Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:57:23.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Destruction of bacteria in sewage and other liquids by chlorine and by cyanogen chloride

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

L. A. Allen  and
Eileen Brooks
L. A. Allen
Affiliation:
From the Water Pollution Research Laboratory, Langley Road, Watford
Eileen Brooks
Affiliation:
From the Water Pollution Research Laboratory, Langley Road, Watford
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.

When samples of domestic sewage are treated with doses of chlorine lower than the chlorine demand bactericidal action depends not only on the proportion of the demand satisfied but also on the absolute size of the dose. With doses just sufficiently large to leave residual chlorine detectable by o-tolidine, reduction in the plate count of bacteria after contact for 15 min. ranged in various tests from 96·2 to 98·7%.

With domestic sewage reduction in bacterial count after addition of chlorine is followed, after an interval, by aftergrowth of survivors which rapidly brings the population to its original level or higher. For this interval to be prolonged the initial concentration of chlorine must be considerably greater than the chlorine demand. This accords with the fact that the rapid reaction of chlorine with constituents of the sewage, which occurs in the first few minutes, is followed by a slower absorption which takes place over a prolonged period, so that the initial bactericidal action of residual chlorine tends to be lost after a time. For many purposes the effectiveness of chlorination should be judged not only by the percentage of bacteria destroyed after a short period of contact but also by the interval which elapses before aftergrowth becomes appreciable.

In samples of sewage treated with doses of chlorine sufficient to destroy the protozoa, surviving bacteria eventually reached a level of population much higher than that of the untreated sewage. The majority of such bacteria were found to be Gram-negative, non-sporing rods, which included strains of Proteus and of Pseudomonas pyocyanea. Tests with a pure culture of a species of Proteus showed that the organisms surviving chlorination are not intrinsically capable of reaching a higher population than the parent culture.

When sewage contains small quantities of gas liquor or thiocyanate the bactericidal action of doses of chlorine lower than the demand is much more prolonged than the action of comparable doses in domestic sewage, owing to the formation of cyanogen chloride.

Comparative tests of the action of chlorine and of cyanogen chloride on pure cultures of Bacterium coli in peptone water and on the mixed flora of sewage showed that the bactericidal effect of cyanogen chloride was more persistent than that of a comparable dose of chlorine. With sewage and with some brands of peptone the immediate effect of the chlorine, on the other hand, was often considerable.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , November 1949 , pp. 320 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

References

REFERENCES

Aldridge, W. N. (1945). Analyst, 70, 474.Google Scholar
Allen, L. A., Blezard, N. & Wheatland, A. B. (1946). Surveyor, Lond., 105, 298.Google Scholar
Allen, L. A., Blezard, N. & Wheatland, A. B. (1948). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergey, D. H. (1948). Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 6th ed. London: Baillière, Tindall, and Cox.Google Scholar
Butteriteld, G., Wattie, E., Megregian, S. & Chambers, C. W. (1943). Publ. Hlth Rep., Wash., 58, 1837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellms, J. W. & Hauser, S. J. (1913). Industr. Engng Ghem. 5, 915 and 1030.Google Scholar
Houston, A. C. (1910). Roy. Comm. Sewage Disp. 5th Rep. Appendix 4, p. 84.Google Scholar
Lea, C. (1934). Proc. Inst. Sewage Purif. Part I, p. 197.Google Scholar
Levine, M. & Soppeland, L. (1926). Bull. la Engng Exp. Sta. no. 77.Google Scholar
Marks, H. C, Joiner, R. R. & Strandskov, F. B. (1948). Water & Sewage Wks, 95, 175.Google Scholar
Moore, W. A. (1943). J. Amer. Wat. Wks Ass. 35, 427.Google Scholar
Rudolfs, W. & Gehm, H. W. (1935). Sewage Wks J. 7, 991.Google Scholar
Rudolph, A. S. & Levine, M. (1941). Bull. la Engng Exp. Sta., no. 150.Google Scholar
Rudolfs, W. & Ziemba, J. V. (1934). J. Bact. 27, 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. J. & Kleek, L. W. V. (1934). Sewage Wks J. 6, 784.Google Scholar
Streeter, H. W. (1943). J. Amer. Wat. Wks. Ass. 35, 421.Google Scholar
Symons, G. E. (1937). Sewage Wks J. 9, 509.Google Scholar
Symons, G. E., Simpson, R. W. & Torrey, W. L. (1938). Waterwks & Sewerage, 85, 983.Google Scholar
Tiedemann, W. V. D. (1927). Engng News Rec. 98, 944.Google Scholar
Topley, W. W. C. & Wilson, G. S. (1946). The Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity, 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, E. G. (1939). Proc. Inst. Sewage Purif. Part II, p. 361.Google Scholar