Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:12:24.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The survival of bacteria in dust. I. The distribution of bacteria in floor dust

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

O. M. Lidwell  and
E. J. Lowbury
O. M. Lidwell
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Group for Research in Industrial Physiology and the Common Cold Research Unit, from Harvard Hospital, Salisbury
E. J. Lowbury
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Group for Research in Industrial Physiology and the Common Cold Research Unit, from Harvard Hospital, Salisbury
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 viable bacteria in 10 mg. portions of dust were estimated by shaking with 5 ml. of Ringer's solution in 1 oz. bottles containing glass beads. The extract was allowed to stand for a few minutes, and 0·1 ml. amounts were then plated out at suitable dilutions. Successive portions from the same sample of dust showed very great variation in the bacterial counts, and this variation has been examined in series of twenty such portions. The distribution of the counts for three groups of organisms appears to approximate to a log-normal form, and the graphical estimate of the log-median is taken as a suitable parameter for the study of the influence of environmental factors on the survival of dust flora.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 1950 , pp. 6 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1950

References

REFERENCES

Begg, N. D., Smellie, E. W. & Wright, J. (1947). Brit. med. J. 1, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyland, E., Gaddum, J. H. & McDonald, F. F. (1947). J. Hyg., Camb. 45, 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. A. & Allison, V. D. (1937). J. Hyg., Camb. 37, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission on Acute Resp. Dis. (1946). Amer. J. Hyg. 43, 120.Google Scholar
Cook, G. T. & Munro-Ashman, D.(1949). Brit. med. J. 1, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosbie, W. E. & Wright, H. D. (1941). Lancet, 1, 656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruickshank, R. & Godber, G. E. (1939). Lancet, 1, 741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downie, A. W. & Dumbell, K. R. (1947). Lancet, 1, 550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, S. F. (1926). Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Counc., Lond. no. 111.Google Scholar
Duguid, J. P. (1946). J. Hyg., Camb. 44, 471.Google Scholar
Duguid, J. P. & Wallace, A. T. (1948). Lancet, 2, 845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumbell, K. R., Lovelock, J. E. & Lowbury, E. J. (1948). Lancet, 2, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edward, D. G. (1941). Lancet, 2, 664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, D. G. (1944). Brit. med. J. 1, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamburger, M. & Green, M. J. (1946). J. infect. Dis. 79, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamburger, M., Green, M. J. & Hamburger, V. G. (1945). J. infect. Dis. 77, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, B. & Nowosselsky, W. (1925). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 104, 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, B., Squire, J. R. & Topley, E. (1948). Lancet, 1, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, T., Powell, W. J. & Ubbelohde, A. R. (1948). Philos. Trans. A, 241, 272.Google Scholar
Pressman, R. (1937). Amer. Rev. Tuberc. 35, 815.Google Scholar
Rountree, P. M. (1947). Med. J. Aust. 1, 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. C. (1941). Lancet, 1, 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, W. F., Ratcliffe, J. C. & Crumb, Cretyl (1948). Amer. J. Hyg. 47, 11.Google Scholar
White, E. (1936). Lancet, 1, 941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. E. O. (1949). J. Hyg, Camb, 47, 416.Google Scholar
Winslow, C. E. A. & Kligler, I. J. (1912). Amer. J. Publ. Hlth,. 2, 663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar