View report page

16
CONTENTS.
a.—Introduction.
B.—Summary of Contents of First Report.
I.—The Biological Treatment of Sewage.
II.—General Results obtained (May 9th to August" 9th, 1898).*
III.—Summary of Results shewn in Table 1.
1. Total number of Bacteria.
2. Number of Spores of Bacteria.
8. Number of Liquefying Bacteria.
4. Species of Micro-organism3.
(a) B. Enteritidis Sporogenes (Klein).
(b) B. Coli Communis.
(c) Other species of Bacteria.
IV. —Tables and Diagrams dealing with the Results of the Bacteriological Examination
of the Crude Sewage, of the Effluents from the Coke-beds, of the Effluent from
the Chemical Precipitation Works, and of Samples of Thames Water.
(The Diagrams will be found following page 41 of the text.)
V.—Description of some of the Bacteria found in the Crude Sewage, and in the
Effluents from the Coke-beds.
1. B. Coli Communis.
2. B. Mesentericus.
Sewage variety E.
Sewage variety I.
3. Sewage Proteus.
4. B. Frondosus.
5. B. Fusiformis.
6. B. Subtilissimus.
7. B. Subtilis.
Sewage variety A.
Sewage variety B.
8. B. Membraneus Patulus.
9. B. Capillareus.
VI.—Description of Micro-photographs and Diagrammatic Drawings accompanying the
Report.!
VII.—Addenda A, B, C, D, E.—Further Bacteriological Records from August 9th to
December 31st, 1898.
(These Addenda follow Diagram 9 at the end of the Report.)
*Since this report was written (August 9th, 1898) circumstances arose delaying its publication for several
months. To have brought it up to date would have necessitated rewriting the whole report and reconstructing
all the Diagrams and Tables. Under these circumstances it was considered best to incorporate some of the later
results in the form of addenda (Add. A, B, C, D, E), so that anyone interested in the progress of the coke-beds might
follow their history a stage further. All the results, however, are not given, and it is hoped that in the future
an opportunity may present itself of recording the work done since August 9th, 1898, in a more complete form.
† The micro-photographs were specially taken by Dr. Albert Norman. I wish to record my thanks to him
for the great skill which he has shown in photographing my cultures and microscopic preparations, both for this
and for my previous report.—A. C. H.