Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:23:37.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incubation at 44°C. as a test for faecal coli

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

L. F. L. Clegg,
H. P. Sherwood and
R. W. Dodgson
L. F. L. Clegg
Affiliation:
Fisheries Experiment Station, Conway, Caernarvonshire
H. P. Sherwood
Affiliation:
Fisheries Experiment Station, Conway, Caernarvonshire
R. W. Dodgson
Affiliation:
Consultant for Shellfish Services (late Director), Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
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.

1. The use of Esch. coli alone as an index of faecal pollution for shellfish, and the correlation between the 44° C. MacConkey test and citrate tests are discussed.

2. The mercury-toluene thermo-regulator used in these experiments, which gives a maximum variation of ± 0.1° C., is discussed briefly and illustrated.

3. Experiments are described in which 522 colonies from polluted shellfish were isolated, inoculated into MacConkey's broth and incubated at temperatures of 37° C. and at successive 1° intervals from 41 to 46° C., in accurately controlled water-baths. An almost perfect negative correlation was found to exist between 44° C. incubation and the citrate test.

4. It appeared that temperatures above 44° C. are detrimental to the growth of Esch. coli.

5. Certain cultures of citrate-negative lactose fermenters at 37° C., which were inhibited at 44° C., were found on further investigation to be mostly intermediate types.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , July 1939, pp. 361 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1939

References

REFERENCES

American Public Health Association (1933). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Sewage.Google Scholar
Bigger, J. W. (1934). J. Hyg., Camb., 34, 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodgson, R. W. (1928). Report on Mussel Purification. H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Dodgson, R. W. (1936). Brit. med. J. 2, 169.Google Scholar
Dodgson, R. W. (1937). Public Health. 06.Google Scholar
Dodgson, R. W. (1938). Proc. R. Soc. Med. 31, 925.Google Scholar
Eijkman, C. (1904). Zbl. Bakt. 37, 742.Google Scholar
Hehewerth, F. G. (1912). Zbl. Bakt. 65, 213.Google Scholar
Metropolitan Water Board (1937). 31st Ann. Rep.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health (1937). Rep. publ. Hlth. med. Subj., Lond., no. 71.Google Scholar
O'Meara, R. A. Q. (1931). J. Path. Bact. 34, 401.Google Scholar
Parb, L. W. (1938). J. Bact. 36, 1.Google Scholar
Perry, C. A. & Hajana, A. A. (1935). Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 25, 720.Google Scholar
Perry, C. A. (1935 onwards). Privately circulated reports.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. (1935). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 206.Google Scholar