Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:21:01.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on respiratory infection: I. The influence of particle size on respiratory infection with anthrax spores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. A. Druett ,
D. W. Henderson ,
L. Packman  and
S. Peacock
H. A. Druett
Affiliation:
Microbiological Research Department, Ministry of Supply, Porton, Wilts
D. W. Henderson
Affiliation:
Microbiological Research Department, Ministry of Supply, Porton, Wilts
L. Packman
Affiliation:
Microbiological Research Department, Ministry of Supply, Porton, Wilts
S. Peacock
Affiliation:
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 to determine the role of particle size in the infectivity of anthrax spores are described. Clouds of homogeneous particles were produced. The mortality-dosage curves for guinea-pigs and monkeys are given for clouds of various particle sizes. Data are given on the effect of time in the concentration-time relationship. The results are compared with those recorded by other workers on the relationship of particle size to respiratory retention.

Infectivity was highest with single-spore clouds, falling off as particle size increased. Reasons are given for attributing this effect to difference in site of deposition of different-sized particles.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 1953 , pp. 359 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

References

Barnes, J. M. (1947). Brit. J. exp. Path. 28, 385.Google Scholar
Brewer, C. R., McCullough, W. G., Mills, R. C., Roessler, W. G. & Herbst, E. J. (1946). Arch. Biochem. 10, 77.Google Scholar
Buchner, H. (1888). Arch. Hyg., Berl., 8, 217.Google Scholar
Druett, H. A. (1952). Nature, Lond., 170, 288.Google Scholar
Druett, H. A. & May, K. R. (1952). J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 69.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1947). Probit Analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gaddum, J. H. (1944). Pharmacology. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harper, G. J. & Morton, J. D. (1953). J. Hyg., Camb., 51, 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, D. W. (1952). J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, D. W. & Venzke, C. E. (1944). Unpublished.Google Scholar
May, K. R. (1945). J. sci. Instrum. 22, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, A. A. & Misra, S. S. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 732.Google Scholar
Young, G. A., Zelle, M. R. & Lincoln, R. E. (1946). J. infect. Dis. 79, 233.Google Scholar