A study on prevalence of multi-drug-resistant (MDR) Salmonella in water sprinkled on fresh vegetables in Bareilly, Moradabad, and Kanpur (northern Indian cities)

  • B. R. Singh
  • Preetam Singh
  • Anita Verma
  • Sugandh Agrawal
  • N. Babu
  • Mudit Chandra
  • Ravi Kant Agarwal
Original Article


Water-borne and food-borne diseases are common in summers and monsoons in India. This study between March 2004 to September 2004 on microbiological quality of water used by vegetable vendors to keep their vegetables fresh was conducted to asses the role of water as a source of Salmonella. Of the 309 samples collected from Bareilly (80 vegetable vendors, 47 ponds, five municipal water taps), Moradabad (74 vegetable vendors, three ponds, five municipal water taps) and Kanpur (84 vegetable vendors, six ponds, five municipal water taps), 82 (26.5%) and 27 (8.7%) had Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica strains, respectively. The study revealed that sprinkling water was contaminated with 0.00–6.81 log10 cfu ml−1 of coliforms, 4.16 log10 to 9.46 log10 cfu ml−1 of heterotrophic aerobic bacteria, 0.00 to 7.23 log10 cfu ml−1 of non-lactose fermenters, 0.00 to 5.56 log10 cfu ml−1 of Salmonella and 0.00 to 7.77 log10 cfu ml−1 of yeast and moulds. Similarly, microbial counts in pond water samples (Bareilly) were 0.00 to 6.06 log10 cfu ml−1 of faecal coliforms, 5.12 log10 to 8.09 log10 cfu ml−1 of heterotrophic aerobic bacteria, 0.00 to 6.37 log10 cfu ml−1 of non-lactose fermenters, 0.00 to 5.73 log10 cfu ml−1 of Salmonella and 0.00 to 7.82 cfu log10 ml−1 of yeasts and moulds. Presence of Salmonella in water sample had negative correlation with number of coliforms and positive correlation with number of non-lactose fermenters, as of the 16 (6.7%) Salmonella positive samples of water from vegetable vendors, ten were negative for coliforms. Similarly, of the 11 pond-water samples positive for Salmonella, six were negative for coliforms, and negative correlation (−0.55) between coliform count and Salmonella was statistically significant (r0.01). On the other hand, Salmonella counts could be positively correlated (r0.01) with counts of non-lactose fermenters. Salmonella isolates from water for sprinkling on vegetables belonged to S. Anatum (1), S. Newport (1), S. Saintpaul (6), S. Virchow (4) and S. Weltevreden (4) serovars while isolates pond water samples belonged to S. Saintpaul (9) and S. Newport (2) serovars. Except two Salmonella isolates (one each of serovar S. Anatum and S. Weltevreden), all had multiple drug resistance and could be classified into 21 resistotypes. All the Salmonella isolates were sensitive to ceftriaxone and streptomycin while resistant to sulphamethizole. The study indicated that pond water (used by farmers for washing vegetables) and water used by vegetable vendors for sprinkling on vegetables might have an important role as a source of multiple-drug-resistant zoonotic Salmonella.


Salmonella Vegetables Phytosanitation Multiple drug resistance Water Pond 



The authors thankfully acknowledge the grant of Junior Research Fellowship to authors (N. Babu, M. Chandra and R.K. Agarwal) by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.


  1. Abdelnoor AM, Batshoun R, Roumani BM (1983) The bacterial flora of fruits and vegetables in Lebanon and the effect of washing on the bacterial content. Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg [B]177:342–349Google Scholar
  2. Altekruse SF, Cohen, M L, Swerdlow DL (1997) Emerging foodborne disease. Emerg Infect Dis 3:285–293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anon (2004) Waterborne pathogens and disease they cause. /cissues/waterq/wqual-1.htm
  4. APEC Emerging Infections Network (2004) USA (Multistate): Salmonellosis, tomatoes traced to Florida, APEC-EINet Newsletter 18 ∼ EINet News Briefs ∼ 20th Aug 2004Google Scholar
  5. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1995) Bacteriological Analytical Manual. 8th edn. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer AW, Kirby WMM, Sherris JC, Turch M (1966) Antibiotic susceptibility testing by standardized single disc method. American J Clin Pathol 6:493–496Google Scholar
  7. Beuchat LR, Ryu JH (1997) Produce handling and processing practices. Emerg Infect Dis 3:439–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchanan RL, Edelson SG, Miller RL, Sapers GM (1999) Contamination of intact apples after immersion in aqueous environment containing Escherichia coli O157:H7. J Food Prot 62:444–450Google Scholar
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1991) Multi-state outbreak of Salmonella poona infections United States and Canada. Morbid Mortal Weekly Rep 40:549–552Google Scholar
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1993) Multistate outbreak of Salmonella serotype Montevideo infections. Publication EPI-AID 93–97. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GaGoogle Scholar
  11. DHS (1978) Wastewater Reclamation Criteria. California Administrative Code, Title 22, Division 4 (Environmental health). California Department of Health Services, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. De Roever C (1998) Microbiology safety evaluations and recommendations on fresh produce. Food Control 9:321–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewan ML, Basu S, Singh H (1976) Salmonella serotypes from sewage and water sources in India. Indian J Med Res 64:847–853PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards PR, Ewing WH (1986) Identification of Enterobacteriaceae, 4th edn. Elsevier Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. EPA (2004) Ground Water & Drinking Water & Analytical Methods for Drinking Water & Specific Drinking Water Rules.
  16. Guo X, van Iersel MW, Chen J, Brackett RE, Beuchat LR (2002) Evidence of association of Salmonellae with tomato plants grown hydroponically in inoculated nutrient solution. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:3639–3643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Liao CH, Fett WF (2001) Analysis of native microflora and selection of strains antagonistic to human pathogens on fresh produce. J Food Prot 64:1110–1115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) (1999) Microbiological safety evaluations and recommendations on sprouted seeds. Int J Food Microbiol 52:123–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (1998) NCCLS document M100-S8. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 8th edn. NCCLS, WaynaeGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicholas GL (2005) Fly transmission of campylobacter. Emerg Infect Dis 11:361–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Salyers AA, Whitt DD (2002) Bacterial Pathogenesis a molecular approach. ASM press. Washington DC pp 11Google Scholar
  22. Saxena SN, Ahuja S, Mago ML, Singh H (1980) Salmonella patterns in India. Indian J Med Res 72:159–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Saxena SN, Mago ML, Bhau LNR, Ahuja S, Singh H (1983) Salmonella serotypes prevalent in India during 1978–81. Indian J Med Res 77:10–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Singh BR (2005) Prevalence of different Salmonella serovars in animals and their environment in India in last two decades.
  25. Singh BR, Khurana SK, Kulshreshtha SB (1995) Survivability of Salmonella paratyphi B var Java on experimentally infected cockroaches. Indian J Exp Biol 33:392–393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Singh BR, Agarwal RK, Chandra M (2004) Pathogenic effects of Salmonella enterica subspecies enterica serovar Typhimurium on sprouting and growth of maize. Indian J Exp Biology 42:1100–1106Google Scholar
  27. Singh BR, Chandra M, Agarwal RK (2005) A study on interaction of Salmonella enterica subspecies enterica serovar Typhimurium and mung bean (Phaseolus aureus) plants. J Food Prot 68:476–481Google Scholar
  28. Tauxe R, Kruse H, Hedberg C, Potter M, Madden J, Wachsmuth K (1997) Microbial hazards and emerging issues associated with produce: a preliminary report to the national advisory committee on microbiologic criteria for foods. J Food Prot 60:1400–1408Google Scholar
  29. Tyrrel SF, Weatherhead EK, Knox JW (2000) The microbiological quality of water used for irrigation in the UK. International Water and Irrigation 20:52–54Google Scholar
  30. Verma JC, Singh VP, Singh BR, Gupta BR (2001) Occurrence of Salmonella serotypes in animals in India VII. Indian J Comp Microbiol Immuol Infect Dis 22:51–55Google Scholar
  31. WHO (1989) Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. Technical Report Series No.778. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  32. WHO (1991) Guidelines for Drinking water quality, Volume 1–3. CBS Publishers and Distributers Delhi. pp 1:17–39, 2:3–33, 3:26–31, 108–114, 115–119Google Scholar
  33. Wray C, Wray A (2000) Salmonellosis in domestic animals. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, OxonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. R. Singh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Preetam Singh
    • 1
  • Anita Verma
    • 1
  • Sugandh Agrawal
    • 1
  • N. Babu
    • 1
  • Mudit Chandra
    • 1
  • Ravi Kant Agarwal
    • 1
  1. 1.National Salmonella Centre (Vet.), Bioengineering Building, Division of Bacteriology and MycologyIndian Veterinary Research InstituteIzatnagarIndia
  2. 2.National Research Centre on EquinesHaryanaIndia

Personalised recommendations