Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:10:03.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The cleaning and sterilization of milk bottles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Betty C. Hobbs  and
G. S. Wilson
Betty C. Hobbs
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
G. S. Wilson
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The results just described for Greater London compare very favourably with those of similar surveys carried out in the United States by Hopkins & Kelly (1919), Smith (1923), and Layson, Huffer & Brannon (1936) (see also Report, 1934). The figures recorded in Table 7 show that approximately 50% of bottles from the large, the small rotary, and the steam sterilization plants conformed to a standard of less than 600 colonies per pint bottle, or approximately 1 colony per ml. capacity.

The figures for the small rotary plants were not so good as for the large plants, there being a greater proportion of high counts among these. The same was even truer of the steam sterilization plants, in which about a quarter of the bottles were grossly contaminated. The results with the plants using hand-washing only were bad, none of them falling below the 2500 mark.

The general conclusions to be drawn from this survey are that equally good results may be obtained in large or in small rotary plants relying on treatment with hot caustic detergent as in plants employing steam sterilization, and that the uniformly best results are obtained in properly designed and operated plants of the spray type.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 1943 , pp. 96 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1943

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. B. (1939). Pers. Comm.Google Scholar
Armstrong, C. & Parran, T. (1927). Publ. Hlth Rep., Wash., Suppl. No. 62.Google Scholar
Arnold, L. (1938). J. Milk. Technol. 1, No. 6, p. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs-Smith, E. G. & Hobday, F. (1928). Vet. J. 84, 503.Google Scholar
Harding, H. A. (1939). Bull. Dairy Res. Bureau, Detroit, 19, No. 10.Google Scholar
Hobbs, B. C. & Wilson, G. S. (1942). J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 436.Google Scholar
Hopkins, M. B. & Kelly, M. L. (1919). Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 9, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layson, S. V., Huffer, E. G. & Brannon, J. M. (1936). Milk Pl. Mon. 25, 34.Google Scholar
Mattick, A. T. R. & Hoy, W. A. (1937). ‘Bottle washing and bottle-washing machines.’ Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying, Shinfield, nr Reading.Google Scholar
Meurer, R. (1927). Z. Fleisch. MilchHyg. 37, 150, 169.Google Scholar
Moore, C. M. (1937). Milk Pl. Mon. 26, No. 5, p. 36, No. 6, p. 60.Google Scholar
Myers, R. P. (1930). Proc. Conv. Int. Ass. Milk Dealers, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
Paley, C. (1935). Milk Pl. Mon. 24, No. 5, p. 78.Google Scholar
Report (1931). Publ. Hlth Rep., Wash., 46, 769.Google Scholar
Report (1934). Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 24, Suppl. p. 72.Google Scholar
Report (1935). Public Hlth Service Milk Ordinance and Code, Wash.Google Scholar
Report (1937). ‘Bacteriological Tests for Graded Milk.’ Memo. 139/Foods, Min. Hlth. H.M. Stat. Off., Lond.Google Scholar
Report (1939a). ‘Standard methods of milk analysis.’ Amer. Publ. Hlth Ass. 7th ed., New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
Report (1939b). ‘The bacteriological examination of water supplies.’ Rep. Publ. Hlth med. Subj., Min. Hlth., No. 71. H.M. Stat. Off., Lond.Google Scholar
Slawson, R. N. (1932). Proc. Int. Ass. Milk Dealers, Plant Section, p. 128.Google Scholar
Smith, R. S. (1923). 12th Ann. Rep. Int. Ass. Dairy Insp., Wash., p. 278.Google Scholar
Speck, M. L. & Black, L. A. (1937). Food Res. 2, 559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, G. B. (1919). Ann. Rep. Int. Ass. Dairy and Milk Insp. p. 193.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S., Twigg, R. S., Wright, R. C., Hendry, C. B., Cowell, M. P. & Maier, I. (1935). Spec. Rep. Ser., Med. Res. Counc., Lond., No. 206.Google Scholar