Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-wgjn4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-19T21:30:04.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A comparison between minerals-modified glutamate medium and lauryl tryptose lactose broth for the enumeration of Escherichia coli and coliform organisms in water by the multiple tube method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

In a multi-laboratory trial, minerals-modified glutamate medium (MMGM) was compared with lauryl tryptose lactose broth (LTLB) in the multiple tube method for the enumeration of coliform organisms, including Escherichia coli, in water. Samples of raw and chlorinated waters yielded a total of 2313 positive tube-reactions with MMGM and 2174 with LTLB. These were interpreted either as E. coli; other coliform organisms; or as false positive reactions. The results at first reading (18 or 24 h) and at 48 h have been analysed statistically in terms of (i) most probable numbers of coliform organisms; (ii) positive reactions and their interpretation; and (iii) whether or not the sample yielded any E. coli or other coliform organisms. All three analyses indicated the same trends. For the detection of E. coli in raw waters LTLB was better than MMGM at 18–24 h, but MMGM was better at 48 h with waters containing small numbers of coliform organisms; for raw waters with greater numbers of organisms, both media performed equally well. Analysis of a subset of samples read at both 18 and 24 h indicated that the superiority of LTLB over MMGM with raw waters disappeared by 24 h. For chlorinated waters, LTLB yielded more positive gas reactions at 18–24 h, but fewer of these were E. coli than with MMGM; at 48 h MMGM was clearly better than LTLB for total coliform organisms including E. coli – especially if the numbers were small. MMGM therefore remains the medium of choice for the detection of E. coli as an indicator of faecal contamination of chlorinated drinking water supplies. It is also better for the detection of small numbers of E. coli in other waters.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

References

Cowan, S. T. & Steel, K. J. (1974). Manual for the Identification of Medical Bacteria, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Folpmers, T. (1948). Is it justified to use lactose broth for the detection of Bact. coil in the presumptive test of routine water analysis? Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 14, 5864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. D. (1959). Formate lactose glutamate: a chemically defined medium as a possible substitute for MacConkey broth in the presumptive coliform examination of water. Journal of Hygiene 57, 249–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, R. D. (1964). An improved formate lactose glutamate medium for the detection of Escherichia coli and other coliform organisms in water. Journal of Hygiene 62, 495508.Google ScholarPubMed
Jameson, J. E. & Emberley, N. W. (1956). A substitute for bile salts in culture media. Journal of General Microbiology 15, 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Public Health Laboratory Service Water Sub-Committee (1958). A comparison between MacConkey broth and glutamic acid media for the detection of coliform organisms in water. Journal of Hygiene 56, 377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Public Health Laboratory Service Standing Committee on the Bacteriological Examination of Water Supplies (1968). Comparison of MacConkey broth, Teepol broth and glutamic acid media for the enumeration of coliform organisms in water. Journal of Hygiene 66, 6782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Public Health Laboratory Service Standing Committee on the Bacteriological Examination of Water Supplies (1969). A minerals-modified glutamate medium for the enumeration of coliform organisms in water. Journal of Hygiene 67, 367–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Report (1969). The Bacteriological Examination of Water Supplies. Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects No. 71. H.M.S.O., London.Google Scholar
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (1975). American Public Health Association, Washington.Google Scholar