Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T02:47:09.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The bacteriological examination of molluscan shellfish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

L. F. L. Clegg  and
H. P. Sherwood
L. F. L. Clegg
Affiliation:
Fisheries Experiment Station, Conway, North Wales
H. P. Sherwood
Affiliation:
Fisheries Experiment Station, Conway, North Wales
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Section I

A standard bacteriological test for molluscan shellfish should fulfil certain requirements stated: briefly, the test should show the degree of pollution, be accurate and rapid, and self-sufficient, not requiring subsequent confirmation. Review of the subject leads to recommendations, first, to overcome the technical difficulties of preparing samples for testing; secondly, on the nature of the test. In preparation: external shell sterilization can usually be omitted, shell water should be discarded and replaced by sterile water to make a total volume three times that of the body tissues. Pooling of individual shellfish into one sample is acceptable in routine examinations. In the test: a solid medium is preferable to a liquid medium, giving more accurate results, and review of existing tests leads to the conclusion that the use of roll tubes of MacConkey agar incubated at 44° should meet the requirements of a standard test.

Section II

A modification was found necessary in the MacConkey agar: a mixture of 2 % gelatin and 5 % agar is used instead of the normal 2 % agar. Mechanical rolling devices for tubes are described and figured.

Among other critical experiments, 1000 roll-tube colonies grown at 44° from shellfish included 969 with + + − − ‘IMViC’ reactions and 979 acid and gas producers at 44°. The coefficient of variation among replicate tests of samples of shellfish and water in roll tubes was not seriously greater than that for colony counts in Petri dishes at 37° with ordinary MacConkey agar.

Colonies in roll tubes incubated at 44° can be counted as conveniently and accurately as those on Petri dishes, and, in general it is concluded that the new method is more satisfactory for estimation of faecal coli than other methods at present in use.

Section III

Directions are given for the preparation of shellfish and inoculation into roll cultures, both for individual and for pooled examination, and the method of determining results is described.

The interpretation of results is discussed, and it is suggested that shellfish which in four out of five samples from the same source are free from faecal coli in 1 ml. quantities of body tissue should be regarded as satisfactory for food. The presence of more than two or three faecal coli per ml. of body tissue in any one sample calls for appropriate action according to the number present.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , December 1947 , pp. 504 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

References

REFERENCES

American Public Health Association (1936, revised 1942). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Sewage.Google Scholar
Andrews, F., Hewlett, R. I. & Eyre, J. (1924). Report on the Bacteriological Standards Employed by the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers in the Control of Shellfish in the London Markets.Google Scholar
Bigger, J. W. (1934). The bacteriological examination of mussels. J. Hyg., Camb., 34, 172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clegg, L. F. L. & Sherwood, H. P. (1939). Incubation at 44° C. as a test for faecal coli. J. Hyg., Camb., 93, 361.Google Scholar
Clegg, L. F. L. (1941). The bacteriological examination of water samples with reference to direct and secondary incubation at 44° C. J. Path. Bact. 53, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodgson, R. W. (1928). Report on mussel purification. Fisheries Investigations, Series II, 10, 1. H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Dodgson, R. W. (1937). Shellfish and the public health. Public Hlth, Lond., 50, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyre, J. W. H. (1924). The oyster and the public health. Public Hlth, Lond., 38, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. L., Sverdrup, H. V. & Cunningham, J. P. (1937). The rate of water propulsion by the California mussel. Biol. Bull. 72, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, H. (1932). Mechanical spinner for Esmarch cultures. J. Bact. 24, 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halvorson, H. O. & Zeigler, N. R. (1933). Quantitative Bacteriology. Minneapolis, Minn.: Burgess Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Houston, A. C. (1904). The bacteriological examination of oysters. J. Hyg., Camb., 4, 173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnstone, J. (1906). Report on various bacteriological analyses of mussels from Lancashire and Wales. Rep. Lanes. Sea-Fish. Labs. 15, 228.Google Scholar
Johnstone, J. (1908). Bacteriological investigations in relation to shellfish pollution. Rep. Lancs. Sea-Fish. Labs. 17, 101.Google Scholar
Johnstone, J. (1909). Routine methods of shellfish examination with reference to sewage pollution. J. Hyg., Camb., 9, 412.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnstone, J. (1918). The probable error of a bacteriological analysis. Rep. Lancs. Sea-Fish. Labs. 27, 64.Google Scholar
Johnstone, J. (1924). Shellfish problems. Rep. Lancs. Sea-Fish. Labs. 33, 7.Google Scholar
Klein, E. (1916). Analysis of Shellfish as carried out by the Fishmongers' Company.Google Scholar
McCrady, M. H. (1918). Canad. Publ. Hlth J. 9, 201.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health (1934, revised 1939). The bacteriological examination of water supplies. Rep. Publ. Hlth Med. Subj., Lond., no. 71.Google Scholar
Mundinger, & Wolckel, (1934). Quoted by Prouty et al. (1944) from Molkerztg, Hildesh., 23.Google Scholar
Perry, C. A. (1928). Studies relative to the significance of the present oyster score. Amer. J. Hyg. 8, 694.Google Scholar
Prescott, S. C., Winslow, C.-E. A. & McCrady, M. H. (1946). Water Bacteriology, 6th ed. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Prouty, C. C., Bendixen, H. A. & Swenson, S. P. (1944). Comparison of the roll-tube and standard plate methods of making bacterial counts of milk. J. Milk Tech. 7, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwood, H. P. & Clegg, L. F. L. (1942). Further studies of incubation at 44° C. as a test for faecal coli. J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaroop, S. (1938). Numerical estimation of B. coli by dilution method. Indian J. med. Res. 26, 353.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. B., Jones, J. A. & Lloyd, M. E. A. (1940). Grading milk by means of roll-tube counts. Proc. Soc. Agric. Bact. Abstracts for 1940, p. 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, H. M. (1928). Report on Mussel Purification, Appendix II. (See Dodgson.)Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. (1922). The proportion of viable bacteria in young cultures with especial reference to the technique employed in counting. J. Bact. 7, 405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, G. S. (1935). The bacteriological grading of milk. Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 206.Google Scholar
Withell, E. R. (1942). J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar