Bad Drains; and How to Test Them: With notes on the ventilation of sewers, drains, and sanitary fittings, and the origin and transmission of zymotic disease — John Shaqi
Bad Drains; and How to Test Them: With notes on the ventilation of sewers, drains, and sanitary fittings, and the origin and transmission of zymotic diseaseReeves, R. Harris
Science
Bad Drains; and How to Test Them: With notes on the ventilation of sewers, drains, and sanitary fittings, and the origin and transmission of zymotic disease
Reeves, R. Harris
Sewerage
For years a sickly smell was observed in the ward, and more especially
when the heating apparatus was at work, and it was thought to arise from
the number of bad cases in the ward. A good system of ventilation was
adopted by the introduction of fresh air through flues which ran under
the floor to the whole length of the building, and in winter the air was
warmed by passing over hot-water pipes in the flues, and was distributed
at various parts of the ward through open gratings in the floor, with a
good extraction in the roof, which was open to the ward, but ceiled over
the rafters.
Double the amount of fresh air was admitted, warmed, and extracted, with
a view to improve the atmosphere of the building, but with no better
results. I then decided to test the drains which were shown on the plan
of the building as on Plate 2, the drain marked A B being tested first
by stopping it off and fixing the detector at B. This being a 9-inch
drain pipe and the length 130 feet, gave 57–600/1728 cubic feet as the
contents of gas in it. Adding 6 cubic feet for the branch drain at C,
making a total of 63–600/1728 cubic feet.
The amount of water required to be thrown into the trap A would be 1
gal. 5 pts. 3 ozs. to produce the necessary pressure of gas in the drain
to lift the liquid 1 inch in the detector. Instead of taking 1 gal. 5
pts. 3 ozs., it took 7 gals. 6 pts. 9 ozs., giving an additional 237
cubic feet of gas space to be somewhere attached to the drain. This
could not be leaks, if it had been the liquid in the detector would not
have risen at all.
The ground was opened at D, the drain sealed, and the detector fixed,
and the total quantity of gas in the drain by measurement from the seal
to trap A was found to be 46 cubic feet, and by testing this was found
to be correct, consequently the additional gas space was between B and
D.
I particularly noticed that the gases in these drains were more
poisonous than they should have been, considering the nature of the
sewage flowing through them, and by using a reagent as a liquid in the
detector, its discoloration indicated that the gas was in contact with a
large quantity of putrid matter which was of a different character to
that of the sewage flowing in the drain.
A drain searcher, or pointed rod was used, and after driving it into the
ground a few times, it struck the large cesspit E, and by the sound
given it was clear that a drain was underneath, when, on excavating, the
old cesspit and drains shown on Plate 3 were discovered, containing more
than 60 cubic yards of black putrid sewage.
The junction at F was cut off and the drain made good, when a second
testing by fixing the detector at B gave the quantity of gas in the
drain to be 63–600/1728 cubic feet.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account