Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T10:35:37.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors in the Reduction of Methylene Blue in Milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Christopher James Jackson
Christopher James Jackson
Affiliation:
The Department of Biochemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Bacteria may play but an insignificant part in the reduction of methylene blue in milk, though their de-oxygenating effect may be of influence in the commercial application of the test.

2. Milk as it exists in the udder, or milk drawn anaerobically, reducesmethylene blue almost instantaneously, whereas the same milk exposed to oxygen will usually take more than 10 hours to reduce.

3. The oxidation-reduction potential of anaerobically drawn milk is much lower than the same milk exposed to oxygen, and in accordance with its behaviour toward methylene blue.

4. Evidence is given for the presence of a redox system, present in low concentration, as responsible for the reduction of methylene blue.

5. Although the addition of small amounts of cysteine or glutathione to milk leads to the reduction of methylene blue, their absence from milk excludes them as possible factors in the normal reduction.

6. The possibility that lactoflavin may furnish the redox system is suggested.

7. The reduction of methylene blue in milk is catalysed by light in the visible spectrum.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 1936 , pp. 31 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1) Helmholtz, (1844). J. prakt. Chem. 31, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2) Neisser, and Wechsberg, (1900). Münch, med. Wschr. 37, 1261.Google Scholar
(3) Fred, (1912). Zbl. Bakt. Abt. 35, 391.Google Scholar
(4) Burri, and Kursteiner, (1912). Milchw. Zbl. 41, 40.Google Scholar
(5) Barthel, (1917). Z. Untersuch. Nahr.- u. Genussm. 34, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6) Barthel, (1925). Ark. Kemi Min. Geol. 9, 19.Google Scholar
(7) Clark, Cohen and Gums, (1925). U.S. Treasury Dep. Public Health Reports, 40, 1131 (Reprint No. 1017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8) Thornton, and Hastings, (1929). J. Bact. 18, 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9) Thornton, and Hastings, (1930). J. Dairy Sci. 13, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10) Michaelis, (1930). Oxidation-Reduction Potentials, p. 61. Philadelphia and London: J. B. Lippincott Company.Google Scholar
(11) Viale, (1925). Studi sassaresi, serie II, 3, 659.Google Scholar
(12) Schwarz, (1929). Milchw. Forsch. 7, 558.Google Scholar
(13) Martini, (1931). Boll. Soc. Biol. sper. 6, 773.Google Scholar
(14) Whitehead, (1930). Biochem. J. 24, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15) (1931). Biochem. J. 25, 1647.Google Scholar
(16) Aikens, and Fay, (1932). J. agric. Res. 44, 85.Google Scholar
(17) Frayer, (1934). Bull. Vt agric. Exp. Sta. 374.Google Scholar
(18) Standard Methods of Milk Analysis (1929). (A.P.H.A.) New York.Google Scholar
(19) Hunter, (1928). Biochem. J. 22, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20) Kuhn, and Wagner-Jauregg, (1933). Ber. chem. Ges. 66, 1577.Google Scholar
(21) Ellinger, and Koschara, (1933). Ber. chem. Ges. 66, 808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22) Thornton, , Strynadka, , Wood, and Ellinger, (1934). Canad. Publ. Hlth J. 25, 284.Google Scholar