Experiments in practical culicidal fumigation / by Arthur I. Kendall.

  • Kendall, Arthur I.
Date:
1906
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Experiments in practical culicidal fumigation / by Arthur I. Kendall. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    20/26 (page 18)
    ants of the infected area; more objectionable as the fumigant em- ployed damages furnishings or decorating, and as it leaves unpleasant odors or residues, and less objectionable as these factors, as well as the time consumed, are decreased. Of two fumigants, one of which is perfect from the point of view of killing mosquitoes, but injuring fabrics and furnishings, the other 80 per cent as efficient, but much less distasteful to the inhabitants, the following theoietical case would obtain: With the objectionable fumigant as many as possible of the inhabitants would conceal cases so that say 20 per cent only were discovered and fumigated during the infective period of the disease. This would give an efficiency of 20 per cent mosquitoes killed, because the method is perfect. On the other hand, employing the less objectionable fumigant, say 50 per cent of the cases would be fumigated within the required time. I hen the percentage would be 80 per cent of 50 per cent, or 40 per cent as the final removal of infected and infective mosquitoes. This means that the less objectionable fumigant, altho it does not kill every mosquito in the infected houses, gives finally^ a better result than the first fumigant. Sulfur is decidedly objectionable in many ways; it kills mosquitoes, however, and may be looked upon as a nearly perfect fumigant for these insects. Pyrethrum, if it were more efficient, would do very well, altho it leaves a decided coloration on light colored paint, and is objectionable from the point of view of time consumed in fumigation, three or more hours being necessary, as a rule, for its combustion. Campho-phenique in well-furnished houses (which in the vast majority of cases are also well-constructed) is very much less objectionable than either of the above, and it combines this factor with the comparatively short time necessary for its evaporation, and the fact that it leaves a very slight residual odor, which quickly disappears, so that the houses are comfortably habitable as soon as the cleaning up process is com- plete. In such cases it has given quite as good results as sulfur, and, considering everything, is much the cheapest fumigant of the three. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 1. Campho-phenique in well-constructed houses is a cheap, efficient, and nonobjectionable culicide, possessing, particularly when combined with formaldehyde, good bacterial properties as well. 2. Sulfur is an excellent culicide, but is injurious to fine fittings and fabrics. 3. Py rethrum is not a reliable culicide, and causes darkening of light-colored paint and similar substances. 4. The apparatus herein described has given excellent results with the campho-phenique, while all other appliances have failed entirely in this respect. 5. All three culicides have a certain effect on fruits, altho the campho-phenique was less injurious than either of the others. 6. Certain physical factors, wind, leakage, large connected rooms in which no precautions are taken to break up the air currents, as well as surface condensation affect seriousty the results of fumigation, and should be considered in detail when undertaking culicidal destruction. In conclusion the writer desires to express the debt he owes to Col. W. C. Gorgas, chief sanitary officer, who has had the apparatus con-