DOCSLIB.ORG

Hand Sanitizers: a Review on Formulation Aspects, Adverse Effects, and Regulations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hand Sanitizers: a Review on Formulation Aspects, Adverse Effects, and Regulations International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Review Hand Sanitizers: A Review on Formulation Aspects, Adverse Effects, and Regulations 1, 1, 2 2 Jane Lee Jia Jing y, Thong Pei Yi y, Rajendran J. C. Bose , Jason R. McCarthy , Nagendran Tharmalingam 3 and Thiagarajan Madheswaran 4,* 1 School of Pharmacy, International Medical University, No. 126 Jalan Jalil Perkasa 19, Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur 57000, Malaysia; [email protected] (J.L.J.J.); [email protected] (T.P.Y.) 2 Masonic Medical Research Institute, 2150 Bleecker St, Utica, NY 13501, USA; [email protected] (R.J.C.B.); [email protected] (J.R.M.) 3 Infectious Diseases Division, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI 02903, USA; [email protected] 4 Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, International Medical University, No. 126 Jalan Jalil Perkasa 19, Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur 57000, Malaysia * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +60-3-2731-7075 These authors contributed equally to this work. y Received: 26 March 2020; Accepted: 8 May 2020; Published: 11 May 2020 Abstract: Hand hygiene is of utmost importance as it may be contaminated easily from direct contact with airborne microorganism droplets from coughs and sneezes. Particularly in situations like pandemic outbreak, it is crucial to interrupt the transmission chain of the virus by the practice of proper hand sanitization. It can be achieved with contact isolation and strict infection control tool like maintaining good hand hygiene in hospital settings and in public. The success of the hand sanitization solely depends on the use of effective hand disinfecting agents formulated in various types and forms such as antimicrobial soaps, water-based or alcohol-based hand sanitizer, with the latter being widely used in hospital settings. To date, most of the effective hand sanitizer products are alcohol-based formulations containing 62%–95% of alcohol as it can denature the proteins of microbes and the ability to inactivate viruses. This systematic review correlated with the data available in Pubmed, and it will investigate the range of available hand sanitizers and their effectiveness as well as the formulation aspects, adverse effects, and recommendations to enhance the formulation efficiency and safety. Further, this article highlights the efficacy of alcohol-based hand sanitizer against the coronavirus. Keywords: hand sanitizer; hand disinfectants; infection control 1. Introduction The emergence of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease-2019) pandemic has risen to be a significant global public health concern and led to extensive use of hand disinfectants given its contagious nature. There was a total of 3.8 million reported cases affecting over 200 countries worldwide as of 7 May 2020 [1,2]. COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which can persist and remain infectious on surfaces for up to 9 days [3,4]. The recent study reveals that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is possible in the form of aerosol and fomite, and the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days, depending on the inoculum shed [5]. Hence, it is crucial to interrupt the transmission chain of the virus through contact isolation and strict infection control tools [6]. Following face masks, appropriate hand hygiene is of utmost importance as hands may be contaminated from direct contact with patients’ Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3326; doi:10.3390/ijerph17093326 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3326 2 of 17 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 19 contaminated from direct contact with patients’ respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes or respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes or indirect contact via surfaces, which may then facilitate indirect contact via surfaces, which may then facilitate the transmission and spreading of the disease the transmission and spreading of the disease [7–9]. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome [7–9]. The 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak was caused by a novel human (SARS)coronavirus outbreak (CoV) was (SARS-CoV) caused by athat novel could human survive coronavirus on surfaces (CoV) for 24 (SARS-CoV) to 72 h [10]. that The could studies survive on onSARS-CoV surfaces for outbreak 24 to 72 settings h [10]. Theshowed studies that on providing SARS-CoV efficient outbreak handwashing settings showed facilities that reduced providing effitransmissioncient handwashing [11]. facilities reduced transmission [11]. GivenGiven the the dangers dangers imposed imposed by by this this disease, disease, the the Centre Centre for Diseasefor Disease Control Control and and Prevention Prevention (CDC), the(CDC), United the States United has States promoted has promoted and encouraged and encouraged hand hygiene hand hygiene through thro handwashingugh handwashing or use or of use hand sanitizerof hand [sanitizer12]. Hand [12]. disinfectants Hand disinfectants are commercially are commercially available available in variousin various types types and and forms forms suchsuch as anti-microbialas anti-microbial soaps, soaps, water-based water-based or alcohol-based or alcohol-ba handsed hand sanitizers, sanitizers, most most often often used inused hospital in hospital settings. Disettings.fferent types Different of delivery types of systems delivery are systems also formulated—for are also formulated—for instance, instance, rubs, foams, rubs, or foams, wipes or (Figure wipes 1). The(Figure World 1). Health The OrganisationWorld Health (WHO) Organisation recommends (WHO) alcohol-based recommends hand alcohol-based sanitizer (ABHS) hand insanitizer line with the(ABHS) proven in advantagesline with the ofproven their advantages rapid action of andtheir a rapid broad action spectrum and a broad of microbicidal spectrum of activity microbicidal offering protectionactivity offering against protection bacteria and against viruses. bacteria However, and viruses. the effectiveness However, againstthe effectiveness non-enveloped against viruses non- is stillenveloped debatable viruses and questionable is still debatable [7,13 and–18 questionable]. [7,13–18]. Figure 1. Various types of hand sanitizer dosage forms. Figure 1. Various types of hand sanitizer dosage forms. To date, most effective hand sanitizer products are alcohol-based formulations containing 62%–95% To date, most effective hand sanitizer products are alcohol-based formulations containing 62%– of alcohol as it is capable of denaturing the proteins of microbes and inactivating viruses [19,20]. 95% of alcohol as it is capable of denaturing the proteins of microbes and inactivating viruses [19,20]. ThereThere are are a fewa few challenges challenges and and concernsconcerns with regard to to this this formulation formulation in in terms terms of offire fire hazards hazards and and skinskin toxicity toxicity due due toto highhigh alcoholalcohol content content [21]. [21]. This This systemic systemic review review aims aims to investigate to investigate the range the range of ofavailable available hand hand sanitizers sanitizers and and their their effectiveness effectiveness against against the the human human coronavirus coronavirus as aswell well as asthe the formulationformulation aspects, aspects, adverseadverse eeffects,ffects, and recomme recommendationsndations to to improve improve the the formulation formulation of ofcurrent current handhand sanitizers. sanitizers. 2.2. Methods Methods ThisThis study study was was conducted conducted accordingaccording to the PRIS PRISMAMA recommendations recommendations [22]. [22 We]. We systematically systematically reviewedreviewed the the available available literature literature in in PubMed PubMed and and Google Google Scholar, Scholar, up up to to 2020. 2020. The The search search terms terms we we used areused hand are sanitizers hand sanitizers AND alcohol AND ANDalcohol treatment AND treatment AND handwashing AND handwash ANDing virucide AND virucide AND bactericide AND ANDbactericide (cure OR AND failure (cure OR OR mortality). failure OR mortality). A manual A search manual was search also performed.was also performed. We set noWe year set no limit, andyear English limit, and is the English only languageis the only welanguage limit. Thewe limit. study The selection study selection based on based effective on effective treatment treatment resulted inresulted a potential in a eradicationpotential eradication of pathogens. of pathogens. The data The extracted data extracted from from each each study study comprised comprised the the main characteristicsmain characteristics of the study,of the suchstudy, as such the firstas the author’s first author’s name, name, year, studyyear, study design, design, and country.and country. Out of manyOut reports,of many wereports, selected we selected articles basedarticles on based the hand on the disinfectant hand disinfectant agents andagents their and potential their potential outcome suitableoutcome for suitable the present for the viral present pandemic. viral pandemic. Data were Da extractedta were byextracted two authors by two based authors on thebased screening on the of the titles and abstracts obtained from the PubMed and Google Scholar database. The other authors have checked the materials to fulfil the criteria for the work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
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]
  • 1 Brief Report: the Virucidal Efficacy of Oral Rinse Components Against SARS-Cov-2 in Vitro Evelina Statkute1†, Anzelika Rubin
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.13.381079; this version posted November 13, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-ND 4.0 International license. Brief Report: The Virucidal Efficacy of Oral Rinse Components Against SARS-CoV-2 In Vitro Evelina Statkute1†, Anzelika Rubina1†, Valerie B O’Donnell1, David W. Thomas2† Richard J. Stanton1† 1Systems Immunity University Research Institute, Division of Infection & Immunity, School of Medicine, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN 2Advanced Therapies Group, School of Dentistry, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XY, UK †These authors contributed equally * Correspondence: [email protected], [email protected] Running title: Virucidal Activity of Mouthwashes Keywords: SARS-CoV2, mouthwash, lipid, envelope Disclosure: Venture Life Group plc provided information on mouthwash formulations employed in the study, but had no role in funding, planning, execution, analysis or writing of this study. A separate study funded to Cardiff University by Venture Life Group is assessing in vivo efficacy of CPC in patients with COVID19. The investigators declare no direct conflicts exist. 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.13.381079; this version posted November 13, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary Ammonium Compounds
    FACT SHEET: Quaternary Ammonium Compounds Quaternary ammonium compounds, also known as “quats” or “QACs,” include a number of chemicals used as sanitizers and disinfectants, including benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, cetalkonium chloride, cetrimide, cetrimonium bromide, cetylpyridinium chloride, glycidyl trimethyl, ammonium chloride, and stearalkonium chloride.[i] In general, quats cause toxic effects through all Mutagenicity routes of exposure including inhalation, Some quats have shown to be mutagenic and to ingestion, dermal application, and irrigation of damage animal DNA and DNA in human body cavities. Exposure to diluted solutions may lymphocytes at much lower levels than are result in mild irritation, while concentrated present in cleaning chemicals.[6] solutions are corrosive, causing burns to the skin and mucous Membranes. They can produce Antimicrobial Resistance systemic toxicity and can also cause allergic Genes have been discovered that mediate reactions.[2] resistance to quats. There has been an association of some of these genes with beta lactamase genes, Asthma and Allergies raising concern for a relationship between Of particular interest with regard to use as disinfectant resistance and antibiotic resistance.[7] disinfectants in the COVID-19 pandemic, quats increase the risk for asthma and allergic Reproductive Toxicity sensitization. Evidence from occupational Mice whose cages were cleaned with QACs had exposures shows increased risk of rhinitis and very low fertility rates. [8] Exposure to a common asthma
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Disinfectants for Use Against the COVID-19 Virus
    When it comes to choosing a disinfectant to combat the COVID-19 virus, research and health authorities suggest not all disinfectants are equally effective. The difference is in their active ingredient(s). HEALTH CANADA AND U.S. EPA ASSESSMENTS The work to evaluate disinfectants perhaps best starts with lists of approved disinfectants compiled by government health authorities. Health Canada has compiled a list of 85 hard surface disinfectant products (as of March 20, 2020) that meet their requirements for disinfection of emerging pathogens, including the virus that causes COVID-19. It can be accessed here. You can wade through the entire list. But if you locate the Drug Identification Number (DIN) on the disinfectant product label or the safety data sheet (SDS), then you can use the search function to quickly see if the product meets Health Canada requirements. A second list, updated on March 19, 2020, provides 287 products that meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19. This list can be found here. Like the Health Canada list, you can wade through this one too. However, to best use this list, you should locate the U.S. EPA registration number on the product label or SDS, and use that number to search the list. The U.S. EPA registration number of a product consists of two sets of numbers separated by a hyphen. The first set of numbers refers to the company identification number, and the second set of numbers following the hyphen represents the product number.
    [Show full text]
  • Tonsillopharyngitis - Acute (1 of 10)
    Tonsillopharyngitis - Acute (1 of 10) 1 Patient presents w/ sore throat 2 EVALUATION Yes EXPERT Are there signs of REFERRAL complication? No 3 4 EVALUATION Is Group A Beta-hemolytic Yes DIAGNOSIS Streptococcus (GABHS) • Rapid antigen detection test infection suspected? (RADT) • roat culture No TREATMENT EVALUATION No A Supportive management Is GABHS confi rmed? B Pharmacological therapy (Non-GABHS) Yes 5 TREATMENT A EVALUATE RESPONSEMIMS Supportive management TO THERAPY C Pharmacological therapy • Antibiotics Poor/No Good D Surgery, if recurrent or complicated response response REASSESS PATIENT COMPLETE THERAPY & REVIEW THE DIAGNOSIS© Not all products are available or approved for above use in all countries. Specifi c prescribing information may be found in the latest MIMS. B269 © MIMS Pediatrics 2020 Tonsillopharyngitis - Acute (2 of 10) 1 ACUTE TONSILLOPHARYNGITIS • Infl ammation of the tonsils & pharynx • Etiologies include bacterial (group A β-hemolytic streptococcus, Haemophilus infl uenzae, Fusobacterium sp, etc) & viral (infl uenza, adenovirus, coronavirus, rhinovirus, etc) pathogens • Sore throat is the most common presenting symptom in older children TONSILLOPHARYNGITIS 2 EVALUATION FOR COMPLICATIONS • Patients w/ sore throat may have deep neck infections including epiglottitis, peritonsillar or retropharyngeal abscess • Examine for signs of upper airway obstruction Signs & Symptoms of Sore roat w/ Complications • Trismus • Inability to swallow liquids • Increased salivation or drooling • Peritonsillar edema • Deviation of uvula
    [Show full text]
  • FDA-2015-N-0101; and FDA-2016-N-0124
    DE PARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration Silver Spring MD 20993 November 18, 2020 Docket Nos. FDA-1975-N-0012; FDA-2015-N-0101; and FDA-2016-N-0124 The American Cleaning Institute Attention: James Kim, PhD Vice President, Science and Regulatory Affairs 1401 H Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 Re: Benzalkonium Chloride, Benzethonium Chloride, Chloroxylenol, Ethanol, and Povidone-Iodine Dear Dr. Kim: This letter responds to The American Cleaning Institute’s (ACI’s) July 14, 2020 communication regarding the deferral from final rulemaking under the over-the-counter (OTC) Drug Review on benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, chloroxylenol, ethanol, and povidone-iodine for use in nonprescription (often referred to as over-the-counter or OTC) consumer antiseptic wash, health care antiseptic, and consumer antiseptic rub drug products. In March 2016, FDA issued letters granting requests to defer three active ingredients— benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, and chloroxylenol—from inclusion in the final rulemaking for the December 2013 proposed rule for OTC consumer antiseptic washes (78 FR 76444). Similarly, in January 2017, FDA issued letters granting requests to defer six active ingredients—benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, chloroxylenol, ethanol, povidone- iodine, and isopropyl alcohol—from inclusion in the final rulemaking for the May 2015 proposed rule for OTC health care antiseptics (80 FR 25166). In October 2017, FDA issued letters granting requests to defer three active
    [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]
  • Bio-Butanol Production from Glycerol with Clostridium
    Lin et al. Biotechnol Biofuels (2015) 8:168 DOI 10.1186/s13068-015-0352-6 RESEARCH Open Access Bio‑butanol production from glycerol with Clostridium pasteurianum CH4: the effects of butyrate addition and in situ butanol removal via membrane distillation De‑Shun Lin1, Hong‑Wei Yen2, Wei‑Chen Kao1, Chieh‑Lun Cheng1, Wen‑Ming Chen3, Chieh‑Chen Huang4 and Jo‑Shu Chang1,4,5* Abstract Background: Clostridium pasteurianum CH4 was used to produce butanol from glycerol. The performance of butanol fermentation was improved by adding butyrate as the precursor to trigger the metabolic pathway toward butanol production, and by combining this with in situ butanol removal via vacuum membrane distillation (VMD) to avoid the product inhibition arising from a high butanol concentration. 1 Results: Adding 6 g L− butyrate as precursor led to an increase in the butanol yield from 0.24 to 0.34 mol butanol 1 (mol glycerol)− . Combining VMD and butyrate addition strategies could further enhance the maximum effective 1 1 butanol concentration to 29.8 g L− , while the yield was also improved to 0.39 mol butanol (mol glycerol)− . The butanol concentration in the permeate of VMD was nearly five times higher than that in the feeding solution. Conclusions: The proposed butyrate addition and VMD in situ butanol removal strategies are very effective in enhancing both butanol titer and butanol yield. This would significantly enhance the economic feasibility of fermen‑ tative production of butanol. The VMD-based technology not only alleviates the inhibitory effect of butanol, but also markedly increases butanol concentration in the permeate after condensation, thereby making downstream process‑ ing easier and more cost-effective.
    [Show full text]
  • NINDS Custom Collection II
    ACACETIN ACEBUTOLOL HYDROCHLORIDE ACECLIDINE HYDROCHLORIDE ACEMETACIN ACETAMINOPHEN ACETAMINOSALOL ACETANILIDE ACETARSOL ACETAZOLAMIDE ACETOHYDROXAMIC ACID ACETRIAZOIC ACID ACETYL TYROSINE ETHYL ESTER ACETYLCARNITINE ACETYLCHOLINE ACETYLCYSTEINE ACETYLGLUCOSAMINE ACETYLGLUTAMIC ACID ACETYL-L-LEUCINE ACETYLPHENYLALANINE ACETYLSEROTONIN ACETYLTRYPTOPHAN ACEXAMIC ACID ACIVICIN ACLACINOMYCIN A1 ACONITINE ACRIFLAVINIUM HYDROCHLORIDE ACRISORCIN ACTINONIN ACYCLOVIR ADENOSINE PHOSPHATE ADENOSINE ADRENALINE BITARTRATE AESCULIN AJMALINE AKLAVINE HYDROCHLORIDE ALANYL-dl-LEUCINE ALANYL-dl-PHENYLALANINE ALAPROCLATE ALBENDAZOLE ALBUTEROL ALEXIDINE HYDROCHLORIDE ALLANTOIN ALLOPURINOL ALMOTRIPTAN ALOIN ALPRENOLOL ALTRETAMINE ALVERINE CITRATE AMANTADINE HYDROCHLORIDE AMBROXOL HYDROCHLORIDE AMCINONIDE AMIKACIN SULFATE AMILORIDE HYDROCHLORIDE 3-AMINOBENZAMIDE gamma-AMINOBUTYRIC ACID AMINOCAPROIC ACID N- (2-AMINOETHYL)-4-CHLOROBENZAMIDE (RO-16-6491) AMINOGLUTETHIMIDE AMINOHIPPURIC ACID AMINOHYDROXYBUTYRIC ACID AMINOLEVULINIC ACID HYDROCHLORIDE AMINOPHENAZONE 3-AMINOPROPANESULPHONIC ACID AMINOPYRIDINE 9-AMINO-1,2,3,4-TETRAHYDROACRIDINE HYDROCHLORIDE AMINOTHIAZOLE AMIODARONE HYDROCHLORIDE AMIPRILOSE AMITRIPTYLINE HYDROCHLORIDE AMLODIPINE BESYLATE AMODIAQUINE DIHYDROCHLORIDE AMOXEPINE AMOXICILLIN AMPICILLIN SODIUM AMPROLIUM AMRINONE AMYGDALIN ANABASAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE ANABASINE HYDROCHLORIDE ANCITABINE HYDROCHLORIDE ANDROSTERONE SODIUM SULFATE ANIRACETAM ANISINDIONE ANISODAMINE ANISOMYCIN ANTAZOLINE PHOSPHATE ANTHRALIN ANTIMYCIN A (A1 shown) ANTIPYRINE APHYLLIC
    [Show full text]
  • In Vivo Evaluation of the Virucidal Efficacy of Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine Mouthwashes Against Salivary SARS-Cov-2
    medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.07.21252302; this version posted March 17, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license . Title: In vivo evaluation of the virucidal efficacy of Chlorhexidine and Povidone-iodine mouthwashes against salivary SARS-CoV-2. Rola Elzein1*, Fadi Abdel-Sater2*, Soha Fakhreddine3, Pierre Abi Hanna3, Rita Feghali4, Hassan Hamad5, Fouad Ayoub6 ¹Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Public Dental Health, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon 2Laboratory of Cancer Biology and Cellular Immunology, Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon 3Infectious Diseases division, Rafik Hariri University Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon 4Department of Laboratory Medicine, Rafik Hariri University Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon 5Medical care Laboratory, Faculty of Public Health IV, Lebanese University, Zahle, Lebanon 6Department of Forensic Odontology, Human Identification and Anthropology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon *CORRESPONDING AUTHORS: Rola ELZEIN; Mobile number: 009613252480; Email address: [email protected] Fadi Abdelsater; Mobile number: 009613781176; Email address: [email protected] NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.07.21252302; this version posted March 17, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]