18
CUDDALORE DISTRICT JAIL.
WATER SAMPLES TAKEN—5TH OCTOBER 1910.
Bacteriological Analyses.
SAMPLE I.—KITCH EN TAP WATER.
,.:
a)
S
0 0
;.-.
g
.--,
0
C.)
1:,
m
49,
ce
0
1-1
a3 co
.
cd
t c., e
7,1:
c;
...,
'8
Z
=
.
Cll
1',
g
0 0
''l
d
. g.:,. ,
E
—
.2.i
cn
o
-c,
RI
=
bc
ci >
t4
o_
t>
.
- , 8
-
wa
3:1
7.-.
o a
g
F
,.,
-...1
Total colonies per cc. on agar at 37°-610.
Name of Bacilli.
Group and
Remarks.
Bile salt lactose, medium
_
1 tube of 20 cc. of water taken ..
..
. j.
..
1 + + — — — + — _ IV
.
B. 112
. .
Group I, nil.
2 tubes of 10 CC.
2
..
2 + -1-. — — — + — — IV
Do.
. . . .
,, II, nil.
3
„
5 cc.
If
. . . .
3
..
3, -1- + — -1- — + — — IV B. Lactic wrogenes.
„ Ill, nil.
3
1 cc.
..'
3
..
4 + + — — — + — — IV 13.112
..
..
„ IV, 10,
3
„
. 1 cc.
II
1
5 + -I- — — — + — — IV
Do.
3
.01 cc.
1 f
'
. ..
1
2
6 ++— — —+— — IV
Do.
7 t + — — — -I. — — IV
Do.
..
.. Class 1, nil.
Fcecal bacilli in .1 ec. and upwards.
8 -1- -I- — + — + — — IV B. Laotis terogenes.
„
II, 3.
No vibrios in 100.ce.
,
9 ++ — — — + — — IV B. 112.
„
, III, nil,
10 -I-. 4- — + — + — — w B. Laetis terogenes.
Undetermined, 7,
SAMPLE II.—LAKE WELL WATER.
1 ++ — -I— — — I — — IV B. Gasoformans
.. Group 1, nil,
.
++ — + — — — —' IV 1V
Do.
II, nil,
Total colonies per cc. on agar at 37°-2 , 600.
3
— + — — — — IV
Do.
..
„ Ill, nil.
4
—
- - -- IV
Do.
..
„ IV, 10,
Bile salt lactose, medium.
+
—
5 -I- + — +,— +1— — IV B. Laetis terogenes.
6 -I- -I- — + — + — --F IV B. 102.
— 7 -I- -I- — + — —,— — IV B. Gasoformans .. Class I, nil.
1 tube of 20 eo. of water taken ..
..
1
8 ++ — -I- — + — + IV B. 102
II 10
If
.
2 tubes of 10 on.
It
..
9 + + — +:— — — — IV B. Gasoformans ..
„ III, nil.
3
„
5 ec.
. . 10 ++--I-,---- IV
Do.
8
„
1 co.
If
. .
. .
3
.,
3
„
-I oc.
. . ..
..
3
3
„
.01 cc.
,f
..
..
..
3
Fceoal bacilli in 1 cc. and upwards.
I
No vibrios in 100 cc.
1
1
REPORT.
Chemically the only bad feature of this water is the figure for oxidised nitrogen and it is satisfactory to
note that it seems to be definitely decreasing. Is this due to better conservation of the surroundings of
the well which left much to be desired in the past ? With this evidence of old standing pollution reduced
to within small limits, the water would be an excellent one.
Bacteriologically the state of affairs is not at all so satisfactory. Though it has been worse it has also
been better. The worst feature is the total count which in the lake well water reaches the undesirable
figure of 2,600 per cc. This is thoroughly bad for a well water. In regard to its content of faecal germs
this water is fairly good, showing only one to the cc. and having only a few moderately resistant varieties
represented. The kitchen tap water shows a greatly reduced total count though it is still too high.
The number and kind or faecal germs have altered considerably for the worse. This would seem to point to
improvement due to sedimentation but also to something unsatisfactory in the structure or management of
the pumps and connections.
Chemical Analyses.
SAMPLE I,
KITCHEN TAP WATER. LAKE
_A--
—v.--
SAMPLE II,
WELL WATER.
_....A........______.Th
Physical appearances.
Colour and
Transparency.
Colourless and
clear.
Colourless and
clear.
Smell.
None.
None.
QUANTITATIVE.
Total solids
..
..
..
..
..
..
.. Parts per 100,000 ..
15.400
16.000
Temporary hardness ..
..
..
..
..
..
Do.
..
1.000
1-500
Permanent hardness ..
..
..
..
..
..
Do.
..
2.000
2 500
Total hardness ..
..
.
..
. . ..
I'o. .
..
3.000
. 4 . 000
Chlotine ..
..
..
..
..
..
..
. .
Do.
..
1.775
1.775
A mmoni teal nitrogen ..
..
..
..
..
. .
I 'o.
..
0.004
0.003
Albutninold nitrogen
.
..
..
..
..
. .
Po.
0.003
0 003
Oxygen absorbed (Tidy's Process)
..
..
...
Do.
. .
0.007
0.012
Nitric nitrogen ..
..
..
..
..
..
. .
Do.. .
0150
- Nitrites
. . . ..
QUALITATIVE.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Nil.
Nil.
Present..
Present.
Sulphates
..
..
..
..
.
. .
.
Nil.
. Nil. .
Phosphates
..
. . ..
..
..
..
..
..
....
. .
.Nil, nil. .
Nil, nil.
Iron, poisonous metals
..
..
. . ..
.
..
.