Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:21:56.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in the dynamics of disinfection. XI. The effect of lethal temperatures on standard cultures of Bact. coli. IV. An investigation of that portion of the population which survives prolonged exposure at pH 7·0

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

R. C. Jordan ,
S. E. Jacobs  and
H. E. F. Davies
R. C. Jordan
Affiliation:
From the Physiology Department, University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, Cardiff, and the Bacteriological Laboratory, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London
S. E. Jacobs
Affiliation:
From the Physiology Department, University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, Cardiff, and the Bacteriological Laboratory, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London
H. E. F. Davies
Affiliation:
From the Physiology Department, University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, Cardiff, and the Bacteriological Laboratory, Imperial College of Science and Technology, 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.

1. An attempt has been made to discover the origin and nature of the small proportion of the cells in standard cultures of Bact. coli which is able to withstand, apparently indefinitely, exposure to temperatures of 49, 51 and 53° C.

2. The method adopted was to allow these survivors to generate fresh cultures in the same flask merely by reducing the temperature to 35° C. and to subject the resulting cultures in turn to heat treatment. Only one process of regeneration and subsequent disinfection was carried out at 49 and 53° C., but at 51° C. the process was repeated four times. The disinfection curve was determined on each occasion and the permanent population allowed to become established.

3. Changes in the heat resistance of the cultures were judged by (a) the disinfection times (99·99 % mortality), (b) the maximum death-rates, (c) the levels of the surviving populations and (d) the variations in death-rate with time during each disinfection.

4. Marked fluctuation in numbers of viable cells was observed during each of the phases of permanent surviving population. The exact levels of survivors were therefore uncertain, but after exposure to 49° C. the mean values were not higher than when 53° C. was used, nor was there an increase in the mean numbers of survivors in the successively regenerated cultures.

5. The survivors did not grow when inoculated into either nutrient agar plates or tubes of broth held at the respective high temperatures, although they remained alive and developed readily on being transferred to 35° C.

6. The maximum death-rate decreased and the disinfection time increased markedly after one regeneration of the cultures. The increase in the latter was not wholly due to the decrease in the former, as the death-rates throughout the disinfection of the regenerated culture were lower.

7. After the second regeneration (at 51° C.) the maximum death-rate declined and the disinfection time rose still higher, but the process was reversed after the third and fourth regenerations.

8. The shape of the graph of log survivors against time altered markedly after the second regeneration at 51° C. The initial death-rate was higher but fell sharply to a minimum before rising again to the final maximum.

9. The experimental findings are discussed. An increase in the general heat resistance of these cultures may have occurred as a result of one regeneration, but the technique employed permitted the gradual alteration of the environmental conditions, and this appears to have exerted complex effects on the cultures so that the results of further regenerations are inconclusive.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , August 1947 , pp. 342 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

References

REFERENCES

Beamer, P. K. & Tanner, F. W. (1939). Zbl. Bakt. Abt. II, 100, 81.Google Scholar
Bunker, H. J. (1936). Spec. Rep. Dep. Sci. Industr. Res., Lond., no. 3. H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Gage, S. & Stoughton, G. (1906). Technol. Quart. 19, 41.Google Scholar
Imšenecki, A. & Solnzeva, L. (1945). J. Bact. 49, 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, R. C. & Jacobs, S. E. (1944 a). J. Hyg., Camb., 43, 275.Google Scholar
Jordan, R. C. & Jacobs, S. E. (1944 b). J. Bact. 48, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, R. C., Jacobs, S. E. & Davies, H. E. F. (1947). J. Hyg., Camb., 45, 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, B. (1922). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 96, 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, R. M. & Hinshelwood, C. N. (1944). Trans. Faraday Soc. 40, 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magoon, C. A. (1926). J. Infect. Dis. 38, 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahgski, J., White, J. W. & Hoover, S. R. (1944). J. Bact. 48, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, F. E. (1943). J. Bact. 45, 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, F. E. (1944). J. Bact. 48, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severens, J. M. & Tanner, F. W. (1945). J. Bact. 49, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, A. L. & Jordan, R. C. (1941). J. Sci. Instrum. 19, 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J. H. & Winslow, C. E. A. (1932). J. Bact. 24, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, F. T. (1936). J. Bact. 32, 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yesair, J. & Cameron, E. J. (1936). J. Bact. 31, 2.Google Scholar