Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T12:10:35.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bile Salt Media and their advantages in some Bacteriological Examinations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Alfred T. MacConkey
Alfred T. MacConkey
Affiliation:
Bacteriologist-in-charge, Serum Department, Lister Institute of Preventive 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.

Bile salt media have been in use since 1900, and during the seven years which have elapsed it has been shown that B. typhosus, B. enteritidis (Gaertner), B. coli communis and similar organisms grow on these media just as well as on any other nutrient media. At 37°C. the growth of most of the organisms of the air and soil is inhibited by bile salt media.

These media can therefore be used with confidence for the isolation of B. typhosus and other intestinal organisms.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , June 1908 , pp. 322 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1908

References

Böhme, (1905). Centralbl. f. Bakt. Abt. I. Orig. XL. p. 129.Google Scholar
Conradi, (1906). Deutsche med. Wochenschr. XXXII. p. 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrado, (1891). Atti d. R. acad. di Roma, Anno XVI. Ser. II. Vol. I. [Ref. Centralbl. f. Bakt. XI, p. 696.]Google Scholar
Falck, . Arch. f. pathol. Anat. u. Physiol. XCIII. p. 2. [Cited by Fraenkel and Krause.]Google Scholar
Fraenkel, and Krause, (1899). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. XXXII. p. 97.Google Scholar
Forster, (1905). Lancet, Vol. II. p. 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, and Hume, (1902). Brit. Med. Journ. Vol. I. p. 1473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, (1907). Report on the condition of the Metropolitan Water Supply during the month of June 1907.Google Scholar
Leubuscher, (1890). Zeitschr. f. klin. Med. XVII.Google Scholar
Limbourg, (1889). Zeitschr. f. physiol. Chemie, XIII. p. 196.Google Scholar
MacConkey, (1900). Thompson- Yates Laboratories Report, III. pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
MacConkey, (1901). Thompson- Yates Laboratories Report, III. pp. 151–154.Google Scholar
MacConkey, (1904). Public Health, 05.Google Scholar
MacConkey, (1905). Journ. of Hygiene, V. pp. 333–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacConkey, (1906). Journ. of Hygiene, VI. pp. 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacConkey, and Hill, (1901). Thompson-Yates Laboratories Report, IV. pp. 151–165.Google Scholar
Maly, and Emich, (1883). Ref. Jahresber. f. Thierchem. XIII. p. 289.Google Scholar
Matzuschita, (1902). Centralbl. f. Bakt. Abt. I. Ref. XXXI. p. 505.Google Scholar
Meyerstein, (1907). Centralbl. f. Bakt. Abt. I. Orig. XLIV. pp. 434—439.Google Scholar
Mosse, . Zeitschr. f. klin. Med. XXXVI. p. 527. [Cited by Fraenkel and Krause.]Google Scholar
Smith, Theobald (1890). Centralbl. f. Bakt. Abt. I. VIII. p. 389.Google Scholar
Smith, Theobald (1895). Centralbl. f. Bakt. XVIII. p. 1.Google Scholar
Smith, Theobald (1897). Centralbl. f. Bakt. XXII. p. 45.Google Scholar
Thresh, and Sowden, (1904). Public Health, 05.Google Scholar