Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T23:05:45.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A photometric method for the comparative evaluation of disinfectants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

N. V. Needham
N. V. Needham
Affiliation:
Cooper Technical Bureau, Berkhamsted
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.

1. Attention is called to the widespread dissatisfaction with the standard of reproducibility attained with the existing disinfectant tests.

2. It is suggested that this lack of reproducibility is inherent in any 100% mortality test.

3. The trend in all recent disinfectant developments appears to be towards greater specificity than was the case with the older products.

4. Where a comparison is being made to ascertain the true relative efficiency of two or more disinfectants, this possible specificity necessitates their examination under a wider range of conditions than has been catered for in the past.

5. A technique is suggested for use in those cases where a more limited examination will provide all the information that is required. It employs a simple culture medium, uses a measured quantity for the transfer from the medication tube, and makes use of a compensated photo-electric circuit to determine the amount of growth produced by the organisms which have survived the contact with the disinfectant.

I wish to acknowledge my grateful thanks to the directors of Messrs Cooper, McDougall and Robertson Ltd. for permission to publish this paper, and to my colleagues of the Cooper Technical Bureau for assistance in various directions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1947 , pp. 01 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

References

REFERENCES

Alper, T. & Stern, M. (1933). The measurement of the opacity of bacterial culture with a photo-electric cell. J. Hyg., Camb., 33, 497–509.Google ScholarPubMed
Anderson, J. F. & McClintic, T. B. (1911). A method for the bacteriological standardisation of disinfectants. J. Infect. Dis. 8, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. F. & McClintic, T. B. (1912). I. Method of standardizing disinfectants with and without or ganic matter. Bull. Hyg. Lab., U.S. Pub. Health & Mar. Hosp. Serv. Wash., no. 82, pp. 74. Washington: U.S. Treas. Dep.Google Scholar
Bonét-Maury, P. & Walen, R. J. (1945). Photomètre différential pour l'enregistrement automatique des courbes de multiplication bactérienne. Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 71, 284–91.Google Scholar
Brewer, C. M. (1943a). Disinfectant testing. Soap, 19, no. 4, 101.Google Scholar
Brewer, C. M. (1943b). Variations in phenol coefficient determinations of certain disinfectants. Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 33, 261–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brewer, C. M. & Reddish, G. F. (1929). A comparison of the Hygienic Laboratory Test with the method used by the Department of Agriculture for testing disinfectants. J. Bact. 17, 44.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution (1934). British Standard Technique for Determining the Rideal-Walker Coefficient of Disinfectants, no. 541, pp. 13. London: British Standards Institution.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution (1938). British Standard Specification for the Modified Technique of the Chick-Martin Test for Disinfectants, no. 808, pp. 17. London: British Standards Institution.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, J., Hershey, A. D. & Doubly, J. A. (1938 a). Evaluation of germicide by a manometric method. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 38, 210–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, J., Hershey, A. D. & Doubly, J. A. (1938 b). Verification of the results secured by the manometric method of evaluation of germicides. J. Bact. 36, 265–6.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, J., Hershey, A. D. & Doubly, J. A. (1939). Evaluation of germicides by a manometric method. J. Bact. 37, 583–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cade, A. R. (1937). The random sampling error as a possible answer to the apparent variation in antiseptic test data. J. Amer. Pharm. Ass. 26, 1233–40.Google Scholar
Cade, A. R. & Halvorson, H. O. (1934). Germicidal detergents. Soap, 10, no. 8, 17.Google Scholar
Chick, H. & Martin, C. J. (1908). The principles involved in the standardization of disinfectants and the influence of organic matter upon the germicidal value. J. Hyg., Camb., 8, 654–97.Google ScholarPubMed
Crown Agents for the Colonies (1934). Standard Specification for Disinfectant Fluid, no. 74.Google Scholar
Ely, J. O. (1939). The evaluation of germicides by a manometric method. J. Bact. 38, 391–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuld, M. (1937). Fortifying agents in disinfectants. Soap, 13, no. 1, 112a.Google Scholar
Garrod, L. P. (1934). A study of the Chick-Martin test for disinfectants. J. Hyg., Camb., 34, 322–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrod, L. P. (1935 a). The testing of disinfectants in the presence of organic matter. J. Hyg., Camb., 35, 219–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrod, L. P. (1935 b). The laboratory testing of disinfectants. Brit. Med. J. no. 3861, pp. 5–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Great Western Railway. Contract specification for disinfectant fluid.Google Scholar
Greig, M. E. & Hoogerheide, J. C. (1941). Evaluation of germicides by a manometric method. J. Bact. 41, 557–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isaacs, M. L. (1938). A new method for the determination of disinfectant rates. J. Bact. 36, 547–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, V. & Jensen, E. (1933). Determination of the phenol coefficient of disinfectants by the cover-slip method. J. Hyg., Camb., 33, 485.Google ScholarPubMed
Jensen, E. & Jensen, V. (1938). Studies on the influence of various organic substances upon the phenol coefficient. J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 141–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klarmann, E. C. & Wright, E. S. (1945). Synthetic and semi-synthetic media for disinfectant testing. Soap, 21, no. 1, 113.Google Scholar
Leonard, G. F. (1931). Limitations of phenol coefficient tests in determining germicidal activities. J. Infect. Dis. 48, 358–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libby, R. L. (1938). The Photron reflectometer. An instrument for the measurement of turbid systems. J. Immunol. 34, 71–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
London County Council. Contract specification for disinfectant fluid.Google Scholar
Moore, Q. (1926). Note on the testing of disinfectants by the Rideal-Walker method. J. Soc. Chem. Ind., Lond., 45, 472–4T.Google Scholar
Needham, N. V. (1946). Simple photometric method of determining the rate of bacterial growth. Nature, Lond., 157, 374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, T. C. & Frederick, R. C. (1931). The testing of Admiralty disinfectant fluid. Analyst, 56, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, W. H. & Peterson, M. S. (1945). Relation of bacteria to vitamins and other growth factors. Bact. Rev. 9, 49–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulvertaft, R. J. V. & Lemon, C. G. (1933). The application of photo-electricity to the determination of bacterial growth rates. J. Hyg., Camb., 33, 245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rideal, S. & Walker, J. T. A. (1903). The standardization of disinfectants. J. Roy. Sanit. Inst. 24, 424–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rideal, S. & Walker, J. T. A. (1921). Approved technique of the Rideal-Walker test, pp. 12. London: H. K. Lewis and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Ruehle, G. L. A. & Brewer, C. M. (1931). United States Food and Drug Administration methods of testing antiseptics and disinfectants. Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 198.Google Scholar
South African Government (1929, 1930, 1931). Regulations under the Food, Drugs and Disinfectant Act. No. 13 of 1929. No. 575 of 28 03 1930. Annexure A. Amended no. 345 of 27 02 1931.Google Scholar
Thaysen, A. C. (1938). Some observations on the Rideal-Walker test. J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 558–65.Google ScholarPubMed
United States Public Health Service (1921). Disinfectant testing by the Hygienic Laboratory method. Publ. Hlth Rep., Wash., 36, 1559–64. (Reprint no. 675.)Google Scholar
Walters, A. L. (1917). The specificity of disinfectants and its bearing on their standardization. Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 7, 1030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Withell, E. R. (1942a). The evaluation of bactericides. J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 339–53.Google ScholarPubMed
Withell, E. R. (1942b). The effect of change of concentration on the relativity of phenol and parachlormetacresol. Quart. J. Pharmacol. 15, 301–13.Google Scholar
Wright, J. H. (1917). The importance of uniform culture media in the bacteriological examination of disinfectants. J. Bact. 2, 315–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolf, P. A. (1945). A medium containing an acid casein hydrolysate for use in testing disinfectants. J. Bact. 49, 463–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar