Comparison of selenite F, Muller-Kauffmann tetrathionate and Rappaport's medium for salmonella isolation from chicken giblets after pre-enrichment in buffered peptone water

25Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Six hundred and eighty three samples of chicken giblets were examined for salmonellas. Three hundred and forty nine of these were neck and crop specimens and 334 were combined liver and heart samples. Two hundred and ten, in all, contained salmonellas. The technique of examination included pre-enrichment in buffered peptone water at 37 °C for 18 h and subculture to three enrichment media: Muller-Kauffmann tetrathionate, selenite F and Rappaport's magnesium chloride malachite green broth. Inocula from buffered peptone water to 10 ml of tetrathionate and selenite were 1 ml in each case. The inoculum from the pre-enrichment medium to 10 ml of Rappaport was 0·005 ml. Tetrathionate and selenite were incubated at 43 °C for 48 h. Rappaport's medium was incubated at 37 °C for 48 h. Subcultures from all three enrichment broths were made at 24 h and 48 h to brilliant green MacConkey agar. Selective agars were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. The most successful technique for salmonella isolation used Rappaport's medium, which was significantly more efficient than either tetrathionate or selenite. This finding reinforces results obtained using sewage polluted natural water as test material and it is suggested that routine examination of environment samples for salmonellas could be based on Rappaport's medium alone. If S. typhi, S. dublin or subgenus III salmonellas were likely to be present in the sample, the technique described here would require modification. © 1981, Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Harvey, R. W. S., & Price, T. H. (1981). Comparison of selenite F, Muller-Kauffmann tetrathionate and Rappaport’s medium for salmonella isolation from chicken giblets after pre-enrichment in buffered peptone water. Journal of Hygiene, 87(2), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022172400069436

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free