Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:16:26.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of media for the detection of coliform organisms in water

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

W. H. H. Jebb
W. H. H. Jebb
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory, Oxford
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.

Five media—MacConkey broth, lactose broth, Teepol broth, lauryl sulphate broth and glucose glutamic acid medium—have been compared as primary media for the isolation of coliform organisms from 1691 samples of water received for examination during a period of 18 months.

Of these samples 1043 (61·7%) gave an identical result in all five media. In the other 648 (38·3%) samples there were differences either in the types of coliform organism isolated or in the rapidity with which the reactions appeared in the different media. The differences in the final yields of coliform organisms and Escherichia coli in the five media are not statistically significant.

There were differences in the number of false presumptive positive reactions given by the different media—lactose broth giving many more false presumptive positive reactions than any of the other media and nearly six times as many as MacConkey broth, which gave the smallest number.

All the reactions tended to appear rather more slowly in glucose glutamic acid medium than in the other media.

Glucose glutamic acid medium has the advantages of being a chemically defined medium and of not containing any substances which are likely to be inhibitory to coliform organisms. Other glutamic acid media may be found on further investigation to give better results than the present glucose glutamic acid medium, but those presented here suggest that media containing glutamic acid are worthy of further investigation.

I am indebted to Dr Ian Sutherland of the M.R.C. Statistical Research Unit for statistical advice and to Dr R. D. Gray of the Public Health Laboratory, Newport (Mon.) and to Dr A. H. Tomlinson of the Public Health Laboratory, Oxford, for much helpful criticism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , June 1959 , pp. 184 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

References

REFERENCES

American Public Health Association (1955). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water, Sewage and Industrial Wastes. 10th ed. New York: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
Burman, N. P. (1955). Proc. Soc. Wat. Treat. Exam. 4, 10.Google Scholar
Burman, N. P. & Oliver, C. W. (1952). Proc. Soc. appl. Bact. 15, 1.Google Scholar
Cohn, M. (1957). Bact. Rev. 21, 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folpmers, T. (1948). Leeuwenhoek ned. Tijdschr. 14, 58.Google Scholar
Jameson, J. E. & Emberley, N. W. (1956). J. gen. Microbiol. 15, 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, E. F. W., Taylor, E. W. & Gilbert, W. E. (1948). J. gen. Microbiol. 2, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Report (1956). Ministry of Health and Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Bacteriological Examination of Water Supplies. Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects, no. 71. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Report (1958 a). Public Health Laboratory Service Water Sub-Committee. J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 377.Google Scholar
Report (1958 b). International Standards for Drinking Water. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar