Literature DB >> 25751496

Cleaning Efficiencies of Three Cleaning Agents on Four Different Surfaces after Contamination by Gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracile.

Antje Böhlandt1, Svenja Groeneveld, Elke Fischer, Rudolf Schierl.   

Abstract

Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs has been documented for decades showing widespread contamination in preparation and administration areas. Apart from preventive measures, efficient cleaning of surfaces is indispensable to minimize the exposure risk. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of three cleaning agents after intentional contamination by gemcitabine (GEM) and 5-fluorouracile (5-FU) on four different surface types usually installed in healthcare settings. Glass, stainless steel, polyvinylchloride (PVC), and laminated wood plates were contaminated with 20 ng/μl GEM and 2 ng/μl 5-FU solutions. Wipe samples were analyzed for drug residues after cleaning with a) distilled water, b) aqueous solution containing sodium dodecyl sulfate (10 mM) and 2-propanol (SDS-2P), and c) Incides N (pre-soaked) alcoholic wipes. Quantification was performed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) for GEM and gas chromato-graphy-tandem mass spectrometry (GCMS/MS) for 5-FU. Recovery was determined and cleaning efficiency was calculated for each scenario. Mean recoveries were 77-89% for GEM and 24-77% for 5-FU and calculated cleaning efficiencies ranged between 95 and 100% and 89 and 100%, respectively. Residual drug amounts were detected in the range nd (not detected) - 84 ng GEM/sample and nd - 6.6 ng 5-FU/sample depending on surface type and cleaning agent. Distilled water and SDS-2P had better decontamination outcomes than Incides N wipes on nearly all surface types, especially for GEM. Regarding 5-FU, the overall cleaning efficiency was lower with highest residues on laminated wood surfaces. The tested cleaning procedures are shown to clean glass, stainless steel, PVC, and laminated wood with an efficiency of 89-100% after contamination with GEM and 5-FU. Nevertheless, drug residues could be verified by wipe samples. Pure distilled water and SDS in an alcoholic-aqueous solution expressed an efficient cleaning performance, especially with respect to GEM. The study results demonstrate the need to adapt cleaning procedures to the variety of drugs and surface types to develop effective decontamination strategies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  antineoplastic drugs; cleaning; decontamination

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25751496     DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2015.1009985

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg        ISSN: 1545-9624            Impact factor:   2.155


  4 in total

1.  Surgical Loupes Worn by Orthopaedic Surgeons Are a Reservoir for Microorganisms.

Authors:  Jack G Graham; Antonia F Chen; Noreen J Hickok; Samantha Knott; Caroline Purtill; Dennis Martin; Pedro K Beredjiklian
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Efficiency of four solutions in removing 23 conventional antineoplastic drugs from contaminated surfaces.

Authors:  Nicolas Simon; Nicolas Guichard; Pascal Odou; Bertrand Decaudin; Pascal Bonnabry; Sandrine Fleury-Souverain
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Validation of cleaning procedures used in an Italian Hospital Pharmacy for antineoplastic drug decontamination: a new tool for industrial hygiene.

Authors:  Sara Negri; Enrico Oddone; Francesco Morandi; Cristina Sottani; Francesco Gardinali; Annalisa Lillo; Ornella Pastoris; Valerio Dacrema; Anna Losurdo; Elena Grignani; Danilo Cottica; Marcello Imbriani
Journal:  Med Lav       Date:  2019-04-19       Impact factor: 1.275

4.  A decontamination process adding a tensioactive agent and isopropanol to a closed-system drug transfer device for better control of isolator contamination. A prospective, parallel study.

Authors:  Michèle Vasseur; Nicolas Simon; Chloé Picher; Camille Richeval; Marion Soichot; Luc Humbert; Christine Barthélémy; Sandrine Fleury-Souverain; Pascal Bonnabry; Bertrand Décaudin; Delphine Allorge; Pascal Odou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.