# How to Write an SOP for Aseptic Technique in Microbiology By the end of this article you will be able to draft, review, approve, and audit a standard operating procedure (SOP) for aseptic technique that holds up under a laboratory quality management inspection. You will have a complete aseptic technique SOP template you can copy, a filled-in aseptic technique SOP template example for a bacteriological culture workflow, acceptance criteria for the microbiology quality control checks that belong inside the document, and a step-by-step path from blank page to signed-and-effective SOP. To do the work as you read, keep these items on hand: - Your laboratory's current document-control policy (naming convention, version numbering, retention period) - The step list or workflow sketch for the actual task you want to cover, for example streak plating primary specimens or subculturing broth - The operator manuals for your biosafety cabinet (BSC) and autoclave - Your disinfectant labels, because contact times are set by the manufacturer, not by habit - The names and titles of the person who will author the SOP, the technical reviewer, and the management approver ## What an Aseptic Technique SOP Must Do An SOP is a written, approved, version-controlled instruction that describes how a recurring task is performed so that any trained person can perform it the same way every time. Aseptic technique is the set of practices that prevents contamination of cultures, reagents, and the work environment by unwanted microorganisms, and that protects the operator from the organisms being handled. The two goals travel together. A technique that contaminates a plate ruins a result. A technique that releases an aerosol endangers a colleague. The cost of leaving this task unwritten is concrete. Research on organizations that lack effective SOPs found that task ambiguity, meaning uncertainty about who does what and how, reduced motivation and work quality and increased stress among members [1]. In microbiology, that ambiguity shows up as plates walked to the incubator with lids off, loops flamed over an open bench, and three techs using three different decontamination routines. A well-written SOP does four jobs at once. It standardizes the bench steps. It ties those steps to containment and safety practices. It connects to institutional training so the person signing the competency record actually learned the method described. And it defines how the document itself is evaluated and revised. Writing about high-containment research, Adelman and colleagues made exactly this point, that concise SOPs link safe work practices, containment measures, institutional training, and research-specific protocols into one auditable package [2]. The same architecture applies to a [clinical microbiology](/knowledge/diagnostics/microbiology/clinical-microbiology-from-specimen-collection-to-pathogen-identification) bench, just at a lower containment level. There is also a quality argument. Quality-control SOPs are described in the pharmaceutical compounding literature as an essential tool for producing quality preparations, because the QC thinking has to be written down before it can be checked [3]. Aseptic technique is the foundation QC step of every culture performed in your laboratory. If the technique is not written, it cannot be standardized, trained, or audited. ## Before You Write: Scope, Risk, and the People at the Bench ### Draw a hard scope line Decide in one sentence what the SOP covers and what it does not. A workable scope for a general bacteriology SOP reads: "This SOP covers aseptic technique for inoculation, subculture, and plate streaking of routine bacteriological specimens inside a class II biosafety cabinet. It does not cover mycobacterial processing, fungal cultures, or blood culture instrument loading, which are covered by SOP-AST-002 and SOP-SM-004." One SOP, one task family. If you cram anaerobic chambers, molecular clean rooms, and mycology into one document, no single version serves all three audiences. ### Run a quick risk assessment to decide what gets a step Risk-assessment methodology is explicitly recommended as the way to identify the most important elements of staff activity before writing SOPs, and a published development algorithm for healthcare-safety SOPs is built on that principle. Apply it practically. List every moment in your workflow where contamination or exposure can enter: opening a specimen bag, removing a cap, flaming a loop, reaching across an open tube, stacking plates. Every moment you flag gets either a numbered step or an explicit prohibition in the SOP. Moments you do not flag should be visibly absent from the document, not silently ignored. ### Involve the people who will perform the steps SOPs written by a supervisor alone, at a desk, fail on the bench. Studies of SOP development in dairy farming found that feasibility of the advice, resources required, and who else was involved all affected whether written procedures were actually followed [5]. A survey of ready-made SOPs in calf care found that 64.2 percent of employees wanted to be involved in creating the SOPs specific to their own operation, a signal that frontline participation drives acceptance [6]. Your bench technologists know where the cabinet airflow fights the stool height and where the disinfectant bottle always runs empty at step 3. Put them in the drafting room. ### Collect and harmonize existing methods first If your laboratory already has three handwritten versions of the technique, or if you are consolidating practices across multiple sites, treat the writing task as a harmonization exercise. A consensus-building pipeline developed for insecticide-treated net testing collated several existing methods, interrogated them against defined criteria, and produced a single consensus SOP [7]. A pancreatic biorepository consortium did the same, consolidating SOPs from participating centers and harmonizing them with the published literature [8]. Gather every existing version, list the differences, decide the correct answer for each difference, and write the winner into the new draft. ## The Aseptic Technique SOP Template Format, Section by Section The format below is the backbone of the aseptic technique SOP template used in the worked example later. Consistent format matters. Guidance on developing effective SOPs emphasizes that a predictable structure lets staff find the step they need in seconds and lets auditors find the control they are checking in seconds [9]. **Document control block.** Every SOP starts with identifiers: SOP number, title, version, effective date, superseded version, author, technical reviewer, approver, next review date, and distribution location. If your quality manual does not dictate a naming convention, adopt one, for example SOP-AST-001 where AST is the aseptic technique family. **1. Purpose.** One or two sentences stating why the SOP exists and what outcome it protects. **2. Scope.** The boundary sentence from the previous section, plus the roles covered. **3. Definitions.** Define every technical term on first use in the body, and repeat the definitions here: aseptic technique, biosafety cabinet, colony-forming unit (CFU), disinfection, sterile, sterile field, growth promotion. **4. Responsibilities.** Who performs the technique, who trains it, who reviews deviations, who approves the SOP. Name roles, not people. **5. Materials and equipment.** Every consumable and instrument the steps depend on, with the specification that matters. "70 percent isopropyl alcohol" is a specification. "Alcohol" is not. **6. Procedure.** Numbered imperative steps, broken into phases: preparation, work inside the cabinet, inoculation, cleanup. Structuring an SOP as phases that decompose into procedures and steps, with constraints that must hold before moving from one phase to the next, is an approach borrowed from safety-critical engineering where it improved efficiency and reliability [10]. In microbiology terms, a constraint is a hold point: "Do not open specimen bags until the cabinet has run for 5 minutes and the work surface is dry." **7. Quality control and acceptance criteria.** The checks that prove the technique and its materials worked, each with a numeric acceptance criterion. This section is covered in depth below. **8. Deviations, troubleshooting, and corrective action.** What the technologist does when a step cannot be performed as written: a spill, a power interruption, a contaminated control. **9. Records.** What forms are completed, where the originals live, how long they are kept. **10. References.** Internal SOPs, operator manuals, and standards the procedure depends on. **11. Revision history.** Version, date, author, and a one-line description of what changed. **Attachments.** A daily bench checklist and a training attestation form. Attachment-level forms are where audits are won or lost. ## A Filled-In Aseptic Technique SOP Template Example The blocks below are a complete aseptic technique SOP template example you can adapt. The first block is the blank skeleton. The second is the same header populated. The third is the procedure section written the way it should read. The blank skeleton: ``` SOP-AST-___ Aseptic Technique for _______________ DOCUMENT CONTROL SOP number: SOP-AST-___ Title: Aseptic Technique for _______________ Version: _ Effective date: YYYY-MM-DD Supersedes: Version ___ Author: name, title Technical reviewer: name, title Approved by: name, title Next review due: YYYY-MM-DD Distribution: master copy location, working copy location 1. PURPOSE 2. SCOPE 3. DEFINITIONS 4. RESPONSIBILITIES 5. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT 6. PROCEDURE 6.1 Preparation 6.2 Work inside the biosafety cabinet 6.3 Inoculation 6.4 Cleanup and decontamination 7. QUALITY CONTROL AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 8. DEVIATIONS, TROUBLESHOOTING, AND CORRECTIVE ACTION 9. RECORDS 10. REFERENCES 11. REVISION HISTORY Attachment A: Daily aseptic technique checklist Attachment B: Training and competency attestation ``` The populated header, showing what the finished document control block looks like: ``` SOP-AST-001 Aseptic Technique for Bacteriological Culture SOP number: SOP-AST-001 Title: Aseptic Technique for Bacteriological Culture Version: 2.0 Effective date: 2026-01-05 Supersedes: Version 1.3 Author: J. Okafor, Senior Medical Laboratory Scientist Technical reviewer: A. Reyes, Microbiology Supervisor Approved by: M. Chen, PhD, D(ABMM), Director of Clinical Microbiology Next review due: 2027-01-05 Distribution: Master copy on the QMS document server, working copy laminated at bench 3 ``` The procedure section, written in imperative voice with hold points: ``` 6.2 Work inside the biosafety cabinet 1. Turn on the class II biosafety cabinet at least 5 minutes before work. HOLD POINT: do not proceed until the airflow alarm indicates normal operation. 2. Wipe the work surface, side walls, and back wall with 70 percent isopropyl alcohol. Allow the surface to air dry completely. 3. Place only the materials needed for this session inside the cabinet. Arrange clean materials at least 10 cm inside the front opening and keep the front grille clear. 4. Perform hand hygiene and don gloves and a laboratory coat. 5. WORK CONSTRAINT: once work begins, keep hands and arms moving slowly in and out through the front opening, straight in and straight out, to avoid disrupting the air curtain. Do not talk over open media. 6.3 Inoculation, subculture of a broth culture to agar plate 1. Label the agar plate with specimen identifier, date, and initials before opening any container. 2. Hold the broth tube by the cap end at a slight angle inside the cabinet. Remove the cap with the little finger of the loop hand. Flame the neck briefly and replace the cap on the rack, never on the bench. 3. Insert the sterilized loop, withdraw a measured aliquot, and re-flame the neck before recapping. 4. Streak the plate in the standard four-quadrant pattern, re-flaming the loop between quadrants. 5. Discard the used loop into the sharps-compatible disinfectant container or autoclave bag. Never lay a used loop on the bench. ``` When you hand the draft to a technologist who has never performed the task, the test of the writing is simple. If they can perform the steps from the page without asking a question, the SOP is done. If they ask, the question tells you which step is missing a parameter. ## From Blank Page to Approved SOP: A Nine-Step Walkthrough **Step 1. Fix the scope and the trigger.** Write the scope sentence from above. Note what triggered the SOP: a new task, an audit finding, a deviation report, or a gap identified during training. **Step 2. Map the process and decompose it.** List the phases of the task, then the procedures inside each phase, then the steps inside each procedure. Tag every step where contamination can enter. This mirrors the structured decomposition used in safety-critical SOP development, where operations are broken into phases, procedures, and steps with defined constraints between states [10]. **Step 3. Run the risk ranking.** For each flagged step, ask what happens if it is skipped, how likely that is, and how the SOP will make the safe action the easy action. Risk-based prioritization of this kind is the stated basis of the SOP development algorithm proposed for healthcare-safety procedures [4]. **Step 4. Draft into the template.** Fill every section of the skeleton. Use imperative voice. Give every step a number, a material, a quantity or duration where one exists, and an endpoint. "Incubate at 35 degrees C for 18 to 24 hours" is a step. "Incubate appropriately" is not. **Step 5. Write the quality control and acceptance criteria.** Add the checks described in the next section. Every check needs a method, a frequency, and a numeric acceptance criterion, because QC language without a criterion cannot fail and therefore cannot function. **Step 6. Add training and competency language.** State who trains, what the trainee must demonstrate, how many observed repetitions are required before independent work, and where the attestation is filed. This is not decorative. A framework analysis of 32 SOPs for adverse event measurement found that provision of training and supervision for staff was one of the most common gaps across documents [11]. Closing that gap in the SOP itself, rather than in a separate email, is what survives an audit. **Step 7. Circulate for technical review.** Give the draft to at least one senior technologist who performs the task and one who does not. The experienced reviewer catches technical errors. The inexperienced reviewer catches missing steps, because they are the only person honest enough to admit where the page stops making sense. Studies of who should be involved in SOP writing consistently identify the doers of the task as essential contributors [5]. **Step 8. Obtain formal approval and launch.** The approver signs and dates the document control block. Schedule training, remove or mark superseded copies, and place the working copy at the bench. Implementation is its own discipline. Interview research on SOP creation and harmonization in helicopter emergency medical services found that implementation depended on distinct factors from creation, including staff buy-in and a cultural shift toward using the document at the point of work rather than after it [12]. Plan for the same shift in your laboratory. **Step 9. Audit, verify, and schedule revision.** Set the review date and audit the SOP in use at least annually. Audit against the document itself, exactly as global polio-eradication programs assessed country compliance against the specific indicators written into SOP version 3.1, comparing actual process dates and actions with the versioned criteria [13]. Audit for gaps as well as compliance. When investigators analyzed a set of SOPs for stranded cetacean end-of-life decisions, they found that only five of the reviewed documents provided criteria for verifying the critical endpoint, and only two required that a key timestamp be recorded [14]. The microbiology equivalent is an SOP that says "check for growth" without saying what counts as growth, who reads it, or when. Your audit should hunt for precisely that kind of missing verification step. ## Writing the Procedure Steps: What the Aseptic Technique Content Must Contain ![Calculation showing household bleach at 5.25 percent diluted 1 part stock to 9 parts water to give about 0.5 percent sodium hypochlorite.](/article-images/illustrations/aseptic-technique-sop-template-hypochlorite-dilution.webp) The procedure section is where most SOPs fail, so treat it as its own writing exercise. Every step needs five attributes: an actor, an action, an object, a parameter, and an endpoint. Weak step: "Sterilize the loop." Strong step: "Heat the inoculating loop to redness in the Bunsen burner flame or electric incinerator, hold until cool (5 to 10 seconds on the agar, or until no sizzle when touched to a sterile area), then proceed within the cabinet." The physical content of an aseptic technique SOP draws on established microbiology practice, and you should expect to cover all of the following: - Hand hygiene and personal protective equipment appropriate to the specimen risk level, worn before entering the work zone. - Cabinet setup. A class II BSC protects product, operator, and environment through inward airflow and HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filtration. The SOP should state the minimum run time before work, commonly 5 minutes per manufacturer instructions, and the rule that the cabinet is not a storage cabinet. - Surface disinfection before and after work, with the agent, dilution, and contact time named. To make the dilution instruction concrete, here is the worked calculation for a hypochlorite working solution: ``` Goal: 0.5 percent (weight/volume) sodium hypochlorite working solution Stock: household bleach, 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite Recipe: 1 part stock plus 9 parts water (a 1:10 dilution) Check: 5.25 divided by 10 = about 0.5 percent Label: contents, date prepared, expiration date, preparer initials ``` - Manipulation discipline inside the sterile field: slow straight-arm movement through the air curtain, no clutter, no work over open containers outside the cabinet, caps never placed on the bench. - Instrument handling: loops and needles sterilized to redness before and after every contact with culture, cooled before touching inoculum, never set down unsterilized. - Cleanup: disinfection of all surfaces at session end, decontamination of biological waste, and a defined endpoint such as "cabinet wiped down, UV or lights off, checklist signed." Give each of these a numbered step and an owner. Anything left to "good technique" will drift. ## Microbiology Quality Control Checks to Build Into the SOP Section 7 of your SOP is where microbiology quality control lives. Each check needs a frequency, a method, and a numeric acceptance criterion. The standard set for an aseptic culture workflow looks like this: | Check | Frequency | Method | Acceptance criterion | |--|--|--|--| | Media sterility check | Each new lot | Incubate a sample of uninoculated plates or tubes with the lot | No colonies at the documented read time, up to 14 days for compendial-style sterility checks | | Growth promotion | Each new lot and on receipt of new media | Inoculate with a low inoculum, roughly 10 to 100 colony-forming units, of the relevant QC strain such as Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 or Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 | Visible growth within the expected incubation window | | BSC performance | Per certification schedule, typically annual, plus airflow alarm check daily at use | Certification by a qualified service provider, visual alarm check by the operator | Cabinet passes certification, alarm shows normal airflow before work | | Autoclave cycle | Each load plus scheduled biological indicator testing | Chemical indicator each load, biological indicator per laboratory policy | Biological indicator shows no growth after incubation | | Environmental monitoring | Per the laboratory monitoring plan | Settle plates or contact plates at defined bench locations | Colony counts below the action levels defined in your monitoring plan | | Aseptic process check | Periodic, per your plan | Process a sterile uninoculated control through the full technique | No contaminant recovered from the control | Two cautions belong in this section of the SOP. First, the criteria must be written as numbers or explicit pass-fail statements, because a QC step with no acceptance criterion cannot detect failure, and QC SOPs exist precisely to make quality checkable [3]. Second, any instrument or reading method introduced into the workflow must be validated before results are trusted. The danger of skipping this was demonstrated in a multicenter evaluation of an automated antifungal susceptibility system used in China, where automated readings disagreed with the broth microdilution reference method far more often than visual readings did, with overall essential agreement of 86.2 percent for automated reads versus 99.1 percent for visual reads, and the authors tied the discrepancy directly to introducing a diagnostic assay without adequate validation [15]. The lesson for your SOP is that the QC section should specify not just what is checked but how the result is read and who is qualified to read it. ## Fitting the SOP Into Your Laboratory Quality Management System An aseptic technique SOP is one document inside a larger [laboratory quality management system](/knowledge/diagnostics/emerging-tech/laboratory-quality-management-systems-a-practical-implementation-framework-for-diagnostic-labora), and it inherits rules from that system. Anchor it with these connections. **Document hierarchy.** The SOP sits below the quality manual and above the bench checklists and forms. Cross-reference, do not duplicate. If the quality manual says all records are retained for two years, the SOP's records section says "per the laboratory records retention policy" rather than inventing its own number. **Change control.** Any change to the SOP, even a contact time, goes through version control: new version number, revision history entry, approver signature, and retraining where the change affects technique. The gene-drive SOP literature emphasizes that maintaining effectiveness requires scheduled evaluation and revision, not a one-time write [2]. **Harmonization across sites or benches.** If multiple benches or multiple facilities perform the same task, either adopt one SOP or document why they differ. The biorepository consortium model, in which existing center SOPs were consolidated and harmonized with published practice into a single procedure, is the pattern to copy [8]. Multi-site utility operators in Pakistan went through the same exercise, using a network of facility managers to agree on procedures where none had existed and worker safety was at risk [16]. The mechanism in both cases was the same: put the stakeholders in one room, resolve differences once, write once. **Compliance evidence.** The SOP's records section feeds the audit trail. Your internal audits should sample signed checklists, training attestations, and QC logs against the versioned criteria in the SOP, the way large public-health programs audit implementation against the indicators written into a specific SOP version [13]. **Living document review.** Put the review date on the calendar and honor it. Harmonization and revision are ongoing concerns even in mature systems, and published experience from emergency medical services shows that harmonizing procedures across units is a multi-year cultural project, not a single meeting [12]. ## Common Mistakes and Limitations ![Five cards listing actor, action, object, parameter, and endpoint, the attributes every aseptic technique procedure step must carry.](/article-images/illustrations/aseptic-technique-sop-template-step-attributes.webp) **Prose instead of steps.** Paragraphs describing technique read smoothly and perform badly. Operators scan numbered steps at the bench. Convert every paragraph in section 6 to imperative numbered steps. **Hidden parameters.** "Incubate appropriately," "disinfect thoroughly," and "use standard precautions" are unenforceable. Every parameter, temperature, time, dilution, and volume that matters gets a value in the SOP. **No acceptance criteria.** The most common audit finding in SOP reviews across fields is a check without a pass-fail threshold. The cetacean SOP analysis, in which most documents lacked criteria for verifying the critical outcome, is the clearest published illustration of the pattern [14]. Read your section 7 and ask of every line, "how would an auditor know this failed?" **Adopting a free aseptic technique SOP template without adaptation.** Ready-made templates are legitimate starting points, and in one large survey most respondents rated ready-made SOPs as feasible for their operation, and 85 percent agreed SOPs were a suitable tool for training new employees [6]. Feasible does not mean finished. Your equipment models, disinfectants, containment level, and reporting lines differ from the template's assumptions. Every line item in the materials and equipment section must be verified against your bench. **Writing the SOP as a substitute for training.** A signed competency record that is not backed by observed performance is paper armor. State the observation requirement in the SOP itself, because published reviews repeatedly find training and supervision to be the weakest part of otherwise complete SOP frameworks [11]. **No revision trigger.** Waiting for the annual review date to fix a broken step means a year of broken steps. Add a clause: any technologist may initiate a revision, and deviations logged under section 8 feed the next draft. **Treating the SOP as sufficient for every case.** The SOP covers the standard workflow. Unusual specimens, equipment failure, and novel organisms require professional judgment and escalation, and the SOP should say so rather than pretend the algorithm is exhaustive. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What exactly is an aseptic technique SOP? It is a version-controlled, approved document that describes, step by step, how your laboratory performs contamination-free culture work and how staff are trained, checked, and held to that standard. ### Can I use a free aseptic technique SOP template without changes? No. Use the template as a structure, then verify every material, time, and responsibility against your own equipment, assays, and staffing before approval. ### What sections must the aseptic technique SOP template format include? At minimum, document control, purpose, scope, definitions, responsibilities, materials and equipment, numbered procedure steps, quality control with acceptance criteria, deviation handling, records, references, revision history, and training attachments. ### Who should write and who should approve the SOP? A technologist who performs the technique drafts it, a senior technical peer reviews it, and laboratory management with quality-system authority approves and signs it. ### How often should the SOP be reviewed? At least annually on a fixed cycle, plus immediately after any relevant deviation, equipment change, or method change, with the next review date recorded in the document control block. ### How do I document staff competency on the SOP? Train against the document, observe a defined number of supervised performances, record the observation on the training attestation, and file the record with the SOP's records per your retention policy. ### Which microbiology quality control checks belong in the SOP? Media sterility and growth promotion checks for each media lot, daily BSC airflow verification with scheduled certification, autoclave monitoring with biological indicators, and environmental monitoring per your laboratory plan, each with a numeric acceptance criterion. ### How detailed should the procedure steps be? Detailed enough that a trained technologist new to your laboratory can perform the task from the page without asking a question, with an actor, action, object, parameter, and endpoint in every step. ## Sources 1. [Task Ambiguity: The Effects of Missing Standard Operating Procedures and Inter-Leadership Harmony in Organizations](https://doi.org/10.58631/ajemb.v3i1.80) 2. [Developing standard operating procedures for gene drive research in disease vector mosquitoes](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29350584/) 3. [Quality-control standard operating procedures-an essential tool for developing quality preparations.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23996025/) 4. [Standard operating procedures as a trend in ensuring healthcare safety](https://doi.org/10.21668/HEALTH.RISK/2018.2.15.ENG) 5. [Dairy farmer advising in relation to the development of standard operating procedures.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32981724/) 6. [Feasibility and acceptance of ready-made standard operating procedures in calf care on German dairy farms.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38945258/) 7. [Developing Consensus Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to Evaluate New Types of Insecticide-Treated Nets](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35055850/) 8. [Standard Operating Procedures for Biospecimen Collection, Processing, and Storage: From the Consortium for the Study of Chronic Pancreatitis, Diabetes, and Pancreatic Cancer](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30325860/) 9. [Developing Effective Standard Operating Procedures](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d7ad618d5098cad4efdf4dea94d6ff72fcb57a0b) 10. [An Object-Oriented Approach for Developing Standard Operating Procedures for Novel Aerial Systems](https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC62030.2024.10748907) 11. [Measurement of Adverse Events in Studies of Digital Health Interventions for Psychosis: Guidance and Recommendations Based on a Literature Search and Framework Analysis of Standard Operating Procedures](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38683836/) 12. [The creation, implementation, and harmonisation of medical standard operating procedures and checklists of Finnish Helicopter Emergency Medical Service units](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39090635/) 13. [Assessing country compliance with circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 outbreak response standard operating procedures: April 2016 to December 2020](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36863925/) 14. [When and how to say goodbye: An analysis of Standard Operating Procedures that guide end-of-life decision-making for stranded cetaceans in Australasia](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104949) 15. [The Widely Used ATB FUNGUS 3 Automated Readings in China and Its Misleading High MICs of Candida spp. to Azoles: Challenges for Developing Countries' Clinical Microbiology Labs](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25460351/) 16. [Developing standard operating procedures for sanitation workers working with urban utilities in Pakistan](https://doi.org/10.3362/1756-3488.18-00019)