|
 
 |
| REVIEW ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 5
| Issue : 2 | Page : 121-128 |
|
Disinfectants in the arena of COVID-19
Kamal Shah1, Sumit Chhabra1, Nagendra Singh Chauhan2
1 Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Institute of Pharmaceutical Research, GLA University, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Senior Scientific Officer, Drugs Testing Laboratory Avam Anusandhan Kendra, Raipur (CG), India
| Date of Submission | 09-Feb-2021 |
| Date of Acceptance | 13-Mar-2021 |
| Date of Web Publication | 16-Jun-2021 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Kamal Shah
Institute of Pharmaceutical Research, GLA University, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.4103/bbrj.bbrj_16_21
Currently, a disease name as corona (COVID-19) has become a serious problem around the globe. As of December 2020, the disease has spread to over 213 countries and territories around the world and 2 international conveyances, with over 79,850,900 confirmed cases and over 1,751,705 deaths. The ailment (COVID-19) is instigated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). CoV impacts on the respiratory tract and causes infection that may be minor or deadly. Several studies reveal that coronavirus can remain live on nonliving surfaces (glass, metal, or plastic) for up to 9 days, but it may be denatured with many disinfectants having alcohol, benzalkonium chloride, sodium hypochlorite, etc., within 1 min. As we know, there is no fruitful therapy or medication for COVID-19 so early precaution and prevention is the only solution to break the chain of coronavirus. By using different types of disinfectants, we can inhibit the growth of this novel corona disease.
Keywords: Antibacterial, antiseptic, antiviral, coronavirus, COVID-19, disinfectant
How to cite this article:
Shah K, Chhabra S, Chauhan NS. Disinfectants in the arena of COVID-19. Biomed Biotechnol Res J 2021;5:121-8 |
| Introduction | |  |
In the previous two decades, the third highly pathogenic human coronavirus is a novel coronavirus (2019). The transmission of the disease has been explained by one human to another both in clinic and society.[1],[2] It is very important to inhibit the transmission of the virus to the public and healthcare workers. The main cause of the spreading of coronaviruses is due to auto-inoculation of the mucosa of the mouth, nose, or eyes from infected dry surfaces.[3],[4],[5] Coronavirus can live on different metal surfaces from hours to days.[5] On plastic and stainless steel surfaces, this virus can live for about a weak which is explained by recent research. They also explained that this virus can remain in a live condition for a whole day on cardboard and for about 4 h only on a copper surface.[6] The microorganism can be denatured using different types of disinfectants on various surfaces. The aim of the review was, therefore, to summarize all available information regarding chemical components which are used in different types of sanitizers to sanitize the different types of infected surfaces and used against coronavirus. The chemical agents intended to inactivate or kill the microorganisms on inert surfaces are known as a disinfectant. Usually, disinfectants are categorized different from other antimicrobial agents such as antibiotics, which demolish microorganisms inside the body, and antiseptic, which demolish microorganisms on the skin. Biocides are also distinguished from disinfectants which are proposed to demolish all forms of living, not just microorganisms. Sanitizers are the preparations that concurrently clean and disinfect. Disinfectants are more effective in killing of microorganisms than sanitizers. Disinfectants are normally applied during the cleaning of hospitals, dental surgeries, kitchens, and bathrooms to destroy harmful organisms. Sanitizers are light in action compared to disinfectants and are basically applied on that belongings which are in human exposure whereas disinfectants are strong and are applied to clean surfaces like floors and building premises.[7] An outline of the different types of disinfectants is drawn in [Table 1]. For antimicrobial activity, many of them may be applied single or combination with other products.
| Alcohols | | |
Even though a number of disinfectants in this category have been revealed to be useful against microbial contamination ethyl alcohol (ethanol and alcohol), n-propanol, and 2-propanol (sec-propyl alcohol, 2-hydroxypropane, dimethyl carbinol, propan-2-ol) are the most extensively applied.[8] Generally, isopropyl alcohol is more effective for bacterial treatment[9] and ethanol is more active in opposition to viruses. For example, the lipophilicity of isopropyl alcohol is greater than ethyl alcohol and due to this, isopropyl alcohol is less effective counter to water-loving viruses (e.g., poliovirus).[10] Normally, the effective concentration range of alcohol is between 60% and 90% to kill the microorganism. The correct mechanism of action of alcohols is not well recognized, but constructed on the improved efficiency in the occurrence of water; it is usually supposed that they result in membrane impairment and fast denaturation of proteins, with successive intervention with metabolism and breakdown of the cell.[8],[11]
| Aldehydes | | |
Glutaraldehyde
Glutaric acid dialdehyde is applied as a disinfectant and sterilizing agent which is an important dialdehyde which is particularly used at lower temperature. It is utilized for disinfecting and sterilizing medical tools such as borescope, endoscopes, or as an adhesive in electron microscopy. Glutaric dialdehyde exhibits wide-ranging spectrum of action against microorganisms. It has action against bacteria, fungi, or viruses. The mode of action of glutaric dialdehyde has been published in earlier reviews.[12],[13],[14],[15]
Glutaraldehyde works on the bacterial cell by react on the cell surface and deprotonated amine on it.[16] It decreases the action of hepatitis B surface antigen and particularly hepatitis B core antigen (in hepatitis B virus [HBV]).[17] It binds with lysine remains on the surface of hepatitis A virus.[18]
Formaldehyde
The chemical name of formaldehyde is methanal (HCHO). It exists as gas at room temperature found to be freely soluble in water. The aqueous solution of formaldehyde (formalin) consists of 34%–38% (w/w) HCHO with methyl alcohol to reduce polymerization. It is clinically used at low temperature for the purpose of disinfection and sterilization. It is used as antimicrobial agent quite effective against bacteria, fungi, or viruses. Its efficiency is slower than glutaraldehyde.[15],[19]
It is not easy to explain the working of formaldehyde for microbial inactivation. Obviously, its interactive and cross-linking nature ought to participate in this action. Other examples of dialdehydes are oxaldehyde, butanedial, and o-phthalic dicarboxaldehyde; they kill spores formation. Of these, oxaldehyde and butanedial are feebly energetic. In glutaraldehyde, the space between the two aldehyde groups may be most favorable for the communication of these aldehyde groups in nucleic acids and specifically in amino acid linkage and enzymes present.[20]
o-Phthalaldehyde
OPA has effective bactericidal and sporicidal activity and is a novel kind of disinfectant which is recommended as a substitute for glutaric acid dialdehyde in endoscope disinfection.[21] o-Phthalaldehyde is having two aldehyde groups and aromatic in nature. The mode of action has been little known, but literature proposes that the mechanism is like glutaraldehyde.[22] Advance research is required to confirm this belief.
| Anilides | | |
The anilides are mainly used as antiseptics and rarely as disinfectant in the health center. 3-(4-Chlorophenyl)-1-(3,4-dichlorophenyl) urea, i.e., triclocarban is majorly considered in the anilides and used in shampoos and deodorizers. The triclocarban is found to be less lively in Gram-negative bacteria and fungi as compared to Gram-positive bacteria.[23] The anilides are work by attacks on the cytoplasmic membrane. It binds to the cytoplasmic layer of the cell where it adsorbs and demolishes the membrane which causes destruction of the cell.[24]
| Biguanides | | |
Chlorhexidine
1,6-bis (4-chloro-phenyl biguanido) hexane (chlorhexidine) is extensively used in antiseptic preparations, in handwash, and oral preparations as a disinfectant and preservative because of its wide-range activity. It is found to exert lesser exasperation to the skin and reported to be sage for use.[25]
Chlorhexidine is a bactericidal agent.[26] It works by damaging the outer cell layers,[27] although inadequate to provoke lysis or cell destruction. After that, apparently by passive diffusion, the cell wall or outer membrane is being crossed by the agent and consequently hits the microbial cytoplasmatic or inner layer or the plasma membrane of yeast.[28]
Chlorhexidine is not an efficient antiviral, and its action is limited to the lipid-enveloped viruses.[29] Ranganathan described about its action to be limited to the genetic material core or the outer layering.[30]
Alexidine
Alexidine is having ethylhexyl end groups which makes it differs chemically from chlorhexidine. Alexidine is more effective and produces more rapidly bactericidal activity.[31],[32] The chemical structure of alexidine made it special and differ it from chlorhexidine. It is made to generate the obstructions in the cellular membrane consist of lipid so that it cannot allow the microbes to grow.[32]
Polymeric biguanides
Polyhexamethylene biguanides (PHMB) have a large chain structure. They have molecular weight of about 3000. Polymeric biguanides can be used in the confectionery as well as in other food materials. It can be used in swimming pools as disinfectant.
Biguanides is used effectively in contrast to both types of bacteria, i.e., Gram-positive and negative, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Proteus vulgaris had mild susceptibility. Being a membrane-active drug, PHMB alters the reliability of the cellular outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria, while the membrane works as a penetrability obstacle.[16],[33]
| Diamidines | | |
The chemical classification of diamidines is discussed in [Table 1]. The literature supports that propamidine isethionate salts have potentially work as antimicrobial. Clinically, diamidines are used to treat surface ailments. It is still not known that how diamidines work, but if they are measured as cationic surface-active compounds. They can be expected to restrain oxygen uptake and provoke seepage of amino acids. Damage the cellular covering shell of P. aeruginosa and Enterobacter cloacae was explained.[34]
| Halogen-Releasing Agents | | |
The most important halogens utilized in the hospitals and which are castoff for antimicrobial and disinfectant function are chlorine and iodine-based compounds.
Chlorine-releasing agents
There are many expert reviews available which explains the chemical, physical, and microbiological characteristics of chlorine-releasing agents (CRAs).[35],[36] The most significant CRAs such as sodium hypochlorite, chlorine (IV) oxide, and sodium troclosene. The disinfection of hard surfaces is widely done by sodium hypochlorite solutions (household bleach). The discharges of blood comprising human immunodeficiency virus or HBV can be disinfected by sodium hypochlorite solutions. Sodium and the hypochlorite ion are produced in water after ionization of sodium hypochlorite, which creates steadiness with hydrogen hypochlorite.[35]
The real action of CRAs is still unknown. CRAs are extremely lively oxidizing agents and thus demolish the cellular commotion of proteins.[35] The degree at which RNA gets inactivated in integral phage by chlorine is the same as in naked f2 RNA, while f2 capsid proteins may stick on the host which was described by Olivieri et al.[37]
Iodine and iodophors
Iodine as disinfectant is widely used while on comparison found to be feeble than chlorine but found to exhibit antimicrobial activity. Iodine is used as aqueous or alcoholic solutions from many days as antiseptics; they produce annoyance and unnecessary tint. The solutions in water are usually not stable; there are seven iodine species which are in solution form has complex equilibrium, with molecular iodine (I2) which is accountable for antiinfectious usefulness.[38] The discovery of iodophores (”iodine carriers” or “iodine-releasing agents”) removed these problems; the examples of iodophores are povidone-iodine and poloxamer-iodine which are mostly used as antiseptics and disinfectants. The multiplexes of iodine and a solubilizing mediator or hauler forms iodophors, which performs as a basin of the lively “free” iodine.[38]
The actual mechanism of iodine is unknown, but its antimicrobial action at low concentration is rapid like chlorine. Iodine works by quickly entering into microbes[39] and hits the main parts of proteins (specially the sulfur-containing amino acids),[38],[40] nucleotides, and fatty acids,[38],[41] that terminates in cell destruction.[38] The shallow proteins of enclosed viruses are attacked by iodine likewise to bacteria, but when they react with unsaturated carbon bonds they may subvert lipoidal membrane.[42]
| Silver Compounds | | |
Silver compounds were used as antimicrobial agents for many years in different forms.[43] Even though silver metal, acetate, or nitrate salt of silver and silver protein possess germicidal activity, are marked in Martindale, The Extra Pharmacopoeia, silver compound which is mostly used in present time is silver sulfadiazine (AgSD).[44] Nowadays, the use of silver compounds is extended to avoid the blisters and eye contaminations and to wipe out moles.
Silver nitrate
The mechanism of silver ions is strongly associated with its contact with thiol (sulfydryl,-SH) groups.[45] Liau et al. described that cysteine like amino acids and sodium thioglycolate like compounds which is having sulfydryl groups deactivated the action of silver nitrate counter to P. aeruginosa.[46] These studies explained that contact of Ag + with thiol species in enzymes and proteins has an important part in microbial cell death, while other cellular machineries can be concerned. Virucidal properties may be too described by interaction to-SH groups.[47]
Silver sulfadiazine
It is basically a blend of silver and sulfadiazine which are antibacterial agents. The antibacterial action of AgSD is due to only one compound or an effect of both compounds is a questionable and has been posed frequently. A broad spectrum of activity has been shown by AgSD and develops surface and membrane blebs in vulnerable bacteria unlike silver nitrate.[48] Chemically, Fox[49] described a polymeric structure of AgSD consists of six silver atoms joined to six sulfadiazine groups by the association of the silver ions to the nitrogen of the sulfadiazine pyrimidine ring. Microbial inhibition would be accomplished by inhibiting transcription when silver fixes to adequate base pairs in the DNA helix. Likewise, AgSD binds to phage DNA which described its antiphage properties.[50] Evidently, the exact working of AgSD is yet to be explained.
| Peroxygens | | |
Hydrogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is an extensively used for disinfection, sterilization, and antiseptic. It is available commercially as a rich and colorless fluid fluctuating from 3% to 90% of concentration. H2O2 is an eco-friendly product that can form the harmless compounds, i.e., water and oxygen after degradation. H2O2 shows broad-spectrum activity against microbes.[51] It is more active in contrast to Gram-positive than Gram-negative bacteria. For sporicidal activity, more concentrations of H2O2 (10%–30%) and lengthier duration of interaction are necessary,[52] although the gaseous phase of H2O2 increased the action. H2O2 produces hydroxyl free radicals (•OH) which attacks necessary parts of the cell, including lipids, amino acid chains, and nucleic acid, and thus performs as an oxidant. It is explained that bare sulfhydryl groups and double bonds are mainly attacked.[51]
Peracetic acid
Peracetic acid also known as acetic acid, (CH3COOOH) widely used as antimicrobial. It works at low temperature and low concentration, i.e., <0.3%. It is reported as a potent anti-infective agent than H2O2. It acts as disinfectant or sterilizing agent for laboratory surface, glassware, and medical equipment.[51],[53] Acetic acid acts on the cellular membrane at its surface where it binds with the sulfhydryl groups and finally breaks the disulfide linkage and denatures proteins and enzymes similar to H2O2.[51]
| Phenols | | |
The phenolic group containing antimicrobial agents are used as antiseptics, disinfectants, or preservatives for many years on the basis of the type of compounds. Despite being referred to as general protoplasmic poison, they also add to their whole activity due to membrane-active properties.[26] Demonstration by Pulvertaft and Lumb on a low concentration of phenols (0.032%, 32 mg/100 mL) and other (nonphenolic) agents lyses speedily rising cultures of many microbes such as Escherichia coli, staphylococci, and streptococci. It has given the conclusions that autolytic enzymes were not concerned.[54] The phenolics have additional activity against fungus or viruses. Their activity against fungus may impair the plasma membrane,[55] ensuing in seepage of intracellular constituents.
| Bis-Phenols | | |
The bis-phenols consist of hydroxy groups having halogen, has two phenolic groups linked by numerous bridges.[56] They show a wide spectrum of activity still slight active against P. aeruginosa and molds. They block the growth of bacterial spores. Triclosan and hexachlorophane are the two agents which are used mainly for antibacterial detergents and hand cleaning. Cumulative and obstinate property on the skin has been shown by both compounds.[57]
Triclosan
Triclosan (5-Chloro-2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) phenol) shows action against Gram-positive bacteria.[58] By formulation effects, its inhibitory activity can be increased for Gram-negative bacteria and yeasts. For example, the permeability of the outer membrane can be increased when triclosan is combined with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid.[59] The exact mechanism of triclosan is not still known, but it has been recommended that the attacking site is on the cytoplasmic membrane.[60]
Hexachlorophene
One more type of bis-phenol whose mechanism is widely studied, is hexachlorophene (hexachlorophane; 2,29-dihydroxy-3, 5, 6, 39, 59, 69-hexachlorodiphenyl methane). It acts by blocking the electron transport chain and exert the antimicrobial action. The primary action of the hexachlorophene as studied with Bacillus megatherium.[61] It provokes escape, causes protoplast lysis, and reduces respiration. It has limited application in antiseptic products particularly for neonates due to concerns about its toxicity, even though it has broad-spectrum efficacy.[62]
| Halophenols | | |
The main halophenol which is used in antiseptic or disinfectant is chloroxylenol (4-chloro-3,5-dimethylphenol; p-chloro-m-xylenol). Chloroxylenol kills bacteria, while P. aeruginosa and many molds are exceedingly resistant. Halophenols is used widely over many years, but on the contrary, its mechanism has been studied very less. It affects the microbial membrane because of its phenolic property.[63]
| Quaternary Ammonium Compounds | | |
The molecular structure of surface-active agents (surfactants) is divided into two groups, i.e., hydrophobic or hydrophilic, i.e., water repelling or attracting respectively. These agents are further divided into different types according to their chemical composition, i.e., cationic, anionic, nonionic, and ampholytic (amphoteric). Cationic components are the mostly used antiseptics and disinfectants, as demonstrated by quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs). They are also called as cationic detergents. There are various clinical uses of QACs such as preoperative disinfection of unbroken skin, application to mucous membranes, and disinfection of uncritical surfaces. QACs are tremendously used for cleaning hard surfaces and deodorization apart from having antimicrobial properties.[64]
It works by attacking at the cytoplasmic (inner) layer in bacteria or the plasma membrane in yeasts).[65] The QACs effects lipid, enveloped viruses such as human immunodeficiency virus and HBV but have no effect on nonenveloped viruses.[66]
| Vapor-Phase Sterilants | | |
Liquid sterilant or vapor phase sterilization systems are used to sterilize many temperature subtle medical apparatuses and surgical materials (in particular glutaric dialdehyde, acetic acid, and H2O2) [Table 1]. Epoxyethane, methanal, and more newly discovered, H2O2 and acetic acid are commonly used active mediators in these “cold” systems. Although the activity of ethylene oxide and formaldehyde depends on lively concentration, temperature, duration of exposure, and relative humidity, they both are broad-spectrum alkylating agents.[67] These alkylating agents outbreak proteins, nucleic acids, and other organic compounds. Both agents are mainly reactive with sulfhydryl and other enzyme-reactive groups. Being mutagenic and explosive nature of ethylene oxide gas has the disadvantages but is not usually insensitive on susceptible equipment. Likewise, the nonexplosive nature of formaldehyde gas has the advantage but is not extensively applied in health care. H2O2 and acetic acid in the vapor phase are measured as extra active (as oxidants) at lesser concentrations than in the liquid form.[68]
| Effective Concentration of Disinfectants | | |
The antiviral activities of domestic goods are analyzed by a procedure which was discovered to calculate the capacity of particular antiseptic and disinfectant products to deactivate murine coronavirus (MHV), a potential surrogate for SARS-CoV. This procedure was applied for calculating the antiviral activity by shaping the log reductions by means of the Reed and Muench TCID50 endpoint method. It was established that domestic disinfectant and antiseptic products, having 0.05% of triclosan, 0.12% of PCMX, 0.21% of sodium hypochlorite, 0.23% of pine oil, or 0.10% of a quaternary compound with 79% of ethanol, were all similarly effectual at deactivating MHV. It must be distinguished that this process can only be done on viruses that produce cytopathogenic effect in cultured cells and a sufficient quantity of incubation time permitted for disease to take place. In these methods, the cell was analyzed strongly in the existence and nonexistence of virus or active alone as well as during the incubation of both. When neutralization had occur to reduce the effects of toxicity of some of the actives on the NCTC clone 1469 cell line, then Sephadex columns were used. Biosafety level-2 (BSL-2) viruses were replaced by BSL-3 viruses because they contain protocols for surrogate viruses for the use of testing antiviral properties and for viruses that are unavailable for testing, or for viruses that cannot be cultured in vitro.[69],[70],[71] The possible mechanism of disinfectants is shown in [Figure 1].
| Conclusion | | |
In this critical time, coronavirus is spreading rapidly in the human population of the world. There is no reliable cure to inhibit the growth of this deadly virus at this time. So, the application of disinfectant to inhibit the growth of viruses is the only cure to break the chain. There are wide ranges of disinfectants available in the market. But the concern must be taken to select the top merchandise for the particular use. The criteria for selecting the best product are done by calculating the activity against key pathogens and matching this result with statistics on toxicity, resources compatibility, and expenditure.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank GLA University, Mathura, UP, for the financial assistance and facilities.
Financial support and sponsorship
The financial assistance and facilities are provided by GLA University, Mathura, UP.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | |
| 2. | de Wit E, van Doremalen N, Falzarano D, Munster VJ. SARS and MERS: Recent insights into emerging coronaviruses. Nat Rev Microbiol 2016;14:523-34.  |
| 3. | Otter JA, Donskey C, Yezli S, Douthwaite S, Goldenberg SD, Weber DJ. Transmission of SARS and MERS coronaviruses and influenza virus in healthcare settings: The possible role of dry surface contamination. J Hosp Infect 2016;92:235-50. |
| 4. | Dowell SF, Simmerman JM, Erdman DD, Wu JS, Chaovavanich A, Javadi M, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus on hospital surfaces. Clin Infect Dis 2004;39:652-7. |
| 5. | Nishiura H, Linton NM, Akhmetzhanov AR. Initial cluster of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infections in Wuhan, China is consistent with substantial human-to-human transmission. J Clin Med 2020;9:448. |
| 6. | Moriyama M, Hugentobler WJ, Iwasaki A. Seasonality of respiratory viral infections. Annu Rev Virol 2020;7:83-101. |
| 7. | |
| 8. | Morton HE. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. In: Bloch SS, editor. Alcohols. 3 rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1983. p. 225-39. |
| 9. | Coulthard CE, Skyes G. Germicidal effect of alcohol. Pharm J 1936;137:79-81. |
| 10. | Klein M, Deforest A. Principles of viral inactivation. In: Block SS, editor. Disinfection, Sterilization and Preservation. 3 rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1983. p. 422-34. |
| 11. | Larson EL, Morton HE. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. In: Bloch SS, editor. Alcohols. 4 th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1991. p. 191-203. |
| 12. | Gorman SP, Scott EM. Uptake and media reactivity of glutaraldehyde solutions related to structure and biocidal activity. Microbios Lett 1977;5:163-9. |
| 13. | Gorman SP, Scott EM, Russell AD. Antimicrobial activity, uses and mechanism of action of glutaraldehyde. J Appl Bacteriol 1980;48:161-90. |
| 14. | Power EG. Aldehydes as biocides. Prog Med Chem 1994;34:149-201. |
| 15. | Scott EM, Gorman SP. Glutaraldehyde. In: Block SS, editor. Disinfection, Sterilization and Preservation. 4 th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1991. p. 596-614. |
| 16. | Broxton P, Woodcock PM, Gilbert P. Binding of some polyhexamethylene biguanides to the cell envelope of Escherichia coli ATCC 8739. Microbios 1984;41:15-22. |
| 17. | Adler-Storthz K, Sehulster LM, Dreesman GR, Hollinger FB, Melnick JL. Effect of alkaline glutaraldehyde on hepatitis B virus antigens. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1983;2:316-20. |
| 18. | Passagot J, Crance JM, Biziagos E, Laveran H, Agbalika F, Deloince R. Effect of glutaraldehyde on the antigenicity and infectivity of hepatitis A virus. J Virol Methods 1987;16:21-8. |
| 19. | Power EG. Aldehydes as biocides. Prog Med Chem 1995;34:149-201. |
| 20. | Russell AD, Chopra I. Understanding Antibacterial Action and Resistance. 2 nd ed. England: Ellis Horwood, Chichester; 1996. |
| 21. | Alfa MJ, Sitter DL. In-hospital evaluation of orthophthalaldehyde as a high level disinfectant for flexible endoscopes. J Hosp Infect 1994;26:15-26. |
| 22. | Walsh S, Maillard JY, Russell AD. Effects of Testing Method on Activity of High Level Antibacterial Disinfectants, Poster Presented at Society for Applied Microbiology Autumn Meeting; 1997. |
| 23. | Beaver DJ, Roman DP, Stoffel PJ. The preparation and bacteriostatic activity of substituted ureas. J Am Chem Soc 1957;79:1236-45. |
| 24. | Hamilton WA. Membrane-active anti-bacterial compounds. In: Hugo WB, editor. Inhibition and Destruction of the Microbial Cell. London, England: Academic Press, Ltd; 1971. p. 77-106. |
| 25. | Gardner JF, Gray KG. Chlorhexidine. In: Block SS, editor. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 4 th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1991. p. 251-70. |
| 26. | Denyer SP. Mechanisms of action of antibacterial biocides. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 1995;36:227-45. |
| 27. | el Moug T, Rogers DT, Furr JR, el-Falaha BM, Russell AD. Antiseptic-induced changes in the cell surface of a chlorhexidine-sensitive and a chlorhexidine-resistant strain of Providencia stuartii. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985;16:685-9. |
| 28. | Hiom SJ, Furr JR, Russell AD, Dickinson JR. Effects of chlorhexidine diacetate and cetylpyridinium chloride on whole cells and protoplasts of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbios 1993;74:111-20. |
| 29. | Park JB, Park NH. Effect of chlorhexidine on the in vitro and in vivo herpes simplex virus infection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989;67:149-53. |
| 30. | Ranganthan NS. Chlorhexidine. In: Ascenzi JM, editor. Handbook of Disinfectants and Antiseptics. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1996. p. 235-64. |
| 31. | Chawner JA, Gilbert P. A comparative study of the bactericidal and growth inhibitory activities of the bisbiguanides alexidine and chlorhexidine. J Appl Bacteriol 1989;66:243-52. |
| 32. | Chawner JA, Gilbert P. Interaction of the bisbiguanides chlorhexidine and alexidine with phospholipid vesicles: Evidence for separate modes of action. J Appl Bacteriol 1989;66:253-8. |
| 33. | Gilbert P, Collier PJ, Brown MR. Influence of growth rate on susceptibility to antimicrobial agents: Biofilms, cell cycle, dormancy, and stringent response. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:1865-8. |
| 34. | Richards RM, Xing JZ, Gregory DW, Marshall D. Investigation of cell envelope damage to Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter cloacae by dibromopropamidine isethionate. J Pharm Sci 1993;82:975-7. |
| 35. | Bloomfield SF. Chlorine and iodine formulations. In: Ascenzi JM, editor. Handbook of Disinfectants and Antiseptics. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1996. p. 133-58. |
| 36. | Dychdala GR. Chlorine and chlorine compounds. In: Block SS, editor. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 4 th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1991. p. 131-51. |
| 37. | Olivieri VP, Kruse CW, Hsu YC, Griffiths AC, Kawata K. The comparative mode of action of chlorine, bromine, and iodine of f2bacterial virus. In: Johnson JD, editor. Disinfection-Water and Wastewater. Ann Arbor, Mich: Ann Arbor Science; 1975. p. 145-62. |
| 38. | Gottardi W. Iodine and iodine compounds. In: Block SS, editor. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 4 th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1991. p. 152-66. |
| 39. | Chang SL. Modern concept of disinfection. J Sanit Eng Div Proc ASCE 1971;97:689. |
| 40. | Kruse WC. Halogen action on bacteria, viruses and protozoa. In: Proceedings of the National Special Conference on Disinfection. Amherst, Mass: ASCE; 1970. p. 113-37. |
| 41. | Apostolov K. The effects of iodine on the biological activities of myxoviruses. J Hyg (Lond) 1980;84:381-8. |
| 42. | Springthorpe VS, Satter SA. Chemical disinfection of virus contaminated surfaces. Crit Rev Environ Control 1990;20:169-229. |
| 43. | Russell AD, Hugo WB. Antimicrobial activity and action of silver. Prog Med Chem 1994;31:351-70. |
| 44. | Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia. Silver Nitrate; Silver Sulfadiazine. London, England: Pharmaceutical Press; 1993. p. 201, 1412. |
| 45. | Furr JR, Russell AD, Turner TD, Andrews A. Antibacterial activity of Actisorb Plus, Actisorb and silver nitrate. J Hosp Infect 1994;27:201-8. |
| 46. | Liau SY, Read DC, Pugh WJ, Furr JR, Russell AD. Interaction of silver nitrate with readily identifiable groups: Relationship to the antibacterial action of silver ions. Lett Appl Microbiol 1997;25:279-83. |
| 47. | Thurmann RB, Gerba CP. The molecules mechanisms of copper and silver ion disinfection of bacteria and viruses. Crit Rev Environ Cont 1989;18:295-315. |
| 48. | Coward JE, Carr HS, Rosenkranz HS. Silver sulfadiazine: Effect on the ultrastructure of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1973;3:621-4. |
| 49. | Fox CL Jr. Topical therapy and the development of silver sulfadiazine. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1983;157:82-8. |
| 50. | Fox CL Jr, Modak SM. Mechanism of silver sulfadiazine action on burn wound infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1974;5:582-8. |
| 51. | Block SS. Peroxygen compounds. In: Block SS, editor. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 4 th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1991. p. 167-81. |
| 52. | Russell AD. Chemical sporicidal and sporostatic agents. In: Block SS, editor. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 4 th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1991. p. 365-76. |
| 53. | Crow S. Peracetic acid sterilization: A timely development for a busy healthcare industry. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:111-3. |
| 54. | Pulvertaft RJ, Lumb GD. Bacterial lysis and antiseptics. J Hyg (Lond) 1948;46:62-4. |
| 55. | Russell AD, Furr JR. Biocides: Mechanisms of antifungal action and fungal resistance. Sci Prog 1996;79:27-48. |
| 56. | Gump WS. The bis-phenols. In: Block SS, editor. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 4 th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1977. p. 252-81. |
| 57. | Marzulli FN, Bruch M. Antimicrobial soaps: Benefits versus risks. In: Maibach H, Aly R, editors. Skin Microbiology: Relevance to Clinical Infection. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1981. p. 125-34. |
| 58. | Vischer WA, Regös J. Antimicrobial spectrum of triclosan, a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent for topical application. Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig A 1974;226:376-89. |
| 59. | Leive L. The barrier function of the gram-negative envelope. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1974;235:109-29. |
| 60. | Regös J, Hitz HR. Investigations on the mode of action of triclosan, a broad spectrum antimicrobial agent. Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig A 1974;226:390-401. |
| 61. | Corner TR, Joswick HL, Silvernale JN, Gerhardt P. Antimicrobial actions of hexachlorophene: Lysis and fixation of bacterial protoplasts. J Bacteriol 1971;108:501-7. |
| 62. | Kimbrough RD. Review of the toxicity of hexachlorophene, including its neurotoxicity. J Clin Pharmacol 1973;13:439-44. |
| 63. | Bruch MK. Chloroxylenol: An old-new antimicrobial. In: Ascenzi JM, editor. Handbook of Disinfectants and Antiseptics. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1996. p. 265-94. |
| 64. | Frier M. Derivatives of 4-amino-quinaldinium and 8-hydroxyquinoline. In: Hugo WB, editor. Inhibition and Destruction of the Microbial Cell. London, England: Academic Press, Ltd.; 1971. p. 107-20. |
| 65. | Hugo WB, Frier M. Mode of action of the antibacterial compound dequalinium acetate. Appl Microbiol 1969;17:118-27. |
| 66. | Springthorpe VS, Grenier JL, Lloyd-Evans N, Sattar SA. Chemical disinfection of human rotaviruses: efficacy of commercially-available products in suspension tests. J Hyg (Lond) 1986;97:139-61. |
| 67. | Christensen EA, Kristensen H. Gaseous sterilization. In: Russell AD, Hugo WB, Ayliffe GA, editors. Principles and Practice of Disinfection, Preservation and Sterilization. 2 nd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd.; 1991. p. 557-72. |
| 68. | Moore FC, Perkinson LR. Hydrogen peroxide vapor sterilization method. U.S. Patent 1979; 4,169,123. |
| 69. | Jimenez L, Chiang M. Virucidal activity of a quaternary ammonium compound disinfectant against feline calicivirus: A surrogate for norovirus. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:269-73. |
| 70. | Steinmann J. Surrogate viruses for testing virucidal efficacy of chemical disinfectants. J Hosp Infect 2004;56 Suppl 2:S49-54. |
| 71. | Navas-Martin S, Weiss SR. SARS – lessons learned from other coronaviruses. Viral Immunol 2003;16:461-74. |
[Figure 1]
[Table 1]
|
Search Pubmed for