Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T14:41:03.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Testing of Disinfectants in the Presence of Organic Matter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Lawrence P. Garrod
Affiliation:
From the Department of Pathology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, 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.

It is now almost universally recognised that a test for disinfectants which is to yield results of direct practical significance must include appropriate “organic matter” in the test mixture. Some types of disinfectant, notably those which act by liberating chlorine or oxygen, are greatly reduced in activity by the addition of only small quantities of any extraneous material with which these elements can combine. Other disinfectants are more resistant to this influence; they are capable of efficient action in the presence of excreta and dirt of other kinds if used in adequate concentration. What this concentration should be under such unfavourable conditions it is necessary to determine, since the degree of interference is not the same for all disinfectants even in the same class, and no constant relationship exists between efficiency under these conditions and that displayed in a medium of distilled water as determined by the Rideal-Walker test. Numerous efforts have been made in the past to introduce tests employing adequate amounts of complex organic matter; few of these have achieved permanence and none popularity. The following short survey of past work is concerned only with what may be termed “excremental” disinfectants; the testing of surgical disinfectants, which may reasonably be held to demand different methods, is outside the scope of this paper.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1935

References

REFERENCES

Blyth, M. Winter (1906 a). Analyst, 31, 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blyth, M. Winter (1906 b). J. Soc. Chem. Industr. 25, 1183.Google Scholar
Chick, H. and Martin, C. J. (1908). J. Hygiene, 8, 654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duyser, C. A. and Lewis, W. K. (1914). J. Indust. and Eng. Chem. 6, 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, R. H. and MacFadyean, A. (1906). J. Roy. San. Inst. 27, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. E. P. (1906). J. Roy. Army Med. Corps. 6, 6.Google Scholar
Garrod, L. P. (1934). J. Hygiene, 34, 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenwood, H. R. and Hewlett, R. T. (1906). J. Roy. San. Inst. 27, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, W. H. et al. (1918). Amer. J. Publ. Health, 8, 506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, T. C. and Frederick, R. C. (1931). Analyst, 56, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddish, G. F. (1927). Amer. J. Publ. Health, 17, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Report of Royal Institute of Public Health (1919). J. State Med. 27, 53.Google Scholar
Report of U.S. Hygienic Laboratory (1921). Publ. Health Repts. U.S.A. 36 (ii), 1559.Google Scholar
Rideal, S. and Walker, J. T. A. (1903). J. Roy. San. Inst. 24, 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rideal, S. and Walker, J. T. A. (1913). Amer. J. Publ. Health, 3, 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St, John A. D. (1914). J. Indust. and Eng. Chem. 6, 940.Google Scholar
Sommerville, D. and Walker, J. T. A. (1906). San. Rec. 38, 485.Google Scholar
Sommerville, D. and Walker, J. T. A. (1907). Ibid. 39, 391.Google Scholar
Sommerville, D. and Walker, J. T. A. (1908). Ibid. 41, 279.Google Scholar
Süpfle, K. (1918). Archiv f. Hyg. 87, 232.Google Scholar
Wright, J. H. (1917). J. Bact. 2, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar