SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “DISINFECTANTS”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 991 records · Page 55Linked to original sources

PubMed1980

Virucidal disinfectants and feline viruses.

Thirty-five commonly used commercial disinfectants (disinfectants, antiseptics, sanitizers, and detergents) were evaluated for their virucidal activity against three feline viruses; feline viral rhinotracheitis virus (a herpesvirus), feline calicivirus, and feline panleukopenia virus (a parvovirus). Disinfectants were diluted as recommended by the manufacturer and were reacted with virus for 10 minutes at room temperature. Viruses were separated from disinfectants by gel filtration in special centrifuge tubes, and were assayed for infectivity in feline cell cultures. All 22 products tested were virucidal for feline viral rhinotracheitis virus, 11 of 35 were virucidal for feline calicivirus, but only 3 of 27 tested were effective against feline panleukopenia virus. A 0.175% sodium hypochlorite solution was the most effective and practical broad-spectrum virucidal product used alone or in combination with other disinfectants/detergents.

Animals↗

PubMed1983

[The effect of a single disinfection of a farm on cryptosporidiosis infection in calves].

The disinfection of a farm with Dikonit (active substance: sodium dichlorocyanuran) exerted no significant influence on the course of the spreading of cryptosporidiosis infections in newborn calves. The oocysts of Cryptosporidium sp., isolated from the faeces of a spontaneously infected calf and left in a 2.5% disinfecting solution of Dikonit under laboratory conditions for four hours, did not lose their viability. Laboratory mice experimentally infected with these "disinfected" oocysts, began to produce oocysts of Cryptosporidium sp. the sixth day from infection. The findings of different developmental stages of this protozoan obtained during the histological examination of the intestinal tissue of test mice are also considered as evidence of successful experimental infection. The cryptosporidium-free period which lasted only 14 days from disinfection was mainly due to thorough mechanical cleaning of the area where the calves were kept after birth. This is also proved by the results of the examination of old residues of calf faeces scraped from the floors: only individual individual oocysts of Cryptosporidium sp. were found in these samples.

Animals↗

PubMed1984

The effectiveness of six disinfectants in inactivation of reovirus 3.

Reovirus 3 in the presence of foetal bovine serum was exposed to six disinfectants for times of 10, 20 and 30 sec. At the end of such exposure times the addition of skim milk terminated disinfectant activity, and residual virus was assayed using the plaque technique. The six disinfectants considered were Javex (a sodium hypochlorite disinfectant), sodium hydroxide, ethanol, Wescodyne, One Stroke Ves-Phene, and Sonacide. Ethanol (95% v/v) and 1/75 Javex (800 ppm chlorine) were the most effective virucides. Both of these agents inactivated 10(5) plaque forming units (PFU) in 30 sec. Undiluted Sonacide, 0.25% (w/v) sodium hydroxide and 1/200 Wescodyne each inactivated between 10(2) and 10(3) PFU in 30 sec. Javex at a dilution of 1/100 (600 ppm chlorine) was next in effectiveness, inactivating 10(1.5) PFU in 30 sec and was more effective than 1/50 Ves-Phene which inactivated 10(1) PFU in 30 sec. Ethanol in 70% (v/v) solution was totally ineffective in inactivating reovirus 3. Ethanol (95% v/v) after dilution in the test system was 76% (v/v) and ethanol (70% v/v) was really 56% (v/v).

Disinfectants↗

PubMed1983

[Formaldehyde sediment in incubators following disinfection].

Measurements in incubators revealed the presence of formaldehyde concentrations involving a health risk for premature and normal newborns kept and cared for in incubators. Prior to measurements, the incubators had been disinfected by means of formaldehyde vapours in an "Aseptor" disinfecting cabinet (Drägerwerk AG, Lübeck) and then ventilated in strict adherence to operating instructions. The elevated formaldehyde concentrations found had been due to residues of paraformaldehyde and urotropin on the surfaces of the disinfected apparatus, liberating formaldehyde by hydrolysis depending on temperature and relative humidity. There should be a basic reconsideration of the present practice of incubator disinfection. From experiments with activated-carbon filters in incubators it would seem that there is a chance of reducing such formaldehyde concentrations.

Disinfection↗

PubMed1980

A comparison of the quantitative suspension tests for the assessment of disinfectants.

The germicidal effect of two disinfectant standards has been determined by three quantitative suspension tests: the Dutch Standard-Suspension Test, the French AFNOR test, and the in vitro test. Particularly in case of Pseudomonas aeruginosa the germicidal-effect values found according to the three methods differ in a significant way (Tables 1 and 2). The only factors that could explain these differences, since they are not the same in the three techniques, are the preparation of the bacterial suspension and the diluent of the disinfectant solution. Through this the composition of the reaction mixture is different: in the in vitro test only 0.0085% NaC1 and 0.001% Tryptone are contained, in the AFNOR test the same constituants are ten times more concentrated and in the Standard-Suspension Test 0.882% NaC1 and 0.0306% albumin are present. If in the same trial these substances have been incorporated in the final concentration above-mentioned, then germicidal-effect values equal to those of the original tests have been obtained (Table 3). The disinfectant diluent and the bacterial suspension fluid have to be the main factors responsible for the differences in activity found by the three testing methods. In our opinion the in vitro test gives the clearest picture of the anti-bacterial properties of a disinfectant since in this test the less addition of extraneous matter is encountered.

Albumins↗

PubMed1982

[Effectiveness of the decontaminating action of disinfectants on Klebsiella ozaenae-contaminated surfaces].

The effectiveness of the disinfecting action of elevated temperature (59 degrees C and 100 degrees C), chloraemine, chlorhexidine, sodium dichlorisocyanurat, hydrogen peroxide, nirtan and phenol on surfaces contaminated with K. ozaenae has been studied. These organisms have been found to be highly susceptible to the action of elevated temperature and the tested disinfectants. The effective concentrations of these disinfectants and exposure time are recommended for routine disinfection in the foci of ozena.

Disinfectants↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[The use of disinfectants in Northern Italy with special attention to the Emilia-Romagna region].

As part of an extensive investigation into the use of disinfectants in hospitals, data from 189 hospitals in the north of Italy, including 38 in the Emilia-Romagna region, were examined. Eleven fields of employment were assessed. It was found that benzalkonium chloride was primarily used for disinfection of the operative field, wounds, excoriations, sores, the skin prior to injection, surgical instruments, catheters, thermometers, and utensils. Chlorhexidine was preferred to disinfection of the hands and medical equipment. Formaldehyde was preferred for ambient surfaces, the air of confined spaces, and (in association with chlorine and its derivatives) for sanitary services and vessels. Glutaric aldehyde was preferred for apparatus fitted with lenses or optical fibres. By comparison with other parts of N. Italy. Emilia-Romagna made greater use of hydrogen peroxide for skin lesions, and alcohol for disinfection prior to transcutaneous injections.

Benzalkonium Compounds↗

PubMed1981

Disinfection of hydrophilic lenses.

The cleaning and disinfection of hydrogel lenses has been discussed in the optometric literature by a number of authors. Although significant differences exist among authors regarding the disinfection method of choice, there is reasonable agreement that lenses that are carefully cleaned and rinsed are advantageous from the standpoint of both safety and lens longevity. Chemical disinfection with the soaking solution changed daily is a fail-safe method, while thermal disinfection may be less safe, perhaps due to ineffective lens case construction or thermal unit breakdown.

Bacterial Infections↗

PubMed1995

Cleaning and disinfection of lower gastrointestinal endoscopes.

Cleaning and disinfection are two necessary and equally important steps to prevent transmission of infection from patient to patient by the endoscope and accessories. There is no evidence that complete sterility is necessary; high-level disinfection is recommended. Controversy remains as to how "high level" this disinfection must be. It is important that these processes not become complicated, difficult, or intimidating. They must be efficacious and yet safe for the scope as well as for the attending staff. It is strongly recommended that the clinician fully understands the cleaning and disinfection steps and not inhibit his or her staff's ability to perform them correctly. It is important that we use these relatively new and important diagnostic equipment tools to improve the health of the public. There are several studies now that suggest that screening flexible sigmoidoscopies may be of value in decreasing mortality from colonic adenocarcinomas. It is important that we remain focused on our overall mission while at the same time "do no harm."

Colonoscopes↗

PubMed1995

[Effectiveness of endoscope disinfection process].

The effectiveness of flexible endoscopes disinfection was evaluated. Since 1991 to 1994--157 inoculations were taken from endoscopic equipment--right after the examination and after their disinfection. Following the endoscopes examinations were contaminated by microorganisms normally resident in the throat, respiratory and digestive tracts, but also with bacteria (Acinetobacter, Pseudomonas, Proteus) which could be source of severe nosocomial infections. Three times there was Ps. aeruginosa on an endoscope after its disinfection, which demonstrates ineffectiveness of the whole sanitary process. Constant surveillance demands sterility of the fluids employed during the disinfection process. The improvement in sanitary level is achieved when endoscope exposition to glutaraldehyde has been elongated, to each endoscope a new solution of detergent has been applied, and sterile water handling (its production, storage, and use) has been polished up.

Acinetobacter↗

PubMed1995

[Rules of decontamination and disinfection of medicosurgical instruments in the operating room].

Nosocomial infections may result from the reuse of surgical devices if adequate disinfection or sterilization measures are not employed. The first step of reprocessing occurs immediately after use in the operating room. This consists of cleaning and decontamination to eliminate organic material and to reduce the number of microorganisms, in order to protect personnel who subsequently manipulate these instruments and to facilitate the ultimate process of sterilization or disinfection. Instruments that cannot be sterilized must be submitted to "high level disinfection" to remove undesirable microorganisms. In order to guarantee the desired results of disinfection, it is very important to adopt reliable and effective protocols, chemical products with good germicidal properties and with minimal adverse effects on the personnel and the environment. The personnel involved in this delicate and important task must be thoroughly trained. If the above conditions are met, the infectious risk associated with reuse of surgical devices can be controlled.

Cross Infection↗

PubMed1994

Liquid disinfecting and sterilization reprocessors used for flexible endoscopes.

In this issue, we evaluate three liquid disinfecting flexible endoscope reprocessors that can be used with a user-supplied liquid chemical germicide (LCG), primarily for high-level disinfection (HLD). Applying most of the same criteria and test methods, we also evaluated a fourth unit, presented separately, that is marketed as a liquid sterilizing reprocessor and must be used with manufacturer-supplied, single-use containers of LCG. Although the sterilizing unit can be used for rigid endoscopes, surgical instruments, and endoscopic accessories, we evaluated its application to the reprocessing of only flexible endoscopes. Our ratings are based on the following: (1) basic performance, such as compatibility with several different types of endoscopes and LCGs, inclusion of all essential reprocessing phases, and exposure of all endoscope surfaces to the LCG and rinse water; (2) safety, such as ensuring that essential reprocessing phases cannot be skipped or omitted, that personnel exposure to LCG vapors is minimized, and that the reprocessor is unlikely to contaminate the endoscope during reprocessing; and (3) human factors design, such as ease of use and installation. We did not perform microbiological testing to confirm HLD or sterilization by any of the evaluated reprocessors because, with a suitably clean endoscope that is in good condition, no evidence indicates that the LCGs used would not be effective on the surfaces that they contact; also, the results would be unique to the two flexible endoscopes that we used for our testing. We rated all four reprocessors Conditionally Acceptable. The units are Acceptable on the condition that users understand that they cannot be used to process the elevator cable channel of side-viewing duodenoscopes; additional conditions apply only to the liquid disinfecting units. However, if the conditions are met, all four units reduce the likelihood of using a contaminated endoscope on a patient and reduce personnel exposure to the LCG. Selection of a unit will be based on the needs and preferences of the individual healthcare facility. Our ratings also assume that these units will be used according to the manufacturers' instructions and the endoscope's operator's manual. Note that, although the evaluated liquid disinfecting units provide detergent-flushing, post-detergent water-rinse, and post-detergent water-rinse-removal phases, manual cleaning of endoscopes before automatic reprocessing is essential, regardless of which reprocessor is used.

Bronchoscopes↗

PubMed1994

[Measures for disinfection and sterilization of poultry housing after an outbreak of S. enteritidis].

Recommendations for correct cleansing and disinfection of S. enteritidis-contaminated chicken farms are given. References are made to the legal context and to its significance in a S. enteritidis control program. Quality and quantity of the suggested sampling procedure are based on WHO recommendations and on a four years experience of the author. 26 chicken farms on which S. enteritidis or S. typhimurium had been isolated in the previous crop have been monitored after disinfection. The results of 981 samples are presented. Salmonellae could not be isolated by swabs from visible clean surfaces after disinfection. Critical control points remain in the farm biotope: These are intermediate ceiling, litter beetle, rodents, exhaust ventilation fluff, margin zone of the outer building. These critical control points cannot be effectively disinfected. In case of demonstration of S. enteritidis from surfaces of the interior of the chicken house, a redisinfection will be necessary. S. enteritidis out of the farm biotope does not justify redisinfection of the farm.

Animals↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Cleaning and disinfection of reusable items in Swedish hospitals.

1. In Sweden, every ward has one or two utility rooms equipped with a washer disinfector for cleaning and disinfection of such items as instruments and wash basins, and a flusher disinfector for cleaning and disinfection of bedpans/urinals and emptying of fluids. 2. Thermal disinfection of reusable items is accomplished in a sealed chamber with an efficient, controlled process--which is a simple, inexpensive, and reliable method for high-level disinfection. 3. The use of flusher and washer disinfectors in hospital wards, surgery areas, and critical care units is recommended to minimize the use of single-use items and provide a safer environment for patients and personnel.

Cross Infection↗

PubMed1994

[Simultaneous measurement of the kinetics of disinfection temperatures using pyoptometer techniques in the capillary system of a new type of inhalation device].

Due to patient collectives with chronic respiratory diseases it is important to avoid the transfer of pathogenic as well as opportunistic nosocomial infective agents during inhalation therapy. According to the literature in clinical practice the colonization with gram negative bacteria constitutes a hygienically relevant hazard. We have tested an inhaler whose patient-side inhalation insert can be autoclaved and whose other parts, whether filled with water or air, can be partially disinfected through a programmable hot air stream. In simultaneous measurements of the disinfecting temperature at four positions of the basic appliance the time-dependent kinetics could be shown for different conditions of thermoisolation and flow of the volume stream by means of pyoptometer thermal probes. The pyoptometer probe technique, which is based on a change of the wave length of laser light in a gallium crystal of 0.5 mm diameter, allows temperature measurements practically without delay. As the connection from the probe crystal to the laser sensor is made by glass fibre cable, the measuring lead remains unaffected by galvanic-technical and secondary thermal effects. It could be demonstrated that the required disinfection temperature in the capillary system of the entire inhaler was reached within 17 min even under worst case conditions (studies of the longest capillary, water replenishment of the entire system before disinfection). Compared to former systems the evaluated apparatus constitutes thus a significant progress in the development of inhalation systems.

Cross Infection↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[The sensitivity of enterobacteria to disinfectants].

The presence of variants resistant to disinfectants in the natural populations has been established by original methods and with the use of a complex of indices. The occurrence, levels and spectra of acquired resistance depend on the type of a disinfecting agent and the habitat of bacteria. The study substantiates the necessity for surveillance on resistance to disinfectants, carried out with the use of universal methods and indices, available to practical laboratories and based on a more rational approach to the choice of disinfectants.

Burns↗

PubMed1994

Efficacy of disinfectants against biofilm cells of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

The effect of disinfectants on biofilm cells of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were evaluated. Biofilm cells of P. aeruginosa were eradicated by 0.4 to 0.5% chlorhexidine and 2% glutaral within 1 min, by 0.3% chlorhexidine, 0.5% benzalkonium chloride, 0.1% sodium hypochlorite, and 0.1% titratable I2 providone-iodine within 10 min, and by 0.2% chlorhexidine, 0.1% benzalkonium chloride, and 0.01% sodium hypochlorite within 30 min. However, 0.1% chlorhexidine and 0.1 to 0.5% alkyldiaminoethyl glycine were ineffective for eradication even after 1 h. Eradication of biofilm cells of P. aeruginosa by disinfectants required much longer time than that of planktonic cells in suspensions. The bactericidal effect of disinfectants against biofilm cells was found to be considerably enhanced by increasing the concentrations of the disinfectants.

Disinfectants↗

PubMed1994

Methods of cleaning and disinfection.

Most equipment associated infection is due to inadequate cleaning and disinfection and not a failure in sterilisation practices. The method of disinfection chosen should depend on the risks associated with the procedure undertaken, the heat, pressure and chemical tolerances of the item and the time available for processing. Heat disinfection or sterilisation is preferred but if the item is heat sensitive, chemicals may have to be used. It is important that the process selected is effective against patient associated organisms and opportunistic pathogens present in the environment. The most effective stage of any decontamination procedure is thorough cleaning and this should accompany or precede all disinfection procedures. Automated processors offer the safest, most reliable option, providing they are suitably monitored and maintained and that staff wear appropriate protective clothing.

Disinfection↗