Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T18:30:26.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of MacConkey broth, Teepol broth and glutamic acid media for the enumeration of coliform organisms in water

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

Oxoid dehydrated MacConkey broth was compared with laboratory prepared MacConkey broth, Teepol broth and three modifications of glutamic acid media, by participants in eleven laboratories. A variety of chlorinated and unchlorinated water samples were used. The Oxoid MacConkey broth was shown to be a satisfactory standard for comparison. Teepol broth was found to be a satisfactory alternative to MacConkey broth. Gray's improved glutamate medium was shown to be the best of the glutamate media and it gave results superior in most respects to MacConkey broth. In particular more Escherichia coli were obtained as well as more coliform organisms. Organisms surviving marginal chlorination were recovered more readily. Growth was sometimes slower than in MacConkey broth but this could possibly be improved by closer attention to pH adjustment and mineral composition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , March 1968 , pp. 67 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

References

REFERENCES

Burman, N. P. & Oliver, C. W. (1952). A comparative study of Folpmer's glutamic acid medium for the detection of Boct. coli in water. Proc. Soc. appl. Bact. 15, 1–7.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. W. (1964). A synthetic medium for the detection of coliforms in water. Water Res. Ass. Tech. Paper, no. 37.Google Scholar
Folpmers, T. (1948). Is it justified to use lactose broth for the detection of Bact. coli in the presumptive test of routine water analysis? Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 14, 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. D. (1959). Formate lactose glutamate: a chemically denned medium as a possible substitute for MacConkey broth in the presumptive coliform examination of water. J. Hyg., Camb. 57, 249–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. D. (1964). An improved formate lactose glutamate medium for the detection of Escherichia coli and other coliform organisms in water. J. Hyg., Camb. 62, 495–508.Google ScholarPubMed
Jameson, J. E. & Emberley, N. W. (1956). A substitute for bile salts in culture media. J. gen. Microbiol. 15, 198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jebb, W. H. H. (1959). A comparison of media for the detection of coliform organisms in water. J. Hyg., Camb. 57, 184–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Public Health Laboratory Service Water Sub-Committee (1958). A comparison between MacConkey broth and glutamic acid media for the detection of coliform organisms in water. J. Hyg., Camb. 56, 377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quesnel, L. B. (1963). A genealogical study of clonal development of Escherichia coli. J. appl. Bact. 26, 127–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Report (1956). The Bacteriological Examination of Water Supplies, 3rd Edn.Rep. publ. Hlth. med. Subj. Lond. no. 71. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Walters, A. H. (1965). Evaluation of antimicrobial activity of surface active agents. Surface Activity and the Microbial Cell. Monograph No. 19, p. 247. London: Society of Chemical Industry.Google Scholar
Walters, A. H. (1967). Hard surface disinfection and its evaluation. J. appl. Bact. 30, 56–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Windle, Taylor E. (1959–60). Glutamic acid media. Rep. Results bact. chem. biol. Exam. Lond. Wat. 39, 27–30.Google Scholar
Windle, Taylor E. (1961–62). Glutamic acid media. Rep. Results bact. chem. biol. Exam. Lond. Wat. 40, 18–22.Google Scholar