The conditions which affect the number of bacteria in the air are various. After a fall of rain or snow they are very markedly diminished; during a dry wind they are increased. In open fields, free from habitations, they are fewer, as would be expected, than in the vicinity of manufactories, houses, or towns. A dry, sandy soil or a dry surface of any kind will obviously favour the presence of organisms in the air. Frankland found that fewer germs were present in the air in winter than in summer, and that when the earth was covered with snow the number was greatly reduced. Miquel and Freudenreich have declared that the number of atmospheric bacteria is greater in the morning and evening between the hours of six and eight than during the rest of the day. But we venture to express the hope that such coincidental facts may not be exalted into principles.
There is no numerical standard for bacteria in the air as there is in water. The open air possibly averages about 250 per cubic metre. On the seacoast this number would fall to less than half; in houses and towns it would rise according to circumstances, and frequently in dry weather reach thousands per cubic metre. When it is remembered that air possesses no pabulum for bacteria as do water and milk, it will be understood that bacteria do not live in the air. They are only driven by air-currents from one dry surface to another. Hence the quality and quantity of air organisms depend entirely upon environment and physical conditions. In some researches which the writer made into the air of workshops in Soho in 1896, it was instructive to observe that fewer bacteria were isolated by Sedgwick's sugar-tube in premises which appeared to the naked eye polluted in a large degree than in other premises apparently less contaminated. In the workroom of a certain skin-curer the air was densely impregnated with particles from the skin, yet scarcely a single bacterium was isolated. In the polishing-room of a well-known hat firm, in which the air appeared to the naked eye to be pure, and in which there was ample ventilation, there were found four or five species of saprophytic bacteria. Quite recently Mr. S. R. Trotman, public analyst for the city of Nottingham, estimated the bacterial quality of the air of the streets of that town during "the goose fair" held in the autumn. He used a modification of Hesse's apparatus in which the gelatine is replaced by glycerine. The air was slowly drawn through and measured in the usual way. Sterilised water was then added to bring the glycerine to a known volume, the liquid thoroughly mixed, and a series of gelatine and agar plates made with quantities varying from 0.1 to 2 cc. By this method a large number of bacteria were detected in this particular investigation, including Staphylococcus pyogenes aureus et albus, the common Bacillus subtilis, and B. coli communis.[26]
During a six years' investigation the air of the Montsouris Park yielded, according to Miquel, an average of 455 bacteria per cubic metre. In the middle of Paris the average per cubic metre was nearly 4000. Flügge accepts 100 bacteria per cubic metre as a fair average. From this fact he estimates that "a man during a lifetime of seventy years inspires about 25,000,000 bacteria, the same number contained in a quarter of a litre of fresh milk."[27] Many authorities would place the average much below 100 per cubic metre, but even if we accept that figure it is at once clear how relatively small it is. This is due, as we have mentioned, to sunlight, rain, desiccation, dilution of air, moist surfaces, etc. So essentially does the bacterial content of air depend upon the facility with which certain bacteria withstand drying that Dr. Eduardo Germano[28] has addressed himself first to drying various pathogenic species and then to mixing the dried residue with sterilised dust and observing to what degree the air becomes infected. Typhoid appears to withstand comparatively little dessication, without losing its virulence. Nevertheless, it is able to retain vitality in a semi-dried condition, and it is owing to this circumstance in all probability that it possesses such power of infection. Diphtheria, on the other hand, is, as we have pointed out, capable of lengthened survival outside the body, particularly when surrounded with dust. The question of their power of resisting long drying is an unsettled point. The power of surviving a drying process is, according to Germano, possessed by the streptococcus. This is not the case with cholera or plague. Dr. Germano classifies bacteria, as a result of his researches, into three groups: first, those like plague, typhoid, and cholera, which cannot survive drying for more than a few hours; second, those like the bacilli of diphtheria, and streptococci, which can withstand it for a longer period; thirdly, those like tubercle, which can very readily resist drying for months and yet retain their virulence. It will be obvious that from these data it is inferred that Groups 1 and 2 are rarely conveyed by the air, whereas Group 3 is frequently so conveyed. Miquel has recently demonstrated that soil bacteria or their spores can remain alive in hermetically sealed tubes for as long a time as sixteen years. Even at the end of that period the soil inoculated into a guinea-pig produced tetanus.[29]
The presence of pathogenic bacteria in the air is, of course, a much rarer contamination than the ordinary saprophytes. Tubercle has been not infrequently isolated from dry dust in consumption hospitals, and in exit ventilating shafts at Brompton the bacillus has been found. From dried sputum it has, of course, been many times isolated, even after months of desiccation. M. Lalesque failed to isolate it from the dry soil surrounding some garden seats in a locality frequented by phthisical patients. The writer also failed to isolate it from the same soil. But a very large mass of experimental evidence attests the fact that the air in proximity to dried tubercular sputum or discharges may contain the specific bacillus of the disease. Diphtheria in the same way, but in a lesser degree, may be isolated from the air, and from the nasal mucous membrane of nurses, attendants, and patients in a ward set apart for the treatment of the disease. Delalivesse, examining the air of wards at Lille, found that the contained bacteria varied more or less directly with the amount of floating matter, and depended also upon the vibration set up by persons passing through the ward and the heavy traffic in granite-paved streets adjoining. Bacillus coli, staphylococci, and streptococci, as well as B. tuberculosis, were isolated by this observer.
Some new light has been thrown upon the subject of pathogenic organisms in air by Neisser in his investigations concerning the amount and rate of air-currents necessary to convey certain species through the atmosphere. He states that the bacteria causing diphtheria, typhoid fever, plague, cholera, and pneumonia, and possibly the common Streptococcus pyogenes, are incapable of being carried by the molecules of atmospheric dust which the ordinary insensible currents of air can support, whilst Bacillus anthracis, B. pyocyaneus, and the bacillus of tubercle are capable of being aërially conveyed. This work will require further confirmation, but if its truth be established, it proves that attempted aërial disinfection of the first group of diseases is useless.
CHAPTER IV
BACTERIA AND FERMENTATION
It was Pasteur who in 1857 first propounded the true cause and process of fermentation. The breaking down of sugar into alcohol and carbonic acid gas had been known, of course, for a long period. Since the time of Spallanzani (1776) the putrefactive changes in liquids and organic matter had been prevented by boiling and subsequently sealing the flask or vessel containing the fluid. Moreover, this successful preventive practice had been in some measure correctly interpreted as due to the exclusion of the atmosphere, but wrongly credited to the exclusion of the oxygen of the air. It was not until the beginning of the present century that authorities modified their view and declared in favour of yeast cells as the agents in the production of fermentation. That this process was due to oxygen per se was disproved by Schwann, who showed that so long as the oxygen admitted to the flask of fermentative fluid was sterilised no fermentation occurred. It was thus obvious that it was not the atmosphere or the oxygen of the atmosphere, but some fermenting agent borne into the flask by the admission of unsterilised air. It was but a step to further establish this hypothesis by adding unsterilised air plus some antiseptic substance which would destroy the fermenting agent. Arsenic was found by Schwann to have this germicidal faculty. Hence Schwann supported Latour's theory that fermentation was due to something borne in by the air, and that this something was yeast. Passing over a number of counter-experiments of Helmholtz and others, we come to the work of Liebig. He viewed the transformation of sugar into alcohol and carbonic acid gas simply and solely as a non-vital chemical process, depending upon the dead yeast communicating its own decomposition to surrounding elements in contact with it.
Liebig insisted that all albuminoid bodies were unstable, and if left to themselves would fall to pieces—i. e., ferment—without the aid of living organisms, or any initiative force greater than dead yeast cells. It was at this juncture that Pasteur intervened to dispel the obscurities and contradictory theories which had been propounded.