PMFLIST Archives

October 1998

PMFLIST@LISTS.MICROBIOLOGYNETWORK.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
The Pharmaceutical Microbiology Mail List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 21:41:48 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (78 lines)
MaryAnn,
I know I'm late responding, just thought this could prove helpful. Our
limits for water come in several flavors, #1 an alert limit which says
counts less than [##] pass, #2 but require a retest on the next work day
(after discovery) -- This retest has to meet the count limit. ie we allow
limited excursions.  We also have a data review cycle which prevents our
accepting frequent excursions as normal. This same sort of arrangement
applies to Action limits.
Betty Darner

At 04:15 PM 10/19/98 -0400, Sethi, Manju wrote:
>One can easily track the source of contamination using molecular methods,
>such as the automated RiboPrinter=AE System. It's amazing how a simple
>baseline microbial flora analysis (of personnel also) can help pinpoint
>where the contamination is coming from - sometimes from the most unlikely
>places!
>
>  Manju=20
>
>                -----Original Message-----
>                From:   MaryAnn Parker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>                Sent:   Thursday, October 01, 1998 10:17 AM
>                To:     PMFLIST
>                Subject:        [PMFLIST] Staph. epidermidis
>
>                     I have isolated Staph. epidermidis and Staph.
>haemolyticus from a
>                     water sample taken from a "washing machine" that
>utilizes deionized
>                     water.  The washing machine heats the water and we
>usually recover
>                     less than one CFU/ml.  This time we recovered 8.4
>CFU/ml and
>                     identified the organisms above.  The tech who ran the
>test doesn't
>                     believe it's a contamination from the test or sampling
>method.  Do you
>                     have any ideas where the contamination may have come
>from?  I know S.
>                     haemolyticus is ubiquitous, but isn't Staph epi just a
>human
>                     contaminate?  I'd appreciate any thoughts.
>
>                     MaryAnn
>
>
>                ------------------
>                The PMFList (http://microbiol.org/pmf.htm) is operated from
>                The Microbiology Network (http://microbiol.org) and
>supported by
>                our sponsors (http://microbiol.org/sponsor.htm) as a=
 service
>to
>                the scientific community.
>        =09
>
>
>------------------
>The PMFList (http://microbiol.org/pmf.htm) is operated from
>The Microbiology Network (http://microbiol.org) and supported by
>our sponsors (http://microbiol.org/sponsor.htm) as a service to
>the scientific community.
>
>
>
>
Betty Darner
[log in to unmask]


------------------
The PMFList (http://microbiol.org/pmf.htm) is operated from
The Microbiology Network (http://microbiol.org) and supported by
our sponsors (http://microbiol.org/sponsor.htm) as a service to
the scientific community.



ATOM RSS1 RSS2