AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Watters, S K
Right arrow Articles by McFeters, G A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Watters, S K
Right arrow Articles by McFeters, G A
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Watters, S K
Right arrow Articles by McFeters, G A

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1989 December; 55(12): 3226-3228

Enumeration of Enterobacter cloacae after chloramine exposure.

S K Watters, B H Pyle, M W LeChevallier and G A McFeters

Department of Microbiology, Montana State University, Bozeman 59717.

ABSTRACT

Growth of Enterobacter cloacae on various media was compared after disinfection. This was done to examine the effects of monochloramine and chlorine on the enumeration of coliforms. The media used were TLY (nonselective; 5.5% tryptic soy broth, 0.3% yeast extract, 1.0% lactose, and 1.5% Bacto-Agar), m-T7 (selective; developed to recover injured coliforms), m-Endo (selective; contains sodium sulfite), TLYS (TLY with sodium sulfite), and m-T7S (m-T7 with sodium sulfite). Sodium sulfite in any medium improved the recovery of chloramine-treated E. cloacae. However, sodium sulfite in TLYS and m-T7S did not significantly improve the detection of chlorine-treated E. cloacae, and m-Endo was the least effective medium for recovering chlorinated bacteria. Differences in recovery of chlorine- and chloramine-treated E. cloacae are consistent with mechanistic differences between the disinfectants.


Appl Environ Microbiol. 1989 December; 55(12): 3226-3228







Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1989 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.