Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 30, Number 10—October 2024
Dispatch

Chlorine Inactivation of Elizabethkingia spp. in Water

David A. Holcomb, Diana Riner, Benjamin Cowan, Zainab Salah, Wiley C. Jennings, Mia C. Mattioli, and Jennifer L. MurphyComments to Author 
Author affiliation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Main Article

Table 2

Inactivation kinetic model performance metrics, rate constant estimates, and disinfectant CT values needed to achieve a 99%–99.99% reduction in Elizabethkingia detection in study of chlorine inactivation of Elizabethkingia spp. in water*

Comparison
N
No. (%) ND
AIC
RMSE
Rate constant (SE),† min–1
Pooled
SE‡
z-score (p value)
CT value, mg·min/L
k’
ln(k)
99%
99.9%
99.99%
Model, all data
Chick-Watson 83
21 (20)
430 3.1 0.89 (0.08)
10.4 (1.3) NA
NA
0.021 0.031 0.042
Hom
431
3.0
22.1 (18.4)
0.021
0.026
0.029
Species, Chick-Watson model
E. anophelis 35 15 (30) 183 3.0 0.90 (0.13) 10.3 (1.8) 2.5
0.10 (0.92)
0.019 0.029 0.039
E. meningoseptica
48
6 (11)
248
3.0
0.88 (0.11)
10.0 (1.8)
0.023
0.035
0.047
Source,§ Chick-Watson model
Clinical 51 18 (26) 280 3.5 0.90 (0.09) 10.0 (1.9) 2.2 0.90 (0.37) 0.021 0.032 0.043
Environmental 27 0 (0) 120 2.0 1.09 (0.13) 8.1 (1.1) 0.025 0.037 0.050

*AIC, Akaike information criterion; CT value, product of concentration and contact time required to achieve specified reduction; N, number of observations (out of 104 total) with detectable Elizabethkingia used to fit model; ND, not detected; RMSE, root mean square error. †Point estimates and SEs of the disinfectant decay rate constant k’ and natural logarithm of the inactivation rate constant k. ‡Pooled SE for z-test of the equality of rate constants for each subset, obtained as the square root of the sum of the squared standard errors of both rate constant estimates. §The E. anophelis type strain DSM 23781 was isolated from an insect host and thus excluded from the comparison of clinical and environmental sources.

Main Article

Page created: September 03, 2024
Page updated: September 23, 2024
Page reviewed: September 23, 2024
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external