Course Access
- This topic has 2 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Dear all,
I’m keen to obtain feedback from hospitals currently using the eWater system and from anyone with a good grasp of electrolysed water.
Having seen a demo, I note that the system utilizes dissolved sodium chloride (stored in a separate container) which is then pumped into a wall mounted unit (eWater system), gets mixed with tap H2O which then goes through electrolysis… thus giving us 2 distinct byproducts comprising of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide (which the system spits out in 2 separate taps marketed as “sanitising” and “cleaning” solutions respectively).
The chemistry bit is rather clear, plain water with added salt, gets zapped and we get a weak bleach as well as caustic soda.
These mild solutions are ideal for sanitising fruits/veggies/meat in the catering industry… and that’s where they’re promoting its key use.
Aside from washing produce, the rep promoted the use of the supplied spray bottles which you then fill with eWater for disinfecting surfaces in the catering department.
They were keen on proving the effectiveness of eWater in this respect by doing swabs.
Obviously culture swabs taken before spraying the surface would yield a higher microbial count as we’re not just spraying plain water but a solution containing either bleach or caustic soda (that plus the rep was scrubbing the surfaces vigorously).
Where I start questioning this all is when the rep informs me that the eWater solution can be kept for >7 days in the spray bottles without losing its efficacy (these spray bottles get decanted each time).
Wouldn’t electrolyzed water lose its potency rather quickly? Or is it because we’ve added sodium chloride to the mix that we’ve now obtained a relatively stable bleach solution?
From the papers provided by the company, it is reported that eWater offers a higher sanitising efficiency due to its “significantly higher Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)”.
This “significantly higher ORP” apparently offers a higher kill rate when compared to an un-electrolyzed comparable solution of bleach (with similar ppm counts).
They were also keen to promote the use of eWater as a replacement to handwashing with soap and water (in clinical areas as well!)… eWater does not contain emollients and with prolonged usage (fervent observance of the 5 Moments), IMO there would most definitely be reported skin issues relating to dryness. You can’t replace the effectiveness and convenience of ABHRs.
I recognise the potential of eWater in the kitchens (from a convenience perspective, space-saving, environmental, etc. compared to current processes) but do not see its use beyond that in a hospital setting.
Keen to hear the views from hospitals who’ve trialed this system… what’s your experience and has it been used out of the kitchen setting.
Thanks, all.
Regards,
GeraldGerald Chan
Coordinator Infection ControlSt John of God Murdoch Hospital
100 Murdoch Drive
MURDOCH. WA 6150P: 9366 1552
M: 0405 495 906 (7804)
F: 9311 4685
E: Gerald.Chan@sjog.org.au
W: http://www.sjog.org.au/murdochfacebook.com/stjohnofgodmurdoch ( http://www.facebook.com/stjohnofgodmurdoch )
twitter.com/sjgh_murdoch ( http://www.twitter.com/sjgh_murdoch )Messages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors, and do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.
Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives – registration and login required.
Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.au
To send a message to the list administrator send an email to aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.
You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’ (without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.au
Gerald
As you said the chemistry is pretty clear.
The resultant sodium Hypochlorite is basically that, normal Sodium Hypochlorite and should have stability and efficacy the same as that as a standard weak bleach solution.
Regards
Kevin
Kevin Griffin
Bioquell Asia Pacific Pte Ltd207 Henderson Road,#01-05
Singapore 159550
T: +65 6592 5145
F: +65 6227 5878
M: +65 8511 3733Dear all,
I’m keen to obtain feedback from hospitals currently using the eWater system and from anyone with a good grasp of electrolysed water.
Having seen a demo, I note that the system utilizes dissolved sodium chloride (stored in a separate container) which is then pumped into a wall mounted unit (eWater system), gets mixed with tap H2O which then goes through electrolysis… thus giving us 2 distinct byproducts comprising of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide (which the system spits out in 2 separate taps marketed as “sanitising” and “cleaning” solutions respectively).
The chemistry bit is rather clear, plain water with added salt, gets zapped and we get a weak bleach as well as caustic soda.
These mild solutions are ideal for sanitising fruits/veggies/meat in the catering industry… and that’s where they’re promoting its key use.
Aside from washing produce, the rep promoted the use of the supplied spray bottles which you then fill with eWater for disinfecting surfaces in the catering department.
They were keen on proving the effectiveness of eWater in this respect by doing swabs.
Obviously culture swabs taken before spraying the surface would yield a higher microbial count as we’re not just spraying plain water but a solution containing either bleach or caustic soda (that plus the rep was scrubbing the surfaces vigorously).
Where I start questioning this all is when the rep informs me that the eWater solution can be kept for >7 days in the spray bottles without losing its efficacy (these spray bottles get decanted each time).
Wouldn’t electrolyzed water lose its potency rather quickly? Or is it because we’ve added sodium chloride to the mix that we’ve now obtained a relatively stable bleach solution?
From the papers provided by the company, it is reported that eWater offers a higher sanitising efficiency due to its “significantly higher Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)”.
This “significantly higher ORP” apparently offers a higher kill rate when compared to an un-electrolyzed comparable solution of bleach (with similar ppm counts).
They were also keen to promote the use of eWater as a replacement to handwashing with soap and water (in clinical areas as well!)… eWater does not contain emollients and with prolonged usage (fervent observance of the 5 Moments), IMO there would most definitely be reported skin issues relating to dryness. You can’t replace the effectiveness and convenience of ABHRs.
I recognise the potential of eWater in the kitchens (from a convenience perspective, space-saving, environmental, etc. compared to current processes) but do not see its use beyond that in a hospital setting.
Keen to hear the views from hospitals who’ve trialed this system… what’s your experience and has it been used out of the kitchen setting.
Thanks, all.
Regards,
Gerald
Gerald Chan
Coordinator Infection Control
St John of God Murdoch Hospital
100 Murdoch Drive
MURDOCH. WA 6150P: 9366 1552
M: 0405 495 906 (7804)
F: 9311 4685W: http://www.sjog.org.au/murdoch
Murdoch
facebook facebook.com/stjohnofgodmurdoch
twitter twitter.com/sjgh_murdoch
Click here to report this email as spam.
Messages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors, and do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.
Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives – registration and login required.
Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.au
To send a message to the list administrator send an email to aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.
You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’ (without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.au
This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl – http://www.blackspider.com
Messages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors, and do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.
Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives – registration and login required.
Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.au
To send a message to the list administrator send an email to aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.
You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’ (without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.au
Thanks Kevin.
I’ve asked for the MSDS to have a look at the bleach concentrations churned out by this system as that’ll better guide our planning (from an OSH and IC perspective).
In terms of solely using the eWater for handwashing, has anyone encountered issues with this?
Would appreciate any feedback you’ve had from your catering staff.
Cheers,
GeraldGerald Chan
Coordinator Infection ControlSt John of God Murdoch Hospital
100 Murdoch Drive
MURDOCH. WA 6150P: 9366 1552
M: 0405 495 906 (7804)
F: 9311 4685
E: Gerald.Chan@sjog.org.au
W: http://www.sjog.org.au/murdochfacebook.com/stjohnofgodmurdoch ( http://www.facebook.com/stjohnofgodmurdoch )
twitter.com/sjgh_murdoch ( http://www.twitter.com/sjgh_murdoch )
>>> Kevin Griffin 13/06/2012 2:38 PM >>>Gerald
As you said the chemistry is pretty clear.
The resultant sodium Hypochlorite is basically that, normal Sodium Hypochlorite and should have stability and efficacy the same as that as a standard weak bleach solution.
Regards
KevinKevin Griffin
Bioquell Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
207 Henderson Road,#01-05
Singapore 159550
T: +65 6592 5145
F: +65 6227 5878
M: +65 8511 3733
E: Kevin.Griffin@bioquell.com ( mailto:firstname.surname@bioquell.com )Dear all,
I’m keen to obtain feedback from hospitals currently using the eWater system and from anyone with a good grasp of electrolysed water.
Having seen a demo, I note that the system utilizes dissolved sodium chloride (stored in a separate container) which is then pumped into a wall mounted unit (eWater system), gets mixed with tap H2O which then goes through electrolysis… thus giving us 2 distinct byproducts comprising of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide (which the system spits out in 2 separate taps marketed as “sanitising” and “cleaning” solutions respectively).
The chemistry bit is rather clear, plain water with added salt, gets zapped and we get a weak bleach as well as caustic soda.
These mild solutions are ideal for sanitising fruits/veggies/meat in the catering industry… and that’s where they’re promoting its key use.
Aside from washing produce, the rep promoted the use of the supplied spray bottles which you then fill with eWater for disinfecting surfaces in the catering department.
They were keen on proving the effectiveness of eWater in this respect by doing swabs.
Obviously culture swabs taken before spraying the surface would yield a higher microbial count as we’re not just spraying plain water but a solution containing either bleach or caustic soda (that plus the rep was scrubbing the surfaces vigorously).
Where I start questioning this all is when the rep informs me that the eWater solution can be kept for >7 days in the spray bottles without losing its efficacy (these spray bottles get decanted each time).
Wouldn’t electrolyzed water lose its potency rather quickly? Or is it because we’ve added sodium chloride to the mix that we’ve now obtained a relatively stable bleach solution?
From the papers provided by the company, it is reported that eWater offers a higher sanitising efficiency due to its “significantly higher Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)”.
This “significantly higher ORP” apparently offers a higher kill rate when compared to an un-electrolyzed comparable solution of bleach (with similar ppm counts).
They were also keen to promote the use of eWater as a replacement to handwashing with soap and water (in clinical areas as well!)… eWater does not contain emollients and with prolonged usage (fervent observance of the 5 Moments), IMO there would most definitely be reported skin issues relating to dryness. You can’t replace the effectiveness and convenience of ABHRs.
I recognise the potential of eWater in the kitchens (from a convenience perspective, space-saving, environmental, etc. compared to current processes) but do not see its use beyond that in a hospital setting.
Keen to hear the views from hospitals who’ve trialed this system… what’s your experience and has it been used out of the kitchen setting.
Thanks, all.
Regards,
Gerald
Gerald Chan
Coordinator Infection Control
St John of God Murdoch Hospital
100 Murdoch Drive
MURDOCH. WA 6150P: 9366 1552
M: 0405 495 906 (7804)
F: 9311 4685W: http://www.sjog.org.au/murdoch
facebook.com/stjohnofgodmurdoch ( http://www.facebook.com/stjohnofgodmurdoch )
twitter.com/sjgh_murdoch ( http://www.twitter.com/sjgh_murdoch )
Click here ( https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg ) to report this email as spam.
Messages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors, and do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.
Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives – registration and login required.
Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.au
To send a message to the list administrator send an email to aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.
You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’ (without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.au__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7216 (20120612) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl ( http://www.blackspider.com/ )Messages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors, and do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.
Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives – registration and login required.
Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.au
To send a message to the list administrator send an email to aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.
You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’ (without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.auMessages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors, and do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.
Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives – registration and login required.
Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.au
To send a message to the list administrator send an email to aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.
You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’ (without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.au
Further to Matthias’ email… His point #16 is correct – namely that
neither Infection Control nor Infectious Diseases know anything about
eWater and have never been asked to assess it, let alone approve it!!
Until this email I had never heard of eWater.Needless to say, we are currently investigating how Austin Health
“approved eWater”, but it was not via any clinical department. I will
report back since it may be a lesson for others.Thanks Matthias
Kind regards
Lindsay
Prof. M. Lindsay Grayson
Infectious Diseases Department,
Austin Health
Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne
Studley Rd., Heidelberg, VIC 3084
Australia________________________________
Dear Colleagues,
The topic of the eWater System appeared on both the ACIPC and OzBug
e-mail lists (I overlooked the ACIPC one initially) and I thought it
would be worth writing a somewhat more detailed joint reply to both
lists.I have previously posted (to ACIPC) on what seemed a similar technology,
the ActiveIon device.I have looked at some of the available information concerning the eWater
System, and even though I cannot make any final conclusions, I have a
number of questions and issues of concern that I would like to share. If
I were to look at purchasing the device, these would be some of the
points that I would look at more closely.(1) The description is that the system performs electrolysis of an NaCl
solution and creates two solutions, one a (probably weak) bleach (NaOCl)
and/or hypochlorous acid (HOCl) solution (not sure which one
predominates), the other a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution. The bleach
solution — according to the description — is microbicidal and can be
used for disinfection, including disinfection in the food industry, in
hospitals, even hand antisepsis. The NaOH solution — according to the
description — is for cleaning.(2) The question comes: What would be the difference between using the
eWater system and just buying bleach and/or hypochlorous acid itself,
which are cheap standard chemicals that are easily available?(3) Has the system been tested by a manufacturer-independent (!)
disinfectant testing laboratory with relevant expertise? Experience
tells us that one cannot solely rely on manufacturer-provided test
reports or manufacturer claims when it comes to disinfectants —
preferable would be at least two independent test reports from
experienced reputable labs.(4) Has the system been tested by any of the available standardised
testing protocols for surface disinfection (or other types of
application, depending on the intended use)? There are, for example, US
ASTM standards and European EN standards. The EN standard for surface
disinfection is EN 13697, and such tests are typically done in
variations (a) with or without organic load (“dirty conditions”) and (b)
with or without mechanical action (simulating the wiping).(5) If, for example, antimicrobial activity would fail in the presence
of organic load, then a prior cleaning step would become highly
critical. Organic load is, of course, an issue in the food industry,
where one of the advertising targets lies.(6) FYI, disinfectant testing and assessment is usually done in two
steps, step 1 is testing in suspension — like the MBC (minimum
bactericidal concentration) for antibiotics – and step 2 is testing
under simulated practice conditions, e.g. surface disinfection on a
carrier.(7) Has any testing employed experimental controls that — in terms of
biological plausibility — leave no other conclusions than what the
machine produced killed the microorganisms and not (!) some other part
of the application? (In the ActiveIon example, the microbial reduction
achieved by one testing lab was similar to what one would expect from
applying plain inactive water and wiping, but such a control was
omitted).(8) Is there a way to make sure that the disinfectant concentrations
coming out of the machine are kept consistent and in an antimicrobially
active range to fulfill their purpose? Meaning how are concentrations
monitored and ensured that there is active disinfectant? Is there a
testing method provided to measure the concentrations in daily use (in
analogy to checking fridge temperatures in labs on a daily basis as part
of quality control)? Apparently, electrodes age over time and may
deliver electrolysis less consistently. Is there experience with
stability of not only disinfectant concentration but also microbicidal
activity over the intended period of machine usage (I presume years)?
Also, how long are the prepared solutions stable after electrolysis and
before application?(9) The company address given on the website is an Australian one, but
it is unclear to me if they are a distributor or the manufacturer. Some
of the documentation appears to be from Japan; this may indicate that
the Australian address may be a distributor.(10) I saw two “research” publications on the website, both looked like
research papers, but none had proper bibliographic information (journal
name, year, volume, etc.). (I found one of these subsequently, with
journal information, by putting the title into PubMed).(11) A table on the website showing microbial test results (citing an
article published in Japanese) misspelled quite a number of bacterial
names. If someone claiming to have microbiological expertise is unable
to spell some of the most common bacterial names, this should ring alarm
bells.(12) On the eWater website, there are three linked documents from RMIT
University (origin: School of Civil Engineering). One is a brief
Executive Summary, another a more comprehensive multi-page document,
another what appears to be a conference poster. The Executive Summary
appears to focus on cost, environmental and social factors, the bigger
document has “report final” in its file name but has oblique “draft”
written over the pages and no authors specified. The microbiology part
is dubious. All three are written in a very positive tone, raising the
question whether they might be industry-sponsored.(13) The claim that the system can “sterilise” medical instruments
appears unsubstantiated. From a solution like the one described, one
would expect at best (!) high-level disinfection, but not sterilisation.
Even claims for high-level disinfection would have to be substantiated
by standardised testing, and it should be specified what types of
instruments can be treated and under which conditions.(14) It is proposed to use the electrolysed water for hand hygiene, but
it is unclear to me how it should be useful for that purpose. NaOCl
(bleach) is genuinely unsuitable (!) for hand hygiene, because in higher
concentrations it would be damaging to hands and in lower concentrations
it would take too long to kill microorganisms (alcohol hand rubs produce
several log reduction in about 30 sec). Again, results from standardised
tests would be needed.(15) The main target is apparently the food industry, but it is also
promoted for hospitals. Even if the product were “only” intended for the
food industry, one would still expect that the system should fulfill
basic claims concerning antimicrobial efficacy. Both industries are
critical in terms of preventing infections.(16) The company advertises with an endorsement from Austin Health. That
would raise the question whether Austin’s Infection Control Department
and/or Lindsay Grayson’s group has seen and/or endorsed this, or whether
the company only liaised with scientifically untrained personnel, such
as the housekeeping or kitchen department. The latter would be quite
inappropriate. (We had an occasion here where a manufacturer tried to
market a new product by circumventing the Infection Control Committee
and went straight to Housekeeping).I think that this system should be properly investigated by an
institution or authority with the competency and clout to do this before
it is used in the healthcare and food industry.Best regards, Matthias.
—
Matthias Maiwald, MD, FRCPA
Consultant in Microbiology
Adj. Assoc. Prof., Natl. Univ. Singapore
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital
100 Bukit Timah Road
Singapore 229899
Tel. +65 6394 8725 (Office)
Tel. +65 6394 1389 (Laboratory)
Fax +65 6394 1387
kkh
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail and the attachments (if any)
may be privileged and confidential and is intended solely for the named
addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not print,
retain copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this e-mail or any part
thereof. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail
and delete all copies of this e-mail and the attachments._______________________________________________ asid-ozbug mailing list
asid-ozbug@burnet.edu.au http://lists.burnet.edu.au/listinfo/asid-ozbug
————————————————————————
————————————————————————
—————————————————— Edited archives
of most past OZBUG/ASPID/AICA topic discussions are available at the
Healthcare infection control special interest group (HICSIG) wiki –
http://www.hicsiganz.org. Use the left menu item to link to ‘AICA OZBUG talk’
or Search by a key word(s).
————————————————————————
————————————————————————
———————*****************************************************************
This email contains confidential information intended
only for the person named above and may be subject to
legal privilege and confidentiality obligations imposed
by legislation or be subject to intellectual property
protection or copyright. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this transmission
is prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return email and delete the
original email and any attachments.
Austin Health provides no guarantee that this transmission
is free of virus or that it has not been intercepted or altered.*****************************************************************
Messages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors, and do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.
Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives – registration and login required.
Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.au
To send a message to the list administrator send an email to aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.
You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’ (without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.au
Thanks Matthias for further identifying the many gaps in the eWater
system and their “research”.
It is alarming to note that Austin Health’s approval was not sought
(from its clinical departments) as the company often quotes its use
there in marketing its product.
I have declined their request to allow my organisation’s letterhead to
be used by them for the informal random swabs they’d conducted in our
catering department.
As mentioned to the rep then, there will obviously be a microbial count
reduction noted in the swab results (post-eWater) as we are not dealing
with plain water but either hypochlorous acid/hydrochloric acid or
caustic soda (depending on which tap the “water” is from).
That plus vigorous scrubbing of the surfaces to be swabbed when eWater
was applied.
I think with the discussion points raised, there is an obvious lack of
supporting evidence to pursue a trial at this stage.
Thanks Matthias and Lindsay for your feedback.
Kind regards,
GeraldGerald Chan
Coordinator Infection ControlSt John of God Murdoch Hospital
100 Murdoch Drive
MURDOCH. WA 6150P: 9366 1552
M: 0405 495 906 (7804)
F: 9311 4685
E: Gerald.Chan@sjog.org.au
W: http://www.sjog.org.au/murdochfacebook.com/stjohnofgodmurdoch (
http://www.facebook.com/stjohnofgodmurdoch )
twitter.com/sjgh_murdoch ( http://www.twitter.com/sjgh_murdoch )
>>> “GRAYSON, Lindsay” 26/06/2012 12:44
PM >>>Dear All,
Further to Matthias email His point #16 is correct namely that
neither Infection Control nor Infectious Diseases know anything about
eWater and have never been asked to assess it, let alone approve it!!
Until this email I had never heard of eWater.
Needless to say, we are currently investigating how Austin Health
approved eWater, but it was not via any clinical department. I
will report back since it may be a lesson for others.
Thanks Matthias
Kind regards
LindsayProf. M. Lindsay Grayson
Infectious Diseases Department,
Austin Health
Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne
Studley Rd., Heidelberg, VIC 3084
AustraliaDear Colleagues,
The topic of the eWater System appeared on both the ACIPC and OzBug
e-mail lists (I overlooked the ACIPC one initially) and I thought it
would be worth writing a somewhat more detailed joint reply to both
lists.
I have previously posted (to ACIPC) on what seemed a similar
technology, the ActiveIon device.
I have looked at some of the available information concerning the
eWater System, and even though I cannot make any final conclusions, I
have a number of questions and issues of concern that I would like to
share. If I were to look at purchasing the device, these would be some
of the points that I would look at more closely.
(1) The description is that the system performs electrolysis of an NaCl
solution and creates two solutions, one a (probably weak) bleach (NaOCl)
and/or hypochlorous acid (HOCl) solution (not sure which one
predominates), the other a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution. The bleach
solution — according to the description — is microbicidal and can be
used for disinfection, including disinfection in the food industry, in
hospitals, even hand antisepsis. The NaOH solution — according to the
description — is for cleaning.
(2) The question comes: What would be the difference between using the
eWater system and just buying bleach and/or hypochlorous acid itself,
which are cheap standard chemicals that are easily available?
(3) Has the system been tested by a manufacturer-independent (!)
disinfectant testing laboratory with relevant expertise? Experience
tells us that one cannot solely rely on manufacturer-provided test
reports or manufacturer claims when it comes to disinfectants —
preferable would be at least two independent test reports from
experienced reputable labs.
(4) Has the system been tested by any of the available standardised
testing protocols for surface disinfection (or other types of
application, depending on the intended use)? There are, for example, US
ASTM standards and European EN standards. The EN standard for surface
disinfection is EN 13697, and such tests are typically done in
variations (a) with or without organic load (“dirty conditions”) and (b)
with or without mechanical action (simulating the wiping).
(5) If, for example, antimicrobial activity would fail in the presence
of organic load, then a prior cleaning step would become highly
critical. Organic load is, of course, an issue in the food industry,
where one of the advertising targets lies.
(6) FYI, disinfectant testing and assessment is usually done in two
steps, step 1 is testing in suspension — like the MBC (minimum
bactericidal concentration) for antibiotics and step 2 is testing
under simulated practice conditions, e.g. surface disinfection on a
carrier.
(7) Has any testing employed experimental controls that — in terms of
biological plausibility — leave no other conclusions than what the
machine produced killed the microorganisms and not (!) some other part
of the application? (In the ActiveIon example, the microbial reduction
achieved by one testing lab was similar to what one would expect from
applying plain inactive water and wiping, but such a control was
omitted).
(8) Is there a way to make sure that the disinfectant concentrations
coming out of the machine are kept consistent and in an antimicrobially
active range to fulfill their purpose? Meaning how are concentrations
monitored and ensured that there is active disinfectant? Is there a
testing method provided to measure the concentrations in daily use (in
analogy to checking fridge temperatures in labs on a daily basis as part
of quality control)? Apparently, electrodes age over time and may
deliver electrolysis less consistently. Is there experience with
stability of not only disinfectant concentration but also microbicidal
activity over the intended period of machine usage (I presume years)?
Also, how long are the prepared solutions stable after electrolysis and
before application?
(9) The company address given on the website is an Australian one, but
it is unclear to me if they are a distributor or the manufacturer. Some
of the documentation appears to be from Japan; this may indicate that
the Australian address may be a distributor.
(10) I saw two “research” publications on the website, both looked like
research papers, but none had proper bibliographic information (journal
name, year, volume, etc.). (I found one of these subsequently, with
journal information, by putting the title into PubMed).
(11) A table on the website showing microbial test results (citing an
article published in Japanese) misspelled quite a number of bacterial
names. If someone claiming to have microbiological expertise is unable
to spell some of the most common bacterial names, this should ring alarm
bells.
(12) On the eWater website, there are three linked documents from RMIT
University (origin: School of Civil Engineering). One is a brief
Executive Summary, another a more comprehensive multi-page document,
another what appears to be a conference poster. The Executive Summary
appears to focus on cost, environmental and social factors, the bigger
document has “report final” in its file name but has oblique “draft”
written over the pages and no authors specified. The microbiology part
is dubious. All three are written in a very positive tone, raising the
question whether they might be industry-sponsored.
(13) The claim that the system can “sterilise” medical instruments
appears unsubstantiated. From a solution like the one described, one
would expect at best (!) high-level disinfection, but not sterilisation.
Even claims for high-level disinfection would have to be substantiated
by standardised testing, and it should be specified what types of
instruments can be treated and under which conditions.
(14) It is proposed to use the electrolysed water for hand hygiene, but
it is unclear to me how it should be useful for that purpose. NaOCl
(bleach) is genuinely unsuitable (!) for hand hygiene, because in higher
concentrations it would be damaging to hands and in lower concentrations
it would take too long to kill microorganisms (alcohol hand rubs produce
several log reduction in about 30 sec). Again, results from standardised
tests would be needed.
(15) The main target is apparently the food industry, but it is also
promoted for hospitals. Even if the product were “only” intended for the
food industry, one would still expect that the system should fulfill
basic claims concerning antimicrobial efficacy. Both industries are
critical in terms of preventing infections.
(16) The company advertises with an endorsement from Austin Health.
That would raise the question whether Austin’s Infection Control
Department and/or Lindsay Grayson’s group has seen and/or endorsed this,
or whether the company only liaised with scientifically untrained
personnel, such as the housekeeping or kitchen department. The latter
would be quite inappropriate. (We had an occasion here where a
manufacturer tried to market a new product by circumventing the
Infection Control Committee and went straight to Housekeeping).
I think that this system should be properly investigated by an
institution or authority with the competency and clout to do this before
it is used in the healthcare and food industry.
Best regards, Matthias.
—
Matthias Maiwald, MD, FRCPA
Consultant in Microbiology
Adj. Assoc. Prof., Natl. Univ. Singapore
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital
100 Bukit Timah Road
Singapore 229899
Tel. +65 6394 8725 (Office)
Tel. +65 6394 1389 (Laboratory)
Fax +65 6394 1387kkh
The information contained in this e-mail and the attachments (if any)
may be privileged and confidential and is intended solely for the named
addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not print,
retain copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this e-mail or any part
thereof. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail
and delete all copies of this e-mail and the attachments._______________________________________________ asid-ozbug mailing list
asid-ozbug@burnet.edu.au http://lists.burnet.edu.au/listinfo/asid-ozbug
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Edited archives of most past OZBUG/ASPID/AICA topic discussions are
available at the Healthcare infection control special interest group
(HICSIG) wiki – http://www.hicsiganz.org. Use the left menu item to link to
‘AICA OZBUG talk’ or Search by a key word(s).
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————*****************************************************************
This email contains confidential information intended
only for the person named above and may be subject to
legal privilege and confidentiality obligations imposed
by legislation or be subject to intellectual property
protection or copyright. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this transmission
is prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return email and delete the
original email and any attachments.
Austin Health provides no guarantee that this transmission
is free of virus or that it has not been intercepted or altered.
*****************************************************************Messages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors,
and do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.
Archive of all messages are available at
http://aicalist.org.au/archives – registration and login required.
Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a
new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.au
To send a message to the list administrator send an email to
aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.
You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’
(without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.au
intended recipient. They may contain confidential or privileged
information. This information may not necessarily be the view of St John
of God Health Care Inc (SJGHC). SJGHC does not warrant, represent or
guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information. SJGHC does
not accept liability for any loss or damage in connection with the
information. If you are not the intended recipient then any use,
reliance, interference with, disclosure, distribution or copying of this
information by you is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received
this email in error then please notify the sender by return email and
delete all copies. SJGHC does not waive any privilege.Messages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors, and do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.
Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives – registration and login required.
Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.au
To send a message to the list administrator send an email to aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.
You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’ (without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.au
Hi all,
I also value the questions and comments from our ID colleagues on this
matter. The need for rigorous and critical consideration of newer
technologies is so important and the right questions so clearly need to
be asked!On another matter which is largely unrelated but I would value any
comments that either Lindsay, Matthias or any other ASID member might be
willing to make relates to a sporicidal wipe system for disinfection of
non-lumened scopes, which uses a patented chlorine dioxide agents
(Tristel). These wipes are currently being promoted by a company in
Australia and adopted by some centres. I harbour grave concerns in
relation to this product and its use. Would it be possible to have this
request cross-posted to the asid-ozbug members as I wonder what view is
held in this community in relation to this product? Specifically, I
wonder if there is comment that any ID person might make on the use of a
sporicidal agent applied by a “wipe” rather than through an automated
system and the apparent absence or any validation for a
clean/disinfection process?I look forward to some possible replies/responses
Kind regards
Rachel
Rachel Thomson
Nurse Unit Manager
Infection Prevention & Control Unit
Royal Hobart Hospital
E: rachel.thomson@dhhs.tas.gov.au
________________________________
Behalf Of Gerald Chan
Thanks Matthias for further identifying the many gaps in the eWater
system and their “research”.It is alarming to note that Austin Health’s approval was not sought
(from its clinical departments) as the company often quotes its use
there in marketing its product.I have declined their request to allow my organisation’s letterhead to
be used by them for the informal random swabs they’d conducted in our
catering department.As mentioned to the rep then, there will obviously be a microbial count
reduction noted in the swab results (post-eWater) as we are not dealing
with plain water but either hypochlorous acid/hydrochloric acid or
caustic soda (depending on which tap the “water” is from).That plus vigorous scrubbing of the surfaces to be swabbed when eWater
was applied.I think with the discussion points raised, there is an obvious lack of
supporting evidence to pursue a trial at this stage.Thanks Matthias and Lindsay for your feedback.
Kind regards,
Gerald
Gerald Chan
Coordinator Infection Control
St John of God Murdoch Hospital
100 Murdoch Drive
MURDOCH. WA 6150P: 9366 1552
M: 0405 495 906 (7804)
F: 9311 4685W: http://www.sjog.org.au/murdoch
Murdoch
facebook facebook.com/stjohnofgodmurdoch
twitter twitter.com/sjgh_murdoch
>>> “GRAYSON, Lindsay” 26/06/2012 12:44
PM >>>Dear All,
Further to Matthias’ email… His point #16 is correct – namely that
neither Infection Control nor Infectious Diseases know anything about
eWater and have never been asked to assess it, let alone approve it!!
Until this email I had never heard of eWater.Needless to say, we are currently investigating how Austin Health
“approved eWater”, but it was not via any clinical department. I will
report back since it may be a lesson for others.Thanks Matthias
Kind regards
Lindsay
Prof. M. Lindsay Grayson
Infectious Diseases Department,
Austin Health
Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne
Studley Rd., Heidelberg, VIC 3084
Australia________________________________
Dear Colleagues,
The topic of the eWater System appeared on both the ACIPC and OzBug
e-mail lists (I overlooked the ACIPC one initially) and I thought it
would be worth writing a somewhat more detailed joint reply to both
lists.I have previously posted (to ACIPC) on what seemed a similar technology,
the ActiveIon device.I have looked at some of the available information concerning the eWater
System, and even though I cannot make any final conclusions, I have a
number of questions and issues of concern that I would like to share. If
I were to look at purchasing the device, these would be some of the
points that I would look at more closely.(1) The description is that the system performs electrolysis of an NaCl
solution and creates two solutions, one a (probably weak) bleach (NaOCl)
and/or hypochlorous acid (HOCl) solution (not sure which one
predominates), the other a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution. The bleach
solution — according to the description — is microbicidal and can be
used for disinfection, including disinfection in the food industry, in
hospitals, even hand antisepsis. The NaOH solution — according to the
description — is for cleaning.(2) The question comes: What would be the difference between using the
eWater system and just buying bleach and/or hypochlorous acid itself,
which are cheap standard chemicals that are easily available?(3) Has the system been tested by a manufacturer-independent (!)
disinfectant testing laboratory with relevant expertise? Experience
tells us that one cannot solely rely on manufacturer-provided test
reports or manufacturer claims when it comes to disinfectants —
preferable would be at least two independent test reports from
experienced reputable labs.(4) Has the system been tested by any of the available standardised
testing protocols for surface disinfection (or other types of
application, depending on the intended use)? There are, for example, US
ASTM standards and European EN standards. The EN standard for surface
disinfection is EN 13697, and such tests are typically done in
variations (a) with or without organic load (“dirty conditions”) and (b)
with or without mechanical action (simulating the wiping).(5) If, for example, antimicrobial activity would fail in the presence
of organic load, then a prior cleaning step would become highly
critical. Organic load is, of course, an issue in the food industry,
where one of the advertising targets lies.(6) FYI, disinfectant testing and assessment is usually done in two
steps, step 1 is testing in suspension — like the MBC (minimum
bactericidal concentration) for antibiotics – and step 2 is testing
under simulated practice conditions, e.g. surface disinfection on a
carrier.(7) Has any testing employed experimental controls that — in terms of
biological plausibility — leave no other conclusions than what the
machine produced killed the microorganisms and not (!) some other part
of the application? (In the ActiveIon example, the microbial reduction
achieved by one testing lab was similar to what one would expect from
applying plain inactive water and wiping, but such a control was
omitted).(8) Is there a way to make sure that the disinfectant concentrations
coming out of the machine are kept consistent and in an antimicrobially
active range to fulfill their purpose? Meaning how are concentrations
monitored and ensured that there is active disinfectant? Is there a
testing method provided to measure the concentrations in daily use (in
analogy to checking fridge temperatures in labs on a daily basis as part
of quality control)? Apparently, electrodes age over time and may
deliver electrolysis less consistently. Is there experience with
stability of not only disinfectant concentration but also microbicidal
activity over the intended period of machine usage (I presume years)?
Also, how long are the prepared solutions stable after electrolysis and
before application?(9) The company address given on the website is an Australian one, but
it is unclear to me if they are a distributor or the manufacturer. Some
of the documentation appears to be from Japan; this may indicate that
the Australian address may be a distributor.(10) I saw two “research” publications on the website, both looked like
research papers, but none had proper bibliographic information (journal
name, year, volume, etc.). (I found one of these subsequently, with
journal information, by putting the title into PubMed).(11) A table on the website showing microbial test results (citing an
article published in Japanese) misspelled quite a number of bacterial
names. If someone claiming to have microbiological expertise is unable
to spell some of the most common bacterial names, this should ring alarm
bells.(12) On the eWater website, there are three linked documents from RMIT
University (origin: School of Civil Engineering). One is a brief
Executive Summary, another a more comprehensive multi-page document,
another what appears to be a conference poster. The Executive Summary
appears to focus on cost, environmental and social factors, the bigger
document has “report final” in its file name but has oblique “draft”
written over the pages and no authors specified. The microbiology part
is dubious. All three are written in a very positive tone, raising the
question whether they might be industry-sponsored.(13) The claim that the system can “sterilise” medical instruments
appears unsubstantiated. From a solution like the one described, one
would expect at best (!) high-level disinfection, but not sterilisation.
Even claims for high-level disinfection would have to be substantiated
by standardised testing, and it should be specified what types of
instruments can be treated and under which conditions.(14) It is proposed to use the electrolysed water for hand hygiene, but
it is unclear to me how it should be useful for that purpose. NaOCl
(bleach) is genuinely unsuitable (!) for hand hygiene, because in higher
concentrations it would be damaging to hands and in lower concentrations
it would take too long to kill microorganisms (alcohol hand rubs produce
several log reduction in about 30 sec). Again, results from standardised
tests would be needed.(15) The main target is apparently the food industry, but it is also
promoted for hospitals. Even if the product were “only” intended for the
food industry, one would still expect that the system should fulfill
basic claims concerning antimicrobial efficacy. Both industries are
critical in terms of preventing infections.(16) The company advertises with an endorsement from Austin Health. That
would raise the question whether Austin’s Infection Control Department
and/or Lindsay Grayson’s group has seen and/or endorsed this, or whether
the company only liaised with scientifically untrained personnel, such
as the housekeeping or kitchen department. The latter would be quite
inappropriate. (We had an occasion here where a manufacturer tried to
market a new product by circumventing the Infection Control Committee
and went straight to Housekeeping).I think that this system should be properly investigated by an
institution or authority with the competency and clout to do this before
it is used in the healthcare and food industry.Best regards, Matthias.
—
Matthias Maiwald, MD, FRCPA
Consultant in Microbiology
Adj. Assoc. Prof., Natl. Univ. Singapore
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital
100 Bukit Timah Road
Singapore 229899
Tel. +65 6394 8725 (Office)
Tel. +65 6394 1389 (Laboratory)
Fax +65 6394 1387
kkh
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail and the attachments (if any)
may be privileged and confidential and is intended solely for the named
addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not print,
retain copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this e-mail or any part
thereof. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail
and delete all copies of this e-mail and the attachments._______________________________________________ asid-ozbug mailing list
asid-ozbug@burnet.edu.au http://lists.burnet.edu.au/listinfo/asid-ozbug
————————————————————————
————————————————————————
—————————————————— Edited archives
of most past OZBUG/ASPID/AICA topic discussions are available at the
Healthcare infection control special interest group (HICSIG) wiki –
http://www.hicsiganz.org. Use the left menu item to link to ‘AICA OZBUG talk’
or Search by a key word(s).
————————————————————————
————————————————————————
———————*****************************************************************
This email contains confidential information intended
only for the person named above and may be subject to
legal privilege and confidentiality obligations imposed
by legislation or be subject to intellectual property
protection or copyright. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this transmission
is prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return email and delete the
original email and any attachments.
Austin Health provides no guarantee that this transmission
is free of virus or that it has not been intercepted or altered.*****************************************************************
Messages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors, and
do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives
– registration and login required.Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a
new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.auTo send a message to the list administrator send an email to
aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’
(without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.auintended recipient. They may contain confidential or privileged
information. This information may not necessarily be the view of St John
of God Health Care Inc (SJGHC). SJGHC does not warrant, represent or
guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information. SJGHC does
not accept liability for any loss or damage in connection with the
information. If you are not the intended recipient then any use,
reliance, interference with, disclosure, distribution or copying of this
information by you is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received
this email in error then please notify the sender by return email and
delete all copies. SJGHC does not waive any privilege.Messages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors, and
do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives
– registration and login required.Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a
new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.auTo send a message to the list administrator send an email to
aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’
(without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.auWant to Get Healthy?
The Tasmania Government’s Get Healthy Information and Coaching Service(R) provides free information and coaching support to Tasmanian adults who would like to learn healthier eating habits, be more active or achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Call 1300 806 258 between 8am and 8pm, Monday to Friday or visit http://www.gethealthy.tas.gov.au for more information.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or protected by legal professional privilege, and is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a person, you are warned that any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately contact this office by telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to enable arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission. If the transmission contains advice, the advice is based on instructions in relation to, and is provided to the addressee in connection with, the matter mentioned above. Responsibility is not accepted for reliance upon it by any other person or for any other purpose.
Messages posted to this list are solely the opinion of the authors, and do not represent the opinion of ACIPC.
Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives – registration and login required.
Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.au
To send a message to the list administrator send an email to aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.
You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’ (without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.au
- The forum ‘Infexion Connexion’ is closed to new topics and replies.