DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of Chloroxylenol 4.8% and Povidone Iodine 7.5% on Total

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison of Chloroxylenol 4.8% and Povidone Iodine 7.5% on Total ORIGINAL RESEARCH Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Science (J Dentomaxillofac Sci ) December 2019, Volume 4, Number 3: 142-144 P-ISSN.2503-0817, E-ISSN.2503-0825 Comparison of chloroxylenol 4.8% and povidone Original Research iodine 7.5% on total bacteria count post WHO routine hand washing on clinical students at the CrossMark http://dx.doi.org/10.15562/jdmfs.v4i3.796 Department of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Sumatera Utara March-May 2018 Month: December Ahyar Riza,* Isnandar, Rahmi Syaflida, Jasmine Volume No.: 4 Abstract: Objective: To compare Chloroxylenol 4.8% and Povidone Iodine 7.5% performed routine handwashing using WHO method for 1 minute Issue: 3 on total bacterial count post WHO routine hand washing on clinical long. students at the department of oral surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Results: The results were statistically analyzed using Kruskal Wallis Universitas Sumatera Utara and Mann-Whitney Test. The comparison between Chloroxylenol and Material and Methods: This was an experimental study with post- Povidone Iodine showed no significant difference to the total bacteria First page No.: 142 test only control group design approach. Purposive technique is count after handwashing (p>0.05) but the Chloroxylenol group applied to collect samples which are clinical students. In this study, showed a greater mean reduction. sample were divided into 3 groups and each consisting of 10 people. Conclusion: Chloroxylenol and Povidone Iodine are capable reducing Aquadest was used as control group while Chloroxylenol 4.8% and the number of bacteria in hands, therefore it can be a good antiseptic P-ISSN.2503-0817 Povidone Iodine 7.5% was used as the treatment group. Each member choice for hand washing. Department of Oral and Keyword: Handwashing, Chloroxylenol, Povidone Iodine E-ISSN.2503-0825 Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Cite this Article: Riza A, Isnandar, Syaflida R, Jasmine. 2019. Comparison of chloroxylenol 4.8% and povidone iodine 7.5% on total bacteria Dentistry, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia count post WHO routine hand washing on clinical students at the Department of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Sumatera Utara March-May 2018. Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Science 4(3): 142-144. DOI: 10.15562/jdmfs.v4i3.796 Introduction the medical and dental fields. Both of these ingredi- ents work by damaging the bacterial cell wall, hence Maintaining hand hygiene is as important as taking reducing the activity and number of bacteria.6 care of our health. In daily activities, hands are often contaminated with microbes as it constantly Material and Methods in contact with the environment.1 In other words, hands are one of the media for entry of microbes This is an experimental study with post-test only into the body. The generally accepted ways to main- control group design approach. The non probabil- tain hand hygiene is by hand washing.2 Hand wash- ity sampling with purposive technique is applied ing is a simple activity that aims to remove dirt and to collect samples which are clinical students at minimize the number of germs in the hands and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in palms by using water and an additional substance, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Sumatera Utara. where the substance can be antiseptic.3,4 In this study, sample were divided into 3 groups *Correspondence to: Study showed that hand washing can reduce and each consist of 10 people. Aquadest was used Ahyar Riza, Department of Oral and germs by 58% in the palms. The reduction numbers as control group while Chloroxylenol 4.8% (Dettol) Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Sumatera of germs showed a close relationship to the and Povidone Iodine 7.5% (Betadine Surgical 5 Utara, Medan, Indonesia improvement of individual health. Hand washing Scrub) were used as the treatment group. The [email protected] with soap has the potential to reduce diarrhea by following procedure begins with WHO hand wash- 42 to 47%.4 From a study conducted by Dorson, he ing method by using aquadest for 1 minute and the stated that hand washing can reduce one million following hand washing procedure is repeated by deaths per year caused by diarrhea.5 using the antiseptic agent. Hands were gently dried Received: 1 February 2019 There are various types of hand washing agents by using paper towel and soaked in a container that Revised: 12 May 2019 such as plain soap, antiseptics and hand-sanitizers. contain NaCl 0.9% solution for 1 minute. Samples Accepted: 15 August 2019 Chloroxylenol and Povidone Iodine are one of the were then sent to the microbiology laboratory for Available Online 1 December 2019 most common antiseptic agents and widely used in bacterial cultivation on the plate count agar and 142 © 2019 JDMFS. Published by Faculty of Dentistry, Hasanuddin University. All rights reserved. http://jdmfs.org ORIGINAL RESEARCH incubated for 48 hours. The number of bacterial while aquadest and chloroxylenol the p value = colonies grown were then counted. Data processing 0.003 < 0.05 and between aquadest and povidone was done with computer analyzed using Kruskal- Iodine the p value=0.009 < 0.05. Table 3. Wallis and Mann-Whitney test. Data analysis using Mann-Whitney test with a significance level of p <0.05, and the conclusions Results are: there is no significant difference in the number of bacterial colonies between Chloroxylenol 4.8% The mean result obtained for control group and Povidone Iodine 7.5% in routine hand washing, aquadest was 308.7±171.73 CFU/mL, for treatment there is a significant difference in the number of group Chloroxylenol was 23.6±58.63 CFU/mL and bacterial colonies between Chloroxylenol 4.8% and Povidone Iodine was 23.6±58.63 CFU/mL. Table 1. the control group aquadest on routine hand wash- The statistic test between the three groups ing, there is a significant difference in the number were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test and the of bacterial colonies between Povidone Iodine 7.5% p value=0.003<0.05. Table 2 This results showed and the control group aquadest on routine hand that there was a significant differences in the washing. number of bacterial colonies between the aquadest, chloroxylenol and povidone Iodine. Discussion Further test between two groups were analyzed using Mann-Whitney test. Between chloroxylenol Based on the results of the study, Chloroxylenol and and povidone Iodine group the p value=0.116>0.05, Povidone Iodine were known to be more effective than aquadest in reducing the bacterial colonies Table 1 Total bacterial count after handwashing after routine hand washing. While water is often Total Bacterial count (103 CFU/mL) called a universal solvent, it cannot directly remove hydrophobic substances such as fat and oil which Chloroxylenol Povidone Iodine often present on soiled hands. Proper handwashing No Aquadest 4.8% 7.5% therefore requires the use of soaps and detergent 1 350 0 0 to dissolve fatty materials, thus water alone is not 2 302 0 0 suitable for cleaning soiled hands.6 3 455 0 30 Things to be taken a notice on control group where there was no bacterial growth on 4th and 9th 4 0 188 0 aquadest sample. This may be due to bacterial culti- 5 335 0 0 vation factors where the solution were not stirred 6 430 0 191 beforehand which make the solution inhomoge- 7 7 365 0 170 neous hence none of the bacteria grow. 8 480 0 114 The comparison number for bacterial colonies between Chloroxylenol and Povidone Iodine after 9 0 21 75 routine hand washing showed an insignificant 10 370 27 80 difference statistically. This can be due to the mech- Total 3087 236 660 anism of action of the two agents which reduce the Mean ± Standard number of bacteria by damaging the cell wall and 308.7 ± 171 23.6 ± 58 66 ± 72 6,8,9 Deviation bacterial cell membrane. Chloroxylenol is a membrane active agent that are absorbed into the bacterial cell, and depending Table 2 Data analysis using Kruskal-Wallis test on the quantity absorbed results in growth inhibi- Group P-Value (Kruskal-Wallis) tion or loss of viability. The antimicrobial activity of Aquadest Chloroxylenol is minimaly affected by the presence of organic matter, but is neutralized by non-ionic Chloroxylenol 4.8% 0,003 surfactant. Bactericidal activity results from rapid Povidone Iodine 7.5% disruption of the membrane structure and function and the general loss of cytoplasmic constituents Table 3 Data analysis using Mann-Whitney test from the cell. This membrane damage is irrevers- ible and the cell is thus unable to overcome the loss Group P Value (Mann-Whitney) of essential metabolites. The cytoplamic membrane Chloroxylenol 4.8% and Povidone Iodine 7.5% 0,116 and its components are considered to be the main 6,9 Aquadest and Chloroxylenol 4.8% 0,003 sites of action of chlorinated phenol. The results from the 4th Chloroxylenol sample Aquadest and Povidone Iodine 7.5% 0.009 group was 188 CFU/mL where this value is much Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Science (J Dentomaxillofac Sci ) December 2019; 4(3): 142-144 | doi: 10.15562/jdmfs.v4i3.796 143 ORIGINAL RESEARCH greater than the 9th and 10th samples, which Conflict of Interest were 21 and 27 CFU/mL. This may be caused by the respondent perform the WHO hand washing The authors report no conflict of interest. procedure incorrectly. Moreover, it could be caused by biological contamination during bacterial culti- References 10,11 vation in laboratory. 1. Rhoades J, Gialagkolidou K, Gogou M. Oregano essential Iodine molecules rapidly penetrate the cell wall oil as an antimicrobial additive to detergent for hand wash- of microorganisms and inactivate cells by form- ing and food contact surface cleaning.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EH&S COVID-19 Chemical Disinfectant Safety Information
    COVID-19 CHEMICAL DISINFECTANT SAFETY INFORMATION Updated June 24, 2020 The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an increase in the number of disinfection products used throughout UW departments. This document provides general information about EPA-registered disinfectants, such as potential health hazards and personal protective equipment recommendations, for the commonly used disinfectants at the UW. Chemical Disinfectant Base / Category Products Potential Hazards Controls ● Ethyl alcohol Highly flammable and could form explosive Disposable nitrile gloves Alcohols ● ● vapor/air mixtures. ● Use in well-ventilated areas away from o Clorox 4 in One Disinfecting Spray Ready-to-Use ● May react violently with strong oxidants. ignition sources ● Alcohols may de-fat the skin and cause ● Wear long sleeve shirt and pants ● Isopropyl alcohol dermatitis. ● Closed toe shoes o Isopropyl Alcohol Antiseptic ● Inhalation of concentrated alcohol vapor 75% Topical Solution, MM may cause irritation of the respiratory tract (Ready to Use) and effects on the central nervous system. o Opti-Cide Surface Wipes o Powell PII Disinfectant Wipes o Super Sani Cloth Germicidal Wipe 201 Hall Health Center, Box 354400, Seattle, WA 98195-4400 206.543.7262 ￜ fax 206.543.3351ￜ www.ehs.washington.edu ● Formaldehyde Formaldehyde in gas form is extremely Disposable nitrile gloves for Aldehydes ● ● flammable. It forms explosive mixtures with concentrations 10% or less ● Paraformaldehyde air. ● Medium or heavyweight nitrile, neoprene, ● Glutaraldehyde ● It should only be used in well-ventilated natural rubber, or PVC gloves for ● Ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) areas. concentrated solutions ● The chemicals are irritating, toxic to humans ● Protective clothing to minimize skin upon contact or inhalation of high contact concentrations.
    [Show full text]
  • Hand Hygiene Solutions
    PRODUCT OVERVIEWS Hand Hygiene Solutions Healing Hands Need Help, Too. Almost 80% of infectious Hand hygiene compliance Product selection matters diseases are transmitted rates are often very low Products containing aloe vera, via touch Outpatient clinics: Studies vitamin E and other emollients One of the most common have shown that hand hygiene can help to soothe and protect modes of transmission is frequency amongst clinic staff hands and even promote hand via the hands of healthcare ranges from 11-50%.2, 3 hygiene compliance.4 professionals.1 Designed for the demanding needs of healthcare professionals, Clorox Healthcare® provides a wide array of hand hygiene solutions formulated for frequent hand hygiene in healthcare settings. References 1. Tierno, P. The Secret Life of Germs. New York, NY, USA: Atria Books, 2001. 2. Kukanich KS, Kaur R, Freeman LC, Powell DA. Evaluation of a hand hygiene campaign in outpatient health care clinics. Am J Nurs. 2013 Mar;113(3):36-42. 3. Thompson D, Bowdey L, Brett M, Cheek, Using medical student observers of infection prevention, hand hygiene, and injection safety in outpatient settings: A cross-sectional survey. J Am J Infect. Control 2016; 44(4):374–380. 4. World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient Safety Challenge Clean Care Is Safer Care. 2009. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK144051/ (Accessed 22 February 2017) 5. CDC. “Handwashing: Clean Hands Save Lives-Show Me the Science-Why Wash Your Hands?” https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/why-handwashing.html (Accessed 15 March 2017). Hand hygiene is one of the most effective ways to stop the spread of germs and keep patients, staff and visitors safe.5 Our portfolio of hand hygiene solutions can be used to clean and soothe hands throughout your facility-from reception areas, to patient care areas to break rooms and offices.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethanol Rins and Hand Sanitizer
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION May 11, 2020 Re: Ethanol RINs and Hand Sanitizer Production for EP3 Pathway Ethanol Facilities during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Dear Ethanol Producers: EPA administers the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, including determining what volumes of fuel ethanol qualify for tradable credits (RINs) under the program. In 2014, as part of the RFS Program in 40 C.F.R. Part 80, we created the Efficient Producer Petition Process (EP3) as a streamlined process for corn starch and grain sorghum ethanol producers to demonstrate that their fuel satisfies the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction requirements to qualify for RINs. Consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 80.1416, over 80 dry mill ethanol plants in the United States have been approved for EP3 pathways. Given the current 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19), we understand that some consumers and health care professionals are currently experiencing difficulties accessing alcohol-based hand sanitizers. To enhance the availability of hand sanitizer products, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a number of temporary policies, including temporary guidance for producers of alcohol for hand sanitizer.1 Based on input from industry, we understand fuel ethanol facilities can quickly and significantly enhance the availability of alcohol suitable for hand sanitizer production. Ethanol production through an EP3 pathway is limited to 200-proof ethanol, whereas alcohol suitable for use as an ingredient in hand sanitizer (hand sanitizer alcohol) is commonly produced as 190-proof ethanol.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Effectiveness Disinfection of 2%
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Science (J Dentomaxillofac Sci ) December 2018, Volume 3, Number 3: 169-171 P-ISSN.2503-0817, E-ISSN.2503-0825 Comparison of effectiveness disinfection of 2% Original Research glutaraldehyde and 4.8% chloroxylenol on tooth extraction instruments in the Department of Oral CrossMark http://dx.doi.org/10.15562/jdmfs.v3i2.794 Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatera Month: December Ahyar Riza,* Isnandar, Indra B. Siregar, Bernard Volume No.: 3 Abstract Objective: To compare disinfecting effectiveness of 2% glutaraldehyde while the control group was treated with 4.8% chloroxylenol. Each Issue: 2 and 4.8% chloroxylenol on tooth extraction instruments at the instrument was pre-cleaned using a brush, water and soap for both Department of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North groups underwent the disinfection process. Sumatera. Results: The results were statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney Material and Methods: This was an experimental study with post- Test. The comparison between glutaraldehyde and chloroxylenol First page No.: 147 test only control group design approach. Purposive technique is showed a significant difference to the total bacteria count on applied to collect samples which are lower molar extraction forceps. In instrument after disinfection (p=0.014 < 0.05). this study, sample were divided into 2 groups and each consisting of 18 Conclusion: 2% glutaraldehyde was more effective than 4.8% P-ISSN.2503-0817 instruments. The treatment group was treated with 2% glutaraldehyde chloroxylenol at disinfecting lower molar extraction forceps. Keyword: Disinfection, Glutaraldehyde, Chloroxylenol, Forceps E-ISSN.2503-0825 Cite this Article: Riza A, Siregar IB, Isnandar, Bernard.
    [Show full text]
  • Hand Hygiene: Clean Hands for Healthcare Personnel
    Core Concepts for Hand Hygiene: Clean Hands for Healthcare Personnel 1 Presenter Russ Olmsted, MPH, CIC Director, Infection Prevention & Control Trinity Health, Livonia, MI Contributions by Heather M. Gilmartin, NP, PhD, CIC Denver VA Medical Center University of Colorado Laraine Washer, MD University of Michigan Health System 2 Learning Objectives • Outline the importance of effective hand hygiene for protection of healthcare personnel and patients • Describe proper hand hygiene techniques, including when various techniques should be used 3 Why is Hand Hygiene Important? • The microbes that cause healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) can be transmitted on the hands of healthcare personnel • Hand hygiene is one of the MOST important ways to prevent the spread of infection 1 out of every 25 patients has • Too often healthcare personnel do a healthcare-associated not clean their hands infection – In fact, missed opportunities for hand hygiene can be as high as 50% (Chassin MR, Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf, 2015; Yanke E, Am J Infect Control, 2015; Magill SS, N Engl J Med, 2014) 4 Environmental Surfaces Can Look Clean but… • Bacteria can survive for days on patient care equipment and other surfaces like bed rails, IV pumps, etc. • It is important to use hand hygiene after touching these surfaces and at exit, even if you only touched environmental surfaces Boyce JM, Am J Infect Control, 2002; WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care, WHO, 2009 5 Hands Make Multidrug-Resistant Organisms (MDROs) and Other Microbes Mobile (Image from CDC, Vital Signs: MMWR, 2016) 6 When Should You Clean Your Hands? 1. Before touching a patient 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Analysis of Chlorhexidine Gluconate, Povidone Iodine and Chloroxylenol As Scrubbing Solution
    British Journal of Pharmacology and Toxicology 1(2): 93-95, 2010 ISSN: 2044-2467 © Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2010 Submitted date: May 20, 2010 Accepted date: August 21, 2010 Published date: November 15, 2010 Comparative Analysis of Chlorhexidine Gluconate, Povidone Iodine and Chloroxylenol as Scrubbing Solution 1A.S. Yakubu, 1A.A. Abubakar, 2M.D. Salihu, 1A. Jibril and 1I. Isah 1Department of Veterinary Medicine, Surgery and Theriogenology 2Department of Veterinary Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto Abstract: The study was carried out to determine the efficacy of stock concentration of the commonly used disinfectant as scrub solution for surgical site in goats. The evaluation of efficacy and safety of commercially available disinfectant and antiseptic (0.3% Chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.4% Chloroxylenol and 4% Povidone iodine) as scrub solution for surgical site, using stock concentration was assessed in thirty (30) Red Sokoto goats undergoing non elective surgical procedures at Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Veterinary Teaching Hospital and Zonal Veterinary Clinic, Sokoto. Colony counting was used to quantify skin bacteria Colony Forming Unit (CFU) at surgical site before and after skin preparation. Reduction of CFU before and after preparation was significant with all the three disinfectants compared (p<0.05) and the result shows that Povidone iodine and Chloroxylenol to be less effecacious than Chlorhexidine gluconate when mean colony forming unit after two minute of preparing the surgical sites.
    [Show full text]
  • FDA Warns That Vapors from Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers Can Have Side Effects Apply Hand Sanitizer in a Well-Ventilated Area
    FDA warns that vapors from alcohol-based hand sanitizers can have side effects Apply hand sanitizer in a well-ventilated area 6-16-2021 FDA Drug Safety Communication What safety concern is FDA announcing? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning that symptoms such as headache, nausea, and dizziness can occur after applying alcohol-based hand sanitizers to the skin. These symptoms are likely to have occurred because of vapors from the hand sanitizer, potentially from exposure in enclosed spaces or places with poor air circulation. We have received increasing reports of these side effects since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most people experienced minor or minimal effects; however, some cases required treatment by a health care professional. What is FDA doing? We are continuing to monitor reports of adverse events that occur with hand sanitizers. At this time, we are not making any changes to the Drug Facts label for hand sanitizers but will inform the public if additional information becomes available. What are hand sanitizers and how can they help me? Hand sanitizers are over-the-counter (OTC) drug products that can help consumers reduce bacteria on their hands. However, the best way to prevent the spread of infections and decrease the risk of getting sick is by washing your hands with plain soap and water, advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Washing hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds is essential, especially after going to the restroom; before eating; and after coughing, sneezing, or blowing one’s nose.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Consensus Guidelines for Stocking of Antidotes in Hospitals That Provide Emergency Care
    TOXICOLOGY/CONCEPTS Expert Consensus Guidelines for Stocking of Antidotes in Hospitals That Provide Emergency Care Richard C. Dart, MD, PhD From the Rocky Mountain Poison & Drug Center - Denver Health, Denver, CO (Dart, Heard, Schaeffer, Stephen W. Borron, MD, MS Bogdan, Alhelail, Buchanan, Hoppe, Lavonas, Mlynarchek, Phua, Rhyee, Varney, Zosel); Department of E. Martin Caravati, MD, MPH Surgery, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, TX (Borron); Division of Emergency Daniel J. Cobaugh, PharmD Medicine, Utah Poison Control Center, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT Steven C. Curry, MD (Caravati); ASHP Research and Education Foundation, Bethesda, MD (Cobaugh); Department of Jay L. Falk, MD Medical Toxicology and Banner Poison Control Center, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center, Lewis Goldfrank, MD Phoenix, AZ (Curry); Department of Emergency Medicine, Orlando Regional Medical Center, University of Susan E. Gorman, PharmD, MS Florida, Orlando, FL (Falk); New York City Poison Center; New York University School of Medicine, New Stephen Groft, PharmD York, NY (Goldfrank); Division of Strategic National Stockpile, Centers for Disease Control and Kennon Heard, MD Prevention, Atlanta, GA (Gorman); Office of Rare Diseases Research, Bethesda, MD (Groft); Division of Ken Miller, MD, PhD Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine (Dart, Heard, Lavonas, Schaeffer) and Department of Kent R. Olson, MD Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy (Bogdan), University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO; Gerald O’Malley, DO Orange County Fire Authority and Orange County Health Care Agency Emergency Medical Services, Donna Seger, MD Irvine, CA, and National Association of EMS Physicians, Lenexa, KS, (Miller); University of California, Steven A. Seifert, MD San Francisco, and San Francisco Division, California Poison Control System, San Francisco, CA Marco L.
    [Show full text]
  • Disinfection of Tonometers a Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology
    Ophthalmic Technology Assessment Disinfection of Tonometers A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology Anna K. Junk, MD,1 Philip P. Chen, MD,2 Shan C. Lin, MD,3 Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi, MD,4 Sunita Radhakrishnan, MD,5 Kuldev Singh, MD, MPH,6 Teresa C. Chen, MD7 Objective: To examine the efficacy of various disinfection methods for reusable tonometer prisms in eye care and to highlight how disinfectants can damage tonometer tips and cause subsequent patient harm. Methods: Literature searches were conducted last in October 2016 in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases for original research investigations. Reviews, non-English language articles, nonophthalmology articles, surveys, and case reports were excluded. Results: The searches initially yielded 64 unique citations. After exclusion criteria were applied, 10 labo- ratory studies remained for this review. Nine of the 10 studies used tonometer prisms and 1 used steel discs. The infectious agents covered in this assessment include adenovirus 8 and 19, herpes simplex virus (HSV) 1 and 2, human immunodeficiency virus 1, hepatitis C virus, enterovirus 70, and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. All 4 studies of adenovirus 8 concluded that after sodium hypochlorite (dilute bleach) disinfection, the virus was undetectable, but only 2 of the 4 studies found that 70% isopropyl alcohol (e.g., alcohol wipes or soaks) eradicated all viable virus. All 3 HSV studies concluded that both sodium hypochlorite and 70% isopropyl alcohol eliminated HSV. Ethanol, 70% isopropyl alcohol, dilute bleach, and mechanical cleaning all lack the ability to remove cellular debris completely, which is necessary to prevent prion transmission. Therefore, single-use tonometer tips or disposable tonometer covers should be considered when treating patients with suspected prion disease.
    [Show full text]
  • Reactions of Alcohols & Ethers 1
    REACTIONS OF ALCOHOLS & ETHERS 1. Combustion (Extreme Oxidation) alcohol + oxygen carbon dioxide + water 2 CH3CH2OH + 6 O2 4 CO2 + 6 H2O 2. Elimination (Dehydration) ° alcohol H 2 S O 4/ 1 0 0 C alkene + water H2SO4/100 ° C CH3CH2CH2OH CH3CH=CH2 + H2O 3. Condensation ° excess alcohol H 2 S O 4 / 1 4 0 C ether + water H2SO4/140 ° C 2 CH3CH2OH CH3CH2OCH2CH3 + H2O 4. Substitution Lucas Reagent alcohol + hydrogen halide Z n C l2 alkyl halide + water ZnCl2 CH3CH2OH + HCl CH3CH2Cl + H2O • This reaction with the Lucas Reagent (ZnCl2) is a qualitative test for the different types of alcohols because the rate of the reaction differs greatly for a primary, secondary and tertiary alcohol. • The difference in rates is due to the solubility of the resulting alkyl halides • Tertiary Alcohol→ turns cloudy immediately (the alkyl halide is not soluble in water and precipitates out) • Secondary Alcohol → turns cloudy after 5 minutes • Primary Alcohol → takes much longer than 5 minutes to turn cloudy 5. Oxidation • Uses an oxidizing agent such as potassium permanganate (KMnO4) or potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7). • This reaction can also be used as a qualitative test for the different types of alcohols because there is a distinct colour change. dichromate → chromium 3+ (orange) → (green) permanganate → manganese (IV) oxide (purple) → (brown) Tertiary Alcohol not oxidized under normal conditions CH3 KMnO4 H3C C OH NO REACTION K2Cr2O7 CH3 tertbutyl alcohol Secondary Alcohol ketone + hydrogen ions H O KMnO4 H3C C CH3 + K2Cr2O7 C + 2 H H3C CH3 OH propanone 2-propanol Primary Alcohol aldehyde + water carboxylic acid + hydrogen ions O KMnO4 O H H KMnO H H 4 + CH3CH2CH2OH C C C H C C C H + 2 H K2Cr2O7 + H2O K Cr O H H H 2 2 7 HO H H 1-propanol propanal propanoic acid 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Background: N-(3-Chloroallyl)Hexaminium Chloride
    • NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF SAFETY AND TOXICITY INFORMATION N-(3-CHLOROALLYL)HEXAMINIUM CHLORIDE CAS Number 4080-31-3 July 16, 1991 Submitted to: NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM Submitted by: Arthur D. Little, Inc. Chemical Evaluation Committee Draft Report • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L NOMINATION HISTORY AND REVIEW .................... 1 II. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL DATA ....................... 3 III. PRODUCTION/USE ................................... 5 IV. EXPOSURE/REGULATORY STATUS...................... .10 V. TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS ........................... .11 VI. STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS ..................48 VII. REFERENCES ..................................... : . ......... 49 APPENDIX I, ON-LINE DATA BASES SEARCHED ............ .53 APPENDIX II, SAFETY INFORMATION.................... .54 1 ,, .• • • OVERVJEWl Nomination History: N-(3-Chloroallyl)hexaminium chloride was originally nominated for carcinogenicity testing by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in 1980 with moderate priority. In March 1980, the Chemical Evaluation Committee (CEC) recommended carcinogenicity testing. Due to budgetary cutbacks in 1982, this compound was reevaluated and recommended for in vitro cytogenetics and chemical disposition testing by the CEC, and was selected for chemical disposition testing by the Executive Committee. The renomination of this chemical in 1984 by the NCI was based on potentialfor significant human exposure and concern that it may be carcinogenic due to structural considerations. This recent nomination was
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Disinfectants | Disinfection & Sterilization Guidelines | Guidelines Library | Infection Control | CDC 3/19/20, 14:52
    Chemical Disinfectants | Disinfection & Sterilization Guidelines | Guidelines Library | Infection Control | CDC 3/19/20, 14:52 Infection Control Chemical Disinfectants Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities (2008) Alcohol Overview. In the healthcare setting, “alcohol” refers to two water-soluble chemical compounds—ethyl alcohol and isopropyl alcohol —that have generally underrated germicidal characteristics 482. FDA has not cleared any liquid chemical sterilant or high- level disinfectant with alcohol as the main active ingredient. These alcohols are rapidly bactericidal rather than bacteriostatic against vegetative forms of bacteria; they also are tuberculocidal, fungicidal, and virucidal but do not destroy bacterial spores. Their cidal activity drops sharply when diluted below 50% concentration, and the optimum bactericidal concentration is 60%–90% solutions in water (volume/volume) 483, 484. Mode of Action. The most feasible explanation for the antimicrobial action of alcohol is denaturation of proteins. This mechanism is supported by the observation that absolute ethyl alcohol, a dehydrating agent, is less bactericidal than mixtures of alcohol and water because proteins are denatured more quickly in the presence of water 484, 485. Protein denaturation also is consistent with observations that alcohol destroys the dehydrogenases of Escherichia coli 486, and that ethyl alcohol increases the lag phase of Enterobacter aerogenes 487 and that the lag phase e!ect could be reversed by adding certain amino acids. The bacteriostatic action was believed caused by inhibition of the production of metabolites essential for rapid cell division. Microbicidal Activity. Methyl alcohol (methanol) has the weakest bactericidal action of the alcohols and thus seldom is used in healthcare 488. The bactericidal activity of various concentrations of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) was examined against a variety of microorganisms in exposure periods ranging from 10 seconds to 1 hour 483.
    [Show full text]