Skip to main content
. 2011 Nov;77(22):7954–7961. doi: 10.1128/AEM.05207-11

Table 4.

Percentage of pooled samples passing the B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki PCR screen and B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki culture for wipe, water, grass, and leaves for each locationa

Location and time period % Samples
Wipe
Water
Grass
Leaves
n PCR Culture n PCR Culture n PCR Culture n PCR Culture
Fairfax County, VA
    Background 51 0 0 6 0 0 21 0 0 23 0 0
    0 wks 42 7 0 7 0 14 15 80 7 21 48 10
    6 wks 40 10 20 6 0 17 14 0 7 16 0 6
    12 wks 40 0 13 3 0 0 17 0 0 20 0 5
    24 wks 41 2 5 5 0 0 15 0 0 18 6 0
    48 wks 39 0 26 6 0 50 13 0 0 19 0 0
Seattle, WA
    Seattle, control 39 0 0 3 0 0 0 NA NA 0 NA NA
    Kent, 2007 40 23 3 1 0 0 0 NA NA 0 NA NA
    Madison, 2006 40 5 0 0 NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA
    Rosemont, 2006 39 0 0 0 NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA
    Eastlake, 2005 43 0 16 1 0 0 0 NA NA 0 NA NA
    Bellevue, 2004 44 0 0 0 NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA
a

The percentages of total pooled samples (n), samples passing the B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki PCR screen (PCR), and B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki culture samples (Culture) for wipe, water, grass, and leaves were determined for each location. NA, not applicable for samples not collected.