Does high qPCR after biocide mean the treatment failed?

Not by itself. Cellular ATP and culturability can decline before target DNA is degraded or physically removed. Treatment performance should be assessed with a time series and an appropriate viability or activity measurement.

Does low ATP mean there is no MIC risk?

No. Low ATP applies to the tested sample and procedure. A low planktonic ATP result can coexist with a sessile biofilm or deposit population on the metal surface.

Does qPCR detect dead microorganisms?

Standard DNA qPCR can amplify target DNA from viable, injured, nonviable and extracellular material when the selected sequence remains intact.

Can oilfield water interfere with ATP testing?

Yes. The sample can affect ATP extraction or the luciferase reaction. The risk depends on the kit, sample preparation and matrix, so method-specific recovery checks are needed.

Can oilfield samples inhibit qPCR?

Yes. Salts, metals, hydrocarbons, corrosion products and treatment chemicals can reduce DNA recovery or inhibit amplification. Use a process control and an internal amplification control.

Why can planktonic ATP and sessile qPCR disagree?

They may be measuring different microbial reservoirs. Water ATP describes the sampled liquid fraction, while qPCR from a swab, coupon or deposit describes concentrated surface-associated material.

Can ATP RLU be compared directly with qPCR gene copies?

No. RLU, ATP concentration, microbial equivalents and gene copies are different units. They should be trended independently unless a system-specific relationship has been validated.

What should be done when ATP and qPCR disagree?

First align the samples, units and controls. Then review treatment timing and add a third line of evidence that addresses the missing question, such as viability, activity, culture, chemistry or surface-associated sampling.

low atp high qpcr results mic

Direct answer

ATP can be low while qPCR is high because the tests measure different analytical targets and may represent different microbial fractions.

An ATP assay measures ATP recovered from the sample. Depending on the procedure, this may be cellular ATP, total ATP or a calculated cellular fraction after accounting for extracellular ATP. Targeted qPCR measures copies of a selected DNA sequence. Standard DNA qPCR does not establish whether the detected DNA came from an active cell, a low-energy cell, an injured cell, a nonviable cell or extracellular material.

After biocide treatment, ATP and culturability may decrease before target DNA is degraded or removed. Low ATP and high qPCR can therefore be expected for a period after treatment, but there is no universal DNA-persistence time. The same result pattern can also be caused by ATP matrix effects, qPCR recovery or inhibition issues, planktonic–sessile sampling differences, or incompatible reporting units.

Different measurands ATP and qPCR do not quantify the same physical or biological property.

Different response times Energy state, culturability, membrane integrity and DNA persistence change at different rates.

Different sample bases Water, filters, surfaces, deposits and different normalization units must be separated.

Key takeaways

ATP is method-defined. Cellular ATP, total ATP and differential ATP procedures should not be treated as one identical measurement.
ATP is not a taxonomic result. It does not identify which microorganisms or functions contributed to the signal.
qPCR is assay-specific. It quantifies only the selected target and does not automatically equal total microorganisms.
Standard DNA qPCR is not a viability test. Detectable target DNA may remain after activity or culturability has declined.
Biocide creates a timing problem. A sample collected one hour after dosing and a sample collected one week later should not be interpreted in the same way.
Both methods can be matrix-sensitive. Quality controls are needed before explaining the difference biologically.
Low planktonic ATP does not exclude sessile biomass. MIC is associated with microorganisms and processes at the material surface.
RLU, ATP mass, microbial equivalents and gene copies are not interchangeable.
Neither ATP nor qPCR alone diagnoses MIC. MIC assessment requires microbiological, chemical and metallurgical evidence.

Recent biocide exposure Cellular energy and culturability may decline before DNA is removed.

Low-energy cells Viable but stressed, starved or slow-growing cells can contain target DNA with relatively little ATP.

Nonviable or extracellular DNA Standard qPCR can include accessible target DNA that no longer represents active cells.

ATP recovery or reaction effects The matrix can affect ATP extraction or light generation.

qPCR extraction or inhibition effects High or low qPCR results must be reviewed with process and inhibition controls.

Different microbial compartments Water and biofilm are not equivalent samples.

Different concentration factors A qPCR filter may represent hundreds of times more water than the ATP aliquot.

Target-copy assumptions Gene copies do not always correspond one-to-one with cells.

What does an ATP result actually measure?

Adenosine triphosphate is an energy-carrying molecule present in living cells. ATP methods use a luciferase reaction to produce light, which is measured by an instrument. However, the interpretation depends on the exact preparation.

ATP result type	What is measured or calculated?	Main interpretation	Important limitation
Cellular ATP	ATP associated with collected cells after the method's separation, concentration or extracellular-ATP treatment	A proxy for living microbial biomass under that procedure	Recovery depends on cell collection, lysis, extraction and matrix compatibility
Total ATP	Cell-associated plus accessible extracellular ATP under the method used	Broader ATP load in the sampled material	Does not separate intact cells from dissolved or released ATP
Differential or calculated cellular ATP	Commonly derived from separately measured total and extracellular fractions	Attempts to estimate cell-associated ATP	Uncertainty from both measurements contributes to the calculated result
RLU	Instrument light response	Useful for controlled trending with the same method	Not a universal biological unit across instruments, kits and matrices
ATP concentration or microbial equivalents	Converted result using calibration and, for microbial equivalents, a method-specific assumption	More interpretable within the validated method	ATP per cell varies with organism and physiological state

ATP is therefore related to cellular energy and living biomass, but a routine ATP result is not a direct measurement of a metabolic rate, sulfide-production rate or corrosion rate. A low ATP value means that little ATP was recovered under that sampling and analytical procedure.

Measurements of ATP, ADP and AMP can be combined into adenylate energy charge, which is a different and more detailed physiological metric. Research in fuel-associated water has used this approach to distinguish ATP bioburden from population vitality. That distinction reinforces why ATP concentration alone should not be described as a complete activity measurement.

Careful wording: “Low ATP under the applied assay” is scientifically stronger than “the system contains no active microorganisms.”

What does a qPCR result actually measure?

qPCR quantifies a selected DNA sequence. The target can be broad, such as a bacterial or archaeal marker, or more specific, such as a taxonomic group, species or functional gene.

Standard DNA qPCR does not directly determine whether the target DNA originated from:

an actively growing cell;
a viable cell with low energy or no current growth;
an injured or membrane-compromised cell;
a viable but non-culturable cell;
a nonviable cell with an intact target region;
extracellular DNA retained in water, solids or biofilm.

Gene copies are not automatically cell counts

A gene-copy result can be converted into genomic equivalents or estimated cells only when the assay and biological assumptions support the conversion. Relevant variables include:

copies of the target per genome;
variation in target copy number among organisms covered by a broad assay;
multiple genome copies or ongoing genome replication;
extraction efficiency;
the fraction of the extract used in the qPCR;
assay coverage of the environmental population;
calibration-material traceability.

A high qPCR result means that a high quantity of the selected DNA target was recovered and amplified. Additional evidence is required to call that quantity “active cells,” “viable cells” or “MIC-causing organisms.”

What do direct ATP–qPCR comparisons show?

ATP and qPCR should not be expected to correlate equally in every matrix. In a 2024 study of diesel fuel microcosms, fluid samples from fuel, interface and water phases and swabs from corrosion coupons were analyzed by ATP and qPCR. The reported correlations ranged from negligible to strong depending on the matrix. Agreement between categorical ATP and qPCR bioburden ratings also varied widely, and qPCR ratings were typically higher. The important conclusion is not that one method was always correct, but that the relationship was matrix-dependent.

Earlier oilfield work comparing traditional and molecular monitoring methods likewise concluded that the methods provide different types of information and that microbial assessment benefits from an expanded toolkit rather than reliance on a single method. Culture, ATP and molecular results should be interpreted according to the question each method can answer.

A disagreement between ATP and qPCR is not automatically a failure of either method. It is a signal to check whether the methods measured the same matrix, time point, denominator and biological state.

Why can ATP fall before qPCR after biocide treatment?

Biocide can change several properties of a microbial cell, but those properties do not disappear at one identical moment. Depending on the chemistry, concentration, contact time, organism and biofilm condition, treatment may:

reduce energy generation;
lower cellular ATP;
prevent cell division;
remove culturability;
damage the membrane;
lyse part of the population;
leave the qPCR target region intact;
release target DNA into the surrounding matrix.

A conceptual—not universal—sequence

Early after treatment: ATP and culture can decrease if cellular energy and recovery are affected.

During the following period: standard qPCR may continue to measure target DNA from intact, damaged or lysed cells.

Later: the qPCR result may decline through DNA degradation, dilution, washout, solids removal or biofilm detachment.

The timing can differ substantially between glutaraldehyde, THPS, oxidizing chemicals, temperature shocks and other treatments. No fixed number of hours or days should be applied without system-specific data.

A recent oilfield study used PMA before molecular analysis of a sulfate-reducing microbial consortium treated with glutaraldehyde, THPS or heat. The standard DNA workflow retained more signal from membrane-compromised material than the PMA-treated workflow. The study supports the general explanation that total target DNA can overstate the membrane-intact fraction after treatment, while also showing that viability-sensitive methods require their own validation.

Interpretation: low ATP plus high standard qPCR shortly after treatment is compatible with successful suppression of energy state or growth while target DNA remains. It is not sufficient evidence of successful biofilm control, nor is it sufficient evidence of biocide failure.

How long can qPCR remain high after microorganisms are damaged or killed?

There is no universal persistence time. Detectable DNA depends on:

the biocide and its mode of action;
temperature and pH;
salinity and ionic composition;
nuclease activity;
target-amplicon length;
protection inside cells, extracellular polymeric substances or solids;
adsorption to minerals and corrosion products;
water turnover, flushing and dilution;
continued input of new target organisms or DNA;
sample preservation and extraction.

Reviews of molecular viability testing emphasize that DNA detection and viability are different questions and that no single molecular approach provides a universal live/dead distinction. The contribution of nonviable DNA should therefore be evaluated rather than corrected using a generic decay factor.

What a persistent high result may mean

If qPCR remains high over repeated time points, possible explanations include persistent viable biomass, a protected biofilm, slow DNA removal, repeated influx from upstream, accumulation in deposits, or a sampling and normalization issue. The correct explanation requires a trend and at least one independent line of biological-state evidence.

Can matrix effects create low ATP and high qPCR?

Yes. Before concluding that the qPCR signal represents dead DNA or dormant cells, check whether both methods performed adequately in the sample matrix.

Analytical stage	ATP concern	qPCR concern	Useful control or check
Sample collection	ATP can change during holding	Community composition and DNA distribution can change before preservation	Document collection-to-analysis or collection-to-preservation time
Concentration	A small aliquot may not include particle-associated biomass	Filtration can concentrate a much larger volume but may clog or exclude fractions	Record original volume and particulate handling
Extraction	Incomplete ATP release lowers the result	Incomplete lysis or DNA adsorption lowers recovery	Method-appropriate recovery or process control
Detection reaction	Sample constituents may affect luciferase light generation	Co-extracted material may inhibit amplification	ATP matrix check where supported; qPCR internal amplification control
Contamination	ATP background can be introduced by poor handling	Low-biomass qPCR is sensitive to field and reagent contamination	Field blank, extraction blank and no-template control

qPCR inhibition by environmental compounds can affect the polymerase, template or fluorescence signal. An internal amplification control helps identify inhibition in the final extract, while a process control is needed to identify loss during preservation and extraction.

Do not assume that “high qPCR” proves qPCR was unaffected or that “low ATP” proves ATP was suppressed.

Review the raw data, blanks, recovery checks, controls and dilution or rerun criteria for both methods.

Are ATP and qPCR being measured in the same microbial compartment?

A major source of apparent contradiction is comparing planktonic ATP with sessile qPCR.

Examples of non-equivalent samples

ATP measured directly in 1 mL of produced water versus qPCR on a filter representing 500 mL;
ATP in flowing water versus qPCR on a corrosion coupon;
ATP in separator water versus qPCR in downstream pig debris;
ATP in the aqueous phase versus qPCR from an oil–water interface;
ATP after solids have settled versus qPCR from the homogenized full sample.

Biofilm and deposits can concentrate microorganisms at the material surface and protect them from shear, biocide and changes in bulk-water chemistry. A low result in the water phase cannot exclude a substantial sessile population.

Modern MIC reviews emphasize that MIC is a surface-associated process and that diagnosis requires more than detection of microorganisms in bulk water. Sampling location and the relationship to the corrosion site are central to interpretation.

Rule: compare water with water, filter with the original water volume, deposit with deposit mass, and surface results with a defined area.

Can different normalization units make ATP look low and qPCR look high?

Yes. Results can differ by orders of magnitude simply because they represent different original sample quantities.

Reported unit	What it represents	Why direct comparison can fail
RLU/mL	Light response per processed liquid volume	RLU is instrument- and method-specific
pg ATP/mL	ATP mass per original or processed volume	ATP per cell varies with physiological state and organism
Microbial equivalents/mL	A method-specific ATP conversion	The conversion is based on an assumption, not a universal cell constant
Gene copies/mL	Selected target quantity normalized to original liquid volume	Depends on concentration, extraction and copy-number assumptions
Gene copies/filter	Total target recovered from one filter	Cannot be compared with per-mL ATP until the filtered volume is included
Gene copies/g	Selected target per wet or dry solid mass	A deposit concentration is not a water concentration
Gene copies/cm²	Selected target per sampled surface area	Represents sessile inventory, not planktonic concentration

For a filtered water sample, the qPCR result should be traced back to the effective original volume represented:

Target copies per mL = total target copies represented in the extract ÷ effective original water volume in mL

The calculation may also need to account for the fraction of filter extracted, elution volume, extract dilution and the fraction of extract added to qPCR. All factors should be documented rather than hidden inside a final number.

ATP and qPCR should not be forced into one universal conversion. Trend the methods independently and compare their direction and timing under a controlled, system-specific monitoring plan.

Does low ATP mean that MIC risk is low?

Low ATP alone is insufficient to classify MIC risk. It describes the ATP recovered from a particular sample at a particular time.

MIC risk may still be relevant when:

only water was tested and the metal surface was not sampled;
ATP was measured shortly after biocide dosing;
the biofilm population is slow-growing or substrate-limited;
treatment temporarily suppresses activity without removing the biofilm;
local under-deposit conditions differ from bulk water;
the relevant MIC population is a small fraction of total biomass;
the ATP result is affected by method recovery or matrix conditions;
operating changes can later restore favourable microbial conditions.

High qPCR does not prove high MIC risk either. The target must be mechanistically relevant, present at the corrosion location and supported by suitable environmental conditions and corrosion evidence.

AMPP TM0212 describes MIC investigation as requiring microbiological, chemical and metallurgical testing and bases diagnosis on the preponderance of evidence. This multiple-lines-of-evidence principle is more reliable than treating ATP or qPCR as a standalone MIC verdict.

How should common ATP–qPCR patterns be interpreted?

Observed pattern	Reasonable hypotheses	What the pattern does not prove	Most useful next check
Low ATP and high qPCR shortly after biocide	Rapid reduction in energy state or culturability with slower target-DNA removal	It does not prove complete kill or treatment failure	Repeat a defined time series and add viability or activity evidence
Low ATP in water and high qPCR on a swab or deposit	Low planktonic ATP with concentrated sessile biomass	It does not show that either method is wrong	Collect matched water and surface samples at the same location
Low ATP and high qPCR in the same preserved aliquot	Low-energy cells, nonviable DNA, ATP recovery effect or different assay scope	It does not identify which explanation is correct	Review ATP matrix recovery, qPCR controls and treatment timing
High ATP and low functional qPCR target	Broad biomass is present but the selected function is uncommon or outside assay coverage	It does not mean the ATP signal is false	Add broad-domain qPCR or sequencing and review target selection
Low ATP and low qPCR	Low biomass, successful suppression, poor sample representativeness or analytical loss	It does not prove the asset is free of biofilm	Review detection limits, controls and surface sampling
High ATP and high qPCR	Substantial ATP and selected target abundance in the tested sample	It does not prove that corrosion is microbiologically influenced	Assess activity, chemistry, corrosion location and morphology

How should low ATP and high qPCR be investigated?

Confirm that the samples are comparable

Check sampling point, time, water or surface fraction, filtered volume, solids handling, preservation and treatment phase.

Identify the exact ATP measurement

Determine whether the result is cellular ATP, total ATP, extracellular ATP, calculated cellular ATP, RLU, ATP mass or microbial equivalents.

Identify the exact qPCR measurand

Record the target, calibration material, reported unit, original sample basis and assumptions used for any genomic-equivalent or cell conversion.

Review controls before biological interpretation

Examine ATP blank and recovery information where available, and qPCR field blanks, extraction controls, amplification controls, no-template controls and rerun criteria.

Reconstruct the biocide timeline

Include dose, injection duration, sampling time, effective contact time, flow, flushing, sample holding and preservation.

Repeat matched samples as a trend

Use consistent baseline, early post-treatment, later post-treatment and recovery time points. A trajectory is more informative than a single disagreement.

Add the missing line of evidence

Choose culture, sulfide-production potential, RNA, microscopy, flow cytometry or validated viability-qPCR according to the decision being made.

Connect the result with the corrosion system

Review biofilm location, sulfate and sulfide, organic substrates, deposits, corrosion monitoring, pit morphology and operating history.

Can PMA-qPCR or another viability method resolve the difference?

PMA-qPCR is designed to reduce amplification from DNA that is accessible through compromised membranes or present outside cells. It can be useful in some post-biocide studies, but it should not be described as a universal live-cell count.

What PMA-qPCR may add

a second molecular result that is less influenced by some membrane-compromised material;
an estimate of the difference between standard DNA qPCR and the dye-treated fraction;
target-specific monitoring without requiring growth;
additional information during a controlled biocide study.

Why it still needs matrix-specific validation

membrane integrity is not identical to metabolic activity;
some nonviable cells retain intact membranes;
some injured but recoverable cells have permeable membranes;
dark, turbid or particulate samples can affect dye exposure and photoactivation;
biofilm and solids can shield cells or DNA;
treatment chemistry can influence membrane permeability;
the selected target length and protocol affect discrimination.

Experimental work with Legionella biofilm samples found that PMA-qPCR did not provide reliable universal discrimination between live and dead cells under all tested conditions. This supports using PMA-qPCR as a validated operational method rather than an automatic correction for every oilfield matrix.

Select the follow-up method by question: use culture for recoverability, PMA-qPCR for a defined membrane-integrity fraction, RNA for selected transcriptional questions, and process chemistry for actual sulfide or metabolite production.

How should ATP and qPCR be trended together?

The strongest approach is to maintain two controlled trend lines rather than trying to merge them into one number.

Keep the ATP trend internally consistent

same sampling point and fraction;
same ATP procedure and instrument;
same processed volume;
same cellular, total or differential definition;
same holding time and temperature;
same reporting unit;
documented reagent and quality-control performance;
system-specific baseline and action criteria.

Keep the qPCR trend internally consistent

same target panel and assay version;
same sample matrix and concentration method;
same preservation and extraction workflow;
same reporting denominator;
same calibration approach;
same process and inhibition controls;
defined LOD and LOQ;
documented method changes.

Compare timing and direction

Useful comparison points include baseline, immediately before dosing, a predefined early post-treatment point, a later post-treatment point and a recovery or washout point. The aim is not to make ATP equal qPCR, but to understand how broad ATP load and selected target DNA respond to the same operational event.

AMPP TM21465 provides a framework for selecting sample collection, preservation, laboratory processing and data-analysis procedures for molecular microbiological methods. Using a stable molecular workflow is essential when qPCR is trended alongside ATP.

See Comparison of qPCR, ATP Assay and Bactiquant for Detecting Microbial Growth in Oilfield Waters for a broader comparison of method characteristics.

How should low ATP and high qPCR be reported?

Avoid this conclusion

“ATP proves the system is microbiologically clean, so the qPCR result must be a false positive.”

Use method-specific language

The ATP result was low under the applied cellular-ATP procedure in the produced-water sample. Targeted qPCR detected a high quantity of the selected DNA marker in the matched molecular fraction. Because ATP and qPCR measure different analytical targets, the results are not directly contradictory. The difference is compatible with a low cellular-energy state and continued detection of target DNA, including possible contributions from injured, nonviable or extracellular material. Matrix effects, sample concentration and treatment timing were reviewed using the available controls. The combined results do not independently establish microbial viability, biocide failure or MIC causation.

Minimum reporting information

sampling point, time and operating state;
water, filter, swab, coupon or deposit matrix;
planktonic or sessile classification;
biocide, dose and contact time;
ATP method definition and unit;
qPCR target and unit;
original volume, mass or area represented;
preservation and holding time;
ATP blank and recovery information;
qPCR process-control and inhibition status;
field, extraction and amplification blanks;
additional viability, activity or chemistry results;
relevant corrosion evidence;
limitations of direct numerical comparison.

Bottom line

Low ATP and high qPCR are not inherently contradictory. ATP quantifies ATP recovered under a specific procedure; qPCR quantifies selected DNA targets. After biocide treatment, cellular energy and culturability can decline before target DNA is removed. Different sample compartments, concentration factors, matrix effects and units can widen the difference. Interpret the two methods only after aligning samples, definitions, controls and timing—and use additional evidence before drawing conclusions about viability, treatment performance or MIC.

Build an ATP–qPCR monitoring plan around clear questions

MICBUSTERS supports targeted qPCR for produced water, filters, swabs, deposits, pig debris and coupons. A controlled workflow can complement ATP by identifying selected microbial groups and functions while making extraction recovery and PCR inhibition visible.

Leave your business email address to discuss matched sampling, target selection, post-biocide timing and separate action criteria for ATP and qPCR.

Frequently asked questions

How can ATP be low when qPCR is high?

ATP and qPCR measure different targets. Low ATP can reflect a low energy-associated signal, while qPCR can still detect selected DNA from viable, stressed, injured, nonviable or extracellular material.

Does high qPCR after biocide mean that treatment failed?

No conclusion can be made from qPCR alone. ATP and culturability may decrease before target DNA is degraded or removed. Use a time series and an appropriate viability or activity measurement.

Does low ATP prove that no living microorganisms are present?

No. It means ATP was low under the selected sample and method. Recovery limitations, low-energy cells and unsampled biofilm must still be considered.

Does standard qPCR count dead microorganisms?

Standard DNA qPCR can detect target DNA from nonviable cells and extracellular material if the selected target sequence remains amplifiable.

Is ATP a direct measurement of microbial activity?

ATP is related to cellular energy and living biomass, but routine ATP concentration is not a direct measurement of metabolic rate, sulfide production or corrosion rate.

Can oilfield water interfere with ATP and qPCR?

Yes. Matrix constituents can affect ATP extraction or light generation and can reduce DNA recovery or inhibit qPCR. Review method-specific controls.

Why can water ATP be low while deposit qPCR is high?

The results represent different microbial compartments. A deposit or biofilm can contain concentrated sessile biomass even when the flowing water has a low ATP result.

Can ATP RLU be converted directly into qPCR gene copies?

No universal conversion exists. RLU and gene copies are different measurements and depend on the method, organism, physiological state and sample basis.

Can PMA-qPCR solve the live-versus-dead problem?

It can reduce some signal from membrane-compromised or accessible DNA, but membrane integrity is not identical to viability and performance is matrix-dependent.

What is the best next step when ATP and qPCR disagree?

Align the samples and units, review controls and treatment timing, repeat matched time points, and add a method that addresses the missing question: viability, activity, chemistry or surface-associated biomass.

Sources and further reading

AMPP. TM0212-2018: Detection, Testing, and Evaluation of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion on Internal Surfaces of Pipelines. Association for Materials Protection and Performance.
AMPP. TM21465-2024: Molecular Microbiological Methods—Sample Handling and Laboratory Processing. Association for Materials Protection and Performance.
Passman FJ, Schmidt J, Nicoletti D. The relationship between microbial population ATP and quantitative PCR bioburdens in diesel fuel microcosms. Access Microbiology. 2024;6:000695.v4. doi:10.1099/acmi.0.000695.v4.
Passman FJ, Schmidt J, Lewis RP. The relationship between microbial community vitality and ATP bioburden in bottom waters under fuel microcosms. Access Microbiology. 2023;5:000411. doi:10.1099/acmi.0.000411.
Keasler V, Bennett B, Keller C, Whalen P, Cairns J, De Paula RM. Expanding the microbial monitoring toolkit: Evaluation of traditional and molecular monitoring methods. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 2013;81:51–56. doi:10.1016/j.ibiod.2012.07.002.
Shi X, Abd Rahman H, de Rezende JR. Improving biocide evaluation using propidium monoazide (PMA) viability staining technique. Scientific Reports. 2026;16:2535. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-32251-z.
Cangelosi GA, Meschke JS. Dead or Alive: Molecular Assessment of Microbial Viability. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2014;80(19):5884–5891. doi:10.1128/AEM.01763-14.
Taylor MJ, Bentham RH, Ross KE. Limitations of Using Propidium Monoazide with qPCR to Discriminate between Live and Dead Legionella in Biofilm Samples. Microbiology Insights. 2014;7:15–24.
Sidstedt M, Rådström P, Hedman J. PCR Inhibition in qPCR, dPCR and MPS—Mechanisms and Solutions. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2020;412:2009–2023.
Knisz J, Eckert R, Gieg LM, et al. Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion—More Than Just Microorganisms. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2023;47(5):fuad041.
Shi X, Oliveira DAF, Holsten L, Steinhauer K, de Rezende JR. Long-Term Biocide Efficacy and Its Effect on a Souring Microbial Community. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2021;87(17):e00842-21. doi:10.1128/AEM.00842-21.
MICBUSTERS. Comparison of qPCR, ATP Assay and Bactiquant for Detecting Microbial Growth in Oilfield Waters.
MICBUSTERS. How to Preserve Oilfield Samples for qPCR.
MICBUSTERS. How Quickly Should an Oilfield Water Sample Be Tested?.
MICBUSTERS. How to Detect MIC: A Practical Sampling Plan, Tests and Standards.