G. H. F. Nuttall 
553 
Cost. Peacock (see p. 477) estimates the cost at 5 times that of dis¬ 
infestation by hot air or steam and the cost of sulphur has since risen. 
Waste. In cold weather, the greater part of the S0 2 is lost as 
an insecticide because it combines with the fabrics that are treated; 
a variable amount is lost by leakage out of the chamber; a certain 
amount of sulphur is sublimed; these portions having no effect on 
lice (Captain C. J. D. Gair, MS. Report, W.O. hi. 1917). 
Captain Gair (MS. loc. cit) reports of his experimental hut supplied with a 
Clayton apparatus, stating that it was capable of dealing with 3500 blankets at 
a time except in cold weather (0-7° C.) when the output was reduced 50% 
owing to the great absorption of S0 2 by the blankets. Three Clayton machines 
supplying SO, to the hut (floor area 60 x20 ft.) took 3-5 hrs to bring the S0 2 
up to 3 %. The amount of sulphur brunt for each load was 130 lbs. It took 
3 \ hrs to pack the hut, 8 hrs is reckoned as an adequate exposure period and 
\ hr for subsequent ventilation prior to removing the contents. The personnel 
required is 12 men for 1 shift or 24 men if 2 shifts are required. 
Lieut. Peacock (MS. I. 1918) tested lice and nits in a disinfestation hut 
of ca. 2700 cu. ft. capacity (24 X 14 X 8J ft. (high)) using a motor driven Clayton 
machine type “M.” Under the best conditions it took 9 hrs to deal with 350 
blankets, the cost of sulphur, spirit and oil used being reckoned at 125. The 
S0 2 produced ranged from 2 to 4 % (maximum). It took 3 hrs to reach 3 % 
and 35 lbs. of sulphur were consumed of which he estimates that 19f lbs. were 
wasted, some 50 % of the S0 2 being absorbed by the blankets alone and 
consequently exerting no insecticidal action. Peacock notes the difficulty of 
standardizing the method because of variations due to (a) the character of the 
individual huts, (6) outside conditions, (c) personnel, ( d ) blankets, etc., that 
are subjected to treatment. 
It appears to my unbiassed judgment that the foregoing evidence 
sufficiently condemns S0 2 as a means ofdestroyinglice. It is shown that 
it is untrustworthy, injurious to uniforms, slow in action, unduly 
costly and wasteful. The slowness of the process makes it impossible 
for the soldier to resume his clothing promptly after a bath as in 
the case of hot-air or steam disinfestation. The soldier must either 
wait around for hours or be supplied with a completely fresh kit. 
After expressing the foregoing views it seems scarcely worth 
while to dwell on the methods of sulphur fumigation employed, 
but a short statement is nevertheless appended: 
The old familiar method of mixing sulphur with charcoal and igniting it 
with alcohol can be employed in sealed rooms (in which effects are suspended 
on wires as used in France); ordinarily not much more than 20.% of the 
sulphur is consumed. Busson describes how 300-400 litre petroleum barrels 
have been used for fumigation by removing the bottoms and replacing them 
