Quite a large market for a substitute for Gluteraldehyde - here's some interesting information:
14.3 Cold disinfectant
The widest exposure to glutaraldehyde is during its use as a disinfectant in the health care industry. All large hospitals and
many of the smaller ones throughout Australia use 1% or 2% aqueous glutaraldehyde solutions for the disinfection of medical
and surgical instruments, for example, endoscopes, bronchoscopes and small tools such as those used in dentistry, ultrasound
testing, and ear, nose and throat examinations.
In a questionnaire sent to 276 hospitals in Australia in 1987, 123 of the 145 hospitals which responded used endoscopes
regularly. 116. Tandon, 'Endoscopic Disinfection: Practices and Recommendations', J. Gastroenterology and Hepatology,
vol. 6, pp. 37-39, 1991.
116 Glutaraldehyde was the most common disinfectant used.
In a questionnaire circulated to health care establishments in Tasmania in 1993 by the Department of State Development and
Resources, 19 of 47 establishments replied that they were using glutaraldehyde (see Appendix 4).
In a survey of health care establishments conducted by the South Australian Occupational Health and Safety Commission in
1993, 25 of 33 establishments replied that they were using 1% and/or 2% glutaraldehyde (see Appendix 4).
Workers potentially exposed to glutaraldehyde disinfectant solution on a regular basis include:
ú endoscopy nurses;ú operating theatre nurses;ú physicians and surgeons;ú technical assistants in hospitals;ú dentists and
dental nurses;ú cleaners in hospitals and clinics;ú podiatrists;ú acupuncturists;tattooists; andú medical research workers.
Workers such as endoscopy nurses may be exposed to glutaraldehyde solutions daily and, in some cases, exposure may
occur throughout a working day.
Sources of exposure identified in the use of glutaraldehyde as a disinfectant include:
ú preparation and dilution of solutions;ú transfer of solution into soaking baths and tanks;ú emission of vapours from
open baths;ú placing of instruments in baths;ú transfer of soaking baths from one location to another;ú removal of
instruments from baths for rinsing;ú emptying of baths; anddisposal of waste glutaraldehyde.
As the use of glutaraldehyde in dentistry has been reduced in recent times, occupational exposure is low. Most dental
instruments are now autoclaved, although in some cases the more fragile instruments are still disinfected by soaking in
solutions of 0.33%, 1% and 2% glutaraldehyde. The use of glutaraldehyde varies considerably from one State or Territory to
another.
A number of reports containing atmospheric monitoring results for glutaraldehyde during its use in cold disinfection are
available, with glutaraldehyde concentrations generally less than 0.1 ppm in well-ventilated workplaces.
Some results of monitoring carried out in Australia are included in Table 25.
Table 25 Glutaraldehyde Concentrations in Cold Disinfection
Sample Workplace Worker Conc (%) type Ppm Ref.
Hospital endoscopy nurse 1 P 0.005-0.105 72
Hospital endoscopy nurse 1 A 0-0.05 72
Dentist dental assistant 2 P 0.007-0.022 72
Endoscopy 1 A 0.01-0.20 9
Operating 1 A 0-0.09 9
theatre 2 A 0.01-0.16 9
Hospital 1 A 0-0.05 SA
Hospital endoscopy nurse 1,2 A 0.04-0.38 Q
Hospital endoscopy nurse 2 A 0.2 WA1
Endoscopy A 0-0.49 WA2
Dentist A 0.01-0.02 WA3
P Personal monitoring.A Area monitoring.S Royal Adelaide Hospital (see Appendix 4).Q Queensland hospitals.WA1
Fremantle Hospital.WA2 Results of survey of 13 hospitals conducted by Health Dept of WA-52 measurements for a mean
of 0.06 ppm.WA3 Results of survey of 2 large dental clinics conducted by Health Dept of WA-14 measurements for a mean
of 0.01 ppm.
In the USA, NIOSH has issued several reports 66. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard
Evaluation Report no. HETA 86-226-1769, US Dept. of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio,
USA, January 1987.66, 68. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard Evaluation Report no.
HETA 84-535-1690, US Dept. of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, May 1986.68,
69. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard Evaluation Report no. HETA 83-048-1347, US
Dept. of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, 1983.69, 73. National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health, Health Hazard Evaluation Report no. HETA 85-257-1791, US Dept. of Health &Human
Services, Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, April 1987.73 on the atmospheric monitoring of glutaraldehyde in
hospitals, with personal monitoring results of up to 0.6 ppm and area monitoring results of up to 0.3 ppm being obtained in a
number of hospitals where workers had experienced adverse health effects on exposure to glutaraldehyde. |
