Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:25:24.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Testing of Antiseptics in Relation to their Use in Wound Treatment1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

C. H. Browning  and
R. Gulbransen
C. H. Browning
Affiliation:
(From the Bland-Sutton Institute of Pathology, the Middlesex Hospital.)
R. Gulbransen
Affiliation:
(From the Bland-Sutton Institute of Pathology, the Middlesex Hospital.)
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) The antiseptic and bactericidal properties of Flavines and Brilliant Green. Extended investigations have confirmed the original values. It has been shown that the inferior potencies recorded by certain other workers depend on the use of methods unsuited for the observation of antiseptic properties, i.e. they fail to detect inhibition of bacterial activity i.e. bacteriostatic action, which is exhibited to a marked degree by flavine and brilliant green.

(2) For the therapy of a local bacterial infection, as in a wound, such bacteriostatic action is of great value. It is not essential that the chemical agent should by itself actually kill the organisms. Highly successful results can be obtained by a co-operation of the antiseptic and the tissues, so that the pathogenic action of the organisms is restrained. The flavines in virtue of their low toxicity to mammalian tissues and their high bacteriostatic power are therefore specially suited to act as local therapeutic agents. In addition, the fact that they are not neutralised by admixture with serum enables them to be applied clinically by a relatively simple method which does not necessitate frequent renewal.

(3) The “fundamental error” to which the method of testing chlorine antiseptics originally practised by Dakin, is liable, and which Dakin and Dunham have drawn attention to, has been shown not to affect our previous results with Chloramine-T. The difference between our values and the others is due to the fact that we employed 80 per cent. serum in the test.medium, which is much more active in neutralising this antiseptic than is 33 to 50 per cent. serum employed by Dakin and his co-workers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , April 1919 , pp. 33 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1919

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, . Journ. of Med. Res. vol. XXXVII. 1918, p. 471Google Scholar
Bashford, , Hartley, , and Morrison, . Brit. Med. Journ. 12. 29, 1917.Google Scholar
Browning, . Applied Bacteriology, London, 1918, pp. 88, 92.Google Scholar
Browning, Gulbransen, , Kennaway, and Thornton, . Brit. Med. Journ. 01 20, 1917 (I Report).Google Scholar
Browning, , Gulbransen, , and Thornton, . Brit. Med. Journ. 07 21, 1917 (II Report).Google Scholar
Byam, , Dimond, , Sorapure, , Wilson, , and Peacock, . Journ. Roy. Army Med. Corps, 11. 1917.Google Scholar
Carslaw, . Journ. Roy. Army Med. Corps, 10, 1917.Google Scholar
Carslaw, and Templeton, . Lancet, 05 4, 1917.Google Scholar
Dakin, . See Proc. Roy. Soc. B. LXXXIX. 1916, p. 232.Google Scholar
Dakin, and Dunham, . Brit. Med. Journ. 11 17, 1917.Google Scholar
Dakin, , Lee, , Sweet, , Hendrix, , and Le, Conte. Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc. LXIX. p. 27, 1917.Google Scholar
Douglas, and Colebrook, . Lancet, 07 29, 1916.Google Scholar
Drummond, and McNee, . Lancet, 10 27, 1917.Google Scholar
Fleming, . Lancet, 09 1, 1917.Google Scholar
Hewlett, . Lancet, 09 29, 1917.Google Scholar
James, . Journ. Roy. Army Med. Corps. 03, 1917.Google Scholar
Jones, and Rous, . Journ. Exp. Med. XXIII. p. 601, 1916.Google Scholar
Kellock, . Lancet, 1917, II. p. 348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellock, and Harrison, . Lancet, 10 20, 1917.Google Scholar
Leitch, . Brit. Med. Journ. 02 12, 1916.Google Scholar
Ligat, . Brit. Med. Journ. 01 20, 1917.Google Scholar
Parry, Morgan. Lancet, 02 16, 1918.Google Scholar
Pilcher, and Hull, . Brit. Med. Journ. 02 9, 1918; alsoGoogle Scholar
Hull, , Surgery in War, London, 1918, p. 67.Google Scholar
Taylor, . Arch. d. Méd. et Pharm. Milit. Paris, vol. LXVII. 1918, p. 48.Google Scholar
Webb, . Brit. Med. Journ. 06 30, 1917.Google Scholar
Wright, . Lancet, 01 26, 1918.Google Scholar