[Pharmwaste] Overly Zealous Cleaning Can Backfire - article
PDeLeo at sdahq.org
PDeLeo at sdahq.org
Fri Jul 27 15:14:03 EDT 2007
I would like to provide some perspective to this article since
antibacterial soaps are manufactured by a number of our members and
Triclosan has been the subject of much criticism.
First, the things I agree with in this article:
Washing your hands properly with soap and water is probably the single
best thing you can do to prevent infection.
When you use an antibacterial soap, the antibacterial compound, such as
Triclosan, is washed down the drain (along with the soap components).
Antibacterial soaps are designed to eliminate bacteria not viruses.
Corrections to fallacies in the article:
Use of antibacterial soaps does not lead to antibiotic cross-resistance
in bacteria. In the late 1990's there were several in-vitro laboratory
studies where researchers such as Stuart Levy and the late Denver
Russell were able to induce cross resistance to antibiotics in the lab
by exposure to Triclosan. However, subsequent surveillance studies have
found that there is no greater level of antibiotic resistance among
bacteria isolated from users of antibacterial soaps compared to
non-users. In fact, a couple of the early critics of antibacterial
soaps including Dr. Levy concluded in a recent article that
antibacterial product use did not lead to a significant increase in
antimicrobial drug resistance after 1 year, nor did it have an effect on
bacterial susceptibility to triclosan
(http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no10/04-1276.htm). It is well
recognized that the greater risk factors in development of antibiotic
resistance are inappropriate use for treating human disease and overuse
in agriculture.
Antibacterial ingredients do not cause harm to the environment or
biological waste treatment systems. For antibacterial soaps containing
Triclosan, they are typically formulated at 0.1% (1,000 mg/L or ppm) to
0.3% (3,000 mg/L or ppm). Through dilution in the waste stream,
influent concentrations at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are
typically 10 ug/L (ppb) or lower. Removal can vary based on the WWTP
but can be >90%. As such, effluent discharges to the aquatic
environment are typically less than 1 ug/L (ppb), and with dilution of
the discharge, downstream environmental concentrations are usually 100
ng/L (ppt) or less. These concentrations are well below conventional
ecotoxicological no-effect end points. I say conventional because there
is one laboratory study from a group in Vancouver which concluded that
Triclosan negatively impacted amphibian development at environmentally
relevant concentrations (130 ng/L; Veldhoen et al., Aquatic Toxicology
(2006) 80:217-227). While a legitimate hypothesis and line of inquiry,
there are a number of questions as to whether this laboratory experiment
and the methods used is an accurate description of what occurs in the
environment.
Antibacterial soaps do not impair septic system function. Triclosan is
biodegradable at concentrations greater than would be found in a septic
tank; at least 2,000 ug/L (Federle et al, 2002. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 21(7):1330–1337). Also, Triclosan has a high affinity to
adsorb to surfaces (that is, a high partition coefficient). As such, in
a septic system, it would tend to adsorb to the particles in the septic
tank. For discharges to the leach field it would tend to adsorb to the
leach field medium or the underlying soil. It is not mobile, so it
would not contaminate groundwater or surface water.
Paul DeLeo
Paul C. DeLeo, PhD.
Director, Environmental Safety
The Soap and Detergent Association
1500 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 662-2516 - voice
(202) 347-4110 - FAX
pdeleo at sdahq.org
http://www.cleaning101.com
"Tenace, Laurie"
<Laurie.Tenace at de
p.state.fl.us> To
Sent by: <pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us>
pharmwaste-bounce cc
s at lists.dep.state
.fl.us Subject
[Pharmwaste] Overly Zealous
Cleaning Can Backfire - article
07/27/2007 11:35
AM
http://www.newtownbee.com/Features.asp?s=Features-2007-07-26-12-02-01p1.htm
Overly Zealous Cleaning Can Backfire
By Nancy K. Crevier
Katja Pieragostini holds samples of triclosan-free soaps she is able to buy
locally. She believes that antibacterial additives, such as triclosan, in
body washes and cleaning products pose potential problems for the
environment
and personal health. -Bee Photo, Crevier
When it comes to grub and grime, forget about the trash can. Home sweet
home
harbors a lot more top spots for germs to lurk. According to a recent
Hygiene
Council survey at webmd.com, the most likely places people pick up germs
are
in the bathroom or kitchen. Cleaning rags, kitchen drains, toilet bowls,
tubs, and pet bowls harbor plenty of bacteria, as do counter tops, toys,
light switches, remote controls, and computer keyboards.
Feeding right into America's health concerns, marketing has convinced
people
that the way to combat these nasty germs around the home is to fight back
with antibacterial soaps and cleaning products. But Newtown resident Katja
Pieragostini wonders if antibacterial cleaners might be a case of the cure
being worse than the ailment.
Ms Pieragostini, a biology major with a master's in pharmacology, mother of
an 11-month-old baby, and a member of ROOTs of Newtown, an environmental
group, believes that not only are antibacterial soaps and cleaners
unnecessary, that they are harmful to the environment and may add to the
increase in germ-resistant bacteria. Ms Pierogastini has most recently
worked
as a consultant to a small company near Hartford, developing an instrument
and method for detection of biothreat agents such as anthrax, ricin, and
Ebola.
"Seventy-five percent of all liquid hand soaps and almost 30 percent of bar
soaps sold are antibacterial," said Ms Pieragostini. When people wash their
hands or wipe down their counters with products containing triclosan, the
active ingredient in most antibacterials, she said, most do not think about
where the residue is ending up. "If one thinks where it all goes after it
has
been washed away - into the sewers, wastewater treatment facilities, the
ground - it can remain and bioaccumulate in our waters and environment for
years to come," she said. As a member of ROOTS, she wants Newtown residents
to be aware that while there has been no such evidence collected concerning
Newtown water systems thus far, that prevention is key to preventing
bioaccumulation from occurring.
Septic systems could be impacted due to the impairment of microbial
activity
from antibacterial substances that make their way into the system, said Ms
Pieragostini, according to information she received from James Belden,
president of the Pootatuck Watershed Association and Trout Unlimited.
Contacted by The Bee, Mr Belden said that so far as he is aware, there is
no
specific study looking at the impact of antibacterials in Newtown water
sources, "but this is something that is occurring nationwide. If
antibacterial content becomes a large portion of waste stream out of a
home,
it can impact the septic system," he added.
When waste water is inundated by antimicrobials, Mr Belden explained, good
bacteria that helps a septic system function optimally is killed, making
the
system less efficient. A less efficient septic system means that more
contaminants potentially are leached into the groundwater. "Our groundwater
here in Newtown starts very close to the surface," said Mr Belden.
Homeowners who use antibacterial products also need to know that home
septic
design is old, said Mr Belden. "Septic design is still based upon a society
that does not use antibacterial products and other chemicals that get into
the system," he said.
While antibacterial waste is only one small part of the whole picture of
possible septic and water quality impacts, Mr Belden noted that it is all
of
the little things that add up to problems. "There really never is just one
smoking gun," he said.
Using antibacterial cleaners does not guarantee a healthier home, either,
Ms
Pieragostini said, and scientists and doctors have known this for years. A
March 2004 Annals of Internal Medicine study, she said, "summarized that
those who used antibacterial cleansers regularly were no healthier than
those
who didn't; they still had the same amount and degree of cold symptoms."
The reason behind this, and one that is frequently overlooked by the
zealous
housekeeper, is that viruses, not bacteria, cause many common illnesses.
Antibacterial products provide a false sense of security against germs, she
said. "In addition, parents should not demand antibiotics just because
their
child is sick with a cold. Let's leave antibiotics for when kids and adults
absolutely need them, and it's known that the attributing cause of illness
is
bacterial," Ms Pieragostini. She fears that the collective, populationwide
overuse of antibacterial products means that gentler antibiotics will no
longer be effective against illnesses as more drug-resistant strains of
bacteria develop.
"The concern is that bacteriostats [found in antibacterial soaps] are
making
the stronger, more deadly strains of bacteria more resistant to
antibiotics,"
she said. Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria mean that therapies for
infections can be less effective and require far more treatment than would
normally have been required.
However, a report posted on the The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) website found that antibacterial household product use
over
one year did not lead to an increase in antimicrobial drug resistance,
although it did suggest that further study on the long-term use of products
with triclosan is warranted. The study also stated that "no evidence
suggests
that use of antibacterial soap containing 0.2% triclosan provides a benefit
over plain soap in reducing bacterial counts and rate of infectious
symptoms
in generally healthy persons in the household setting." Plain soap and
water,
in other words, gets rid of the majority of germs that linger on the hands
and body.
The CDC recommends rubbing well-soaped hands together for 20 seconds to
clean
them - that is the time it takes to sing "Happy Birthday" through twice.
Rinse hands well and dry hands using a paper towel or air dryer.
The CDC also suggests the use of alcohol-based gels when soap and water are
not available.
It may take a bit of searching to find a soap on the shelf that is free of
triclosan, said Ms Peiragostini. "The options for consumers are slim," she
said, and she has taken to requesting stores to stock more of the
nonantibacterial, natural products. "Consumers need to demand more
options,"
she said.
Laurie J. Tenace
Environmental Specialist
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 4555
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
PH: (850) 245-8759
FAX: (850) 245-8811
Laurie.Tenace at dep.state.fl.us
Mercury web pages:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/mercury/default.htm
Unwanted Medications web pages:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/medications/default.htm
Please Note: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written
communications to or from state officials regarding state business are
public
records available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail is
communications and may therefore be subject to public disclosure.
_______________________________________________
Pharmwaste mailing list
Pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharmwaste
More information about the Pharmwaste
mailing list