Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Summary and ConclusionsIn summarizing the data presented in the tables we note the following: Rivanol, Rivanol lactate, Rivanol-azo-sulfanilamidet and preparation P-1 appear to be equally effective in their antibacterial actions, in vitro, upon organisms representative of the colon-typhoid-dysentery group. Next in order of activity are compounds P-2 and atabrine. The remaining drugs show little if any effect in inhibiting the growth of the bacteria studied.Although not indicated in the tables none of the agents tested proved to be bacteriostatic for 2 strains of Proteus vulgaris and a strain of Proteus morganii. Furthermore, with but 2 exceptions the drugs failed to inhibit growth of several strains of Pseudomonas ueruginosa. Compound P-1 and Rivanol proved to be definitely bacteriostatic for the latter organism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lawrence et al. (1943) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: