is to include a full description of: personnel required for method
                                          11

-------

-------
  performance including skill levels as well as training requirements for the personnel performing
  the method broken down by technique where appropriate, a list of equipment and supply
  providers and whether these providers meet industry quality assurance standards, and the open
  market availability for any critical or proprietary components.
   Managerial Criteria:
                                                                                   Rank
   If none of this information is given or it is not documented
                                                                                     0
   If this information is partially complete, or any supporting documentation is only
   partially available
  If all points are addressed, but some of the information is given in non-quantitative
  fashion, or .includes general or anecdotal evidence
  If all points are covered, but there is no evidence of independent confirmation of the
  information of some of the information
  If all points are thoroughly addressed, and supported by independent confirmation,
  and all critical method components are readily available on the open market
 Likely candidates for future research:
 Certain methods or method components may not be available for immediate use, but might be
 likely candidates for future use. These may include methods wherein the current
 equipment/supply sources are limited in some way, but may become available in the future or
 methods providing particular promise but still lacking critical elements that would allow a '
 decision for further evaluation to be made. These candidates should be denoted by a non-
 numenc symbol. This denotation indicates that the method is unsuitable for use as an alternative
 to existing method/methods at this time.

       A value of 0 in any of the reporting categories except viability would result in the method
 being sent to its originator for further information, revision, or further testing.  All methods that
 have scored in each category are then compared for numerical score. The numerical score should
 have relevance to both the suitability of the method for use and for the state of preparedness of
 the method at the time of scoring.  The higher the numerical score, the better the likelihood that
 the method is prepared to a sufficient state of readiness to be tested against  the current reference
 method.

       It may also be desirable to include a narrative section with a method rating, that addresses
 such issues as: market availability, comparative assessments with existing methods, overall cost,
 adaptability of the test for other organisms, etcetera, that were not addressed directly in the
numerical ranking. A narrative section would provide an opportunity to specifically state any
exceptional features of a proposed method, either positive or negative. Care should be taken to
address both positive and negative aspects of each test being evaluated in any attached narrative
                                           12

-------

-------
  Literature Cited:

  61 FR 24354 (Information Collection Rule) - National Primary Drinking Water Regulations-
        Monitoring Requirements for Public Drinking Water Supplies; Final Rule.

 Arrowood, M.J., and Donaldson, K. 1996.  Improved purification methods for calf-derived
        Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts using discontinuous sucrose and cesium chloride
        gradients. J. Eukaryot Microbiol 43(5) p89S.


 Clancy, JL., Hargy, T.M., and Schaub, S.  1997.  Improved Sampling Methods for the Recovery
       ofGmrdia and Cryptosporidium from Source and Treated Water. In: 1997 International
       Symposium on Waterborne Cryptosporidium proceedings, March 2-5  1997 Newport
       Beach California. Fricker, C.R., J.L. Clancy, and P.A. Rochelle, Eds.  American Water
       Works, Denver CO. pp: 79-86.

 D 2777;*6'  1996' Standard Practice for Determination of Precision and Bias of Applicable Test
       Methods of Committee D-19 on Water. Annual Book of ASTM Standards Vol  11 01
       ASTM West Conshohocken, PA.                                        '   '  '

 EPA 821-R-98-010 September 1998 DRAFT, Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in water by
       Filtration/IMS/FA. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
       Washington, DC 20460.

Fout, G., Schaefer, III, F.W., Messer, J.W.,  Dahling,D.R., and Stetler, R.E.  April 1996  ICR
       Microbial Laboratory Manual. EPA/600/R-95/178. United States Environmental
       Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington,  DC 20460.

Schaefer,III, F.W.  1997. Detection of Protozoan Parasites in Source and Finished Drinking
       Waters. In: Manual of Environmental Microbiology. Hurst, C.J., G.R  Knudsen MJ
       Mclnerney, L.D. Stetzenbach, and M.V. Walter. Eds. ASM Press. Washington D C pp
                                         13

-------

-------
  Appendix A

  Table to filled in by evaluators, containing evaluation results for the method identifiers 1-4 as
  referenced in the text.
I
D










%
R










D
L










P
R









C
L









S
P









F
P









L
T









DATA
O
R








^=
V
I








•g*"' —
MDSC
G
D









S
M









I
N









E
S









M
C









F
U
T








Max
C
0
M








56
 Method identifier: M ID

 Statistical performance: SPER
       Percent recovery: %R
       Limit of detection: DL
       Precision: PR
       Lower 95%  Confidence Limit:
 CL
       Specificity: SP
       False positive rate: FP
 Collaborative testing: CT
 Nature of data generated: DATA
       Organism: OR
       Viability: VI
Method description: MDSC
       General description: GD
       Sampling: SM
       Interferences: IN
       Equipment and supplies: ES
       Managerial criteria: MC
Likely candidates for future: FUT

Comments: COM
                                          14

-------

-------