Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-07T05:37:20.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Principles involved in the Standardisation of Disinfectants and the Influence of Organic Matter upon Germicidal value

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Harriette Chick  and
C. J. Martin
Harriette Chick
Affiliation:
Assistant, Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine.
C. J. Martin
Affiliation:
Director of the Lister Institute of Preventive 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.

In any method of standardisation it is necessary that the test shall be carried out at a constant temperature, as the disinfection process has a high temperature coefficient. For any method to be of general application, it is also necessary that the temperature selected shall be adhered to in all determinations, since the temperature coefficient of disinfection varies for different disinfectants. The temperature adopted was 20° C.

In the case of vegetative organisms a disinfectant varies in efficiency as much as ten times according to the organism against which it is tested. Some disinfectants are more efficient against one vegetative species of bacteria, others against another.

The presence of 10% blood serum reduces the efficiency of 1% phenol about 12%. The effect upon emulsified disinfectants is somewhat greater. With mercuric chloride the reduction was much greater, a 0·5% solution being reduced to from 0·6 to 0·06 of its original value as the concentration of serum was increased from 5 to 30%.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 8 , Issue 5 , November 1908 , pp. 654 - 697
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1908

References

Baxter, (1875). Report of the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board, New Series, no. 5, 1875, Appendix, pp. 216 to 256.Google Scholar
Bayliss, (1906). On some aspects of adsorption phenomena, with especial reference to the action of electrolytes and to the ash constituents of proteins. Biochemical Journal, vol. I. p. 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behring, (1890). Ueber Desinfection, Desinfectionsmittel und Desinfections-methoden. Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, vol. IX. p. 396.Google Scholar
Blyth, Wynter (1906). The Standardisation of Disinfectants. Analyst, May. Journ. Soc. Chem. Industry, vol. XXV. Dec.Google Scholar
Buchholtz, (1875). Antiseptica und Bakterien. Archiv f. experiment. Path. u. Pharm., vol. IX. p. 1.Google Scholar
Chick, H.. (1908). An Investigation of the Laws of Disinfection. Journ. of Hygiene, vol. VIII. p. 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De La Croix, . (1881). Das Verhalten der Bakterien des Fleishwassers gegen einige Antiseptica. Archiv f. experiment. Path. u. Pharm., vol. XIII. p. 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esmarch, (1887). Das Creolin. Centralb. f. Bakteriologie, I. Abt. vol. II. pp. 295 and 329.Google Scholar
Eyre, . Bacteriological Technique.Google Scholar
Firth, and Macfadyen, (1906). Report of the Disinfectant Standardisation Committee. Journ. of Roy. Sanitary Inst., vol. XXVII. p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, . (1906). The working efficiency of some disinfectants. Journ. Roy. Army Medl. Corps, vol. VI. p. 6.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, . (1889). Die desinficirenden Eigenschaften der Kresole, ein Beitrag zur Desinfectionsfrage. Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, vol. VI. p. 521.Google Scholar
Geppert, (1889). Zur Lehre von dem Antisepticis. Berl. klin. Wochenschr. 1889, pp. 789 and 819.Google Scholar
Geppert, (1891). Zur Desinfectionsfrage. Deutsch. med. Wochenschr., no. 25, pp. 797, 829 and 855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, (1891). Transactions of the VII. Internat. Congress of Hygiene and Demography, vol. II. p. 255.Google Scholar
Centralb. f. Bakt. I. Abt. vol. XI. 1892, p. 115.Google Scholar
Heider, (1892). Ueber die Wirksamkeit der Desinfectionsmittel bei erhöhter Temperatur. Archiv f. Hygiene, vol. XV. p. 341.Google Scholar
Henle, (1889). Ueber Creolin und seine wirksamen Bestandtheile. Archiv f. Hygiene, vol. IX. p. 188.Google Scholar
Kahlenberg, (1901). The Theory of Electrolytic Dissociation as viewed in the light of facts recently ascertained. Journ. of Phys. Chem., vol. V. p. 349.Google Scholar
Kenwood, and Hewlett, (1906). Some observations upon the Practical Standardisation of Disinfectants. Journ. of the Roy. san. Inst., vol. XXVII. p. 1.Google Scholar
Kenwood, and Hewlett, (1906). The Practical Standardisation of Disinfectants. Public Health. April, p. 462.Google Scholar
Koch, . (1881). Ueber Desinfection. Mittheil. a. d. kaiserl. Gesundheitsamte, vol. I.Google Scholar
Krönig, and Paul, (1897). Die chemischen Grundlagen der Lehre von der Giftwirkung und Desinfection. Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, vol. XXV. p. 1.Google Scholar
Luther, (1904). Die Hydrolyse des Quecksilberchlorids. Zeitschr. f. physik. Chem., vol. XLVII. p. 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, and Nyman, (1907). Zur Theorie der Desinfektion. Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, vol. LVII. p. 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, (1901). Entwurf zur einheitlichen Werth bestimmung chemischer Desinfektionsmittel. Berlin, 1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, and Prall, (1907). Die Werthbestimmung von Desinfectionsmittel mit Staphylococcen die bei der Temperatur der flüssigen Luft aufbewahrt wurden. Arbeit. aus dem kaiserl. Gesundheitsamte, vol. XXVI. p. 73.Google Scholar
Pringle, (1750) I. Some Experiments on Substances resisting Putrefaction. Phil. Trans., vol. XLVI. p. 480.Google Scholar
Pringle, (1750) II. A Continuation of the Experiments on Substances resisting Putrefaction. Phil. Trans., vol. XLVI. p. 525.Google Scholar
Proskauer, (1908). Einheitliche Regelung der prüfungsmethodik für Desinkfektionsapparate und Desinfektionsmittel. Ber. v. d. XIV. Internat. Kongr. f. Hyg. u. Dem. Berlin, 1907, vol. II. p. 973.Google Scholar
Rideal, and Walker, (1903). The Standardisation of Disinfectants. Journ. of the Roy. San. Inst., vol. XXIV. p. 424.Google Scholar
Schmidt, (1894). Ueber Adsorption. Zeitschr. f. physikal. Chemie, vol. XV. p. 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seligmann, (1908). Discussion upon Proskauer's paper above. Ber. v. d. XIV. Internat. Kongress f. Hyg. u. Dem. Berlin, 1907, vol. IV. p. 373.Google Scholar
Somerville, and Walker, (1906) I. The Rideal-Walker method of standardising disinfectants. Public Health. March, 1906.Google Scholar
Somerville, and Walker, (1906) II. Standardisation of Disinfectants. Public Health. May, p. 526.Google Scholar
Somerville, and Walker, (1906) III. Note on the standardisation of disinfectants in the presence of organic matter. Sanitary Record. Nov. 29th, 1906.Google Scholar
Somerville, and Walker, (1907). The Standardisation of Disinfectants in the presence of organic matter. Sanitary Record. May 9th, 1907.Google Scholar
Watson, (1908). Journ. of Hygiene, vol. VIII. p. 536.Google Scholar