Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-ffbbcc459-2657c Total loading time: 0.485 Render date: 2022-03-14T19:54:51.899Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }
  • English
Epidemiology & Infection Epidemiology & Infection

Article contents

An investigation of the merits of ozone as an aerial disinfectant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

William J. Elford  and
Joan van den Ende
William J. Elford
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, Hampstead, N.W. 3
Joan van den Ende
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, Hampstead, N.W. 3
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Extract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The question formulated in the introduction to this report can now be answered. Ozone in tolerable concentration is able to inactivate certain bacteria when these are present as unprotected singleton aerosol particles in atmospheres of 60–90% R.h. When such bacteria are covered with a protective coating of organic matter, however, as in aerosols naturally emitted during a sneeze or cough, then ozone in permissible concentration is without significant effect. Inactivation of such protected organisms can only be achieved by the use of ozone in decidedly higher concentrations, which must be deemed dangerous for prolonged spells of breathing. Bacteria that have settled on surfaces are generally more resistant to ozone than when in newly formed aerosols. Hence experimental evidence leads to the conclusion that ozone, in concentrations that can be breathed over long periods without irritation, cannot be expected to provide any effective protection against air-borne bacterial infection, through direct inactivation of the infectious carrier particles.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , May 1942 , pp. 240 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1942

References

Baker, A. H., & Twort, C. C., (1941). J. Hyg., Camb., 41, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdillon, R. B., Lidwell, O. M., & Thomas, J. C., (1941). J. Hyg., Camb., 41, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgar, J. L., & Paneth, F. A., (1941). J. Chem. Soc. p. 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, M. W. (1914). Trans. Fourth Int. Congr. School Hygiene, N.Y., 1913, p. 346.Google Scholar
Glover, R. E., (1941). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 22, 98.Google Scholar
Guŕron, G., Prettre, M., & Guéron, J., (1936). Bull. Soc. chim. Fr. 5th Series 3, 295.Google Scholar
Haines, R. B., (1935). Rep. Food Invest. Bd., p. 30.Google Scholar
Hartman, F. E. (1925). J. Amer. Soc. Heat. Vent. Engrs, 31, 33.Google Scholar
Henderson, Y., & Haggard, H. W., (1927). Noxious Gases, p 136Chem. Cat. Co., N.Y.Google Scholar
Hill, L., & Flack, M., (1912). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 84, 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, E. O., & Carlson, A. J., (1913). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 61, 1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirstein, F., (1900). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 35, 123.Google Scholar
Kirstein, F. (1902). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 39, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konrich, (1913). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 73, 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladenburg, A., & Quasig, R., (1901). Ber. dtsch. chem, Ges. 34, 1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Towsky, L. W., MacQuiddy, E. L., & Tollman, J. P., (1941). J. Industr. Hyg. Toxicol. 23, 129.Google Scholar
Lehmann, K., & Hasegawa, (1913). Arch. Hyg. 77, 323.Google Scholar
Letts, E. A., & Rea, F. W., (1914). J. Chem. Soc. 105, 1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masterman, A. T., (1941). J. Hyg., Camb., 41, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oettingen, W. F. von, (1941). U.S. Public Health Bulletin, No. 272: Washington.Google Scholar
Olsen, J. C., (1914). Trans. Fourth Int. Congr. School Hygiene, N.Y., 1913, p. 306.Google Scholar
Olsen, J. C., & Ulrich, W. H., (1914). J. Industr. Engng Chem., 6, 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paneth, F. A., & Glückauf, E., (1941). Nature, Lond., 147, 614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinberger, P., & Bailley, J., (1940). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris., 210, 683.Google Scholar
Riesbeck, E. N., (1939). Air Conditioning, Goodheart-Wilcox Chicago.Google Scholar
Sawyer, W. A., Beckwith, H. L. & Skolfebld, E. M., (1913). J. Amer. Med. Ass., 61, 1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorp, C. E., (1941). News Edition Amer. Chem. Soc., 19, 686.Google Scholar
Usher, F. L., & Rao, B. S., (1917). J. Chem. Soc. 111, 799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, F. W., (1940). J. Franklin Inst. 229, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, W. F., (1934). Amer. J. Hyg. 20, 611.Google Scholar
Wells, W. F., & Riley, E. C., (1937). J. Industr. Hyg. Toxicol. 19, 513.Google Scholar
Wells, W. F., & Wells, M. W., (1936). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 107, 1698; 1805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, H. G., & Hartgraves, T. A., (1939). J. Lab. Clin. Med. 25, 257.Google Scholar
Witheridge, & Yaglou, (1939). Trans. Amer. Soc. Heat. Vent. Engrs, 45, 509.Google Scholar
Wulliémoz, C., (1938). Rev. méd. Suisse rom. 58, 761.Google Scholar
You have Access
55
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

An investigation of the merits of ozone as an aerial disinfectant
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

An investigation of the merits of ozone as an aerial disinfectant
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

An investigation of the merits of ozone as an aerial disinfectant
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *