Article contents
The Kinds of Bacteria found in River Water
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 May 2009
Extract
1. The kinds of bacteria that are isolated by the gelatin plate method from certain river waters freshly polluted with sewage are different from those found in the same water collected a long distance below the point of pollution.
2. In the freshly polluted river water non-chromogenic Staphylococci were found much more abundantly than in the purer waters.
3. In the freshly polluted water the fluorescent bacteria and a group of non-gas-producing, non-liquefying bacteria (Group XI.) were less abundant than in the purer waters.
4. A larger proportion of organisms belonging to the Proteus group were isolated from gelatin plates than from fermentation tubes. The reverse is true of the B. coli and B. lactis aerogenes types. A certain selective influence even upon gas-producing organisms would seem from this to be exerted by the conditions within the fermentation tube.
5. The study of a rather large number of separately isolated cultures belonging to the class of fluorescent microorganisms shows that the differences between the ‘liquefying’ and ‘non-liquefying’ varieties are more constant than is sometimes assumed. The action of these forms upon milk is just as diagnostic as their action upon gelatin. All the strains of fluorescent bacteria that were encountered (58) proved to be motile.
6. Considering as a whole the various physiological tests applied to the several groups of microorganisms, it is found that within almost every group as constituted in the accompanying tables divergence is shown by closely allied organisms in respect to indol formation and reduction of nitrates. The formation of a surface pellicle on broth is also a phenomenon that presents no apparent correlation with more s alient physiological characteristics.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1903
References
page 1 note 1 Journal Experimental Med., 1900, v, p. 271Google ScholarJournal of Hygiene, 1901, i, p. 295 see Map on p. 296.Google Scholar
page 1 note 2 The average number of colonies per one c.c. during the investigation was 5800, the mean of 67 daily determinations.
page 1 note 3 Illinois State Board of Health, Report of the Sanitary Investigation of the Illinois River and its Tributaries, 1901, p. 179.Google Scholar
page 2 note 1 Cf. Journ. Experimental Med., 1900, V., p. 271.Google Scholar
page 3 note 1 The general methods of preparation employed in the work were those recommended by the Bacteriological Committee of the American Public Health Association (Reports and Papers of the Amer. Public Health Association, Vol. XXIII., p. 60, 1898); with slight modifications:
(a) The reaction of the sugar-broths used for the fermentation tests was neutral to phenolphthalein instead of 1.5 acid.
(b) The ordinary nutrient gelatin, agar and broth were 1.0 acid.
(c) The broth used for both the fermentation and the indol tests was always freed from sugar by Smith';s method.
page 3 note 2 Journ. Experimental Med., 1899, IV.Google Scholar
page 3 note 3 Irons, E. E, Journal of Hygiene, 1902, Vol. II., p. 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 4 note 1 Cultures not yielding positive results, e.g., in curdling milk, within ten days, are recorded in the tables as negative, i.e. by the minus sign.
page 4 note 2 Proc. Roy. Soc., 1897, LXI. p. 415.Google Scholar
page 4 note 3 Journal. of Pathol. and Bacteriol., 1899, IV. p. 32.Google Scholar
page 4 note 4 Journ. Experimental Med., 1899, IV. p. 609.Google Scholar
page 6 note 1 American Journal of Medical Sciences, 09., 1895.Google Scholar
page 6 note 2 Journ. of Experimental Med., 1901, V. p. 368.Google Scholar
page 6 note 3 loc. cit.
page 6 note 4 loc. cit.
page 6 note 5 op. cit. p. 372.
page 6 note 6 American Medicine, 1902, III p. 504.Google Scholar
page 8 note 1 Journ. Experimental Med., 1897, II. p. 549.Google Scholar
page 8 note 2 The Fermentation Tube, Wilder Quarter Century Book, p. 212.Google Scholar
page 8 note 3 B, Vulgare, Lehmann, and Neumann, Bacteriology, translation by Weaver, p. 295.Google Scholar
page 8 note 4 Journ. of Med. Research, 1901, vi. p.211.Google Scholar
page 9 note 1 Journ. Experimental Med., 1899, iv. p.609.Google Scholar
page 9 note 2 Annals of Botany, 1899, xiii. p. 197.Google Scholar
page 9 note 3 loc. cit.
page 9 note 4 op. cit.
page 9 note 5 Ueber Fêulnissbakterien, Leipzig, 1885.Google Scholar
page 9 note 6 Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., 1892, xii. p. 629.Google Scholar
page 10 note 1 op. cit.
page 11 note 1 Journ. of Pathol. and Bacteriol., 1899, Vol. VI. p. 32;Google Scholar
Thompson Yates Laboratories Reports, 1898—1899, p. 37.Google Scholar
page 12 note 1 Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, 1899, Vol. VI. p. 399.Google Scholar
page 12 note 2 loc. cit. p. 145.
page 12 note 3 loc. cit. p. 292.
page 12 note 4 Memoirs, National Academy of Science, 1895, Vol. VIII. p. 436.Google Scholar
page 12 note 5 loc. cit. pp. 438, 439.
page 12 note 6 Memoirs, National Academy of Science, 1896, Vol. VIII. pp. 9, 20, 22.Google Scholar
page 12 note 7 Centralbl. f. Bacteriologie, 1888, Vol. VI. p. 544.Google Scholar
page 12 note 8 Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, 1889, Vol. VI. p. 391.Google Scholar
page 12 note 9 Flügge, , loc. cit., p. 294.Google Scholar
page 12 note 10 loc. cit., p. 64.
page 13 note 1 Cohn, , Beitrêge zur Biologie der Pflanzen, Vol. I., Heft II. p. 175, 1875; also Flügge, loc. cit, p. 196.Google Scholar
page 13 note 2 Flügge, , loc. cit., p. 199.Google Scholar
page 13 note 3 Globig, , Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, 1888, Vol. III. p. 322.Google Scholar
page 13 note 4 Flügge, , loc. cit., p. 198.Google Scholar
page 14 note 1 Migula, , loc. cit. p. 516.Google Scholar
page 14 note 2 loc. cit. p. 585.
page 14 note 3 loc. cit. p. 112.
page 14 note 4 Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, 1899, Vol. VI. p. 382.Google Scholar
page 14 note 5 loc. cit. pp. 38, 48.
page 14 note 6 Chester, loc. cit. p. 237.Google Scholar
page 15 note 1 Report of Mass. Board of Health, 1890, pp. 831, 835 837.Google Scholar
page 15 note 2 Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, 1899, Vol. VI. pp. 381, 396.Google Scholar
Phil. Trans. Royal Soc., London, 1888, p. 277.Google Scholar
page 15 note 3 Flügge, loc. cit, p. 318.Google Scholar
page 15 note 4 loc. cit. p. 160.
page 15 note 5 loc. cit. p. 58.
page 15 note 6 loc. cit. p. 833.
page 15 note 7 loc. cit. p. 25.
page 15 note 8 loc. cit. p. 162.
page 15 note 9 Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., 1892, Vol. XI. p. 143;Google Scholar
Migula, loc. cit. p. 247.Google Scholar
page 15 note 10 loc. cit. p. 12.
page 15 note 11 loc. cit.
page 15 note 12 loc. cit.
page 15 note 13 loc. cit.
page 15 note 14 loc. cit. p. 142.
page 15 note 15 loc. cit. p. 58.
page 16 note 1 loc. cit. p. 460.
page 16 note 2 loc. cit. p. 105.
page 17 note 1 Landwirthsch. Jahrbücher, 1899Google Scholar
Chester, loc. cit. p. 147.Google Scholar
page 17 note 2 Report of Storrs Agric. Exp. Sta., 1894, p. 81.Google Scholar
page 17 note 3 loc. cit. 1899, p. 52.
page 17 note 4 Flügge, loc. cit. p. 366.
page 17 note 5 Flügge, loc. cit. p. 356.
page 17 note 6 loc. cit. p. 830.
page 17 note 7 loc. cit. 1899, pp. 50, 58.
page 17 note 8 Mass. Inst. of Tech. Quart., VI. p. 3.Google Scholar
page 17 note 9 loc. cit. p. 39.
page 17 note 10 loc. cit. 1894, pp. 57, 82, 83.
page 17 note 11 loc. cit., 1899, p. 56.
page 17 note 12 loc. cit. p. 32.
page 17 note 13 Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., 1896, Vol. XIX. p. 187.Google Scholar
page 17 note 14 loc. cit. p. 29.
page 17 note 15 Report of the New York Acad. of Science, 1895, Vol. VIII. p. 360.Google Scholar
page 18 note 1 Untersuch. des Leitmeritzer Trinkwassers, Leitmeritz, 1887.Google Scholar
Migula, loc. cit. p. 730.Google Scholar
page 18 note 2 loc. cit. p. 18.
page 18 note 3 Flügge, loc. cit. p. 373.
page 18 note 4 Das Oesterreichische Sanitêtswesen, 1889, Nos. 14– 23.Google Scholar
Migula, loc. cit. p. 731.
page 18 note 5 loc. cit. p. 442.
page 18 note 6 loc. cit. p. 40.
page 18 note 7 loc. cit. 1894, p. 83.
page 19 note 1 Laurent, , Ann. de l'Institut Pasteur, 1890, Vol. IV. p. 465.Google Scholar
page 19 note 2 Flügge, loc. cit. p. 302.
page 19 note 3 Fischer, , Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, 1887, Vol. II. p. 74.Google Scholar
page 19 note 4 Zimmermann, loc. cit. p. 46.
page 19 note 5 Zeitschr. f. Hygiene. p. 44.
page 19 note 6 loc. cit. p. 482.
page 19 note 7 loc. cit. p. 8.
page 20 note 1 Grotenfelt, , Fortschritte d. Medizin, 1889, Vol. VII. p. 41.Google Scholar
page 20 note 2 loc. cit. p. 781.
page 20 note 3 Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, Vol. VI. p. 381.Google Scholar
page 20 note 4 loc. cit. p. 52.
page 20 note 5 loc. cit. pp. 58, 60.
page 21 note 1 Botan. Gazette, 1900, Vol. XXX. p. 261.Google Scholar
page 21 note 2 Report of Storrs Agric. Exp. Sta. 1894, p. 28.Google Scholar
page 21 note 3 loc. cit. p. 80.
page 21 note 4 loc. cit., Vol. I. p. 160, 1875.Google Scholar
page 21 note 5 Am. Jour. Med. Science, 1892.Google Scholar
page 21 note 6 Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, 1886, Vol. I. p. 94.Google Scholar
page 21 note 7 loc. cit. p. 117.
page 22 note 1 loc. cit. p. 178.
page 22 note 2 Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., 1890, Vol. VII. p. 495.Google Scholar
page 22 note 3 loc. cit., 1895, Vol. V. p. 32.Google Scholar
page 22 note 4 Houston, , Parliamentary Blue Books, 1898, 1899, 1900, Supplem. XXVIII.Google Scholar
page 22 note 5 Horrocks, , Bacteriological Examination of Water; London, 1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 22 note 6 Winslow and Hunnewell, Science, 05 23, 1902.Google Scholar
- 17
- Cited by