Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:21:55.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in the dynamics of disinfection: I. New data on the reaction between phenol and Bact. coli using an improved technique, together with an analysis of the distribution of resistance amongst the cells of the bacterial populations studied

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

R. C. Jordan  and
S. E. Jacobs
R. C. Jordan
Affiliation:
From the Physiology Department, University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, Cardiff, and the Bacteriological Laboratory, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London
S. E. Jacobs
Affiliation:
From the Physiology Department, University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, Cardiff, and the Bacteriological Laboratory, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London
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 action of phenol on Bact. coli has been studied quantitatively in detail under such conditions that unfavourable circumstances other than the presence of the germicide were as far as possible eliminated. Briefly, this involved the addition of phenol solution directly to a large volume of culture developed under rigidly standardized conditions.

2. When the mortality exceeded 95% the variation between the numbers of colonies on replicate plates, when determining the numbers of survivors, was often excessive.

3. Under the conditions used the death-rate was not constant. First, there was a phase (1) of slow but increasing death-rate which merged gradually into a phase (2) of approximately constant rate which was also the maximum for a given phenol concentration. There are indications that the death-rate may decline towards the extreme end of the disinfection process.

4. The virtual extinction time (the time taken for the survivors to fall to 1 per ml. as determined by extrapolation of the log survivors-time curve) increased as the phenol concentration decreased, as also did the duration of phase 1. The latter occupied about 60% of the virtual extinction time when the concentration was 3·48 g. phenol per 1., but with rising concentration its duration decreased at a greater rate than the virtual extinction time so that at about 7 g. per 1. phase 1 was very short though still detectable. The standard errors of the virtual extinction times varied between ± 1·5% and ± 5·43%.

5. Using the probit method it has been shown that at low concentrations of phenol the distribution of resistance of Bact. coli is approximately normal when the resistance is measured in terms of the survival times.

6. The distribution of resistance was found to be normal at all concentrations of phenol used, when that resistance was measured in units of the logarithms of the survival times, with the exception that at the lower concentrations there was a sudden change in the slope of the probit-log survival-time line at about 20% mortality. This change became less marked with rising concentration and was probably absent at 8·00 g. phenol per 1.

7. After conversion into the dosage-mortality form, the data reveal that about 70% of the cells show an approximately normal distribution of resistance when the latter is expressed in terms of the dosage survived for a fixed time, provided that the exposure time is less than 50 min.

8. The distribution tends to be normal for longer exposure times when the resistance is measured in terms of the logarithms of the dosages survived. On this basis a change of slope of the probit-log dosage line is observed as in the case when resistance is measured in terms of the logarithms of survival times.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , January 1944 , pp. 275 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1944

References

REFERENCES

Albert, A. (1942). Lancet, 2, 633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, C. I. (1935). Ann. Appl. Biol. 22, 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, C. I. (1937). Ann. Appl. Biol. 24, 815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, C. I. (1938). Quart. J. Pharm. 11, 192.Google Scholar
Chick, H. (1910). J. Hyg., Camb., 10, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B. (1922). J. Bact. 7, 183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R. A. (1938). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 7th ed. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., Thornton, H. G. & Mackenzie, W. A. (1922). Ann. Appl. Biol. 9, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaddum, J. H. (1933). Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 183.Google Scholar
Garrod, L. P. (1940). Lancet, 1, 845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewlett, R. T. (1909). Lancet, 1, 741, 815, 889.Google Scholar
Hobbs, B. C. & Wilson, G. S. (1942). J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 436.Google Scholar
Irwin, J. O. (1942). J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, M., Peterson, E. E. & Buchanan, J. H. (1928). Industr. Engng Chem. 20, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, R. P. (1928). J. Bact. 15, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, R. P. (1929). J. Agric. Res. 38, 521.Google Scholar
Oothuisen, M. J. (1935). Tech. Bull. Minn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 107.Google Scholar
Pearson, K. (1930). Tables for Statisticians and Biometricians, Part 1, 3rd ed. Camb. Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Sims, A. L. & Jordan, R. C. (1941). J. Sci. Instrum. 18, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, A. L. & Jordan, R. C. (1942). J. Sci. Instrum. 19, 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Withell, E. R. (1938). Quart. J. Pharm. 11, 736.Google Scholar
Withell, E. R. (1942). J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar