| Literature DB >> 28327506 |
Jui-Wen Ma1,2, Bin-Syuan Huang3, Chu-Wei Hsu4, Chun-Wei Peng5, Ming-Long Cheng6, Jung-Yie Kao7, Tzong-Der Way8,9,10, Hao-Chang Yin11, Shan-Shue Wang12.
Abstract
In this study, a chlorine dioxide solution (UC-1) composed of chlorine dioxide was produced using an electrolytic method and subsequently purified using a membrane. UC-1 was determined to contain 2000 ppm of gaseous chlorine dioxide in water. The efficacy and safety of UC-1 were evaluated. The antimicrobial activity was more than 98.2% reduction when UC-1 concentrations were 5 and 20 ppm for bacteria and fungi, respectively. The half maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50) of H1N1, influenza virus B/TW/71718/04, and EV71 were 84.65 ± 0.64, 95.91 ± 11.61, and 46.39 ± 1.97 ppm, respectively. A 3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) test revealed that the cell viability of mouse lung fibroblast L929 cells was 93.7% at a 200 ppm UC-1 concentration that is over that anticipated in routine use. Moreover, 50 ppm UC-1 showed no significant symptoms in a rabbit ocular irritation test. In an inhalation toxicity test, treatment with 20 ppm UC-1 for 24 h showed no abnormality and no mortality in clinical symptoms and normal functioning of the lung and other organs. A ClO₂ concentration of up to 40 ppm in drinking water did not show any toxicity in a subchronic oral toxicity test. Herein, UC-1 showed favorable disinfection activity and a higher safety profile tendency than in previous reports.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial efficacy; antiviral assay; chlorine dioxide (PubChem CID: 24870); inhalation toxicity; subchronic oral toxicity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28327506 PMCID: PMC5369164 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14030329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Flowchart of chlorine dioxide solution production.
Antimicrobial efficacy of UC-1.
| Organisms | Original Inoculum (CFU/mL) | Counts of UC-1 at Contact Time a (CFU/mL) | Percent Reductions (R) b |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.55 × 105 | <1 | >99.9 | |
| 3.15 × 105 | <1 | >99.9 | |
| 2.55 × 105 | <1 | >99.9 | |
| 2.60 × 105 | <1 | >99.9 | |
| 3.75 × 105 | 1.35 × 103 | 99.6 | |
| 8.20 × 105 | <1 | >99.9 | |
| 5.40 × 105 | <1 | >99.9 | |
| 4.80 × 105 | <1 | >99.9 | |
| 9.30 × 105 | <1 | >99.9 | |
|
| 3.70 × 105 | 6.70 × 103 | 98.2 |
|
| 3.20 × 105 | <1 | >99.9 |
a The contact time was 10 min. b Percent reductions of <1% represent no significant bacteriostasis or fungistasis. c UC-1 concentrations were 5 and 20 ppm for bacteria and fungi, respectively. * presented as bacteria; Δ presented as fungi. CFU: colony-forming unit.
Figure 2Antiviral efficacy against influenza virus A/WSN/33, influenza virus B/TW/71718/04, and enterovirus 71. Bars are plotted as means ± standard deviation (SD). Means with the same letter did not differ significantly at p < 0.05 according to the ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) F-test and Duncan’s new multiple range test.
Figure 3Cytotoxic effects of various UC-1 concentrations on L929 cells.
Grades in the clinical observation of individual rabbits for the ocular irritation test.
| Applied Regions | Test Component | Animal No. | Items for Grading | Clinical Observation (Time point/h) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 24 | 48 | 72 | ||||
| Left Eye | Test (50 ppm UC-1) | RB-160114-01 | Cornea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Iris | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Conjunctivae | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| RB-160114-03 | Cornea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Iris | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Conjunctivae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| RB-160114-06 | Cornea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Iris | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Conjunctivae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Right Eye | Control (0.9% Saline) | RB-160114-01 | Cornea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Iris | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Conjunctivae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| RB-160114-03 | Cornea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Iris | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Conjunctivae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| RB-160114-06 | Cornea | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Iris | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Conjunctivae | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
Evaluation of clinical symptoms in the inhalation toxicity test.
| Test Component | Animal No. | Abnormality Rate (%) | Mortality (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control: PBS | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 ppm UC-1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 ppm UC-1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
PBS: phosphate-buffered saline.
Evaluation of organ weight for the inhalation toxicity test.
| Test Component | Heart (g) | Liver (g) | Spleen (g) | Kidney (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control: PBS | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 |
| 10 ppm UC-1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.6 ± 0.2 |
| 20 ppm UC-1 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.2 |
Statistical analyses of the presented data were performed at the 95% significance level (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Hematoxylin and eosin staining of mouse lung sections in the inhalation toxicity test. The Scale bar labeled in this figure was 100 μm.
Evaluation of clinical symptoms in the subchronic oral toxicity test.
| Test Component | Animal No. | Abnormality Rate (%) | Mortality (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control: PBS | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 ppm UC-1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 ppm UC-1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 ppm UC-1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 40 ppm UC-1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Figure 5Mouse weight trend chart in the subchronic oral toxicity test. CTL: control.
Figure 6Observation of mouse lungs and organs in the subchronic oral toxicity test.
Evaluation of organ weight in the subchronic oral toxicity test.
| Test Component | Heart (g) | Liver (g) | Spleen (g) | Kidney (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control: PBS | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.1 |
| 5 ppm UC-1 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.2 |
| 10 ppm UC-1 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.2 |
| 20 ppm UC-1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.1 |
| 40 ppm UC-1 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 |
Statistical analyses of the presented data were performed at the 95% significance level (p < 0.05).