lO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 63 



A recent paper by Sawyer, Beckwith and Skolfield ' of the Hygi- 

 enic Laboratory of the CaHfornia State Board of Health, is one of 

 the latest researches which discredit the claim made for ozone as a 

 purifier of air. During recent years circulars have been issued in 

 great numbers by manufacturers of apparatus stating that ozone 

 is a " necessity " for the destruction of infectious germs and bac- 

 terial life, for the sterilization of air in operating rooms for the 

 purification of air in homes of persons suffering from contagious 

 diseases and for giving to offices and homes the invigorating air of 

 the country, seashore and mountains.' 



How false these claims are can readily be seen from the systematic 

 work of these investigators, the details of which we cannot give 

 here but to which the reader is referred. Among their conclusions 

 are the following: 



During these tests certain physiologic effects of the " ozone " were noticed 

 by the experimenters after they had been working around the machines. 

 The immediate effect of inhaling the diluted gas was a feeling of dryness 

 or tickling in the nasopharynx, and sometimes the irritation was felt in the 

 chest. If the exposure was prolonged, watering of the eyes, and occasionally 

 a slight headache, resulted. The smell of the " ozone " and its irritation was 

 much more noticeable to persons who came suddenly under its influence than 

 to those who were continuously exposed. 



1. The gaseous products of the two well-known ozone machines examined 

 are irritating to the respiratory tract and, in considerable concentration, they 

 will produce edema of the lungs and death in guinea-pigs. 



2. A concentration of the gaseous products sufficiently high to kill typhoid 

 bacilli, staphylococci and streptococci, dried on glass rods, in the course of 

 several hours, will kill guinea-pigs in a shorter time. Therefore these 

 products have no value as bactericides in breathable air. 



3. Because the products of the ozone machines are irritating to the mucous 

 membranes and are probably injurious in other ways, the machines should 

 not be allowed in schools, offices or other places in which people remain for 

 considerable periods of time. 



4. The ozone machines produce gases which mask disagreeable odors of 

 moderate strength. In this way the machines can conceal faults in ventilation 

 while not correcting them. Because the ozone machine covers unhygienic 

 conditions in the air and at the same time produces new injurious substances, 

 it cannot properly be classed as a hygienic device. 



Another paper even more elaborate than this was published at 

 the same time by Edwin O. Jordan, Ph. D., and A. J. Carlson, Ph. D., 



* The Alleged Purification of Air by the Ozone Machine. Journ. Amer. 

 Med. Ass., Sept. 27, 1913, p. 1013. 



* See Amer. Journ. Physiologic Therapeutics, Nov.-Dec, 191 1. 



