Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:07:51.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Routine Methods of Shellfish Examination with References to Sewage Pollution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

James Johnstone
James Johnstone
Affiliation:
(Fisheries Laboratory, University of Liverpool.)
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) At present no public authority possesses legal power to deal with the question of the contamination of shellfish.

(2) It is not sufficient to test shellfish exposed for sale in a market or shop. These may have been contaminated subsequent to removal from the fishery; and multiplication of the contained bacteria may have taken place. The results of such analyses may lead to unjustifiable condemnation of a laying. It is essential that a topographical examination should be made and that samples for analysis should be taken from the laying itself.

(3) In the case of natural shellfish beds there is so much variability in the conditions with regard to the susceptiblity to pollution that a fairly large number of the animals must be examined. The labour of the analyses is therefore so great that the development of some simple routine test for faecal contamination is most desirable. Since most desirable. Since most natural shellfish layings are situated within the “sewage zone”, and therefore contain B. coli, quantitative results are essential.

(4) There are considerable differences in practial routine work in regard to the methods of isolation of intestinal organisms from shellfish; and aslo with respect to the number and nature of the reactions necessary for the identification of B. coli. It is desirable that some generally recognised series of tests should be uniformly adopted by bacteriologists engaged in such work. Further, different micro-organisms, possibly of varying degrees of significance as indicators of faecal contamination, may have been confused. There is possibly some variation in cultural characters in B. coli, and investigation of this variability is desirable. Investigation of the changes in cultural reactions undergone by intestinal organisms when entering the sea, or the tissues of marine shellfish, is also very desirable.

(5) Remedial measures other than the simple closure of a contaminated laying might be suggested. It is possible to subject the shellfish to treatment which will cause them to clean themselves of contained sewage bacteria. The source of the pollution may be removed; and sterilisation of the shellfish may be practised.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 1909 , pp. 412 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1909

References

REFERENCES

Drigalski, V. and Conradi, H. (1902). Ueber ein Verfahren zum Nachweis der Typhusbacillen. Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, Vol. XXXIX. p. 283, 1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. S. and Hume, E. H. (1902). Note on Media for distinguishing B. coli, B. typhosus and related species. British Medical Journal, Vol. II. pp. 1473, 1474, 06, 1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herdman, W. A. and Boyce, R. (1899). Oysters and Disease. Lancashire Sea-Fisheries Memoir I. London, 1899. (Reprinted in Thompson-Yates Laboratories Reports, Vol. II. Reprints and Reports, 1898–9, 1900.)Google Scholar
Houston, A. C. (1904, a). Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal, Vol. III. [Cd. 1885], 1904.Google Scholar
Houston, A. C. (1904, b). Report on the bacteriological examination of the normal stools of healthy persons. Supplement to the Report of the Medical Officer to the Local Government Board for 1902–3, Appendix, pp. 511–566, 1904.Google Scholar
Houston, A. C. (1904, c). The bacteriological examination of Oysters and Estuarial Waters. Journal of Hygiene, Vol. IV. pp. 173–200, 1904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, A. C. (1905). Report on the intestinal contents in sea-fowls and fish. Supplement to the Rept. of the Medical Officer to the Local Government Board for 1903–4, pp. 472–608, 1905.Google Scholar
Johnstone, J. (1905). Bacteriological investigations in relation to shellfish pollution by sewage matter. Rept. Lancashire Sea-Fisheries Laboratory for 1904 (In Trans Liverpool Biol. Soc. Vol. XIX. pp. 242–270, 1905.)Google Scholar
Johnstone, J. (1907). Report on various bacteriological analyses of mussels from Lancashire and Wales. Rept. Lancashire Sea-Fisheries Laboratory for 1904 (In Trans Liverpool Biol. Soc. Vol. XXI. pp. 328–370, 1907.Google Scholar
Johnstone, J. (1909). Bacteriological investigations in relation to shellfish pollution. Rept. Lancashire Sea-Fisheries Laboratory for 1904 (In Trans Liverpool Biol. Soc. Vol. XXIII. pp. 203–227, 1909.Google Scholar
Klein, E. (1905). Experiments and observations on the vitality of the bacillus of Typhoid Fever and of sewage microbes in oysters and other shellfish. Published by the Fishmongers' Company, London, 1905, p. 79.Google Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. and Hill, C. A. (1901). Bile Salt Broth. A simple test for faecal contamination. Thompson-Yates Laboratories Repts. Vol. IV. pt. I. pp. 151–165, 1901.Google Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. (1906). A contribution to the Bacteriology of Milk. Journal of Hygiene, Vol. VI. pp. 385–407, 07, 1906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. (1908). Bile Salt Media and their advantages in some bacteriological examinations. Journal of Hygiene, Vol. VIII. pp. 322–334, 1908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWeeney, E. J. (1904). Report on the bacterioscopic examination of samples taken from shellfish layings In Report on the shellfish layings on the Irish coast as regards their liability to sewage contamination [Cd. 1900], 1904, pp. 85–148.Google Scholar