PubMed · 14969123
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Sharon Camp. 2004. Disinfection protocol.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14969123/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Purified water for pharmaceutical purposes must be free of microbial contamination and pyrogens. Even with the additional sanitary and disinfecting treatments applied to the system (sequential operational stages), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas alcaligenes, Pseudomonas picketti, Flavobacterium aureum, Acinetobacter lowffi and Pseudomonas diminuta were isolated and identified from a thirteen-stage purification system. To evaluate the efficacy of the chemical agents used in the disinfecting process along with those used to adjust chemical characteristics of the system, over the identified bacteria, the kinetic parameter of killing time (D-value) necessary to inactivate 90% of the initial bioburden (decimal reduction time) was experimentally determined. METHODS: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas alcaligenes, Pseudomonas picketti, Flavobacterium aureum, Acinetobacter lowffi and Pseudomonas diminuta were called in house (wild) bacteria. Pseudomonas diminuta ATCC 11568, Pseudomonas alcaligenes INCQS , Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442, Pseudomonas fluorescens ATCC 3178, Pseudomonas picketti ATCC 5031, Bacillus subtilis ATCC 937 and Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 were used as 'standard' bacteria to evaluate resistance at 25 degrees C against either 0.5% citric acid, 0.5% hydrochloric acid, 70% ethanol, 0.5% sodium bisulfite, 0.4% sodium hydroxide, 0.5% sodium hypochlorite, or a mixture of 2.2% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and 0.45% peracetic acid. RESULTS: The efficacy of the sanitizers varied with concentration and contact time to reduce decimal logarithmic (log10) population (n cycles). To kill 90% of the initial population (or one log10 cycle), the necessary time (D-value) was for P. aeruginosa into: (i) 0.5% citric acid, D = 3.8 min; (ii) 0.5% hydrochloric acid, D = 6.9 min; (iii) 70% ethanol, D = 9.7 min; (iv) 0.5% sodium bisulfite, D = 5.3 min; (v) 0.4% sodium hydroxide, D = 14.2 min; (vi) 0.5% sodium hypochlorite, D = 7.9 min; (vii) mixture of hydrogen peroxide (2.2%) plus peracetic acid (0.45%), D = 5.5 min. CONCLUSION: The contact time of 180 min of the system with the mixture of H2O2+ peracetic acid, a total theoretical reduction of 6 log10 cycles was attained in the water purified storage tank and distribution loop. The contact time between the water purification system (WPS) and the sanitary agents should be reviewed to reach sufficient bioburden reduction (over 6 log10).
Ferrate (Fe(VI)) has high potentials as a multi-purpose water treatment chemical acting as an oxidant, coagulant, and disinfectant, but little detail has been reported concerning its biocidal ability. In this study, the inactivation efficiencies of three Fe(VI) species (H(x)FeO(4)(x-2), x=0, 1, 2) are quantified using Escherichia coli as a model microorganism. E. coli inactivation by Fe(VI) was performed in solutions buffered with 25 mM phosphate in the pH range of 5.6-8.2 and at 25 degrees C. Kinetics of E. coli inactivation were successfully fitted to the Modified Delayed Chick-Watson model in the tested pH range, indicating that log inactivation level of E. coli is linearly proportional to exposure amount of E. coli to Fe(VI). The rate constant of E. coli inactivation by Fe(VI) (k(obs)) that was obtained from the linear regression increased non-linearly from 0.33 to 6.25 l(mg min)(-1) with decreasing pH from 8.2 to 5.6. From the measured pH dependency of k(obs) and the known acidity constants of Fe(VI) species (pK(a), H(2)FeO(4)=3.50 and pK(a), HFeO(4)(-)=7.23), HFeO(4)(-) and H(2)FeO(4) were found to be 3 and 265 times as effective as FeO(4)(2-) in E. coli inactivation, respectively.
The purpose of this article is to review the evidence regarding transmission of infection during gastrointestinal endoscopy, factors important in endoscope reprocessing and infection control, areas to focus on to improve compliance, and recent developments and advances in the field.