Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:26:53.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antibiotic susceptibility of campylobacter isolates from sewage and poultry abattoir drain water

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

P. M. F. J. Koenraad ,
W. F. Jacobs-Reitsma ,
T. Van Der Laan ,
R. R. Beumer  and
F. M. Rombouts
P. M. F. J. Koenraad
Affiliation:
Wageningen Agricultural University, Department of Food Science, Bomeniveg 2, 6703 HD Wageningen, the Netherlands
W. F. Jacobs-Reitsma
Affiliation:
ID-DLO Institute for Animal Science and Health, Research Branch Beekbergen, Spelderholt 9, 7361 DA Beekbergen, the Netherlands
T. Van Der Laan
Affiliation:
Wageningen Agricultural University, Department of Food Science, Bomeniveg 2, 6703 HD Wageningen, the Netherlands
R. R. Beumer
Affiliation:
Wageningen Agricultural University, Department of Food Science, Bomeniveg 2, 6703 HD Wageningen, the Netherlands
F. M. Rombouts
Affiliation:
Wageningen Agricultural University, Department of Food Science, Bomeniveg 2, 6703 HD Wageningen, the Netherlands
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 this study, the in vitro susceptibility of 209 campylobacter strains to the quinolones nalidixic acid, flumequine, ciprofloxacin, enrofloxacin, and to ampicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin was tested by the disk diffusion method. The strains were isolated from poultry abattoir effluent (DWA) and two sewage purification plants (SPA and SPB). Sewage purification plant SPA received mixed sewage, including that from a poultry abattoir, whereas SPB did not receive sewage from any meat-processing industry. The quinolone resistance of the DWA isolates ranged from 28% for enrofloxacin to 50% for nalidixic acid. The strains isolated from the sewage purification plants were more susceptible to the quinolones with a range of 11–18% quinolone resistance for SPB isolates to 17–33% quinolone resistance for SPA isolates. The susceptibility criteria as recommended by National Committee Clinical Laboratory Standards (USA) cannot readily be employed for campylobacter isolates. This investigation shows that the resistance of campylobacter bacteria is highest in the plant receiving sewage from a poultry slaughterhouse. Monitoring of antibiotic resistance of aquatic Campylobacter spp. is important, as surface waters are recognized as possible sources of infection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 115 , Issue 3 , December 1995 , pp. 475 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

References

1.Taylor, DN, Blaser, MJ. Campylobacter infections. In: Evans, AS, Brachman, PS, eds. Bacterial infections in humans. New York: Plenum Publishing Corp, 1991; 151–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Aho, M, Kurki, M, Rautelin, H, Kosunen, TU. Water-borne outbreak of campylobacter enteritis after outdoors infantry drill in Utti, Finland. Epidemiol Infect 1989; 103: 133–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Hudson, SJ, Lightfoot, NF, Coulson, JC, Russell, K, Sisson, PR, Sabo, AO. Jackdaws and magpies as vectors of milkborne human campylobacter infection. Epidemiol Infect 1991; 107: 363–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Riordan, T, Humphrey, TJ, Fowles, A. A point source outbreak of campylobacter infection related to bird-pecked milk. Epidemiol Infect 1993; 110: 261–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Park, RWA, Griffiths, PL, Moreno, GS. Sources and survival of campylobacters: relevance to enteritis and the food industry. J Appl Bacteriol 1991; Symposium Supplement 70: 97S–106S.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Jones, K, Betaieb, M, Telford, DR. Correlation between environmental monitoring of thermophilic campylobacters in sewage effluent and the incidence of Campylobacter infection in the community. J Appl Bacteriol 1990; 69: 235–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Koenraad, PMFJ, Hazeleger, WC, Van Der Laan, T, Beumer, RR, Rombouts, FM. Survey of Campylobacter spp. in sewage plants in the Netherlands. Food Microbiol 1994: 11: 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Brennhovd, O, Kapperud, G, Langeland, G. Survey of thermotolerant Campylobacter spp. and Yersinia spp. in three surface water sources in Norway. Int J Food Microbiol 1992; 15: 327–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Höller, C. Long-term study of occurrence, distribution and reduction of Campylobacter spp. in the sewage system and waste water treatment plant of a big town. Wat Sci Tech 1988; 20: 529–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Koenraad, PMFJ, Ayling, R, Hazeleger, WC, Rombouts, FM, Newell, DG. The speciation and subtyping of campylobacter isolates from sewage plants and waste water from a connected poultry abattoir using molecular techniques. Epidemiol Infect 1995; 115: 485–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Skirrow, MB, Blaser, MJ. Clinical and epidemiological considerations. In: Nachamkin, I, Blaser, MJ, Tompkins, LS, eds. Campylobacter jejuni: current status and future trends. Washington: American Society for Microbiology. 1992; 3–8.Google Scholar
12.Mattila, L, Peltola, H, Siitonen, A, Kyrönseppä, H, Simula, I, Kataja, M. Short term treatment of traveller's diarrhea with norfloxacin: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study during two seasons. Clin Infect Dis 1993; 17: 779–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Endtz, HPh, Ruijs, GJ, Van Klingeren, B, Jansen, WH, Van Der Reijden, T, Mouton, RP. Quinolone resistance in campylobacter isolated from man and poultry following the introduction of fluoroquinolones in veterinary medicine. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Jacobs-Reitsma, WF, Koenraad, PMFJ, Bolder, NM, Mulder, RWAW. in vitro susceptibility of campylobacter and salmonella isolates from broilers to quinolones, ampicillin, tetracycline, and erythromycin. Vet Quart 1994; 16: 206–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Penner, JL. The genus Campylobacter: a decade of progress. Clin Microbiol Rev 1988; 1: 157–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Totten, PA, Patton, CM, Tenover, FC et al. , Prevalence and characterization of hippurate-negative Campylobacter jejuni in King County, Washington. J Clin Microbiol 1987; 25: 747–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Eyers, M, Chapelle, S, Van Camp, G, Goossens, H, De Wachter, R. Discrimination among thermophilic Campylobacter species by polymerase chain reaction amplification of 23S rRNA fragments. J Clin Microbiol 1993; 31: 3340–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Bauer, AW, Kirby, WMM, Sherris, JC, Turck, M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol 1970; 53: 149–58.Google Scholar
19. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (XCCLS) Performance standards for antimicrobic disk susceptibility tests. XCCLS Document M2-A4 1990; 10: no. 7. 4th edn.Google Scholar
20.Sjögren, E, Kaijser, B, Werner, M. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated in Sweden: a 10-year follow-up report. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 2847–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Navarro, F, Mirö, E, Mirelis, B, Prats, G. Campylobacter spp. antibiotic susceptibility. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32: 906–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Rautelin, H, Renkonen, O-V, Kosunen, TU. Emergence of fluoroquinolone resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in subjects from Finland. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 2065–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Reina, J, Borrell, N, Serra, A. Emergence of resistance of erythromycin and fluoroquinolones in thermotolerant Campylobacter strains isolated from faeces 1987–1991. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992; 11: 1163–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Jacobs-Reitsma, WF, Kan, CA, Bolder, XM. The induction of quinolone resistance in Campylobacter bacteria in broilers by quinolone treatment. Lett Appl Microbiol 1994; 19: 228–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar