TABLE 5.
Protozoan results
| Sample site and no. | No. of cysts/g wet sediment
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Giardia | Cryptosporidium | |
| Nairn | ||
| 1 | 8.2 | 0 |
| 2 | 9.2 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 5.8 | 0 |
| Expected valuea | 4.64 (range, 0-8b) | 0 |
| Saybrook | ||
| 6 | 3.9 | 0 |
| 7 | 32.8 | 0 |
| Expected valuea | 18.35 (range, 7-23b) | 0 |
| Jackson | ||
| 11 | 4.5 | 0 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | 2.6 | 10 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 2.6 | 0 |
| Expected valuea | 1.62 (range, 0-5b) | 1.67 (range, 0-5b) |
| Basking Ridge | ||
| 8 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Expected valuea | 0 | 0 |
a
Due to the relatively small sample size, it was not possible to fully characterize the distribution of the protozoan data. Therefore, it was assumed that the data came from a Poisson distribution.
b
Ranges reflect upper and lower confidence intervals of the expected values.