THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BACILLUS COLI IN WATER SUPPLIES.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BACILLUS COLI IN WATER SUPPLIES.

A recent report on the significance of bacillus coli in water supplies said, in substance, that to present a statement of the opinion of the committee individually and as a whole, as probably representing the generally accepted views of sanitary bacteriologists as to the significance of bacillus coli in water, the following questions were sent to each member. The answers appended, except as otherwise stated, were practically as given below: “1. In view of the fact that numerous investigators have found bacillus coli in nature when it could not be directly traced to sewage or fecal pollution, do you believe that the cokm test of water is as safe an index of pollution as was formerly regarded to be? Yes. 2. Are you of the opinion that the number of colon bacilli rather than their presence should be used as a criterion of recent sewage pollution? Yes. 3. To pronounce a water sewage-polluted, would you require as evidence that bacillus coli was present in a majority of one cubic centimetre samples? Yes, in general. 4. Are you in favor of recommending that the examination of large samples for bacillus coli (100-1,000 cc.) be discouraged? Four members say in reply, Yes; one says, No. 5. In case of a strong presumptive test, what confirmation tests would you require to make certain that the organisms present were bacilli coli? Full set of distinctive cultural tests. 6. In view of the probable presence of streptococci in polluted waters, do you think it desirable that they be isolated as well as bacilli coli to confirm suspicious evidence of pollution offered by bacilli coli? Two could not recommend this; one thought it would be advantageous occasionally, but not practicable, because of increase in routine work; one believed it should be done, when possible, for the sake of securing additional data, and for its general confirmation of the colon test; and one was indefinite.”

A recent report on the significance of bacillus coli in water supplies said, in substance, that to present a statement of the opinion of the committee individually and as a whole, as probably representing the generally accepted views of sanitary bacteriologists as to the significance of bacillus coli in water, the following questions were sent to each member. The answers appended, except as otherwise stated, were practically as given below: “1. In view of the fact that numerous investigators have found bacillus coli in nature when it could not be directly traced to sewage or fecal pollution, do you believe that the cokm test of water is as safe an index of pollution as was formerly regarded to be? Yes. 2. Are you of the opinion that the number of colon bacilli rather than their presence should be used as a criterion of recent sewage pollution? Yes. 3. To pronounce a water sewage-polluted, would you require as evidence that bacillus coli was present in a majority of one cubic centimetre samples? Yes, in general. 4. Are you in favor of recommending that the examination of large samples for bacillus coli (100-1,000 cc.) be discouraged? Four members say in reply, Yes; one says, No. 5. In case of a strong presumptive test, what confirmation tests would you require to make certain that the organisms present were bacilli coli? Full set of distinctive cultural tests. 6. In view of the probable presence of streptococci in polluted waters, do you think it desirable that they be isolated as well as bacilli coli to confirm suspicious evidence of pollution offered by bacilli coli? Two could not recommend this; one thought it would be advantageous occasionally, but not practicable, because of increase in routine work; one believed it should be done, when possible, for the sake of securing additional data, and for its general confirmation of the colon test; and one was indefinite.”