Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:23:35.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The sanitary significance of coliform bacilli in soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. S. Randall
J. S. Randall
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory, Cardiff
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.

Coliforms were readily obtained from many soils. In samples taken from sites exposed to animal contamination Bact. coli type I occurred predominantly. A large number of samples taken from grassy banks, only remotely exposed to contamination, were found to contain intermediates. It was found that the greater the probable degree of contamination of the soil the higher was the proportion of Bact. coli type I, and that the less the probable degree of contamination the higher was the proportion of intermediates. It is difficult to explain this merely on the basis of the prolonged survival of intermediates in soil, and it would appear obvious that the source of these intermediates lay elsewhere than in animal faeces. The numbers in which they were found in soil, however, were not of the order expected of bacteria living in their natural environment, and consequently it was equally difficult to conclude that these intermediates were actively established in soil.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , September 1956 , pp. 365 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

References

REFERENCES

Bardsley, D. A. (1948). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 267.Google Scholar
Childs, E. & Allen, L. A. (1953). J. Hyg., Camb., 51, 468.Google Scholar
Clegg, L. F. L. & Sherwood, H. P. (1947). J. Hyg., Camb., 45, 504.Google Scholar
Griffin, A. M. & Stuart, C. A. (1940). J. Bact. 40, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, W. H. (1901). Bacteriological Examination of Water. Cited by Thresh, Beale & Suckling (1949).Google Scholar
Houston, A. C. (1910). 5th Res. Rep. Metropolitan Water Board. Cited by Thresh, Beale & Suckling (1949).Google Scholar
Mackie, T. J. & McCartney, J. E. (1953). Handbook of Practical Bacteriology, 9th ed. Edinburgh and London: Livingstone.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health (1939). Rep. publ. Hlth med. Subj., Lond., no. 71.Google Scholar
Parr, L. W. (1939). Bact. Rev. 3, 1.Google Scholar
Savage, W. G. & Wood, T. (1918). J. Hyg., Camb., 16, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C. B. (1942). J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C. B. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 49, 162.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. B., Jones, G. E. & Franklin, P. M. (1951). Proc. Soc. appl. Bact. 14, 45.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. B. & McQuillin, J. (1952). Proc. Soc. appl. Bact. 15, 41.Google Scholar
Thresh, J. C., Beale, J. F. & Suckling, E. V. (1949). The Examination of Waters and Water Supplies, 6th ed. By Taylor, E. Windle. London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Topley, W. W. C. & Wilson, G. S. (1946). The Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity, 3rd ed. By Wilson, G. S. & Miles, A. A.London: Arnold.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, G. S., Twigg, R. S., Wright, R. C., Hendry, C. B., Cowell, M. P. & Maier, I. (1935). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 206.Google Scholar