Search

Comparisons of toxic effects of isoflurane, halothane, fluroxene and diethyl ether were made in human volunteers not undergoing surgical procedures. Comparisons were made of effects on bromsulpthalein retention, serum glutamic oxaloacetic and pyruvic transaminases, lactic dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, serum cholesterol, total serum protein and albumin, serum sodium, chloride, potassium, carbon dioxide content, uric acid, calcium, phosphorus, glucose, creatinine, fluoride, blood urea nitrogen, urine and plasma lysozymes, haematocrit, white blood cells, polymorphonuclear leukocytes and urinalysis. We found greater increases in BSP after halothane and fluroxene than after isoflurane. Concomitant hypercapnia or hypotension did not influence the results. Serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase increased only after fluroxene. We found elevated polymorphonuclear leukocytes after all anaesthetics. No serious toxicity occurred after any of the anaesthetics.

Summary The number of bacteria present in commercially frozen peas was found to be usually between 104 and 106/g. Most of the organisms were of two species, Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Streptococcus lactis. After thawing the leuconostocs multiplied more rapidly than the streptococci and in 48 hr the former constituted almost the entire population. Growth studies of four isolates of each of the above species, both in laboratory media and on blanched peas, showed no difference in growth rates before and after freezing. When some organisms, including potential pathogens, were inoculated on to peas rapid multiplication took place even in the presence of leuconostocs or streptococci.

There is understandably sometimes a defeatist attitude on the part of doctors, physiotherapists and patients to the treatment of a fundamentally irreversible or incurable disorder. Emphysema, defined for present purposes as irreversible obstructive lung disease with structural damage, is one such condition. We have previously outlined the abnormal physiology of this condition and described the principles and practice of appropriate physiotherapy (Gandevia, 1959; Donaldson and Gandevia, 1962).

Experiments were made to find out whether the common communion cup is likely to serve as a vehicle for the transmission of infection.A silver chalice and sacramental wine containing 14·5% of alcohol were used. Observations with volunteers showed that the number of organisms deposited on the rim of the chalice varied from person to person, but was usually quite small—less than 100.Rotation of the cup was of no benefit except to those partaking during the first round, since the saliva deposited on the rim by each person in turn remained to contaminate the cup during the second round, and the combined effect of the alcohol and the silver of the chalice was not rapid enough to destroy the contaminating organisms before rotation of the cup was completed.On the other hand the use of a linen cloth or purificator led to a diminution of about 90% in the bacterial count of the cup.Organisms in saliva deposited on the interior of the dry chalice suffered some diminution in numbers within 8 min., presumably as the result of the disinfectant action of the silver, but the effect was too small to be of significance.When suspended in wine and deposited on the internal surface of the chalice Escherichia coli suffered a substantial reduction within 3 min., Streptococcus pyogenes was destroyed completely; but Staphylococcus aureus was affected to a much less extent.Various experiments designed to measure the disinfectant action of wine, and of silver and wine together, showed that the augmenting effect of silver on the disinfectant action of the alcohol was quite small. Strep. pyogenes proved to be far more sensitive to alcohol than Esch. coli, Staph. aureus and Serratia marcescens. Under the conditions of the experiment these last three organisms were not destroyed for 10–12 min., whereas Strep. pyogenes perished within 1½ min.The results of our work are in general agreement with those of previous workers, and show that the organisms deposited on the rim of the communion cup are not destroyed within the short time—5 sec. as an average—elapsing between the partaking of the sacrament by each successive communicant.It must therefore be admitted that the common communion cup may serve as a means of transmitting infection. Reasons are given, however, for believing that the risk of transmission is very small, and probably much smaller than that of contracting infection by other methods in any gathering of people.Such risk as there is could be greatly diminished by the use of a purificator for wiping the cup between each communicant, and could be abolished completely by substituting individual cups or by the practice of intinction.