Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-5wl6q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T05:01:54.266Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The epidemiology of the common cold III. The effect of ventilation, air disinfection and room size

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

D. Kingston O. M. ,
O. M. Lidwell  and
R. E. O. Williams
D. Kingston O. M.
Affiliation:
Air Hygiene Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale, London, N. W. 9
O. M. Lidwell
Affiliation:
Air Hygiene Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale, London, N. W. 9
R. E. O. Williams
Affiliation:
Air Hygiene Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale, London, N. W. 9
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.

Mechanical ventilation at 7 air changes/hr., air disinfection using vaporized hexyl resorcinol or α-hydroxy-α-methyl butyric acid, or irradiation of the air of the room above 8 ft. with ultraviolet radiation when applied to various clerical offices did not result in any observed alteration in the numbers of colds experienced by those working in them.

There were no differences in the numbers of colds experienced by those working in rooms of different sizes. The working population in these rooms varied from, about 20 to more than 80.

We should like to express our thanks to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and to the Shell Petroleum Company, to those members of their staffs and to the nurses and others who helped us in this investigation. We should also like to thank the Shell Petroleum Company for the supply of α-hydroxy-α-methyl butyric acid, and the British Thomson Houston Company of Rugby for the loan of the ultraviolet lamp fittings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , September 1962 , pp. 341 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

References

Acheson, F. & Hewitt, D. (1952). Brit. J. soc. Med. 6, 68.Google Scholar
Bourdillon, R. B., Lidwell, O. M. & Thomas, J. C. (1941). J. Hyg., Camb., 41, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, D. & Stewart, A. (1951). Brit. J. soc. Med. 5, 209.Google Scholar
Lidwell, O. M. (1946). J. Hyg., Camb., 44, 333.Google Scholar
Lidwell, O. M. (1959). J. sci. Instrum. 36, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidwell, O. M. (1960). J. Hyg., Camb., 58, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidwell, O. M. & Williams, R. E. O. (1954). Brit. med. J. ii, 959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidwell, O. M. & Williams, R. E. O. (1961 a). J. Hyg., Camb., 59, 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidwell, O. M. & Williams, R. E. O. (1961 b). J. Hyg., Camb., 59, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medical Research Council (1948). Special Report Series, no. 262, H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Medical Research Council (1954). Special Report Series, no. 283, H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Nash, T. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 49, 382.Google Scholar
Torrey, J. C. & Lake, M. (1941). J. Amer. med. Ass., 117, 1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. E. O. (1956). J. Path. Bact. 72, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. E. O. (1960). Ann. Rev. Miorobiol. 14, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. E. O. & Hirch, A. (1950). J. Hyg., Camb., 48, 504.Google Scholar
Williams, R. E. O., Lidwell, O. M. & Hirch, A. (1956). J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 512.Google Scholar