NationalLibraryOfScotland/medical-history-of-british-india huggingface dataset:
34
Guntúr.—In the two years there has been almost a complete reversal of the
results. In 1909 the spring water was bad, but the water from the distributar
y system showed improvement in quantity of pollution, though the quality was dis
-tinctly more objectionable. In 1910 the spring water was good but suffered con
- s i d e r a b l e d e t e r i o r a t i o n b y p a s s a g e t h r o u g h t h e p i p e s . P r o b a b l y m o r e f r e q u e n t
scouring out would improve matters. In all cases the total counts were far too high.
In neither year did filtration appear to have the slightest effect on the water.
Nellore. —The condition of the Pennar river was much the same in the two
years, but the water was much worse in 1910. This relation is borne out in the
other samples except No. IV in each case. These were practically equally good.
The infiltration gallery brought about a proportional improvement in the two years.
Tirupati.—In 1910 the water at the head works was good, in 1909 very good.
In both years a great and fairly proportional deterioration was brought about by
passage through the pipes. Surely this is a preventible thing.
Vellore.— The tank water was better in 1909, but filtration equalised matters
producing a very good water both years. One section of pipe line in 1909 and
both in 1910 brought about great deterioration in the quality of the water and this
was qualitatively as well as quantitatively more marked in 1910. The pipes want
looking to.
Cocanada.— T h e s t a t e o f t h e S a m a l k o t a c a n a l w a s m u c h t h e s a m e i n t h e t w o
years and so was the quality of the water. Filtration vas successful in 1910 but
the reverse in 1909. In 1910 the water from the distributary system gave surpris--
ingly different qualitative results though the quantity of pollution was about the
same.
Vizagapatam .—Although there had been little or no rain either year there is
a great difference in the quality of the water of the lake. The reason for this does
not seem very clear. Filtration was very satisfactory on both occasions, though
where the Oxytoccus Perniciosus came from in 1910 is hard to say. It appeared
about the same time in Cocanada water. The very dirty condition of the southern
- m o s t s e c t i o n o f p i p i n g i s f o r t u n a t e l y e x c e p t i o n a l .
Kurnool. —Unfortunately the Kurnool water shows only depreciation in 1910
as compared with 1909. As has been pointed out this is probably preventible by
proper management. Good results have been got, why are such not constant ?
Gudiyáttam.— Again we have a rather considerable difference in the date of
taking the samples in the two years. In 1910 the weather had been dry, in 1909
- there had been moderate rain. If the weather were responsible for the presence
of B. Coli Communis in the former year, which appears likely, it would point to the
necessity of conserving the river bed above the gallery. This is stated not to have
been done in 1909, was it done in 1910, or did the intermittent rainfall in 1909 keep
washing recent pollution into the water ? A more considerable flood would probably
have cleansed the river bed efficiently.
3
5
TRICHINOPOLY.
WATER SAMPLES TAKEN—3RD JANUARY 1910.
REMARKS.—There has been about 6·68 inches of rain since last analysis. The supply is intermittent. The Cauvery was partially flooded
Bacteriological Analyses.
SAMPLE I.—FROM THE RIVER BID—
NumberLactose.
S a c c h a r o s e .
Dul ci t e.Adonite.Inul i m. V o g e s a n d P r o s k .
Indol.Mot i l i t y.Group.
Name of baoilli.
Group and
Remarks.
Total colonies per cc. on agar at 37° C.—3,560.
Bile salt lactose, medium.
+
−
1 tube of 20 cc. of water taken
1
1 + − − − − − + −
I B. Vesiculosus
Group I, 10.
2 tubes of 10cc.
2
2 + − − − − − + −
I Do.
„ II, nil.
3
„
5cc.
„
3
3 + − − − − − + −
I
Do.
„ III, nil.
3
„
1cc.
„
3
4 + − − − − − + −
I B. Mutabilis
„ IV, nil.
3
„
·1cc.
„
1
2
5 + − − − − − + −
I B. Vesiculosus
3
„
·01cc.
„
3
6 + − − − − − + −
I
Do.
Class I, nil.
Fœcal bacilli in 1 cc, and. upwards.
7 + − − − − − + −
I
Do.
,, II, nil.
8 + − − − − − + −
I
Do.
„ III, 10.
No vibrios in 100 cc.
9 + − − − − − + −
I Do.
1 0 + − − − − − + −
I
!Do.
SAMPLE II.—FROM THE FIRST TAP IN HEAD WORKS ASTER
INFILTRATION GALLERY.
Total colonies per cc. on agar at 37° C.—986.
1 + + − − − − + − IV B. Coscoroba
Group I, 4.
2 + − − − − − + −
I B. Vesiculosus
„ II, nil.
3 + + − + − − − − IV B. Gaso formans
„ III, nil.
Bile salt lactose, medium.
+
−
4 + − − − − − + −
I B. Vesiculosus
„ IV, 6.
5 + − − − − − + −
I
Do.
1 tube of 20 cc. of water taken
1
6 + + − + − − − − IV B. Gaso formans
Class I, nil.
7 + − − − − − + −
I B. Vesiculosus
„ II 6
.
2 tubes of 10 cc. ,,
2
8 + + − − − − + − IV B. Coscoroba
„ III, 4.
3
,,
5 cc.,,
2
1
9 + + − + − + − − IV B. Lactis aerogenes
3 „ 1 cc. ,,
2
1
10 + + − + − + − −
I V
Do.
3
,,
·1 cc.
3
3 „·01 cc.
3
Fœcal bacilli in 1 cc. and upwards.
No vibrios in 100 cc.
SAMPLE III.—FROM THE TAP TO THE SOUTHERN
CORNER
OF TEPPAKULAM NEAR CLIVE'S HOUSE.
T o t a l o o l o n i e s p e r c c . o n a g a r a t 3 7° C . — 2 5 2 .
1 + − − − − − − − I
B. Mutabilis
Group I, 8.
2 + − − − − − + −
I
B. VesiCulosus
„ II, nil,
3 + − − − − − + +
I
B. Grunthal
III, nil.
Bile salt lactose, medium.
+
−
4 + + − − − − + −
I V B. Coscoroba
„ IV, 2.
5 + + − − − − + −
I
B. Vesiculosus
1 tube of 20 cc. of water taken
1
6 + + − − − − + −
I V B. Coscoroba
Class I, nil.
7 + − − − − − + −
I
B. Vesiculosus
„ II, 2.
8 + − − − − − + −
I
Do.
„ III, 8.
2 tubes of 10 cc.
1
1
9 + − − − − − + −
I
Do.
3 „ 5 cc.
„
1
2
1 0
+ − − − − − + −
I
Do.
3 „ lee.
„
3
3 „ ·1 cc.
„
3
3 „ ·01 cc.
„
3
Fœcal bacilli in 20 cc. and upwards.
No vibrios in 100 cc.
SAMPLE IV.—TAP OUTSIDE RAILWAY STATION COMPOUND.
1
+ − − − − − + −
I B. Vesiculosus.
Total colonies per cc. on agar at 37° C.—360.
2
+ − − − − − + −
I
Do.
Group I, 9.
3
+ − − − − − + −
I
Do.
„ II, nil.
Bile salt lactose, medium.
+
− 4
+ − − − − − + −
I
Do.
„ III, nil.
5
+ − − − − − + −
I
Do.
„ IV, 1.
1 tube of 20 cc. of water taken.
1
6
+ − − − − − + −
I
B. Mutabilis.
7
+ + − − − − + −
I V
B. Coscoroba
Class I, nil.
2 tubes of 10 cc.
„
2
8
+ − − − − − + −
I
B. Vesiculosus
„ II, 1.
3 ,, 5 cc.
,,
2
1 9
+ − − − − − + −
I
Do..
,, III, 9.
3 ,, 1 cc. ,,
3
10
+ − − − − − + −
I
Do.
3 ,, ·1 cc. ,,
3
3 ,, ·01 cc. ,,
3
Fœcal bacilli in 5 cc. and upwards.
No vibrios in 100 cc.
36
REPORT.
The river Cauvery being partially flooded a high degree of bacterial purity in its water is not to be
expected. Still it is not bad. The total count is high, but a very small proportion of the germs are of animal
origin. The small number of species present indicates that a considerable amount of natural purification has
taken place in the water. The water is in fact very like what it was on the last occasion. This time, however,
the water after filtration is not so good. There is a marked reduction in the total count which would point to
the filtration being effective to a certain degree. Presumably filtration removes all classes of germs ordinarily
studied in water to an equal extent, so we must suppose that three-fourths of the fœcal germs originally
present have been removed and that the total has been brought back to the same amount by germs of this
nature derived from the post filtration passages. The increase in the number of species present in the
filtered water supports this view. The samples taken from the distributary system both show marked improve-
ment over the river and Head Works water, though the number of species of fœcal germs is still too high.
Chemically the water is quite satisfactory, but no very material improvement has been brought about
by filtration.
Chemical Analyses.
SAMPLE I.
SAMPLE IV.
Physical appearances.
Colour and
Transparency.
White and hazy.
White and hazy.
Smell.
None.
None.
Q U A N T I T A T I V E .
Total solids ..
..
..
.. Parts per 100,000
20.800
20.400
Temporary hardness
..
..
..
Do.
..
10.000
11.000
Permanent hardness ..
..
..
Do.
..
1 . 0 0 0
1.000
Total hardness ..
..
..
..
Do.
..
11.000
12..000
Chlorine
..
..
..
..
Do.
..
1.065
1.242
Ammoniacal nitrogen ..
..
..
Do.
..
0.008
0.004
Albuminoid nitrogen ..
..
..
Do.
..
0.006
0.004
Oxygen absorbed (Tidy's Process)
..
..
Do.
..
0.045
0.008
Nitric nitrogen ..
..
..
..
Do.
..
Nil.
Trace.
Q U A L I T A T I V E .
Nitrites
..
..
..
..
..
..
Nil.
Nil.
Sulphates
..
..
..
..
..
. .
Present.
Present.
Phosphates ..
..
..
..
..
..
. .
Nil.
Nil.
Iron, poisonous metals ..
..
..
..
..
Nil.
Nil.