Talk:Antiseptic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Soap = antiseptic? Y/N

Ok, I'm going to ask this here because I don't know. Soap is a powerful antibacterial agent because it disrupts cell membranes. It can be used on the surfaces of the skin. Is soap (or detergents in general) an antiseptic? Dwmyers 22:30, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know but this lecture suggests that soap is a disinfectant theresa knott 12:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Soap/detergent may be used to treat infections, but I don't think it is because it is any kind of antiseptic. It simply removes the pathogens and their food source through emulsification.

Also, Sodium Hypochlorite (bleach) is NOT an antiseptic. It is a disinfectant. "Atiseptic" implies a substance that can routinely be used on skin. --LanceVictor 17:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, sodium hypochlorite can be used as a skin/wound antiseptic, provided that the concentration of it does not exceed 0.5-1.0% and that the pH of the solution is adjusted to 7-8 (a 0.5% aqueous NaClO with pH neutralised towards 7 by boric acid and is colored by 0.05% potassium permanganate is known as Daquin's solution (or, la solution de Daquin, in french)). It was, along with diluted phenolic solutions and tincture of iodine/Lugol's iodine one of the very first antiseptics used mainly in continetnal Europe from about 1860's to 1920's. It had a very good microbicidal effect and was along with Lugol's iodine the most potent antiseptic used.--Spiperon 00:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Treating yeast infections?

"Uses in suppositories to treat yeast infections of the vagina"? Should that be "pessaries" or should there be a comma in that? Is it true at all? - Anon

It's certainly true Iris. See:

[1] or

[2] or

[3] or many more onj the web. theresa knott 09:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not all "germs" are the same

"Germicide" redirects to this article. I'm not a microbiologist, but it says on my bottle of hand sanitizer that it "kills 99.99% of germs". (The active ingredient is ethyl alchohol.) Looking at WP article on germs suggests that just about any microbe can be considered a "germ". Yet here this article places emphasis on bacteria - biological entities, not viruses. I think this article needs some clarity on the distinction between "antiseptic" and "antibacterial" or "anti-viral", etc.; and make clear that sanitizers or other antiseptics may or may not be effective in all circumstances against all forms of harmful microbes. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• see also: http://www.nycoproducts.com/news/what-does-the-phrase-kills-99-9-of-germs-really-mean/ 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Mercurochrome

Mercurochrome -- any real evidence to support "reportedly works better than any other antiseptic"? I don't think that it's completely accurate to say that the U.S. FDA banned its distribution. The FDA removed it from the generally recognized as safe and effective list. A new producer of mercurochrome would have to go through the FDA's approval process. (Of course in practice, this will never happen since mercurochrome isn't patented.) The phrase "ostensibly due to the mercury poisoning scare" is blatently POV. --66.188.84.209 07:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NaCl?

Who uses salt as an antiseptic?

Noone any more. However, it was used historically. See Salting. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What about colloidal silver?

I guess this one is missing from the list...

Maybe this is because colloidal silver doesn't have proven antiseptic effect. 84.2.192.70 (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How about Ethyl Green aka 'Zelyonka' in a list of 'Some common antiseptics'?

Ethyl Green is widely used both at homes and in clinics in exUSSR, probably even frequently than Iodine or Hydrogen peroxide. AntonBreusov

Ethacridine lactate should be added to the list of antiseptics

It is reasonably common outside North America, effective, and has some interesting properties (including immunomodulative ones when used on open wounds; see http://www.woundsresearch.com/article/4542)

ThVa (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How it works

The how it works section essentially does not say anything about how an antiseptic actually works. --Spud Gun (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Added a {{cleanup-section}} tag. --Spud Gun (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Products Including This

-Mouth wash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.135.4 (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Negative Effects ?

Wikipedia is supposed to be educational; it's not a propagandaPedia. The section "Negative Effects" implies that there really is a negative effect whereas when you read it, it only states a theory (and worse, it links to evolution which is again another theory yet to be proven). Why I came here to the talk page? Because my brother told me to stop using antiseptic and let my wounds heal by itself because using antiseptic "has negative effects" which is developing terrifying super-microbes that cannot be killed by presently known antiseptics. I asked him who told him that. He said wikipedia and he gave me this link. Yes. its terrifying how wikipedia miseducate people. This section must be enhanced or rewritten not to be easily misunderstood or not to be misleading to the readers. And one more thing, when the section title says "Negative Effects", it should mean negative effects, not a "theoretical possible negative effects". Maybe editors can change the title to the more appropriate phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.80.71 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"celicular single helix microbes"

Huh, does this even mean anything? I'm pretty sure "celicular" isn't actually a word and "single helix microbes" is just as meaningless. The closest thint to a meaning I could come up with for the latter is either something like helicobacter pylori or sphirochetes, and even then there's no particular reason to test antiseptics against them in particular. Seriously, the whole sentence here reads like scifi technobabble or something made by google translate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.106.200.153 (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Microcyn

Just noting that the Microcyn article with the same content was deleted for advertising. Instead of deletion, the potential for PH-neutral solutions could be mentioned in the Sodium Hypochlorite section. As is, Microcyn is the only trademark in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.10.39 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Found a Link for Antiseptic Hydrogen Peroxide citation

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17151171 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.249.104 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Antiseptics are generally distinguished from antibiotics by the latter's ability to be transported through the lymphatic system to destroy bacteria within the body

This is rubbish, and contradicts the main article on antibiotics.

So an antibiotic has the "ability to be transported through the lymphatic system"? Well, I could take anything and inject it into the circulatory system and it will, sooner or later, get into the lymphatic system.

An antibiotic is a substance produced by one microbe which is active against another. It's that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.193.249 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's obviously not that simple. Your definition contradicts the fact that most things that are called antibiotics are actually synthetic pharmaceutical drugs. 173.62.242.128 (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

unsourced "common antiseptics"

moving here per WP:PRESERVE:

• Alcohols, most commonly ethanol (60–90%), 1-propanol (60–70%) and 2-propanol/isopropanol (70–80%) or mixtures of these alcohols, are commonly referred to as "surgical alcohol", and are used to disinfect the skin before injections are given, often along with iodine (tincture of iodine) or some cationic surfactants (benzalkonium chloride 0.05–0.5%, chlorhexidine 0.2–4.0% or octenidine dihydrochloride 0.1–2.0%).
• Quaternary ammonium compounds, also known as quats or QACs, include the chemicals benzalkonium chloride, cetyl trimethylammonium bromide, cetylpyridinium chloride, and benzethonium chloride. Benzalkonium chloride is used in some preoperative skin disinfectants (0.05–0.5%) and antiseptic towels. The antimicrobial activity of quats is inactivated by anionic surfactants, such as soaps. Related disinfectants include chlorhexidine and octenidine.
• Boric acid is used in suppositories to treat yeast infections of the vagina, in eyewashes, as an antiviral to shorten the duration of cold sore attacks, in creams for burns, and trace amounts in eye contact solutions.
• Brilliant green is a triarylmethane dye still widely used as 1% ethanol solution in Eastern Europe and ex-USSR countries for treatment of small wounds and abscesses. It is efficient against Gram-positive bacteria.
• Chlorhexidine gluconate, a biguanidine derivative, is used in concentrations of 0.5–4.0% alone or in lower concentrations in combination with other compounds, such as alcohols as a skin antiseptic and to treat inflammation of the gums (gingivitis). The microbicidal action is somewhat slow, but remanent. It is a cationic surfactant, similar to quats.
• Alcohols, most commonly ethanol (60–90%), 1-propanol (60–70%) and 2-propanol/isopropanol (70–80%) or mixtures of these alcohols, are commonly referred to as "surgical alcohol", and are used to disinfect the skin before injections are given, often along with iodine (tincture of iodine) or some cationic surfactants (benzalkonium chloride 0.05–0.5%, chlorhexidine 0.2–4.0% or octenidine dihydrochloride 0.1–2.0%).
• Quaternary ammonium compounds, also known as quats or QACs, include the chemicals benzalkonium chloride, cetyl trimethylammonium bromide, cetylpyridinium chloride, and benzethonium chloride. Benzalkonium chloride is used in some preoperative skin disinfectants (0.05–0.5%) and antiseptic towels. The antimicrobial activity of quats is inactivated by anionic surfactants, such as soaps. Related disinfectants include chlorhexidine and octenidine.
• Boric acid is used in suppositories to treat yeast infections of the vagina, in eyewashes, as an antiviral to shorten the duration of cold sore attacks, in creams for burns, and trace amounts in eye contact solutions.
• Brilliant green is a triarylmethane dye still widely used as 1% ethanol solution in Eastern Europe and ex-USSR countries for treatment of small wounds and abscesses. It is efficient against Gram-positive bacteria.
• Chlorhexidine gluconate, a biguanidine derivative, is used in concentrations of 0.5–4.0% alone or in lower concentrations in combination with other compounds, such as alcohols as a skin antiseptic and to treat inflammation of the gums (gingivitis). The microbicidal action is somewhat slow, but remanent. It is a cationic surfactant, similar to quats.
• (from hydrogen pyroxide bullet) Hydrogen peroxide vapor at high concentrations (> 50%) in mild vacuum can be used to sterilize surgical instruments with long thin lumens in under an hour without damage to temperature-sensitive electronics. Hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid make peracetic acid which is more anti-microbial (antiseptic) than peroxide itself. The above peroxide antimicrobials have the advantage of being cheap and decomposing to biologically harmless water and oxygen (and CO2, acetate, etc.)
• Manuka honey is recognized by the FDA as a medical device for use in wounds and burns. Active +15 is equal to a 15% solution of phenol.
• Mexsana, an antiseptic medicated powder.
• Mercurochrome is not recognized as safe and effective by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) due to concerns about its mercury content. Other obsolete organomercury antiseptics include bis-(phenylmercuric) monohydrogenborate (Famosept).
• Octenidine dihydrochloride, a cationic surfactant and bis-(dihydropyridinyl)-decane derivative, is used in concentrations of 0.1–2.0%. It is similar in its action to the quats, but is of somewhat broader spectrum of activity. Octenidine is currently increasingly used in continental Europe as a QAC and chlorhexidine (with respect to its slow action and concerns about the carcinogenic impurity 4-chloroaniline) substitute in water- or alcohol-based skin, mucosa, and wound antiseptic. In aqueous formulations, it is often potentiated with addition of 2-phenoxyethanol.
• Phenol is germicidal in strong solution, and inhibitory in weaker ones. It is used as a "scrub" for preoperative hand cleansing, and in the form of a powder as an antiseptic baby powder, where it is dusted onto the navel as it heals. Also used in mouthwashes and throat lozenges, it has a painkilling effect, as well as an antiseptic one. Example: TCP. Other phenolic antiseptics include historically important, but today rarely used (sometimes in dental surgery) thymol, today obsolete hexachlorophene, still used triclosan, and sodium 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzenesulfonate (Dibromol).
• Sodium chloride (salt) is used as a general cleanser and as an antiseptic mouthwash. Its weak antiseptic effect is due to hyperosmolality of the solution above 0.9%.
• Sodium hypochlorite was used in the past, diluted, neutralized, and combined with boric acid in Dakin's solution.
• Calcium hypochlorite was used by Semmelweis, as "chlorinated lime", in his revolutionary efforts against childbed fever.

-- Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: thanks for your work on the article. However, the gist of WP:PRESERVE is "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." I'm concerned that you didn't try to fix the problems, by providing necessary citations and so on, before removing the content to the talk page. I came to the article looking for information and was surprised at the very poor state of it, with the most common antiseptics (isopropanol, chlorhexidine, octenidine, etc.) not even mentioned. Clearly most or all of the material you removed is relevant, useful, and easily verifiable via the wikilinked articles, with citations from them, or simple literature searches. Material can and should be removed when it fails the test of being verifiable, but not having citations is not the same as not being verifiable. As per WP:UNSOURCED, when removing unsourced content, an editor should demonstrate:

"concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. [...] For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (Emphasis mine.)

Did you try to find appropriate sources and have difficulty doing so? Do you have other reasons to challenge any of the material as being contentious, dubious, or likely to be unverifiable? I would like to return most of this content to the article as I feel it is easily verifiable, and that for the most part, the wikilinked articles will suffice. However, WP:UNSOURCED also says editors should not restore content without adding inline citations for all "material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged". So again, I'd like to know if you have grounds to believe any of the material is not verifiable, and specifically which parts. Thanks. -- IamNotU (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be most inappropriate to include any of this without a WP:MEDRS-qualifying source. EEng 14:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps so, as written. But "rubbing alcohol is a common antiseptic" hardly requires a citation other than a link to the main article. It's most inappropriate to simply remove the world's most common antiseptics from Wikipedia's list, without making any effort to fix the article; instead leaving a mess for someone else to clean up. Content can be removed if it doesn't appear to be verifiable. If it's clearly verifiable but unsourced, then it's the editor's responsibility to fix it, not just knock it all down, break the article, and then disappear. Jytdog is an experienced editor (much more so than I am), who probably ought to know better. I've made a first stab at it, still lots of work to be done. Hopefully others can help. -- IamNotU (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

functionality - unsourced

been unsourced since 2012

Functionality

Bacterial growth requires a food supply, moisture, oxygen (if the bacteria are obligate aerobes), and a certain minimum temperature (see bacteriology). These conditions have been studied and dealt with in food preservation and the ancient practice of embalming the dead, which is the earliest known systematic use of antiseptics.

In early inquiries before microbes were understood, much emphasis was given to the prevention of putrefaction, and procedures were carried out to determine the amount of agent that must be added to a given solution to prevent the development of pus and putrefaction; however, due to a lack of a developed understanding of germ theory, this method was inaccurate and, today, an antiseptic is judged by its effect on pure cultures of a defined microbe and/or its vegetative and spore forms. The standardization of antiseptics has been implemented in many instances, and a water solution of phenol of a certain fixed strength is now used as the standard to which other antiseptics are compared.

The fundamental idea of all anti-pathogenic agents is to exploit a difference between parasite and host. For bacteria, that may involve interfering with their cell walls or internal biochemistry which differs from humans'.

Pathogens show a total-dose response: if you expose them to a dilute solution for a long time, this is equivalent to dosing them with a strong solution for less time. This makes the pre-industrial medical notion of poultice clear: weaker antiseptics require longer exposure. This is true for many chemical antibiotics as well as heat and UV exposure.

-- Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

RfX (Request for expansion :-] ): Microbial resistance?

Can someone who works in an appropriate field (chemistry, pharmaceuticals, medicine, biology, etc) write a section on microbial resistance to antiseptics? That is, does it exist, can it develop over the years (if not, why), etc. Thanks. — Lumbercutter 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is commonly thought that either limes or lemons have antiseptic properties. Is this true?

I doubt it, especially since mold can grow easily on cut limes or lemons. They do contain citric acid, which has a low enough pH that it might inhibit the growth of some germs, but I doubt that it could have any effect on e.g. coliform bacteria, listeria, etc. David Spector (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Bleach, and Balsam of Peru

I pulled the following from the article since they seem unlikely. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Balsam of Peru is a mild antiseptic.
• Dakin's solution is a sodium hypochlorite solution, originally also containing boric acid to lower pH. It is mostly used on live tissues for cleaning wounds of bacteria, fungi and viruses. Because of practicality of preparation and lower cost, it is largely used in Veterinary Medicine treatments. It is colourless and does not stain the animal's fur or affect its aesthetic or commercial value.
• Super-oxidized solutions (SOS) contain hypochlorous acid (HClO) (<0.005%) and are stabilised at a neutral pH. SOS are rapidly acting (30s-5m), broad spectrum antiseptics that are clinically effective at non-cytotoxic concentrations that in contrast to many cytotoxic antiseptics, support wound healing. There is now growing consensus that modern SOS are more effective for healing wounds faster.