Search

The aim of this study was to determine whether the inhalation of formaldehyde has a neurotoxicological impact. Forty Wistar rats (Lew.1/K) were trained to find food in a maze within a particular time. When all animals were at an equal level, 13 rats inhaled 2.6 ppm and 13 others inhaled 4.6 ppm formaldehyde 10 min/d, 7 d/week for 90 d. The control group comprised 14 animals inhaling water steam according to the same exposure pattern. During the exposure period and the post-trial observation stage (30 d), the time required to find the food and the number of mistakes made on the way were recorded. Between the animals exposed to formaldehyde and the control group a statistically significant difference for both parameters was observed (p < 0.05). The animals exposed to formaldehyde needed more time and made more mistakes than the animals of the control group while going through the maze. The results underline the necessity for a systematic observance of precautions in case of occupational or dwelling-related formaldehyde exposure, and allow us to classify formaldehyde as "probably neurotoxic". Further investigations are required to assess the neurotoxicologic impact of subchronic formaldehyde exposure.

The efficacy of disinfecting medical gloves with isopropanol 60% (v/v) while they are worn was assessed for 4 different brands of latex gloves (Biogel Diagnistic (A), Safeskin Satin Plus (B), Safeskin LPE (C) and Baxter Non-Sterile Latex Exam Gloves (D)) and one latex-free nitrile glove (100% Nitrile N-Dex (E)). Even in the presence of coagulated blood disinfection of the gloves was more efficient than disinfection of the bare hand. The efficacy of the disinfection of glove C, D and E decreased if 10 disinfections were carried out successively. An increase of perforations detected with the water inflation test according to EN 455-1 was found for brand E. As gloves of brand C and D became tacky after 10 disinfections, they were inappropriate for manual work. As a result, disinfection with isopropanol 60% (v/v) can be recommended for gloves of brand A and B only. Disinfection of these gloves is admissible e.g. after indirect patient contact, taking blood samples or laboratory work if no visible contamination or perforation has occurred. However, after contact with patients suffering from an infectious disease or carrying multiresistant organisms the gloves have to be changed. The same holds true if the gloves might be contaminated with naked viruses (e.g. Poliomyelitis virus), since virucidal alcoholic hand disinfectants require high concentration thus leading to materials incompatibility.

The efficacy of common antiseptic mouth rinses was evaluated in a study with healthy volunteers. Octenisept and Cetylpyridiniumchlorid had a significant stronger impact on the microbial burden of the oral cavity than Chlorhexidin (Corsodyl) immediately and 10 min after the application. Dobendan (contains Cetylpyridiniumchlorid) showed a better antimicrobial effect than Corsodyl immediately after application, after 10 min an increasing loss of efficacy was noted. The antiseptic efficacy of hexetidin-based Gurfix was very similar to the efficacy observed with Corsodyl from the start of the antiseptic treatment until 1 h later. Acriflavine-solution (0.2% m/v) was significantly less efficient after 10, 30 and 60 min compared to Corsodyl. The antimicrobial impact of Fluomint-Lysoform was very similar to the effect of rinsing with dest. sterile water. A subjective assessment of taste and smell of the mouth rinse solutions concludes the evaluation. Further methodological aspects for a common test guideline for antiseptic mouth rinse solutions are discussed.