Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:40:44.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anaerobic bacteria as indicators of faecal pollution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

D. W. F. Wheater ,
D. Mara ,
A. Opara  and
P. Singleton
D. W. F. Wheater
Affiliation:
Departments of Biological Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Dundee
D. Mara
Affiliation:
Departments of Biological Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Dundee
A. Opara
Affiliation:
Departments of Biological Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Dundee
P. Singleton
Affiliation:
Departments of Biological Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Dundee
Get access

Synopsis

In several well-authenticated instances intestinal pathogens, including Salmonella species, have been isolated from water in the absence of bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, commonly used to detect faecal pollution. The present study examines certain anaerobic, non-sporing commensals of the intestinal tract as alternative ‘indicator’ bacteria. The numbers of bifidobacteria and Bacteroides fragilis recovered from faecal specimens were between 109 and 1010 per gram while the Gram-positive, anaerobic cocci numbered only about 106 per gram. In sewage, this numerical difference was eliminated by a rapid loss of viability of bifidobacteria and B. fragilis so that the counts of all three types of bacteria approximated to those of E. coli. Storage tests with aerated and non-aerated sewage established that further loss of viability of bifidobacteria and B. fragilis occurred only fairly slowly. In samples of water from the Dighty Water and River Tay Estuary, shown to be faecally polluted, the three anaerobic types of bacteria were recovered in numbers roughly equal to those of E. coli and their persistence in the surface of the bed of the Dighty Water was also at least equal to that of E. coli.

These results demonstrated that, in spite of their strictly anaerobic growth requirements, Bifidobacteria, B. fragilis and the Gram-positive, anaerobic cocci persist in aerobic, aqueous environments. If their habitat can be shown to be reasonably restricted to the intestinal tract they are likely, under special circumstances, to be useful indicators of faecal pollution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 78 , Issue 3-4 , 1980 , pp. s161 - s169
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1980

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

Bonde, G. J., 1963. Bacterial Indicators of Water Pollution. Copenhagen: Teknisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Bonde, G. J., 1966. Bacteriological methods for estimation of water pollution. Health Lab. Sci., 3, 124–128.Google ScholarPubMed
Bonde, G. J., 1969. Bacterial indicators of the hygienic quality of treated waters. Int. Wat. Supply 8th Congr. 2, X14–X18.Google Scholar
Bonde, G. J., 1974. Bacterial indicators of sewage pollution. International Symposium on Discharge of Sewage from Sea Outfalls. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Evison, L. M. and Morgan, S., 1978. Further studies on bifidobacteria as indicators of faecal pollution in water. Prog. Wat. Technol. 10, 341–350.Google Scholar
Grunnet, K., Gundstrup, A. and Bonde, G. J., 1970. Isolation of Salmonella from a polluted marine environment. Technique and enrichment media. Rev. Int. Oceanogr. Med., 17, 165–177.Google Scholar
Gyllenberg, H. and Niemala, S., 1959. A selective method for the demonstration of bifidobacteria (L. bifidus) in materials tested for faecal contamination. Maataloust. Aikakausk., 31, 94–97.Google Scholar
Harmon, S. M., Kautter, D. A. and Peeler, J. T., 1971. Improved medium for enumeration of Clostridium perfringens. Appl. Microbiol., 22, 688–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holdeman, L. V. and Moore, W. E. C., 1973. The Anaerobic Laboratory Manual, 2nd edn. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.Google Scholar
Holden, W. S., 1970. Intestinal organisms as indices of pollution—the Coliform Group. In Holden, W. S. (ed.) Water Treatment and Examination. London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Report 71, 1969. The Bacteriological Examination of Water Supplies. 4th edn. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Ross, E. C., Campbell, K. W. and Ongarth, H. J., 1966. Salmonella typhimurium contamination, Calif., Supply. J. Am. Wat. Wks Ass., 58, 165–174.Google Scholar
Seligman, R. and Reitler, R. 1965. Enteropathogens in water with low Esch. coli titer J. Am. Wat. Wks Ass., 57, 1572–1574.Google Scholar
Singleton, P. 1974. An evaluation of the potential contribution of bacteriology to water pollution surveys: a study of faecal pollution in the waters of the Tay Basin. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. Dundee.Google Scholar
Slanetz, L. W. and Bartley, C. H., 1957. Numbers of enterococci in water, sewage and faeces determined by the membrane filter technique with an improved medium. J. Bad., 74, 591–595.Google ScholarPubMed
Willis, A. T., 1972. Anaerobic Infections. Public Health Laboratory Service. Monograph Series no. 3. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar