Disinfection in the laboratory: theory and practice in disinfection policy in late C19th and early C20th England

• As germ theory redefined disinfection as germicide, bacteriological testing became the legitimate way to assess the value of disinfectant.
• Agreement on what method should be used to comparatively test disinfectants was difficult to achieve.
• Laboratory testing for disinfectants did not adequately address the needs of practical disinfection.

This article examines the relationship between theory and practice in nineteenth century English public health disinfection practice. Disinfection undertaken by local authorities and practised on objects, spaces and people became an increasingly common public health practice in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, and was part of a newly developed public health system of ‘stamping out’ disease as described by Hardy. Despite disinfection's key role in public health policy, it has thus far not received significant investigation or historiographical attending. This article explores the development of disinfection policy at local level, highlighting that despite commentators assumptions that increasingly exacting standards of disinfection required professional oversight rather than that of the ‘amateur’ public, there was a significant gap between laboratory based knowledge and evidence derived from practical experience. Laboratory conditions could not replicate those found in day-to-day disinfection, and there were myriad debates about how to create a mutually understandable scientific standard for testing. Despite increasing efforts to bring local disinfection in line with new ideas promulgated by central government and disinfection researchers, the mismatches between the two meant that there was greater divergence. This tension lay at the heart of the changes in disinfection theory and practice in the second half of the nineteenth century, and illustrate the complexities of the impact of germ theory on public health policy.