ABSTRACT
The antibiotic susceptibility pattern of six Gram negative pathogenic bacteria; Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, Salmonella, Shigella and Enterococcus was evaluated. The test organisms were subjected to antibiotic susceptibility test using the Kirby Bauer method. A multi-disc containing eight (8) antibiotics; Ceftrazidime (30ug), Cefuroxime (30ug), Gentamicin (10ug), Ceftriaxone (30ug), Ofloxacin (5ug), Ciprofloxacin (5ug), Augmentin (30ug), Nitrofurantoin (300ug), was used. The result showed all (100%) the isolates were sensitive to Ciprofloxacin and Ofloxacin while all (100%) were resistant to Augmentin. 5(83.3%) of the test organisms were resistant to Nitrofurantoin and Ceftriaxone. Apart from Shigella spp which was resistant to only one antibiotic (12.5%), all the others recorded resistance to two or more antibiotics. The result showed that the test organisms are multidrug resistant hence, might have chemical consequences since the organisms are also Zoonoses.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page i
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgments iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Potential Bacterial Contaminants associated with Abattoir Wastewater 4
2.1.2 Escherichia coli 4
2.1.3 Salmonella 6
2.1.4 Shigella 8
2.1.5 Klebsiella 9
2.1.6 Enterobacter 10
2.1.7 Serratia 11
2.1.8 Pseudomonas 11
2.2 Antibiotic Resistant 11
2.3 Definition of ESBL’s (Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase) 12
2.4 Resistance to 
-Lactams 12
2.5 Antimicrobial Susceptibility14
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Study Area 16
3.2 Sample Collection 16
Sterilization of Materials 16
3.4 Preparation of Culture Media 16
3.5 Identification and Confirmation of Isolates 17
Gram Staining 17
3.5.2 Motility Test 18
3.5.3 Biochemical Tests 18
3.5.4 Catalase Test 18
3.5.5 Oxidase Test 19
3.5.6 Urease Test 19
3.5.7 Indole Test 19
3.5.8 Methyl Red-Voges Proskauer Test 20
3.5.9 Citrate Utilization Test 20
3.5.10 Sugar Fermentation Tests 20
3.6 Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing 21
3.7 Measurement of Zone of Inhibition 21
CHAPTER FOUR
4.1 Results 22
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Discussion 27
5.2 Conclusion 28
5.3 Contribution to Knowledge 29
5.4 Recommendation 29
5.5 Suggestion for Further Studies 29
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Identification and confirmation of the Bacterial isolate from water-side abattoir effluents and river samples 23
2 Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of gram negative pathogenic
isolates from Abattoir (pattern inhibition) 24
3 Percentage susceptibility Pattern of the test Isolate 25
4 Percentage susceptibility pattern of inhibition of the 8 antibiotics to the test organisms. 26
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The characteristics of a slaughter house waste and effluent vary from day to day depending on the type of stock being processed and the method. Waste generated by abattoirs include solid waste, bones, horns and faecal components, slurry of suspended solids, fat, blood and soluble materials (Sangodoyin, 1992). These wastes from abattoir operation can be separated into solid, liquid and fat. These wastes are highly organic. The solid wastes include condensed meat, undigested ingesta, bones, horns hairs and aborted fetus. The liquid waste is usually composed of dissolved solid, blood and gut content, urine and water, while fat waste consist of fat and oil, grease which has high organic levels (Bull, 1982).
The total of waste product per animal slaughtered is approximately 35% it’s total body weight (world bank, 1998). In an earlier study (Verheijen, 1996), found out that for every 1,000kg of carcass weight, a slaughtered cow produce 5.5kg of manure (excluding rumen content or stockyard manure) and 100kg of paunch manure (partially digested food). The weight of a matured cow varies with size, ranging from 40kg for a thin animal, 550kg for a moderate one, to 750kg for the extremely fat one (Hammack and Gill, 2002). (Scahill, 2003) gave more detained statistics on both the live and death weight of a cow.
Potential health risks from water borne pathogens can exist in water contaminated by abattoir effluents (Cadmus, 1999), runoff from feedlots (Minner, 1966) ,dairy farm (Jazen, 1974) ,grazed pastures (Doran, 1979) and sewage sludge treated land (Dunigan, 1980).Such contamination of water bodies from abattoir wastes could be constitute significant environmental and public health hazards (Nafarnda, 2006).
Bacteria from abattoir wastes discharged into water columns can subsequently be absorb to sediments, and when the bottom stream is disturbed, the sediments releases the bacterial back into the water columns presenting long-term hazard (Sherer, 1992). Pathogens present in animal carcassesor shed in animal wastes may include Escherichia coli, Yersina enterocolitica, Campylobacter spp, Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lambia, others include microorganisms that has been isolated from abattoir effluent; Proteus spp, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp, Pseudomonas sp, Aspergillus flavus, Penicillium sp, Salmonella spp, faecal Streptococcus, Listeria monocytogenes(Cadmus, 1999).
There primary reservoir for E.coli 0157:H7 has been reported to be in healthy cattle in a study in Canada although the bacterium is also endemic to swine and sheep (Jackson, 1998). These zoonotic pathogens can exceed millions to billions per gram of feces, and may infect humans through various routes such as contaminated air, contact with livestock animals or their waste products, swimming in water impacted by animal feces, exposure to potential vectors (such as flies, mosquitoes, water fowl, and rodents), or consumption of food or water contaminated by animal wastes (Armand, 2005; Schlech, 2005).
The consequences of infection by contaminated by animal wastes can range from temporary morbidity to mortality, especially in high-risk individuals. Due to the difficulties in qualifying pathogens, indicators of fecal pollution, including coliform bacterial, Fecal coliform, Escherichia coli and Enterococci have been mentioned in lieu of overt pathogen for more than 100 years (Byamukama, 2015).
1.2 Aim/Objectives
§ The antibiotic susceptibility pattern of gram negative organism isolated from water-side abattoir.
§ To recommend from the result the right antibiotic of choice for the treatment of these pathogenic organisms.
1.3 Scope of Antimicrobial Susceptibility
There are three test methods for carrying out/analyzing an antimicrobial susceptibility
§ Disk diffusion
§ Broth dilution
§ Agar dilution
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods that consistently provide reproducible and repeatable results is achieved when followed correctly.
Buyers has the right to create
dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when
you experience issue with the file received.
Dispute can only be created when
you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of
contents and content of the file you received.
ProjectShelve.com shall either
provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or
send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and
Conditions are applied.
Buyers are expected to confirm
that the material you are paying for is available on our website
ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone
through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE
BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.
In case of payment for a
material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of
ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that
is available on our website within 48 hours.
You cannot change topic after
receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.
Login To Comment