View report page

Rag Flock Acts, 1911 to 1928.
There are four premises in the Borough wherein Rag Flock
is manufactured.
These are visited regularly by the Sanitary Inspectors. In
addition to these, there are a number of premises where flock is
used in the making of furniture and bedding.
Sixteen samples were taken for analysis during the year. Of
these, three did not conform to the standard of permissible soluble
chlorine content. One, a comparatively slight infringement, was
dealt with by interview. Attention is again drawn to the totally
unsatisfactory standard of purity (the soluble chlorine content)
provided by the Regulations. In the case of the infringement referred
to, the flocks had been sterilized by steam under pressure
so that they were satisfactory from the bacteriological point of
view, yet the chlorine content was excessive, whereas in other
cases the flocks, derived from rags from a most uncleanly source
were merely steeped in water until the soluble chlorine content
complied with the Regulations.
At the year end proceedings were pending against the partners
of a firm of wholesale Rag Flock makers in respect of the
sale to two different retailers in the Borough of consignments of
Flock containing soluble chlorides in excess of the 30 parts per
100,000 permitted by the Rag Flock Regulations. Penalties of
£8 were imposed by the Court. It will be noted that these proceedings
were taken against the wholesalers in respect of their
sale of the commodity to retailers.
Recently a great deal has been written about the material
known as Rag Flock. Investigations into the manufacture and
use of this material have been made and the findings point clearly
to the necessity for reform. Rag flock is made from cast off
clothing, etc., originating in some cases from such undesirable
places as refuse dumps. At the present time the free chlorine test
is the recognised method of determining the cleanliness of rag
flock. In order to conform to the standard (30 parts per 100,000)
it is customary to soak these old rags in water, no other attempt
being made to sterilize them. An example of the unsatisfactory
nature of this standard was the establishment of a flock mill by a
certain firm who installed an autoclave sterilizing machine together
with a vacuum exhaust to extract dust. In due course samples of
flock were sent to a bacteriologist and an analytical chemist. The
results were illuminating. Whereas the bacteriologist certified
the material free from contamination the chemist reported that the
free chlorine content was some 30 parts in excess of the permitted
standard. In consequence of these conflicting results the firm was
obliged to abandon their valuable apparatus and resort to the old
method of soaking in water.
How can the present position be improved so that the public
may be protected, and at the same time a really scientific standard
adopted ? The primary necessity is the registration or licensing;
70