launderess
Well-known member
It is very interesting that Americans have by and large this germ thing, yet according to most recent statistics, they have one of the lowest rates of handwashing after using the WC of the Western world.
Washing temperature and saving money...
- Thread starter letim
- Start date
Dirt is good
I believe it is true and proven that the immune system needs exposure to germs to keep on working.
There is even a study indicating children with worms in 3rd world countries not suffering from any allergies.
But for me it doesn`t need to be sour smelly clothes, I have better ways of some exposure to dirt. Remember German detergents don`t contain any disifectants as it might be the case in some cold wash nations. High temperatures are the best way here to get a long lasting sweet smell.
I believe it is true and proven that the immune system needs exposure to germs to keep on working.
There is even a study indicating children with worms in 3rd world countries not suffering from any allergies.
But for me it doesn`t need to be sour smelly clothes, I have better ways of some exposure to dirt. Remember German detergents don`t contain any disifectants as it might be the case in some cold wash nations. High temperatures are the best way here to get a long lasting sweet smell.
launderess
Well-known member
German Detergents Do Not Contain Disenfectants?
Oh I don't know about that.
Oxygen bleach and or hydrogen peroxide are considered disenfectants, and in strong enough concentrations give chlorine bleach a run for it's money, and Persil amoung other German detergents are loaded with oxygen bleaches.
Furthermore to that, oxygen bleach combined with bleach activators such as TAED (as Persil) is actually a more powerful disenfectant than oxygen bleach alone. This is where Henkel came to use "hygenic" in it's marketing materials for Persil. Oxygen bleach and TAED form peracids (sp?), which is the same disenfectants brewers use for their vats and such before making beer.
Oh I don't know about that.
Oxygen bleach and or hydrogen peroxide are considered disenfectants, and in strong enough concentrations give chlorine bleach a run for it's money, and Persil amoung other German detergents are loaded with oxygen bleaches.
Furthermore to that, oxygen bleach combined with bleach activators such as TAED (as Persil) is actually a more powerful disenfectant than oxygen bleach alone. This is where Henkel came to use "hygenic" in it's marketing materials for Persil. Oxygen bleach and TAED form peracids (sp?), which is the same disenfectants brewers use for their vats and such before making beer.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
It's largely anectdotal, but the word is that sewer workers generally are immune to most common pathogens.
It is a fact, however, that polio was never a problem until public sanitation cleaned up water supplies. Previously, most infants were exposed to polio early on, recovered, and gained lifelong immunity (the disease doesn't devastate an infant the way it does an older child or adult). FDR, who led a life of priviledge and no doubt a squeaky clean water supply, is a prime example.
The ONLY way to disinfect a fabric is to subject it to more than 250F of steam under 15 lbs pressure for more than 15 minutes. That's generally termed "autoclaving" and is the standby for sterilizing surgical tools, sponges, towels, etc. The one exception is the prion - the causative agent for mad cow disease. Since the prion is simply a misfolded protein, it's not a living organism that can be killed by steam heat. In fact, the recommended method for rendering surgical tools prion free is to subject them to a flame - basically turning any lurking prions into charcoal.
So... back to laundry and hot water. I use hot water simply to get laundry cleaner, and remove stubborn stains. This reduces, but cannot completely eliminate, bacteria from the fabrics. Nor is complete elimination of such a necessary end goal for daily activities short of open heart surgery ;-).
It is a fact, however, that polio was never a problem until public sanitation cleaned up water supplies. Previously, most infants were exposed to polio early on, recovered, and gained lifelong immunity (the disease doesn't devastate an infant the way it does an older child or adult). FDR, who led a life of priviledge and no doubt a squeaky clean water supply, is a prime example.
The ONLY way to disinfect a fabric is to subject it to more than 250F of steam under 15 lbs pressure for more than 15 minutes. That's generally termed "autoclaving" and is the standby for sterilizing surgical tools, sponges, towels, etc. The one exception is the prion - the causative agent for mad cow disease. Since the prion is simply a misfolded protein, it's not a living organism that can be killed by steam heat. In fact, the recommended method for rendering surgical tools prion free is to subject them to a flame - basically turning any lurking prions into charcoal.
So... back to laundry and hot water. I use hot water simply to get laundry cleaner, and remove stubborn stains. This reduces, but cannot completely eliminate, bacteria from the fabrics. Nor is complete elimination of such a necessary end goal for daily activities short of open heart surgery ;-).
launderess
Well-known member
As any one who as worked in or studied to become a health care professional can tell you, there is sanitation and there is disenfection and or sterilising.
The former simply means reducing pathogens to levels where they are likely not to cause disease, the later two involve making an object totally free of pathogens (or as near to it as one can get).
If one reads directions for EPA certified disenfectants, they most always will advise to clean whatever surface one is trying to disenfect first, then apply a fresh disenfection solution.
As stated above, in hospital, items that are supposed to be "sterlie" are cleaned first, then put through various proccedures to make them so. Autoclaving, gases, disenfectant solutions, etc, all happen after an item has been cleaned. Theory behind all this palaver is any disenfectant would quickly be overwhelmed by large numbers of "germs", so one knocks off as much as one can by cleaning first.
For the above reason it is not possible to rid laundry of all germs simply by laundering with most domestic methods and products. Commercial laundries have various and sundry products available to them, but require knowledge of weight of laundry to water ratios, and ability to control water temperature and in some cases pH levels.
In the old days hospitals and others would simply put "infected" laundry right into a boiling vessel and boil for a period of time before laundering. Problem with this method is it will set protien stains and some other soils.
L.
The former simply means reducing pathogens to levels where they are likely not to cause disease, the later two involve making an object totally free of pathogens (or as near to it as one can get).
If one reads directions for EPA certified disenfectants, they most always will advise to clean whatever surface one is trying to disenfect first, then apply a fresh disenfection solution.
As stated above, in hospital, items that are supposed to be "sterlie" are cleaned first, then put through various proccedures to make them so. Autoclaving, gases, disenfectant solutions, etc, all happen after an item has been cleaned. Theory behind all this palaver is any disenfectant would quickly be overwhelmed by large numbers of "germs", so one knocks off as much as one can by cleaning first.
For the above reason it is not possible to rid laundry of all germs simply by laundering with most domestic methods and products. Commercial laundries have various and sundry products available to them, but require knowledge of weight of laundry to water ratios, and ability to control water temperature and in some cases pH levels.
In the old days hospitals and others would simply put "infected" laundry right into a boiling vessel and boil for a period of time before laundering. Problem with this method is it will set protien stains and some other soils.
L.
To be more precise, I meant German color safe powders and German liquid detergents don`t contain any nastys like Triclosan to prevent bad odours caused by bacteria growth.
I have already praised the benefits of activated bleach in an earlier post in this thread.
I have already praised the benefits of activated bleach in an earlier post in this thread.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
Actually the reason for cleaning an item before sterilisation by autoclaving is so that the pressurized steam has a better chance of reaching the surface of the item being sterilised. There is also a definite procedure to be followed for proper autoclaving of various items. Any wrapping must steam permeable - one would not get good results by trying to autoclave a scalpel in a closed baggie, for example. And a bit of tissue clinging to the scalpel might mask that surface from the steam and result in any bacteria lurking there not getting completely inactivated (especially bacterial spores, which are often very resistant to heat).
I'm not aware of any hospital that will OK the use of surgical instruments after only chemical disinfection. I would imagine that it is simply not as effective or trusted as the good old autoclave. There is also the problem of washing away any residual disinfectant - one wouldn't want that stuff in an incision - and then you would need sterile water and a way to apply it so as not to allow bacteria in the air to deposit upon the sterile surface.
Of course an operating room is not 100% sterile, although surgeons and nurses do their best to keep the counts to a minimum.
Some of these principles would be known to those who have done home canning or even sterilised baby bottles via a pressure cooker. An autoclave is nothing more than a horizontal pressure cooker, with elaborate regulation and safety mechanisms and a nice door.
I'm not aware of any hospital that will OK the use of surgical instruments after only chemical disinfection. I would imagine that it is simply not as effective or trusted as the good old autoclave. There is also the problem of washing away any residual disinfectant - one wouldn't want that stuff in an incision - and then you would need sterile water and a way to apply it so as not to allow bacteria in the air to deposit upon the sterile surface.
Of course an operating room is not 100% sterile, although surgeons and nurses do their best to keep the counts to a minimum.
Some of these principles would be known to those who have done home canning or even sterilised baby bottles via a pressure cooker. An autoclave is nothing more than a horizontal pressure cooker, with elaborate regulation and safety mechanisms and a nice door.
launderess
Well-known member
SM, not going to argue with you, as you are the "boss", but think we are both saying the same thing.
It would do no good to put soiled instruments into an autoclave, and expect them to come out "clean" and sterile.
As for choice of materials and proceedures, it's been years since one has looked at my bacteriolgy and microbiology books, but remember each had sections on various methods used for making items "sterile".
As for cleaning and seeing to items rendered sterile in hospital, yes items are cleaned first (either by hand or most likely these days in automatic "dishwasher" type machines, then sent off to be autoclaved or whatever method is going to be used for sterlising.
In the OR the entire room is not "sterile", only the sterile field which is basically the OR table, mayo table and area surrounding the patient. Persons entering this area are required to be scrubbed, gowned, masked and "sterile". Once in the area if such persons leave, and or do anything that breaks being sterile, they must remedy the matter before being allowed to return. The scrub nurse attends in the sterlie field, while the circulating nurse is outside the field. If something is required during the operation that is not within the field, it will be fetched by the circulating nurse and given to the scrub nurse (sterile of course).
It would do no good to put soiled instruments into an autoclave, and expect them to come out "clean" and sterile.
As for choice of materials and proceedures, it's been years since one has looked at my bacteriolgy and microbiology books, but remember each had sections on various methods used for making items "sterile".
As for cleaning and seeing to items rendered sterile in hospital, yes items are cleaned first (either by hand or most likely these days in automatic "dishwasher" type machines, then sent off to be autoclaved or whatever method is going to be used for sterlising.
In the OR the entire room is not "sterile", only the sterile field which is basically the OR table, mayo table and area surrounding the patient. Persons entering this area are required to be scrubbed, gowned, masked and "sterile". Once in the area if such persons leave, and or do anything that breaks being sterile, they must remedy the matter before being allowed to return. The scrub nurse attends in the sterlie field, while the circulating nurse is outside the field. If something is required during the operation that is not within the field, it will be fetched by the circulating nurse and given to the scrub nurse (sterile of course).
sudsmaster
Well-known member
I am not the boss of thee
Nor would I want to be.
I'm not THAT brave ;-)
However, while I've spent very little time in an OR (both as patient and observer) I did spend more than a few years doing sterile cell culture. Back in the 70's I became familiar with HEPA filtered laminar flow hoods long before HEPA became something you could buy for your vacuum cleaner, that were designed to capture every particle and establish a true sterile atmosphere.
One look at the masks that surgeons wear convinced me that even a sterile OR field is not quite the same level of sterility as what a laminar flow HEPA filtered hood could achieve. All sorts of particles can go through those masks, especially when the doctor or nurse talks, not to mention those that escape around the edges, nor the skin that continually flakes off exposed skin no matter what one does.
As you mentioned before, it's a matter of numbers - it takes a certain minimum number of bacteria to establish an infection in an healthy individual. For an immune compromised person that number is probably a lot smaller. Most certainly we've come a long way since surgeons wiped their knives on their trousers and went to work on one patient after another.
And I'm not certain that even a HEPA filtered atmosphere will filter out viruses, at least not the smallest of them.
Nor would I want to be.
I'm not THAT brave ;-)
However, while I've spent very little time in an OR (both as patient and observer) I did spend more than a few years doing sterile cell culture. Back in the 70's I became familiar with HEPA filtered laminar flow hoods long before HEPA became something you could buy for your vacuum cleaner, that were designed to capture every particle and establish a true sterile atmosphere.
One look at the masks that surgeons wear convinced me that even a sterile OR field is not quite the same level of sterility as what a laminar flow HEPA filtered hood could achieve. All sorts of particles can go through those masks, especially when the doctor or nurse talks, not to mention those that escape around the edges, nor the skin that continually flakes off exposed skin no matter what one does.
As you mentioned before, it's a matter of numbers - it takes a certain minimum number of bacteria to establish an infection in an healthy individual. For an immune compromised person that number is probably a lot smaller. Most certainly we've come a long way since surgeons wiped their knives on their trousers and went to work on one patient after another.
And I'm not certain that even a HEPA filtered atmosphere will filter out viruses, at least not the smallest of them.
launderess
Well-known member
If you are at interested in taking things furhter on this matter, read up on what sort of operating rooms many of the new "tourist" hospitals have in India. We're talking about state of the art not just in gowning and masks, but HVAC and the rest as well. Saw a program on it awhile ago and was totally gobsmacked.
Mind you these are totally new hospitals, built to very high standards, but since India has tons of quality but cheap labour, the things cost less, much less than they would in the United States. Indeed these hospital are not built for your average Indian, but the new health care "tourist", mainly from the United States and Europe seeking top drawer care but has little to no insurance, thus paying out of their own pocket.
L.
Mind you these are totally new hospitals, built to very high standards, but since India has tons of quality but cheap labour, the things cost less, much less than they would in the United States. Indeed these hospital are not built for your average Indian, but the new health care "tourist", mainly from the United States and Europe seeking top drawer care but has little to no insurance, thus paying out of their own pocket.
L.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
I was thinking along other lines - that is, the ability of modern computing equipment to enable a doctor in one location to control a robotic set of surgical instruments in another location to actually operate on a patient long distance. What interests me is the potential for the robotic device to be completely sterilized, to a higher level than any human surgeon could be sterilized without killing him or her. Not so sure if the long distance surgery bit, though, is ready for prime time. At least not if the stuff runs on Vista ;-).
