Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T06:48:17.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Detection of Anthrax Spores in Industrial Material

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Ernest E. Glynn  and
F. C. Lewis
Ernest E. Glynn
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Pathology, University of Liverpool, Bacteriologist to the Liverpool Royal Infirmary
F. C. Lewis
Affiliation:
Bacteriological Assistant to the late Sir Rubert Boyce, F.R.S.
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) There are two methods of examining industrial material for anthrax spores, viz. agar plate cultures and the inoculation of guinea-pigs.

(2) Though no worker has yet made a large series of examinations of equal portions of the same material by both methods simultaneously, yet the available evidence indicates that animal inoculation is superior, provided that guinea-pigs, not mice, are employed.

(3) It is better to inoculate two guinea-pigs than one, and to use the centrifuged deposit of the watery extract, though this practice may also increase the mortality from pathogenic anaerobes.

(4) The inoculation of guinea-pigs is more successful than plate cultures mainly on account of the larger quantity of watery extract usually tested, which more than counterbalances the disadvantage that some of the animals died from anaerobes before they develop anthrax.

(5) If plate cultures are employed it is essential to examine the superficial colonies after a short incubation, probably 12 to 16 hours is the most suitable.

(6) Anthrax spores have been demonstrated by the inoculation method in 21·3 % of 141 samples of industrial material, supposed to have produced anthrax in Liverpool amongst those who handled them. Of these samples 28·6 % were from hides, 22·2 % from wool, 20·6 % from hair and 7·1 % from bones. The largest proportion of infected samples came from Singapore.

(7) Anthrax spores have been demonstrated in one sample of hair “ disinfected ” with 5 % fluid of high coefficient at 100° C. and in two out of six samples of hair disinfected in Germany probably by steam at 105° C. It is practically impossible to completely sterilise certain industrial materials without seriously damaging them; yet partial disinfection should on no account be abandoned, because the perfect method has not yet been discovered.

(8) Anthrax appears to be steadily increasing among domestic animals, and consequently a larger number of agriculturalists are becoming infected. The reason for this dissemination amongst animals is still obscure.

(9) We have found B. anthracis in a sample of pea meal used for feeding cattle confined to a shippon, one of which died of anthrax. The meal was probably infected from the sack.

(10) Anthrax is preventible among men and domestic animals, and its ultimate suppression depends largely upon the certainty with which bacteriologists can demonstrate the presence or absence of bacilli in suspected industrial food, or other materials.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1912 , pp. 227 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1912

References

Agriculture, Board of (1906—1910). Anthrax Section, Diseases of Animal Act. Annual Report.Google Scholar
Andrews, (1899). Anthrax Section. Annual Report, Chief Inspector of Factories, p. 263.Google Scholar
Andrews, (1900). Anthrax Section. Loc. cit. p. 471.Google Scholar
Stewart, Balfour (1901). Annual Report, Chief Inspector of Factories, p. 239.Google Scholar
Berka, (1904). Zur gewerblichen Milzbrandinfektion. Wien. klin. Woch. p. 365.Google Scholar
Bradford, , Anthrax Investigation Board (1906–1911). Anthrax Section. Annual Reports.Google Scholar
Factories, , Chief Inspector (1906–1910). Anthrax Section. Annual Reports.Google Scholar
Frank, (1899). Ueber Mischinfection beim Milzbrand. Münch, med. Woch. No. 6, p. 282.Google Scholar
Glynn, (1901). The Relationship between B. enteritidis sporogenes of Klein and Diarrhoea. Thomp. Yates Lab. Rep. III. 2, pp. 131–154.Google Scholar
Hanna, (1910). Anthrax and Imported Animal Products, Liverpool.Google Scholar
Heim, (1901). Eine Milzbrandinfektion durch Ziegenhaare. Arbeit. Kaiserl. Gesund-heitsamt, XVIII. 135.Google Scholar
Hewlett, (1911). Anthrax. Textbook of Bacteriology, pp. 264–276.Google Scholar
Houston, (1902). Anthrax in Yeovil Sewage. Second Report Roy. Com. on Sewage Disposal, p. 39.Google Scholar
Klein, (1897–1898). Anthrax Section. Local Government Board Reports, p. 210.Google Scholar
Ladbenheimer, (1912). Ueber die Desinfektion von Tierhaaren zur Verhütungvon gewerblichem Milzbrand. Zeitschr. f. Hyg. u. Infektionskrank. LXX. 321–332.Google Scholar
Legge, (1905). Milroy Lectures on Industrial Anthrax. Lancet, I. 695.Google Scholar
Liverpool, Reports of Medical Officer of Health of (1906–1911). Infectious Diseases Notification Act.Google Scholar
M'fadyean, (1895). Editorial: Anthrax among horses. Journ. Compar. Pathol. and Therap. VIII. 326.Google Scholar
Muir, and Ritchie, (1910). Textbook of Bacteriology, Lond. [Anthrax], pp. 331–349.Google Scholar
Page, (1909). British Industrial Anthrax. Journ. of Hyg. IX. 279–315, 357–398.Google Scholar
Reichel, (1911). Der Nachweis u. die Verbreitung der Milzbrandstoffen auf tierischen Rohstofien. Centralbl. f. Bakt. L. Beilage zu Abt. I. Referate pp. 83–93.Google Scholar
Rembold, (1888). Zur Aetiologie des Milzbrandes. Zeitschr. f. Hyg. IV. 498–524.Google Scholar
Russ, (1907). Ueber den Nachweis von Milzbrandbazillen an Pferdehaaren. Wien. klin. Wochenschr. XX. 663.Google Scholar
Silberschmidt, (1896). Rosshaarspinnerei u. Milzbrandinfektion. Zeitschr. f. Hyg. XXI. 455.Google Scholar
Stockman, (1911). The Epizootiology of Anthrax. Veter. Journ. pp. 591–604.Google Scholar