Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:54:53.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A discussion of the dynamics of salmonella enrichment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. E. Jameson
J. E. Jameson
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory, Brighton
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.

This paper elaborates a concept of enrichment dynamics introduced in an earlier paper in which the author set out to find a labour saving technique for isolating salmonellac from sources other than faeces. Extensions to the concept are summarised in the Introduction. Explanations are given why a multiplicity of isolation procedures used in combination should normally yield more isolations than any one procedure alone.

Since a limit must always be set on the number of different media and procedures which can be used during routine examinations, a corresponding limit has also to be set on the combined efficiency of the procedures used. Not even a very laborious combination of methods can be expected to yield quite 100% of the isolations that are technically possible. When this rather unpalatable conclusion is accepted, a way is opened up for compromises between endeavour and reward, in terms of salmonella isolations. Judicious application of principles and methods discussed in these papers might be expected sometimes to lead to modifications in techniques which increase their efficiency, and in other cases to modifications which reduce labour without diminishing efficiency.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , June 1962 , pp. 193 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

References

REFERENCES

Bail, O. (1929). Z. ImmunForsch. 60, 1.Google Scholar
Dixon, J. M. S. (1959). J. Hyg., Camb., 57, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R. W. S. & Thomson, S. (1953). Mon. Bull. Minist. Hlth. Lab. Serv. 12, 149.Google Scholar
Jameson, J. E. (1961). J. Hyg. Camb., 59, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lendon, N. C. & Mackenzie, R. D. (1951). Mon. Bull. Minist. Hlth Lab. Serv. 10, 23.Google Scholar
McCoy, J. H. (1962). J. appl. Bact. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Miles, A. A. & Misra, S. S. (1938). J. Hyg. Camb. 38, 732.Google Scholar
Moore, B. (1950). Mon. Bull. Minist. Hlth Lab. Serv. 9, 72.Google Scholar
Silliker, J. H. & Taylor, W. I. (1958). Appl. Microbiol. 6, 228.Google Scholar
Smith, H. G. (1959). J. appl. Bact. 22, (1), 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, S. (1954). J. Hyg. Camb., 52, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, S. (1955). J. Hyg. Camb., 53, 217.Google Scholar
Topley, W. W. C. & Fielden, H. A. (1922). Lancet, ii, 1164.Google Scholar