Do we know enough about the safety of quat disinfectants? (2020)(cen.acs.org)
cen.acs.org
Do we know enough about the safety of quat disinfectants? (2020)
https://cen.acs.org/safety/consumer-safety/know-enough-safety-quat-disinfectants/98/i30
54 comments
I get what you're saying, but I'm a little more concerned about occupational exposure, where people like hospital orderlies are exposed to it for hours every shift, 5-6 days a week, all year and don't have a choice in whether they use it or something else.
I was thinking yesterday how 70% ethanol is like the perfect disinfectant and we don’t use it. It’s what we used when working in sterile conditions when I was a scientist. You certainly wouldn’t use quat disinfectants to spray your gloves before working in a hood. You’d know it would probably get in your experiment and mess it up. Ethanol is perfect, it evaporates and leaves nothing. I assume we don’t use ethanol because people would drink it, or it costs too much. Both aren’t great reasons when safety is what you are throwing out.
It evaporates too fast to fully penetrate all surfaces and isn't as effective against a bunch of biological vectors like spores that require prolonged contact to really kill. Quat disinfectants leave a residue behind that continues killing stuff and they're generally less irritating to skin and the respiratory system (though that's for people using the room after it was disinfected, not necessarily for the person doing the disinfecting).
What about suspending the ethanol like in alcohol gel? Could we find a gelling agent that is less irritating than the quat disinfectant residue?
That works fine for hand sanitizer but it becomes too viscous to spray as disinfectant, which is important for hospitals.
Well, we do use it in most hand-sanitizer solutions. I assume alcohol isn't a popular (home) cleaner because it is volatile and requires high concentrations (70%+) to be effective.
From a cost perspective, the Clorox Company no doubt prefers to add a few grams of a quat to multiple gallons of scented water, which means they're basically selling a spray bottle of a nearly-free solution that is 99.5% water for $5. Shipping 70% alcohol also brings with it a Flammability-3 (high) hazard label.
From a cost perspective, the Clorox Company no doubt prefers to add a few grams of a quat to multiple gallons of scented water, which means they're basically selling a spray bottle of a nearly-free solution that is 99.5% water for $5. Shipping 70% alcohol also brings with it a Flammability-3 (high) hazard label.
It should be illegal to sell such unconcentrated solutions, except perhaps in food (e.g., even milk is easily reconstituted). It would be much more efficient to sell the concentrated chemical and let consumers dilute them. Imagine the fuel savings, shelf space savings of not having to ship 99.9% water around the world.
I remember some medicines were dispensed like that in the 80s, and the patient had to reconstitute them before using.
I remember some medicines were dispensed like that in the 80s, and the patient had to reconstitute them before using.
You can usually get concentrated cleaning solutions, but they tend to be used more by industry/businesses. These quats are sold concentrated as dish sanitizer (mixed in a sink full of water) for restaurants, for example.
I think consumers would just rather have ready-to-use spray bottles in most cases. There's probably a surprising number of people that couldn't do the basic math of diluting based on a formula.
I think consumers would just rather have ready-to-use spray bottles in most cases. There's probably a surprising number of people that couldn't do the basic math of diluting based on a formula.
Personally I’m a fan of putting a mixture of salt, water, and vinegar through hydrolysis to get sodium hydroxide and hydrogen chloride.
Super cheap and effective cleaner, easy to make at home.
Only downside is it isn’t shelf stable, so you have to make a new batch every ~2 weeks.
Force of nature has a pretty neat kit that automates the chemistry.
Super cheap and effective cleaner, easy to make at home.
Only downside is it isn’t shelf stable, so you have to make a new batch every ~2 weeks.
Force of nature has a pretty neat kit that automates the chemistry.
You do what?
I’m afraid you have the reaction products wrong. This is the chloralkali process, and you get hydroxide, hydrogen, and chlorine gas. The latter is extremely nasty. If you do it right (which I can almost guarantee you are not doing), it will react with water to form hypochlorite (that’s your fairly safe disinfectant) and chloride (harmless).
But this reaction goes the other way in acidic conditions: hypochlorite will turn into chlorine gas.
DO NOT run the chloralkali process indoors. DO NOT run it near your face. DO NOT think you’re clever and run it in a closed container — not only is the chlorine toxic, but it can explode when mixed with hydrogen. DO NOT mix bleach-containing products with acids. Just buy plain bleach (the “sanitizing” kind), dilute it carefully with water, and use it in an appropriate concentration.
(You can safely do the chloralkali process in a cell with a high flow of salty swimming pool water, with safety measures to turn it off if the flow stops.)
I’m afraid you have the reaction products wrong. This is the chloralkali process, and you get hydroxide, hydrogen, and chlorine gas. The latter is extremely nasty. If you do it right (which I can almost guarantee you are not doing), it will react with water to form hypochlorite (that’s your fairly safe disinfectant) and chloride (harmless).
But this reaction goes the other way in acidic conditions: hypochlorite will turn into chlorine gas.
DO NOT run the chloralkali process indoors. DO NOT run it near your face. DO NOT think you’re clever and run it in a closed container — not only is the chlorine toxic, but it can explode when mixed with hydrogen. DO NOT mix bleach-containing products with acids. Just buy plain bleach (the “sanitizing” kind), dilute it carefully with water, and use it in an appropriate concentration.
(You can safely do the chloralkali process in a cell with a high flow of salty swimming pool water, with safety measures to turn it off if the flow stops.)
I’m not sure what you’re going on about.
My lay understanding is that the process you’re describing happens at a different pH, same ingredients. Yes you can get bleach and toxic gases, but, like, don’t do that?
My understanding is that most large schools and hospitals have on-site synthesis of exactly this for disinfecting.
There are off-the-shelf products that do the same thing for the consumer market. This is the favorite I’ve found: https://www.forceofnatureclean.com/
My understanding is you get lye on the anode and hydrogen chloride on the cathode (might have those backwards?).
I think it’s one hydrogen one chlorine atom? Hydrogen chloride sounds right (but I’m not a chemist) I think it’s also called hypochlorite? My understanding is the vinegar controls the pH to get the water molecule and salt molecule to do its thing.
But I’m also under the impression that this is perfectly safe. I produce and use the cleaner daily, have been for a while!
My lay understanding is that the process you’re describing happens at a different pH, same ingredients. Yes you can get bleach and toxic gases, but, like, don’t do that?
My understanding is that most large schools and hospitals have on-site synthesis of exactly this for disinfecting.
There are off-the-shelf products that do the same thing for the consumer market. This is the favorite I’ve found: https://www.forceofnatureclean.com/
My understanding is you get lye on the anode and hydrogen chloride on the cathode (might have those backwards?).
I think it’s one hydrogen one chlorine atom? Hydrogen chloride sounds right (but I’m not a chemist) I think it’s also called hypochlorite? My understanding is the vinegar controls the pH to get the water molecule and salt molecule to do its thing.
But I’m also under the impression that this is perfectly safe. I produce and use the cleaner daily, have been for a while!
Hypochlorous acid solutions for wound care and such are indeed a thing, and they are produced by companies that know what they're doing, and I assume they make a batch, purify it, measure and adjust the pH.
That "Force of Nature" site looks a bit sketchy. At least they claim to be using a controlled chemistry (although they can't actually control the tap water pH), and they are EPA registered. Their EPA registration claims that they produce 220 ppm "available chlorine" solution.
Hydrogen chloride is not hypochlorous acid. Hydrogen chloride dissolved in water is hydrochloric acid, aka muriatic acid or stomach acid (nasty stuff unless it's very dilute), and it will also kill bacteria if you concentrate it enough because it's very acidic. You can find it in a lot of toilet cleaners.
Here's an IMO mildly less sketchy product:
https://store.hocl.com/ecoone/
At least it ships with test strips.
If you DIY this and stick big electrodes in salt water (especially with added vinegar, especially if you get the pH below about or if you fail to capture the bubbles so they can dissolve fully) and connect a beefy power supply, you will regret it.
That "Force of Nature" site looks a bit sketchy. At least they claim to be using a controlled chemistry (although they can't actually control the tap water pH), and they are EPA registered. Their EPA registration claims that they produce 220 ppm "available chlorine" solution.
Hydrogen chloride is not hypochlorous acid. Hydrogen chloride dissolved in water is hydrochloric acid, aka muriatic acid or stomach acid (nasty stuff unless it's very dilute), and it will also kill bacteria if you concentrate it enough because it's very acidic. You can find it in a lot of toilet cleaners.
Here's an IMO mildly less sketchy product:
https://store.hocl.com/ecoone/
At least it ships with test strips.
If you DIY this and stick big electrodes in salt water (especially with added vinegar, especially if you get the pH below about or if you fail to capture the bubbles so they can dissolve fully) and connect a beefy power supply, you will regret it.
Speaking of sanitising bleach, does it have a best-before date?
I have a bottle of it sitting around, but it’s quite old and I’m not sure if the date on it is when it was made or when it should be discarded.
I have a bottle of it sitting around, but it’s quite old and I’m not sure if the date on it is when it was made or when it should be discarded.
Probably discard it. Hypochlorite is unstable, and it loses potency. Or, if you’re feeling adventurous, dilute it 1:20000 or so and measure it with a pool test kit. Also, one of the degradation products is chlorite, which is somewhat nasty.
You can find actual research from the swimming pool chemical industry. At higher concentrations (bleach sold for swimming pools is more concentrated), it’s less stable and apparently should ideally be used within 30 days in hot weather. The household stuff ought (good luck!) to be more stable, and you’re probably not storing it in a hot pool equipment room.
You can find actual research from the swimming pool chemical industry. At higher concentrations (bleach sold for swimming pools is more concentrated), it’s less stable and apparently should ideally be used within 30 days in hot weather. The household stuff ought (good luck!) to be more stable, and you’re probably not storing it in a hot pool equipment room.
The brand might document. For example: https://www.clorox.com/learn/how-to-tell-when-a-bleach-bottl...
Even if concentrated (5%+), it will expire after about 1 year.
If it's diluted for use, it will expire in a few months.
If it's diluted for use, it will expire in a few months.
My company’s product includes a piece of acrylic (PMMA). Ethanol would jellify it, quats are basically our only approved disinfectant.
One of the issues that I discovered during COVID is that alcohol isn’t a scheduled pesticide because it predates the regulation.
So applications that are regulated cannot use alcohol unless they can use a listed product, which is rare and expensive
So applications that are regulated cannot use alcohol unless they can use a listed product, which is rare and expensive
Lots of stuff is resistent to 70% ethanol - norovirus for example.
It's also very flammable, which is a bit of a problem.
Why do so many people need so many disinfectants? I get by with chlorine bleach for the toilet once in a while. Just ordinary cleanliness and some detergent seems sufficient to me.
I never use fabric softeners either.
I never use fabric softeners either.
Does it come as a shock to you that the people making your food, the people working in healthcare, all use disinfectants on a regular basis? From the article also: toothpaste, mouthwash, eye drops.
> Does it come as a shock to you that the people making your food, the people working in healthcare, all use disinfectants on a regular basis?
Yes? I'd expect to mostly see them use soap.
Yes? I'd expect to mostly see them use soap.
Food safe standards. If you get inspected they will test the concentration, in PPM, of your cleaning product. You can either use a chlorine bleach or quaternary ammonium.
I've always used quats over bleach since they don't destroy your clothing.
I mostly use alcohol these days as it is safe and doesn't damage most things. It isn't suitable for everything, but it works for most stuff.
From 2020. I wonder if there have been updates.
Quats are widely used in eyedrops as a preservative.
Some companies have started to remove them recently.
Some companies have started to remove them recently.
when I used to wear monthly contacts, “quats” were used in the disinfecting solution. I only know this because one of the “quats” was my daily used password.
Eventually switched to daily contacts for a couple of years before going back to wearing glasses.
Then eventually settling on LASIK :)
Eventually switched to daily contacts for a couple of years before going back to wearing glasses.
Then eventually settling on LASIK :)
My eyes are pretty sensitive so i always used the solution that was hydrogen peroxide based and then had a little rock in the case which catalyzed the reaction to neutralize it over hours and you ended up with mostly just saline.
From Aug 2020
We use this stuff to mop the floors where I work. Hmm
Is it normal to know what is used to wipe the floor?
It’s a pretty good bet that quaternary ammonium compounds are used to wipe many surfaces wherever you are. They are probably the most widely used non-chlorine disinfectants.
[deleted]
You use mistery unlabeled bottles for cleaning products?
This guy has only ever worked comfy desk jobs.
Yes, if you're a cleaner
[deleted]
[deleted]
Of course we do, we have no evidence of harm.
absence of evidence is very different from evidence of absence
I am aware of that. It doesn’t stop the talking point of “no evidence of harm” dating back to thalidomide, tobacco and more recent examples.
I really want to see stuff like this tested in massive cohorts (ie. 1 billion+ participants) via variable dosing.
Here's how it would work:
* Companies that make products would randomly increase by 5% or decrease by 5% the dosage of each ingredient in a product headed to a specific town.
* The government would publish A/B groupings for every town in the US and every chemical they track.
* Average health data would be collected, and whenever a specific chemicals A/B group difference exceeds some threshold, investigation is done.
The main downside is production costs of products goes up, since every product will now have a final step of adding all the A/B adjustment doses to the bottle before sealing. But I believe this is worth it for rooting out chemicals that have low level yet very widespread negative effects.
Here's how it would work:
* Companies that make products would randomly increase by 5% or decrease by 5% the dosage of each ingredient in a product headed to a specific town.
* The government would publish A/B groupings for every town in the US and every chemical they track.
* Average health data would be collected, and whenever a specific chemicals A/B group difference exceeds some threshold, investigation is done.
The main downside is production costs of products goes up, since every product will now have a final step of adding all the A/B adjustment doses to the bottle before sealing. But I believe this is worth it for rooting out chemicals that have low level yet very widespread negative effects.
Maybe we should just spray each town from the air and cut out the middleman? While we're at it we can infect a portion with polio just to see what happens.
Sarcasm aside, I agree testing on populations raises a whole bunch of ethical and morality concerns.
Also how would we control for environmental health effects, or even interactions between multiple product variances. This kind of testing would be wildly expensive, pose potential public health risks, and the data collected would be coarse and noisy at best
Also how would we control for environmental health effects, or even interactions between multiple product variances. This kind of testing would be wildly expensive, pose potential public health risks, and the data collected would be coarse and noisy at best
This would only be of substances already approved for general use, and wouldn't expose anyone to any substance they wouldn't otherwise be buying/using.
The only difference is it very slightly adjusts the quantity - and does so in a way that is within existing allowed tolerances, so effectively this might already be happening, just we aren't collecting the results.
The only difference is it very slightly adjusts the quantity - and does so in a way that is within existing allowed tolerances, so effectively this might already be happening, just we aren't collecting the results.
Wait.... You weren't being sarcastic? This suddenly isn't funny any more.
Products are already allowed to contain slightly more or less than is stated on the packaging so long as the average is high enough:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_sign
By tightening the required tolerances, londons_explore's proposal could be implemented without exposing anybody to different levels of product than are already permitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_sign
By tightening the required tolerances, londons_explore's proposal could be implemented without exposing anybody to different levels of product than are already permitted.
I was thinking 5% was probably within the range of ordinary variations for a lot of domestically used chemicals .. that might mean one could already do such a study.
However, you have to get people to tell you how much product they use, which brands, how often, and not lie about it. That's basically impossible without antisocial levels of monitoring (which supermarkets probably already do, but which they don't want to tell their customers they do).
It's like the early days of mass customer data tracking where they'd tell customers they were probably pregnant, or probably gay, or whatever. People didn't receive the information in a way that suggested they were happy about the data being gathered.
It's probably too unethical to even use that data. Unless you're only trying to sell more crap, then it's A-OK! /s
However, you have to get people to tell you how much product they use, which brands, how often, and not lie about it. That's basically impossible without antisocial levels of monitoring (which supermarkets probably already do, but which they don't want to tell their customers they do).
It's like the early days of mass customer data tracking where they'd tell customers they were probably pregnant, or probably gay, or whatever. People didn't receive the information in a way that suggested they were happy about the data being gathered.
It's probably too unethical to even use that data. Unless you're only trying to sell more crap, then it's A-OK! /s
For those who, as the article describes, think they’re maybe harmless unless inhaled, you can buy hair detangling sprays. Maybe you’re supposed to only use them outdoors while hearing a very well-fitting mask?