Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:16:02.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hexylresorcinol as an aerial disinfectant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Ian Mackay
Ian Mackay
Affiliation:
The Microbiological Research Department (Ministry of Supply), Porton, Wilts
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 were carried out in a test chamber of 16,500 cu.ft. capacity with air conditioned at 68° F. and 54% relative humidity. Ventilation was controlled at 3·0 changes/hr., air being recirculated with 0·5 air change/hr. of fresh air admitted. By spraying into the air ducting a concentrated suspension of Chr. prodigiosum a bacterial cloud was introduced into the chamber of over 5 × 106 organisms/cu.ft. of air as l μ particles. Viable organisms were still present in the atmosphere after 6 hr.

When a heat-generated vapour of hexylresorcinol was introduced in a concentration of between 6 and 7 μg/cu.ft. of air the bacterial count dropped from nearly one million organisms per cu.ft. to fewer than ten in 35 min.

When the bacterial suspension was sprayed into the chamber with hexylresorcinol vapour present, the peak concentration reached was about one-quarter and on stopping the spray, the bacterial count fell from one million per cu.ft. to fewer than ten in less than 25 min.

Hexylresorcinol is also effective when the bacterial aerosol is in particles of 6–7 μ in size (approx. 100 bacteria per particle).

Hexylresorcinol has no effect against a bacterial aerosol of B. subtilis spores in 1 μ particles.

No attempt has been made to analyse the mode of action of hexylresorcinol in diminishing the bacterial content of the air. The evidence collected clearly indicates the necessity for further study of this problem.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 1952 , pp. 82 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1952

References

REFERENCES

Andrewes, C. H. (1940). Lancet, 2, 770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdillon, R. B. et al. (1948). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Land., no. 262. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, R. & Muir, C. (1940). Lancet, 1, 1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Editorial (1949). Brit. med. J. 2, 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, D. W. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennison, M. W. (1942). Aerobiology, p. 106. Amer. Ass. for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
May, K. R. (1949). J. appl. Phys. 20, 932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, A. A. & Misra, S. S. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 732.Google Scholar
Pulvertaft, R. J. V., Lemon, G. C. & Walker, J. W. (1939). Lancet, 1, 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, E. (1948). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 262, p. 24. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Trillat, A. (1938). Bull. Acad. Méd. Paris, 119, 64.Google Scholar
Twort, C. C., Baker, A. H., Finn, S. R. & Powell, E. O. (1940). J. Hyg., Camb., 40, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, W. H. & Prewett, W. C. (1949). Proc. Phys. Soc. B, 62, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar