Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:15:41.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formate lactose glutamate: A chemically defined medium as a possible substitute for MacConkey broth in the presumptive coliform examination of water

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

R. D. Gray
R. D. Gray
Affiliation:
Director, Public Health Laboratory, Newport, Mon. Chairman, P.H.L.S. Water Subcommittee 1949–58
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.

During a period of 13 months, 1273 consecutive samples of water received at this laboratory were submitted to a modified presumptive coliform test which included single tubes of four different media. These were: (1) MacConkey broth, (2) formate lactose glutamate medium (pH 7·5), (3) lactose glutamate medium (pH 7·5), and (4) Folpmers's glucose glutamic acid (pH 6·0). 955 samples gave exactly the same results in all four media, but the remaining 318 samples produced differences which enabled comparisons to be made between the media.

As compared with MacConkey broth, the three glutamic-acid media produced between 24–30% more isolations of Esch. coli, and the formate and the glucose media produced at least the same total number of true coliform organisms (including Esch. coli) with appreciably fewer false positive reactions. The lactose glutamate medium gave no false positive reactions but, through the suppression of coliform organisms other than Esch. coli, reduced by 16% the total coliform yield. MacConkey broth gave the largest early (18 and 24 hr.) yield of positive reactions, but the results at the end of 24 hr. showed the formate medium to be not far behind MacConkey broth and appreciably ahead of the glucose medium.

Further experiments with the formate lactose glutamate medium adjusted to different pH's, ranging from 6·0–7·5, indicated that a medium of pH 6·7 provided optimal conditions for the early development of both acid and gas. It was therefore decided to test this observation more fully with routine samples. During a period of 4 months, 279 unselected consecutive samples of water (of which 78 gave positive results) and 57 consecutive unchlorinated water samples (56 of which gave positive results) were examined by a multiple-tube technique in both MacConkey broth and formate lactose glutamate medium (pH 6·7). In the former series the MacConkey broth contained the inhibitory bile salt previously used; in the latter series this was replaced by a relatively non-inhibitory bile salt. In both series the formate medium yielded an appreciably increased total of coliform organisms (12 and 17%) including an increased total of Esch. coli (27% in the former and 13% in the latter series), and in both series also the results at 18 hr. were abreast with, and at 24 hr. ahead of, those obtained in MacConkey broth.

With certain reservations, it is considered that formate lactose glutamate medium (pH 6·7) can be offered as a suitable alternative to MacConkey broth for the presumptive coliform test of water. Wider trials of this medium would be required before this claim could be fully substantiated.

My thanks are gratefully accorded to Drs W. H. H. Jebb and A. H. Tomlinson of the Oxford Public Health Laboratory for invaluable advice during the investigation and to Dr Ian Sutherland of the M.R.C. Statistical Research Unit for statistic appraisal of the results. I am also greatly indebted to my technicians Mr J. H. Evans, F.I.M.L.T., and Mr G. H. Lowe, F.I.M.L.T., for their unstinting help.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , September 1959 , pp. 249 - 265
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
Bardsley, Doris A. (1934). J. Hyg., Camb., 34, 38.CrossRefGoogle 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
Folpmers, T. (1948). Leeuwenhoek ned. Tijdschr. 14, 58.Google Scholar
Gest, H. (1954). Bact. Rev. 18, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, J. E. & Emberley, N. W. (1956). J. gen. Microbiol. 15, 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jebb, W. H. H. (1959). J. Hyg., Camb., 57, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. (1900). Thomp. Yates Labs. Rep. 3, 41.Google Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. (1904). Publ. Hlth, Lond., 16, 491.Google Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. (1905). J. Hyg., Camb., 5, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. (1908). J. Hyg., Camb., 8, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. & Hill, C. A. (1901). Thomp. Yates Labs Rep. 4, 151.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health (1956). Rep. publ. Hlth med. Subj. no. 71, London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Olsen, E. M. (1952). On Coliform Bacteria in Milk—with Special Reference to the Detection. Copenhagen, Skandinavisk Bladforlag.Google Scholar
Pinsky, M. J. & Stokes, J. L. (1952). J. Bact., 64, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
P.H.L.S. Water Sub-Committee (1953). J. Hyg., Camb., 51, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
P.H.L.S. Water Sub-Committee (1958). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, C. N. & England, C. W. (1935). J. Bact. 29, 26.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. W. (1955). J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization Report (1958). International Standards for Drinking Water. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar