Table 2.
Methods | PVPP | Ethanol medium | White wine | Red wine | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
log E. coli/mL | p-values | log E. coli/mL | p-values | log E. coli/mL | p-values | ||
Ausubel | − | 3.4 ± 0.7a | p > 0.05 | 3.6 ± 0.5a | p > 0.05 | 1.9 ± 0.5b | p < 0.05 |
+ | 3.5 ± 0.4a | p > 0.05 | 3.7 ± 0.5a | p > 0.05 | 1.8 ± 0.2b | p < 0.05 | |
Lipp | − | 3.9 ± 0.3a | p > 0.05 | 3.6 ± 0.1a | p > 0.05 | 3.3 ± 0.2a | p > 0.05 |
+ | 3.6 ± 0.2a | p > 0.05 | 3.6 ± 0.3a | p > 0.05 | 3.7 ± 0.1a | p > 0.05 |
The Lipp and Ausubel methods were used with (+) or without (−) PVPP during cell lysis. qPCR was done with EC23S primers.
An Anova representation with Tukey's test was applied to the E. coli enumeration results using as control modality of 4.0 log E. coli/mL, (XLStat©). Values followed by different letters within a column are statistically different at p < 0.05 (XLStat©).