Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T12:42:54.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distribution of coliform organisms in milk and the accuracy of the presumptive coliform test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. Barkworth  and
J. O. Irwin
H. Barkworth
Affiliation:
South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye, Kent
J. O. Irwin
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
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.

1. The presumptive coliform test was carried out by each of three workers, at each of four dilutions, on seventeen sets of five tubes for each of seven samples of 18-hour-old afternoon milk, held overnight in the ice chest.

2. With the exception of three slightly anomalous results, the data are consistent with the hypothesis that the chance of a tube remaining sterile is constant for all tubes inoculated from the same sample of milk at any one dilution.

3. The assumption of a Poisson distribution of organisms in parallel tubes is accurate enough, with these data, to give a good idea of the order of magnitude of the number of bacteria per ml.

4. There is, however, a tendency, more marked in our data in autumn than in spring, for the estimated count to rise at the higher dilutions. This may plausibly be attributed to the breaking up of clumps.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , July 1938 , pp. 446 - 457
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

References

REFERENCES

Breed, R. S. & Stocking, W. A. Jr. (1920). Tech. Bull. N.Y. St. Agric. Exp. Sta. No. 75.Google Scholar
Chalmers, C. H. (1928). J. Hyg., Camb., 27, 295.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1922). Philos. Trans.A, 222, 364.Google Scholar
Greenwood, M. & Yule, G. U. (1917). J. Hyg., Camb., 16, 36.Google Scholar
Halvorson, H. O. & Ziegler, N. R. (1933 a). J. Bact. 25, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halvorson, H. O. & Ziegler, N. R. (1933 b). J. Bact. 26, 331.Google Scholar
Halvorson, H. O. & Ziegler, N. R. (1933 c). J. Bact. 26, 559.Google Scholar
McCrady, M. H. (1915). J. Infect. Dis. 17, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrady, M. H. (1918). Canad. Publ. Hlth J. 9, 201.Google Scholar
Malcolm, J. F. (1933). J. Dairy Res. 5, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malcolm, J. F. (1935). J. Dairy Res. 6, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture (1934). Bull. No. 46.Google Scholar
Whiting, W. A. (1923). Tech. Bull. N.Y. St. Agric. Exp. Sta. No. 98.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. (1935). The bacteriological grading of milk. Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Coun., Lond., No. 206.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. R. & Halvorson, H. O. (1935). J. Bact. 29, 609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar