Talk:Aseptic technique

Broken Link

The link "Hand Washing & Aseptic Technique" is broken. Is this temporary or should the link be removed/replaced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.184.87 (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge with "Aseptic technique in microbiology"

yes the two articles should be merged, they are both relevant to the same topic and ensure that more relevant information can be gained from one page visit. It would be very helpful!

I agree to merge the article Aseptic technique in microbiology into Aseptic technique, which is more specific, because aseptic environments and techniques are found not only in microbiological labs, but also in other labs dealing with live organisms / materials.--Juan de Vojníkov 09:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article needs to make the point that Joseph Lister's practices were surgical, directed at making the site of surgery sterile, and not so much to protect the surgeon (though both are now the aim). Some mention of nosocomial infection and epidemiology is also needed.--MarkTwainOnIce 00:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be merged, would be concise especially if listed under two titles (headlines whatever you want to call them) of Medical and Laboratory techniques and there importance.

Need to add in information about actual sterile technique. Thinks like how often to clean one's person (immediately before coming into a sterile lab), always have a clean pair of clothes at the lab, never open the sterile hood past 6 inches (breaks seal), what kind of hand soaps actually work (SDS with some isopropyl alcohol is usually the standard), and that ALL UTENSILS AND REAGENTS NEED TO BE AUTOCLAVED EVERY DAY TO INSURE STERILITY!!! Also would be good to mention the difference between an antiseptics, antimicrobial, and disinfectants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profmrdrbiochem (talk • contribs) 13:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"sterile conditions"

The description at the very start of the page: 'Aseptic technique refers to a procedure that is performed under sterile conditions' seems incorrect. You can use sterile instruments, but aseptic techniques in laminar flow hoods, operating theaters etc. are performed in clean conditions, not sterile.

An OR is clean, but it's not sterile. A laminar flow hood is clean, but it is not sterile etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.32.210 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is truly "sterile" in that there are always a few microbes left hanging around. Much like how there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum -- people just say "vacuum" when they are referring to something that is almost a vacuum -- theoretically the number of organisms in an area can never be zero. Laminar flow hoods usually filter out something like 99.9% of airborne particles though, which is as close to sterile air as you're going to get. Austinenator (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Asepsis

These articles basically have the same scope, and neither is long enough to justify wp:forking to a separate article. Both terms would be more comprehensively described by linking to one single article containing the text of both. I'm not completely sure which would be the optimal merge target. Aseptic technique has a greater view count as seen on stats.grok.se, while Asepsis has more incoming links from "What links here". I'm leaning towards merging Aseptic technique to Asepsis, because Asepsis is broader, and avails for also describing "passive" ways of maintaining a sterile state such as packaging. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

With no opposition for a month, I've carried out the merge now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)