Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 6;12(4):e0006415. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006415

Table 2. Summary of sampling data and results obtained by lipl32 and 16S rRNA qPCR (presence/absence and concentration) for the three sites investigated.

lipl32 16S rRNA
Site N of samples Positive samples Concentrationa Positive samples Concentrationa Agreementb
Soil A 34 9 (26%) 4 (4–17.8) 30 (88%) 2.13×102 (4–2.91×103) 0.09 ± 0.05 Poor
B 14 3 (21%) 13 (4–4.31×102) 8 (57%) 96 (19–1.20×103) 0.34 ± 0.18 Fair
C 22 10 (45%) 24 (4–4.09×102) 22 (100%) 6.95×102 (88.5–2.57×104) 0.00 ± 0.00 Poor
All 70 22 (31%) 6 (4–4.31×102) 60 (86%) 4.16×102 (4–2.57×104) 0.14 ± 0.05 Poor
Sewage C 8 7 (88%) 0.5 (0.5–0.9) 8 (100%) 2.09×102 (97.7–2.81×102) 0.00 ± 0.00 Poor

aMedian concentration and range (GEq/g or GEq/mL)

bCohen’s kappa coefficient between qualitative lipl32 and 16S rRNA qPCR results, standard error and strength of agreement.