Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:13:00.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Number and Varieties of Bacteria carried by the Common House-fly in Sanitary and Insanitary City Areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

G. Lissant Cox ,
Frederick C. Lewis  and
Ernest E. Glynn
G. Lissant Cox
Affiliation:
(From the Thompson-Yates Laboratories, University of Liverpool)
Frederick C. Lewis
Affiliation:
(From the Thompson-Yates Laboratories, University of Liverpool)
Ernest E. Glynn
Affiliation:
(From the Thompson-Yates Laboratories, University of Liverpool)
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. Over 450 naturally infected or wild flies (Musca domestica) were caught in Liverpool during September and the first part of October 1911 from different parts of the city. The number and kinds of bacteria carried and contained by them have been investigated.

2. The number of bacteria coming from house-flies whilst struggling in liquid may be very large, varying from 2000, the lowest figure in 5 minutes, to 350,000, the highest figure in 30 minutes. This number may be taken as a measure of their capacity to pollute liquid with their vomit or excrement, or by wallowing in it. The number of bacteria carried inside the fly is very much greater.

3. Flies caught either in insanitary or congested areas of the city carry and contain far more bacteria than those from the more sanitary, less congested or suburban areas. The number of aerobic bacteria from the former varied from 800,000 to 500,000,000 per fly, and from the latter from 21,000 to 100,000.

4. The number of intestinal bacteria as indicated by glucose bile salt fermenters is also greater in the insanitary or congested areas, the numbers varying from 10,000 to 333,000,000, than in the more sanitary areas where they carried from 100 to 10,000.

5. Pathogenic bacteria and those allied to the food poisoning group were only obtained from the congested or moderately congested areas and never from the suburban areas.

6. We have examined the morphological characters and cultural reactions of 123 strains. Among those identified were two Streptococci, and several Staphylococci and Sarcinae. 106 were small Gram negative non-spore bearing bacilli, and have been grouped as follows:

Chromogenic group. Two strains of B. pyocyaneus were isolated from a knacker's yard; for the first time, we believe, from wild flies.

Colon group. 41 colonies of this group were picked off haphazard and classified according to McConkey as follows:

B. acidi lactici type 19·5%

B. coli communis type 12·2 %

B. neapolitanus type 19·5 %

B. lactis aerogenes type 46·4 %

Salmonella group. One bacillus gave identical reactions to B. enteritidis of Gaertner except that serological tests were negative.

Morgan's infantile diarrhoea group. One identical to Morgan's No. 1, and many others closely resembling it and Morgan's Nos. 2 and 3 were obtained.

Others fall into Proteolytic, Acid lactose-sucrose (saccharose), and Miscellaneous groups.

7. Flies caught in milk shops apparently carry and contain more bacteria than those from other shops with exposed food in a similar neighbourhood. The reason of this is probably because milk when accessible, especially in the summer months, is suitable culture medium for bacteria, and the flies first inoculate the milk and later reinoculate themselves, and then more of the milk, so establishing a vicious circle.

8. On one occasion we compared the number of bacteria carried by house-flies caught in an eating house opposite the slaughter houses with the number carried by blue-bottles; the latter, as might be expected, was far larger.

9. In cities where food is plentiful flies rarely migrate from the localities in which they are bred, and consequently the number of bacteria they carry depends upon the general standard of cleanliness in that locality. This is well indicated by the fact that flies caught in a street of modern fairly high class workmens' dwellings forming a sanitary oasis (Hornby Street) in the midst of a slum area, carried far less bacteria than those caught in the adjacent neighbourhood.

10. It is clear that flies from the suburbs where infantile diarrhoea is rare carry far less bacteria than those in the city where it is common. It was, nevertheless, impossible in the time at our disposal to correlate exactly the number or varieties of bacteria carried by flies in the city with the number of cases and deaths from infantile diarrhoea in individual streets.

11. As the amount of dirt carried by flies in any particular locality, measured in terms of bacteria, bears a definite relation to the habits of the people and the state of the streets, it demonstrates the necessity of efficient municipal and domestic cleanliness, if the food of the inhabitants is to escape pollution, not only with harmless but also with occasional pathogenic bacteria.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , October 1912 , pp. 290 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1912

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, F. W. and Border, T. J. (1906). A study of the streptococci pathogenic for man. Lancet, II. 708–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, J. M. and Yates, A. G. (1911). Sugar tests and pathogenicity in the differentiation of streptococci. Journ. Path. XVI. 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berterelli, E. (1910). Verbreitung des Typhus durch die Fliegen. Centralbl. f. Bakt. etc., Abt. Originale, LIII. 486–495.Google Scholar
Cochrane, E. W. W. (1912). A small epidemic of typhoid fever in connection with specifically infected flies. Journ. Roy. Army Med. Corps, XVIII. 271–276.Google Scholar
Copeman, S. M. (1906). Cited by Nuttall and Jepson (1909), q. v.Google Scholar
Dudfield, R. (1912). Diarrhoea in 1911. Proc. Roy. Soc. Med., Epidemiological Section Feb., pp. 99–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elsner, W. J. and Huntoon, F. M. (1909). Studies on Meningitis. Publ. Cornell University Med. Coll. IX. 381–541.Google Scholar
Esten, U. N. and Mason, C. J. (1908). Cited by L. O. Howard. The house-fly, disease, carrier, 1911, Stokes, pp. 106–109.Google Scholar
Faichine, N. (1909). Fly borne enteric fever. The source of infection. Journ. Roy. Army Med. Corps, XIII. 580–584; 675–678.Google Scholar
Fickler, U. (1903). Typhus und Fliegen. Arch. f. Hyg. XLVI. 274–283.Google Scholar
Fraser, , (1902). Rep. on Health of Portsmouth with special report on outbreak of epidemic diarrhoea.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. H. (1903–1904). Report of some characters by which various streptococci may be differentiated and identified. Rep. Med. Officer Loc. Gov. Board, pp. 388–421.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. H. (1907). Report to the Loc. Gov. Board on the micrococcus of epidemic cerebrospinal meningitis and its identification.Google Scholar
Gorham, F. P. (1912). Biochemical problems in Bacteriology. Science. N.S. XXXV. 1–6.Google Scholar
Ghaham-Smith, G. S. (1909). Preliminary note on the examination of flies for the presence of Bacillus coli. Rep. to the Loc. Gov. Hoard on Publ. Health and Med. Subjects, New Ser. No. 16, pp. 9–13.Google Scholar
Ghaham-Smith, G. S. (1910). Observations on the ways in which artificially infected flies (Musca domestica) carry and distribute pathogenic and other bacteria. Rep. to the Loc. Gov. Board on Publ. Health and Med. Subjects, New Ser. No. 40.Google Scholar
Hamer, W. H. (1910). Rep. to the Lond. County Council, No. 1331.Google Scholar
Hamilton, A. (1903). Cited by Nuttall and Jepson (1909), q. v.Google Scholar
Hewitt, C. Gordon (1912). Observation on the range of flight of flies. Rep. to the Loc. Gov. Board on Publ. Health and Med. Subjects, New Ser. No. 66.Google Scholar
Hopmann, (1888). Cited by Nuttall and Jepson (1909), q. v.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. D. (1907). Cited by Chapin, Sources and Modes of Infection. Wiley and Sons, p. 354.Google Scholar
Klein, E. (1908). Flies as carriers of the Bacillus typhosus. Brit. Med. Journ. II. 1150, 1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobry De, Bruyn A. and Van Ekenstein, W. Alberda (1897). Einwirkung der Alkalien auf die Zuckerarten. Chem. Centralbl. II. 1173–1175.Google Scholar
McConkey, A. (1909). Further observations on the differentiation of lactose-fermenting bacilli with special reference to those of intestinal origin. Journ. Hyg. IX. 86–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, H.De, R. (1906). Upon the bacteriology of the summer diarrhoea of infants. Brit. Med. Journ. I. 908–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, H.De, R. and Ledingham, J. C. G. (1908–1909). The bacteriology of summer diarrhoea. Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. II. Part II. 133–149.Google Scholar
Nash, J. T. C. (1904). Some points in the prevention of epidemic diarrhoea. Lancet, II. 892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, J. T. C. (1909). House-flies as carriers of disease. Journ. Hyg. IX. 141–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newsholme, A. (1903). Ann. Rep. on the Health of Brighton.Google Scholar
Nicoll, W. (1911). On the varieties of Bacillus coli associated with the house-fly (Musca domestica). Journ. Hyg. II. 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuttall, G. H. F. and Jepson, F. P. (1909). The part played by Musca domestica and allied (non-biting) flies in the spread of infective diseases. A summary of our present knowledge (with bibliography). Rep. to the Loc. Gov. Board on Publ. Health and Med. Subjects, New Ser. No. 16, pp. 13–41.Google Scholar
Orr, J., Williams, R. Stenhodse, Murray, H. Leith and Rundle, C. and Williams, A. E. (1909). “Bacillus F” an organism obtained in a case of epidemic diarrhoea. Lancet, I. 301–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, O. H. (1910). Observations upon the natural history of epidemic diarrhoea. Journ. Hyg. X. 602–777.Google Scholar
Rundle, C., Mottram, J. C. and Williams, R. Stenhouse (1907). A case of cerebrospinal meningitis; isolation of the specific organism; preparation of a vaccine; recovery. Lancet, II. 220–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmonds, N. (1892). Fliegen und Choleraübertragung. Deutsche med. Wochenschr. p. 931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tizzoni, G. and Cattani, J. (1886). Untersuchungen über Cholera. Centralbl. f. die Med. Wissenschaften, Berlin, XLIII. 769–771.Google Scholar
Torrey, J. C. (1912). Numbers and types of bacteria carried by city flies. Journ. Infect. Dis. X. 166–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsuzuki, J. (1904). Bericht über meine epidemiologischen Beobachtungen und Forschungen während der Cholerepidemie in Nordchina im Jahre 1902 etc. Arch. f. Schiffs- u. Trop. Hyg. VIII. 71–81.Google Scholar
Vincent, (1910). The etiology of zymotic enteritis. Baillière, Tindall and Cox.Google Scholar
Walker, Ainley (1911). On variation and adaptation in bacteria illustrated by observations upon streptococci with special reference to the value of fermentation tests as applied to these organisms. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. LXXXIII. 541–558.Google Scholar
Williams, R. Stenhouse, Murray, H. Leith and Rundle, C. (1910). Further researches into the bacteriology of epidemic summer diarrhoea. Lancet, II. 730–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yersin, (1894). La peste bubonique à Hong Kong. Ann. Inst. Pasteur, VIII. 662–667.Google Scholar