Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:35:11.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of temperature and humidity on spore formation and germination in Bacillus anthracis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

D. G. Davies
D. G. Davies
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory, Carlisle
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.

Experiments performed on spore formation in B. anthracis, in a wide range of closed atmospheres of chemically controlled humidity, showed that the sporing time of B. anthracis is prolonged considerably as the humidity decreases, both at 26 and 37° C. The effect is less noticeable at the lower temperature.

Experiments performed on spore germination in the same organism showed that a temperature range of 20–44° C. permitted germination of the five strains tested. Above a temperature of 39° C. and below 30° C. germination time lengthened considerably.

Experiments performed on the influence of humidity on spore germination, both at 26 and 37° C. showed that no germination could take place at a relative humidity of 80% or below. Germination time was considerably prolonged when the humidity value fell below 100%.

This work formed part of a thesis for the degree of M.D. in Bristol University. I wish to thank Dr G. S. Wilson for his advice in preparing this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 1960 , pp. 177 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

References

REFERENCES

Behring, E. von (1889). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 6, 124; 7, 171.Google Scholar
Bisset, M. A. (1938). J. Path. Bact. 47, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunstetter, B. C. & Magoon, C. A. (1932). J. Bact. 24, 112.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. & Mellanby, K. (1934). Bull. ent. Res. 25, 272.Google Scholar
Cook, R. P. (1932). Bact. Rev. 7, 1.Google Scholar
Daranyi, J. Von (1927). Zbl. Bakt. (Abt. 2), 7, 353.Google Scholar
Davies, D. G. & Harvey, R. W. S. (1953). Lancet, ii, 880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurich, F. W. & Hewlett, R. T. (1930). A system of bacteriology. Med. Res. Coun., Lond., 5, 439.Google Scholar
Holzmuller, K. (1909). Zbl. Bakt. (Abt. 2), 23, 301.Google Scholar
Kaplan, I. & Williams, J. W. (1941). J. Bact. 42, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaysi, G. (1952). Bact. Rev. 16, 89.Google Scholar
Koch, R. (1888). Bot. Ztg. 46, 277. Cited by Cook R. P. in Biol. Rev. (1932), 7, 1.Google Scholar
Lamanna, C. (1952). Bact. Rev. 16, 89.Google Scholar
Magoon, C. A. (1926). J. Bact. 11, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migula, W. (1904). Handbuch der Technischen Mykologie, Jena, 1, 29.Google Scholar
Minett, P. C. (1950). J. comp. Path. 60, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society of American Bacteriologists (1946). Manual of Methods for Pure Culture Study of Bacteria. Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Co.Google Scholar
Tarr, H. A. (1932). J. Hyg., Camb., 32, 535.Google Scholar