Chemicals in Disinfectants and Sterilants

Chemicals in Disinfectants and SterilantsDiscuss the uses and modes of body process of chemicals used as disinfectants and sterilantsDisinfectants and sterilants catch been available in a variety of draws for a outstanding number of years. The pioneering work of Joseph Lister and Ignaz Semmelweis effectively opened the door to the verify of chemicals that we have available today. Phenols (carbolic acerbic derivatives), mercuric chloride, chlorides, hypochlorites and iodine were the first field of honor groups to be utilised. The quaternary ammonium compounds rose to prominence in the thirty-something (Russell, A. D. 2002 I). The first detailed studies on the subject of mode of action were make by Cooper, who described the action of phenols as denaturing bacterial proteins as their master(prenominal) mode of operation (Cooper E A 1912)Knaysi expanded this work shape up by suggesting that the order of finis amongst carrels was determined by some form of unsusceptibility (Knaysi G 1930) and that this might be linked to the protein structure of the booth fence (Knaysi G et al. 1930). Further work on phenol suggested that resistance of E.Coli was the same at virtually any concentration of phenol (Jordan, R. C et al. 1944) and this lead to the ripening of the concept of specific enzyme inhibition. (Roberts, M. H et al. 1946)The term biocide is neat more commonly used to describe the generic group. Russell (A D 2002 II) makes the chin-wagging that, until recently, two views permeated the field. One was that as long as they were effective, there seemed infinitesimal merit in determining how they arrived at their inhibitory or lethal effects and secondly, that they were believed to act as protoplasmic poisons and, as such did not merit much attention. We will present evidence to dispute both of these views. extraised work on the mode of action of the biocides has been sporadic until comparatively recently. Gram-positive and -negative bacteria app ear to have received the lions administer of the research with less on the mycobacterium, less still on fungal and viral actors (Maillard, J.-Y et al. 1997), and few quality papers on the protozoa. (Turner, N. A et al. 1999). We hunch forward even less still on the major power of biocides to inactivate prions. (Taylor, D. M 1997).Because of the wide range of potential biocidal (and biostatic) agents, it is not possible to even slumper to tackle the scruple of mode of action in this essay on any just now the most general costThere be a number of current research issues such as the incredulity of why it is that MICs of some cationic biocides such as chlorhexidine is alike(p) for both mycobacterium and staph yet they appear to possess mortified mycobacterium potency but atomic number 18 rapidly lethal to the staphylococci (Russell A D 1996)Current considered opinion is that the majority (if not all) cells be not killed by a disactivation of a single target enzyme by th e biocide. (Hugo, W. B. 1999)Specific examples would be that enoyl reductase, (an enzyme involved in fatty acid synthesis) is on the whole inhibited by triclosan it is a combination of other intracellular disruptions that exclude to be lethal to the cell. (Suller, M. T. E et al. 2000)A number of researchers have commented on the appargonnt similarities between the disinfectants and sterilants group and the antibiotic group in terms of their effect on bacteria. To give specific examples, filament formation in Gm-ve. Bacteria is induced by both antibiotics (eg. -lactams andfluoroquinolones) and biocides (eg.phenoxyethanol and chloroacetamide) (Ng, E et al. 2002). Equally we have mentioned the action of triclosan on enoyl reductase, but this enzyme is also inhibited by isoniazid. (McMurry, L. M et al. 1999). A third category of similarity would be that the cell autolysis observed with both the phenols and some mercuric compounds is apparently the same as the processes observed with moving-picture show to penicillin. (Hugo, W. B. 1999).Other research groups (McKellar, R. C et al. 1996) have remark that exposure to some biocides can render a pathogen more supersensitized to the action of antibiotics. It was postulated (although not proved) that this effect may be due to a structural change resulting in differing permeability in the cell wall of the microbe. (Morris, A et al. 1991)It is not intended to imply that because these appliances appear similar that they are actually the biochemically or physiologically the same. Further research is postulate to clarify these pointsWe have made comment on the apparent ability of some biocides to interfere with the integrity of the cell wall. In the case of the bacteria and fungi this may be a useful attribute to exploit, but it is a different matter in dealing with viral (and phage) vectors. The business being that if the viral envelope which is usually derived from the host cell is damaged, consequently this can result in the liberation of intact viral nucleic acid which, in itself, may be infective. (McClure, A. R et al. 1992)If we consider one utensil in some detail by way of an example, we could consider the action of chlorhexidine. This has been shown to produce a very rapid lethal effect ( somewhat 20 seconds) in both E.Coli and Staph. Aureus. (Denyer, S. P. 1995). It has been shown to produce damage to the outer cell membrane, but this action does not directly cause cell death. (El-Moug, T et al. 1985)Chlorhexidine then crosses the damaged membrane by passive diffusion and causes relief valve of the intracellular components. The cause of cell death is the inactivation of the intracellular constituents by protein denaturation of their controlling enzyme systems. This causes a further congealing of the cytoplasm and this reduces cellular leakage. This is the so-called biphasic mechanism of action of chlorhexidine. (Longworth, A. R. 1971).There was a suggestion that chlorhexidine bo und and inactivated the membrane-bound ATPase. It thereby disrupts the membrane potential and this is thought to be the prime mechanism of cell death .(Barett-Bee, K et al. 1994)In conclusion, we have considered some of the mechanisms that are thought to be active in the bio activeness of disinfectants and sterilants. In doing so we should also consider the question of resistance. Many pathogens have efflux systems which can combat or make it biocides from their environment. These can work at comparatively low concentrations of the biocide. But it opens up the possibility of the development of biocide resistance in those cells which survive the initial exposure (possibly due to incomplete treatment or peripheral exposure to low concentrations of agent). This mechanism selectively favours the emergence of biocide-resistant pathogens. (Azachi, M et al. 1996)This issue has prompted calls for the rotation of disinfectants and sterilants in hospitals and elsewhere. (Benarde, M. A et al. 1967). The use of one disinfectant should ideally be replaced with some other which has a completely dissimilar mode of action. This is one argument for the study of the mode of action of both disinfectants and sterilants.Other arguments for studying the mechanisms of action of the biocides are many, not least is the fact that the association of the mechanism of how a particular biocide can exert its effect can lead to the selective development of new targeted compounds with greater efficiency. An example of this process is the development of ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA), which was specifically authentic and adapted from older compounds. (Behr, H et al. 1994)ReferencesAzachi, M., Y. Henis, R. Shapira, and A. Oren. 1996.The role of the outer membrane in formaldehyde tolerance in Escherichia coli VU3695 and Halomonas sp. MAC.Microbiology 1421249-1254Barett-Bee, K., L. Newboult, and S. Edwards. 1994.The membrane destabilizing action of the antibacterial agent chlorhexidine. FEMS Micr obiol. Lett. 119249-254Behr, H., M. E. Reverdy, C. Mabilat, J. Freney, and J. Fleurette. 1994.Relation entre le niveau des concentrations minimales inhibitrices de cinq antiseptiques et la prsence du gne qacA chez Staphylococcus aureus.Pathol. Biol. 42438-444Benarde, M. A., W. B. Snow, V. P. Olivieri, and B. Davidson. 1967.Kinetics and mechanism of bacterial disinfection by atomic number 17 dioxide.Appl. Microbiol. 15257-265Cooper, E. A. (1912).On the relationship of phenol and m-cresol to proteins a contribution to our knowledge of the mechanism of disinfection.Biochemical Journal 6, 36287.Denyer, S. P. 1995.Mechanisms of action of antibacterial biocides.Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 36227-245.El-Moug, T., D. T. Rogers, J. R. Furr, B. M. A. El-Falaha, and A. D. Russell. 1985.Antiseptic-induced changes in the cell surface of a chlorhexidine-sensitive and a chlorhexidine-resistant strain of Providencia stuartii.J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 16685-689Hugo, W. B. (1999).Disinfection mechani sms. In Principles and Practice of Disinfection, Preservation and Sterilization, 3rd edn, (Russell, A. D., Hugo, W. B. Ayliffe, G. A. J., Eds), pp. 25883.Blackwell Science, OxfordJordan, R. C. Jacobs, S. E. (1944).Studies on the dynamics of disinfection. I. New info on the reaction between phenol and Bact. coli using an improved technique, unneurotic with an analysis of the distribution of resistance amongst the cells of the bacterial population studied.Journal of hygiene (Cambridge) 43, 27589.Knaysi, G. (1930).Disinfection. I. The development of our knowledge of disinfection.Journal of morbific Diseases 47, 293302.Knaysi, G. Morris, G. (1930).The manner of death of certain(a) bacteria and yeast when subjected to mild chemical and physical agents.Journal of Infectious Diseases 47, 30317.Longworth, A. R. 1971.Chlorhexidine, p. 95-106. In W. B. Hugo (ed.), Inhibition and destruction of the microbial cell.Academic Press, Ltd., London, England.Maillard, J.-Y. Russell, A. D. (19 97).Viricidal activity and mechanisms of action of biocides.Science Progress 80, 287315McClure, A. R., and J. Gordon. 1992.In vitro evaluation of povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.J. Hosp. Infect. 21291-299McKellar, R. C., McKenzie, C. N. Kushner, D. J. (1996).Correlation of resistance to proflavine and penicillin in Escherichia coli. antimicrobic Agents and Chemotherapy 10, 7657McMurry, L. M., McDermott, P. F. Levy, S. B. (1999).Genetic evidence that InhA of mycobacteria smegmatis is a target for triclosan. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 43, 7113Morris, A. Russell, A. D. (1991).The mode of action of novobiocin. In Progress in Medicinal Chemistry, (Ellis, G. P. West, G. B., Eds), Vol. 41, pp. 3959.Butterworths, London.Ng, E. G.-L., Jones, S., Leong, S. H. Russell, A. D. (2002).Biocides and antibiotics with apparently similar actions on bacteria is there the potential for cross-resistance?Journal of Hospital Infection 2002 Vol 3 pgs 239-242Roberts, M. H. Rahn, O. (1946).The amount of enzyme inactivation at bacteriostatic and bactericidal concentrations of disinfectants.Journal of Bacteriology 42, 63944.Russell, A. D. (1996). activeness of biocides against mycobacteria.Journal of Applied Bacteriology, Symp. Suppl. 81, 87S101S.Russell, A. D. 2002 (I)Introduction of biocides into clinical practice and the impact on antibiotic resistant bacteria.Journal of Applied Microbiology, Symp. Suppl. 2002Russell A D 2002 (II)Mechanisms of antimicrobial action of antiseptics and disinfectants an increasingly important area of investigationJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2002) 49, 597-599Suller, M. T. E. Russell, A. D. (2000).Triclosan and antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus.Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 46, 118Taylor, D. M 1997.Inactivation of unconventional agents of the transmissible degenerative encephalopathies. In A. D. Russell, W. B. Hugo, and G. A. J. Ayliffe (ed.), Principles and practice of disinfection, preservation and sterilization, 3rd ed., in press.Blackwell Science, Oxford, England.Turner, N. A., Russell, A. D., Furr, J. R. Lloyd, D. (1999).Editorial Acanthamoeba spp., antimicrobial agents and foregather lenses.Science Progress 82, 18