Processing sputum specimen for the isolation of M.tuberculosis

yoram keness rakeness at internet-zahav.net
Thu Dec 18 16:25:18 EST 1997



----------
> From: Administrator at SOM-BSB.ucsd.edu
> To: rakeness at internet-zahav.net
> Subject: Message not deliverable
> Date: =E9=E5=ED =F9=EC=E9=F9=E9 16 =E3=F6=EE=E1=F8 1997 21:55
>=20
> ----------------------------------- Returned
-----------------------------------
> From: rakeness at internet-zahav.net at @UCSD
> Date: 12/16/97 9:35PM
> To: administrator at SOM-BSB
> Subject: Re: Message not deliverable
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
---
> ----------
> > *To: microbio at net.bio.net at @UCSD
> > Subject: Processing sputum specimen for Tb
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---

> ---
> > Dear Colleagues!
> >
> > I have come accross a practice of processing sputum specimen for
> > Mycobacteria which I would like to share with you:
> >
> > In preparing the Kinyoun stain, the technician was instructed to do t=
wo
> > things:
> > first to open the container with the sputum specimen and try to "fish=
"
an
> > especially                                  big clump of puss and pla=
ce
> it
> > on a glass slide. Decontamination\ NALC treatment of
> >     remaining sputum followed, and after centrifugation another ca.
0.06
> ml
> > of the pellet                                  were pipetted on top o=
f
> the
> > first (in the meantime dried out) spot.
> >
> > As soon as this one was dry, Kinoun staining followed.
> >
> > The argument has it, that doing it this way increases the sensitivity
of
> > the Kinyoun stain.
> > Acid fast bacilli that might have been damaged through the
> decontamination
> > process will be
> > "compensated" for by the ones that remained intact in the pretreated
> > specimen.                                          Has this ever been
> > proven for the NALC procedure?
> >
> > This procedure (the "fishing") is exteremly messy and I wonder whethe=
r
it
> > does the job.
> >
> > Can anyone comment on the effectiveness of this procedure? is it
> worthwile
> > the mess and
> > danger we are exposing the staff in sending them out "fishing"?
> >
> > Thanx
> >
> > Y. Keness
> >
> >
> >
> >
>=20
>=20
> >-- Saved internet headers (useful for debugging)
> >Received: from mail.inter.net.il (parker.internet-zahav.net
[205.164.141.51]) b
> >Received: from euronet.euronet (Mizra-202-23.access.net.il
[192.116.202.23]) by
> >Message-Id: <199712161942.VAA10926 at mail.inter.net.il>
> >From: "yoram keness" <rakeness at internet-zahav.net>
> >To: <Administrator at SOM-BSB.ucsd.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Message not deliverable
> >Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:35:50 +0200
> >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> >X-Priority: 3
> >X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



More information about the Microbio mailing list