Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:12:39.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in the dynamics of disinfection

II. The calculation of the concentration exponent for phenol at 35° C. with Bact. coli as test organism

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
S. E. Jacobs
Affiliation:
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. Disinfection curves obtained from data on the action of phenol on Bact. coli at 35° C. under conditions such that unfavourable circumstances, other than the presence of the germicide, were as far as possible eliminated, have been used for the calculation of the concentration exponent for phenol, i.e. n in the formula Cn x t = K. The death-rate was not constant throughout the germicidal process but showed initially a phase of slow but increasing death-rate which merged gradually into a phase which was treated (for reasons given) as one of constant rate. This was also the maximum rate for any given phenol concentration.

2. The virtual sterilization times (v.s.t.'s), i.e. the times in min. required for the mortality to reach 99·999999 % as determined by slight extrapolation of the log survivors-time curves, the 99·9 % mortality times and the 99 % mortality times could all be used for the calculation of values of n for phenol as they all gave satisfactory linear relations between log concentration and log time.

3. The 50 % mortality times did not show a satisfactory linear relation between log phenol concentration and log time over the full concentration range, and at this mortality level the concentration exponent appeared to increase for concentrations above 4·62 g. phenol per 1.

4. The value of n varied according to the mortality level chosen. It was 5·8421 ± 0·1876, 6·6062 ± 0·2034 and 6·9638 ± 0·2164 when the v.s.t.'s, 99·9 % mortality times or 99 % mortality times were used. The differences between the first and second and first and third values are significant, but that between the second and third values is not. The value calculated from the v.s.t.'s is regarded as being the most important.

5. Evidence was obtained that, as expected on theoretical grounds, n increases for very low concentrations of phenol. If the aberrant value obtained at the lowest phenol concentration be omitted from the calculations, the value of n calculated from the v.s.t.'s becomes 5·6588 ± 0·1422, but the decrease is not significant.

6. The maximum death-rate was related to the phenol concentration according to the expression km = 9·1743 × 10−6C5·0752, where km is the maximum (logarithmic) death-rate per min. and C the concentration of phenol in g. per 1.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 43 , Issue 6 , September 1944 , pp. 363 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1944

References

REFERENCES

Chick, H. (1908). J. Hyg., Camb., 8, 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1938). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 7th ed. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hobbs, B. C. & Wilson, G. S. (1942). J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 436.Google Scholar
Jordan, R. C. & Jacobs, S. E. (1944). J. Hyg., Camb., 43, 275.Google Scholar
Levine, M., Buchanan, J. H. & Lease, H. (1926–1927). Iowa St. Col. J. Sci. 1, 379.Google Scholar
Myers, R. P. (1929). J. Agric. Res. 38, 521.Google Scholar
Phelps, E. B. (1911). J. Infect. Dis. 8, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichel, H. (1909). Biochem. Z. 22, 149.Google Scholar
Thaysen, A. C. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 558.Google Scholar
Tilley, F. W. (1939). J. Bact. 38, 499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, H. E. (1908). J. Hyg., Camb., 8, 536.Google Scholar
Withell, E. R. (1942 a). J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Withell, E. R. (1942 b). Quart. J. Pharm. 15, 301.Google Scholar