The baseball season has started and for those of you
diehard fans watching your favorite player hitting yet another ball out of the
park, like me you may be wondering “How the heck do they do that!”
diehard fans watching your favorite player hitting yet another ball out of the
park, like me you may be wondering “How the heck do they do that!”
Professional sports are a great example of an
industry that has perhaps raised the bar too high and set too many unrealistic
goals for players to achieve. We wonder
who will be the next Barry Bonds. We get
caught in the thrill of watching these talented players and rarely think to ask
“How did they get that good, that strong, or that big?” Then we open the front pages of the sports
section and hear of yet another steroid scandal.
The disinfectant world is not unlike professional
sports. There are new bugs cropping up
that Infection Prevention and Control, Public Health and Environmental Services
expect their disinfectant of choice to kill.
The bar is being raised to unrealistic expectations – kill a greater
spectrum of bugs in a shorter contact time.
To meet these demands, disinfectant manufacturers “juice up” or increase
the chemical concentration or combination of chemicals in their disinfectant
formulations in order to achieve the desired claims. Like the long term affect steroids can have
on a baseball player, “juicing up” a disinfectant formulation means the safety
profile of the disinfectant will be compromised.
sports. There are new bugs cropping up
that Infection Prevention and Control, Public Health and Environmental Services
expect their disinfectant of choice to kill.
The bar is being raised to unrealistic expectations – kill a greater
spectrum of bugs in a shorter contact time.
To meet these demands, disinfectant manufacturers “juice up” or increase
the chemical concentration or combination of chemicals in their disinfectant
formulations in order to achieve the desired claims. Like the long term affect steroids can have
on a baseball player, “juicing up” a disinfectant formulation means the safety
profile of the disinfectant will be compromised.
Let me give you an example of this. There is a popular disinfectant brand on the
market advertising that in recent years they have knocked their contact time
down from 5 minutes to 3 minutes and now 1 minute! From an infection prevention perspective you
may be screaming “FANTASTIC”! But have
you taken the time to look at the MSDS in order to determine how they have
performed such a feat? I have. It’s “juiced up”, one of the active ingredients
has tripled in concentration and they have added a second type of alcohol. What is the end result? A 1 minute disinfectant that now carries a
HMIS Rating of 2/3/0. To handle this
product you should wear gloves and goggles and the toxicity profile shows it is
Toxic by inhalation per OSHA regulations, slightly irritating to eyes and skin,
contains material which can cause target organ damage and contains material
which both causes and may cause damage to the organs. That’s just the health effects. The Flammability rating of 3 indicates the
product is highly flammable and should be stored in a segregated and approved
area and all possible sources of ignition (spark or flame) should be
avoided. Is this a product you want to
use? Is a one minute contact time so
important that we would knowingly choose a product that would put cleaning and
nursing staff at risk?
market advertising that in recent years they have knocked their contact time
down from 5 minutes to 3 minutes and now 1 minute! From an infection prevention perspective you
may be screaming “FANTASTIC”! But have
you taken the time to look at the MSDS in order to determine how they have
performed such a feat? I have. It’s “juiced up”, one of the active ingredients
has tripled in concentration and they have added a second type of alcohol. What is the end result? A 1 minute disinfectant that now carries a
HMIS Rating of 2/3/0. To handle this
product you should wear gloves and goggles and the toxicity profile shows it is
Toxic by inhalation per OSHA regulations, slightly irritating to eyes and skin,
contains material which can cause target organ damage and contains material
which both causes and may cause damage to the organs. That’s just the health effects. The Flammability rating of 3 indicates the
product is highly flammable and should be stored in a segregated and approved
area and all possible sources of ignition (spark or flame) should be
avoided. Is this a product you want to
use? Is a one minute contact time so
important that we would knowingly choose a product that would put cleaning and
nursing staff at risk?
Federal law requires that before selling or distributing
a pesticide in the United States, a person or company must obtain registration,
or license, from EPA. Before registering
a new pesticide (including disinfectants) or new use for a registered
pesticide, EPA must first ensure that the pesticide, when used according to
label directions, can be used with a reasonable certainty of no harm to human
health and without posing unreasonable risks to the environment. Herein lays the crux of the problem.
a pesticide in the United States, a person or company must obtain registration,
or license, from EPA. Before registering
a new pesticide (including disinfectants) or new use for a registered
pesticide, EPA must first ensure that the pesticide, when used according to
label directions, can be used with a reasonable certainty of no harm to human
health and without posing unreasonable risks to the environment. Herein lays the crux of the problem.
To generate bactericidal efficacy data, the EPA requires
the use of a test method that was introduced in the early 1950’s and is known
to have flaws. In a study recently
published in the Journal of AOAC International, titled “Should the AOACUse-Dilution Method be Continued for Regulatory Purposes?” a statistical
evaluation of the Use-Dilution Method (UDM) was conducted. I won’t bore you with the details or formulas
used – you can read the study at your own leisure. Suffice it to say, the study showed that
there was a significant disconnect between the probabilities of a pass/fail
result when compared to the random testing conducted by the EPA’s Antimicrobial
Testing Program. The difference can in
part be attributed to the fact that the method shows significant variability in
the numbers of bacteria that adhere to carriers, however, the main cause is in
fact highly operator sensitive such as how the lab technician places of the
cylinders into the test tubes or places the test specimens for drying as well as
any variations in growth conditions.
the use of a test method that was introduced in the early 1950’s and is known
to have flaws. In a study recently
published in the Journal of AOAC International, titled “Should the AOACUse-Dilution Method be Continued for Regulatory Purposes?” a statistical
evaluation of the Use-Dilution Method (UDM) was conducted. I won’t bore you with the details or formulas
used – you can read the study at your own leisure. Suffice it to say, the study showed that
there was a significant disconnect between the probabilities of a pass/fail
result when compared to the random testing conducted by the EPA’s Antimicrobial
Testing Program. The difference can in
part be attributed to the fact that the method shows significant variability in
the numbers of bacteria that adhere to carriers, however, the main cause is in
fact highly operator sensitive such as how the lab technician places of the
cylinders into the test tubes or places the test specimens for drying as well as
any variations in growth conditions.
Further, UDM is not representative of real world
conditions, especially for products with rapid evaporation rates (alcohol based
products) as the concentration of the active decreases rapidly when exposed to
a surface. UDM provides a much higher
ratio of disinfectant volume to surface and does not account for evaporation
rate that occurs when used in accordance to the product’s label. Similarly, the ratio of disinfectant to
inoculum is very different than what is encountered in practice and lastly,
there is limited ability to include other environmental surfaces which can also
alter the outcomes of efficacy capabilities of a given disinfectant.
conditions, especially for products with rapid evaporation rates (alcohol based
products) as the concentration of the active decreases rapidly when exposed to
a surface. UDM provides a much higher
ratio of disinfectant volume to surface and does not account for evaporation
rate that occurs when used in accordance to the product’s label. Similarly, the ratio of disinfectant to
inoculum is very different than what is encountered in practice and lastly,
there is limited ability to include other environmental surfaces which can also
alter the outcomes of efficacy capabilities of a given disinfectant.
It is also important to consider the affect development
of very robust formulations have from an environmental impact perspective. Globally, users of chemicals are looking for
and demanding access to more environmentally friendly products, however, the
EPA’s rigid stance and refusal to transition to methodologies that have been
shown to be more accurate and consistently reproducible such as Quantitative
Carrier Tests impacts both the environment through higher carbon footprints in
the production of the disinfectants, unnecessary disposal of higher
concentrations of disinfectants by the end user and also increased risk to the
user as a result of less favorable health profiles.
of very robust formulations have from an environmental impact perspective. Globally, users of chemicals are looking for
and demanding access to more environmentally friendly products, however, the
EPA’s rigid stance and refusal to transition to methodologies that have been
shown to be more accurate and consistently reproducible such as Quantitative
Carrier Tests impacts both the environment through higher carbon footprints in
the production of the disinfectants, unnecessary disposal of higher
concentrations of disinfectants by the end user and also increased risk to the
user as a result of less favorable health profiles.
By no means am I saying that from an infection prevention
perspective we should use inferior products with contact times that are
unrealistic. I am saying that we as a
community who uses disinfectants on a daily basis should consider not just what
a product kills, but also the safety profile of the product and lobby the EPA
for the use of test methods that have been shown to be reproducible, reliable and
more accurate than the Use-Dilution Method.
Formulation of disinfectants is a complex process that involves finding
the balance between the desired efficacy traits and the desired safety and
environmental profile of a product. The
EPA’s mandate is to ensure that the use of disinfectants “can be used with a
reasonable certainty no harm to human health and without posing unreasonable
risks to the environment”. The use of UDM completely contraindicates this
mandate as it forces disinfectant formulators to “juice up” their formulations
in order to achieve the kill claims and knowingly decrease the safety profile
of the product.
perspective we should use inferior products with contact times that are
unrealistic. I am saying that we as a
community who uses disinfectants on a daily basis should consider not just what
a product kills, but also the safety profile of the product and lobby the EPA
for the use of test methods that have been shown to be reproducible, reliable and
more accurate than the Use-Dilution Method.
Formulation of disinfectants is a complex process that involves finding
the balance between the desired efficacy traits and the desired safety and
environmental profile of a product. The
EPA’s mandate is to ensure that the use of disinfectants “can be used with a
reasonable certainty no harm to human health and without posing unreasonable
risks to the environment”. The use of UDM completely contraindicates this
mandate as it forces disinfectant formulators to “juice up” their formulations
in order to achieve the kill claims and knowingly decrease the safety profile
of the product.
I hope you’ll consider this the next time someone comes
your way with the next “fastest” disinfectant on the market. A fast kill is a double edged sword. Are you willing to forego safety for speed
knowing that the test methods used to determine efficacy are faulty?
your way with the next “fastest” disinfectant on the market. A fast kill is a double edged sword. Are you willing to forego safety for speed
knowing that the test methods used to determine efficacy are faulty?
Bugging Off!
Nicole
