Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T07:02:03.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A slit sampler for collecting and counting air-borne bacteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

R. B. Bourdillon ,
O. M. Lidwell  and
John C. Thomas
R. B. Bourdillon
Affiliation:
From the National Institute for Medical Research, London, N.W. 3, and a Military Laboratory
O. M. Lidwell
Affiliation:
From the National Institute for Medical Research, London, N.W. 3, and a Military Laboratory
John C. Thomas
Affiliation:
From the National Institute for Medical Research, London, N.W. 3, and a Military Laboratory
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. A slit sampler for air-borne bacteria is described, in which air is sucked through a narrow slit on to the surface of agar in an ordinary Petri dish.

2. This method has proved very rapid and simple in use, and has appeared more efficient than other methods against which it has been tested.

3. The collection efficiency for an aerosol consisting of Staph. albus, sprayed from distilled water as single cocci, is about 96%. The method thus collects the finest bacteria-carrying, particles almost as efficiently as coarser ones.

4. In contrast to this, the exposure of plain open Petri dishes appears to collect the larger particles in the air of crowded rooms at least 200 times as efficiently as it does single washed bacteria. This highly selective effect renders it advisable to use great caution in evaluating tests made in plain open dishes.

5. The methods of determining sampling efficiency, and their errors are discussed in detail.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , September 1941 , pp. 197 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1941

References

REFERENCES

Buchbinder, L., Solowey, M. & Solotoeovsky, M. (1938). Amer. J. publ. Hlth, 28, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on Apparatus in Aerobiolooy (1941). Phytopathology, 31, 201.Google Scholar
Garrod, L. P. (1933). St Bart's Hosp. med. Rep. 66, 203.Google Scholar
Garrod, L. P. (1935). J. infect. Dis. 57, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, M. (1929). Handb. d. path. Mikroorganismen von Kolle u. Wassermann, Bd. 10. Berlin.Google Scholar
Hettche, H. O. & Schwab, A. (1940). Arch. Hyg., Berl., 123, 283.Google Scholar
Hirvisalo, K. F. (1933). Act. Soc. Med. Fenn. ‘Duodecim’, 16, Sect. 12.Google Scholar
Hollaender, A. & Dalla Valle, J. M. (1939). U.S. Publ. Hlth Rep. 54, 574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, W. J. & Thomas, B. G. H. (1925). U.S. Publ. Hlth Rep. 40, 2167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, K. (1940). Amer. J. Hyg. 31, Sect. B, 85.Google Scholar
Oesterle, P. (1934). Arch. Hyg., Berl., 113, 137.Google Scholar
Owens, J. S. (1922). Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 101, 18.Google Scholar
Phelps, E. B. (1940). Amer. J. publ. Hlth, 30, Supplement, 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressman, R. (1937). Amer. Rev. Tuberc. 35, 815.Google Scholar
Rettger, L. F. (1910). J. med. Res. 22, 461.Google Scholar
Robertson, E. G. & Doyle, M. E. (1940). Ann. Surg. 3, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruehle, G. L. A. (1915). J. agric. Res. 4, 343.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. C. (1941). Lancet, 2, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. C. & van den Ende, M. (1941). Brit. med. J. 1, 953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, W. F. (1937). Sub-Committee Rep. Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 27, Supplement, 97.Google Scholar
Wells, W. F. (1940). Amer, J. Publ. Hlth, 30, Supplement, 103.Google Scholar
Wells, W. F. & Riley, E. C. (1937). J. industr. Hyg. 19, 513.Google Scholar
Wells, W. F. et al. (1940). Sub-Committee Rep. Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 30, Supplement, 99.Google Scholar
Wells, W. F. & Wells, M. W. (1936). J. Amer. med. Ass. 107, 1698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whytlaw-Gray, R. & Patterson, H. S. (1932). Smoke, p. 176. London.Google Scholar
Wright, H. D. (1941). Personal communication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar