Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:55:26.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A comparison between MacConkey broth and glutamic acid media for the detection of coliform organisms in water

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

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.

Folpmers's glutamic acid medium and the lactose modification described by Burman & Oliver (1952) have been compared with MacConkey broth in the pre-sumptive coliform test of 4421 samples of water examined at six different laboratories in England and Wales. As compared with MacConkey broth, both glutamic acid media gave between 8 and 10% more isolations of Bact. coli I; the glucose medium additionally gave an increase of 6% in other coliform organisms, but this was associated with a very heavy excess (232%) of false positive results; lactose glutamic acid satisfactorily controlled false positive reactions, giving a reduction of 36%, but also suppressed by 35% the isolations of coliform organisms other than Bact. coli I.

MacConkey broth gave the largest early (18 hr.) yield of positive results, but the results at the end of 24 hr. were approximately the same with all three media. Preliminary warming of the inoculated tube had only a trivial effect on the rapidity with which the organisms grew, but the warming resulted in a slightly higher total yield of Bact. coli I in the glutamic acid media. Incubation at 42° C. for 18 hr. followed by 37° C. for 30 hr. was found to be inferior to incubation at 37° C. for 48 hr. in the case of lightly polluted waters, in that true coliform organisms were suppressed without any compensating advantage in the yield of Bact. coli I.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

References

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
Folpmers, T. (1948). Leeuwenhoek ned. Tijdschr. 14, 58.Google Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. (1900). Lancet, ii, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. (1905). J. Hyg., Camb., 5, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. (1908). J. Hyg., Camb., 8, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Health (1956). Rep. publ. Hlth. med. Subj. no. 71. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
P.H.L.S. Water Sub-Committee (1953). J. Hyg., Camb., 51, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thresh, J. C., Beale, J. F. & Suckling, E. V. (1943). The Examination of Waters and Water Supplies, 5th ed.London: Churchill.Google Scholar