An Experimental Enquiry on the Disinfection of Floors for Plague
Authors: Rogers Leonard 
Published: May 2009

The above experiments show that neither the mineral acids nor permanganate of potash are reliable disinfectants of mud floors against the plague bacillus, even when used in solutions which are many times as strong as are required to destroy the plague bacillus in test-tubes in 15 minutes. This is doubtless owing to the former being neutralized by the alkalies contained in the earth and in the cowdung used for leeping, and to the latter being precipitated and rendered inert by combining with organic matter, which is plentifully present in the leeped mud floors of rooms inhabited by the poorer classes in the large towns and villages of India, which are so often affected by plague.

Of the disinfectants which are sufficiently cheap to be employed on a large scale, there remain phenol and perchloride of mercury in acid solution, the former of which has given satisfactory results on mud floors in a strength of 1 in 50, while the latter is effective in a strength of one part of the mercury salt and two parts of strong hydrochloric acid in 500 of water. If we compare these strengths with those respectively required to destroy plague bacili in 15 minutes in test-tubes, we find that 1 in 750 of phenol and 1 in 20,000 of acid perchloride of mercury solution are effective under the latter circumstances. Thus it appears that in order to be sure of killing micro-organisms of as little resisting power as the plague bacillus on the surface of mud floors, 15 times as strong as solution of phenol and 40 times as strong a one of acid perchloride of mercury as are effective against the plague bacillus in test-tubes in 15 minutes must be used. Thus in proportion to its action on the plague bacillus in test-tubes, phenol is nearly three times as effective on a mud floor as is acid perchloride of mercury. This fact clearly indicates that a portion of the mercury salt is rendered inert by combining with certain constituents of the mud floor, probably albuminous substances, and this may explain the at first sight somewhat surprising failure of a 1 in 1,000 mercurial solution efficiently to disinfect the mud floor. However, when the strength of this solution was doubled, the acid being also doubled, satisfactory results were obtained with the mud floor tested, and the micro-organisms recovered after its use proved to be much highly resistant than the plague bacillus, while they were fewer than even after the use of 1 in 50 phenol. Nevertheless, the neutralizing action of mud floors on the mercury solution will doubtless vary considerably in different places, and it is easy to conceive that in some instances this variable and unrecognisable factor may be considerably greater than in the case of the particular floor used in these experiments, and that even a 1 in 500 solution might be ineffectual under such circumstances. On the other hand, phenol appeares to be free from this objection; and as it gave as good results in a strength of 1 in 50 as the acid perchloride did in one of 1 in 500, it must be considered the safer disinfectant in this strength (1 in 50) in the case of mud floors. In the case of impermeable floors either a 1 in 100 solution of phenol or a 1 in 1,000 one of acid perchloride of mercury is efficient, the latter being somewhat the more powerful of the two, which advantage is probably more than counterbalanced in practice by the disadvantage of using two different disinfectants, if the conclusion that phenol is the better in the case of mud floors is accepted. both 1 in 50 phenol and 1 in 500 acid perchloride of mercury cost about one penny a gallon, the former being very slightly the cheaper of the two in such price-lists as I have been able to consult.

The variable effects of mud floors in partially neutralizing the disinfectant power of perchloride of mercury solutions may possible account for the different estimations of the value of disinfection with this agent in different places and provinces, and also for the failure of the very extensive operations of the year 1900 to prevent the recurrence of plague in the same houses and bustees during the recrudescence of the disease in Calcutta early in 1901. It must also be remembered that the above-noted strengths of disinfectants only act on the superficial layer of floors, etc., and have no influence on the presence of rats, by which, it is now pretty generally admitted, plague is in some indirect way spread—an important factor which must not be lost sight of in estimating the probable advantage of measures of disinfection. Still it is doubtless a good thing to destroy any plague bacilli lurking in a room which has been inhabited by a plague patient, and the practical outcome of the present enquiry is that the perchloride of mercury in hydrochloric acid must be used in at least double the strength that was provisionally recommended by the Plague Commission, and which has up to now, I believe, been very generally relied on in Calcutta. It is still better to substitute a 1 in 50 solution of phenol in every case when mud or earth floors or courtyards form any part of the area to be dealt with, as will be the case in the great majority of instances in which disinfection for plague is required.