Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Enthalpy

Hydroalcoholic disinfectant from refineries

Recommended Posts

Hello you all,

The World Health Organization published a recipe for a disinfecting hydroalcoholic mixture
who.int (I saw it in English too)
and refineries could produce it the big way. It's not exactly a gel, but the function is the same.

  • Ethanol can be obtained without delay from water and from ethylene, abundant in refineries.
  • Glycerine is a by-product of palm oil processing, especially to make biodiesel. Some refineries or companies do both.
  • I understand pasteurization can replace hydrogen peroxide. If not, produce it.
  • Water is available in many countries.

Equipment existing at refineries must be too dirty, so new one must be added on the fly. It needs no new engineering, and specialized companies can produce it quickly.

Governments must address the risk of transformation into drinks with unusual flexibility and reactivity.

Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Not that simple.  In US, FDA policy is controlling https://www.fda.gov/media/136118/download

among other challenges, pasteurization can NOT replace hydrogen peroxide.  H2O2 is intended to address contamination  by heat-resistant, spore-forming bacteria.  Ethanol and glycerine have to be of quality  and please note WHO and FDA specify water quality - not a trivial consideration for water or for manufacturing system hygiene - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/infection-control-and-hospital-epidemiology/article/outbreak-of-burkholderia-cepacia-bacteremia-traced-to-contaminated-hospital-water-used-for-dilution-of-an-alcohol-skin-antiseptic/15AAB.3A9306E02D9DE9B2434EDDEA5CD

Edited by PhilGeis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your drinking water does not meet the specification of being "pretty much devoid of pathogens" the coronavirus is not actually your big problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

"pretty much devoid of pathogens"

I guess it depends on how many bacteria we count as pretty devoid (and probably also types of bacteria).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tap water always includes pseudomonads - burden being a function of residual chlorine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2020 at 9:43 PM, CharonY said:

I guess it depends on how many bacteria we count as pretty devoid (and probably also types of bacteria).

I used the word "pathogens" for a reason.

On 4/6/2020 at 12:56 AM, PhilGeis said:

tap water always includes pseudomonads - burden being a function of residual chlorine.

So, what you are saying is that if there are significant (i.e. pathogenic) numbers of them, it's because the chlorination process is inadequate and you have a problem.

I can spend my day indoors with very little exposure to coronavirus.
I can't avoid drinking water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

I used the word "pathogens" for a reason.

I was more thinking in terms of infectious doses. In most water supplies you will be able to count and sometimes cultivate microbes. Typically the standards are set high enough that infections are unlikely, but to my mind it is not the same as pretty much devoid. I will concede that it is a matter of semantics. However, there is ongoing discussions regarding standards (and lack thereof) as well as limitation of detection methods of pathogens in drinking water. As a whole while it is assumed that the water treatment processes yield safe water but studies continue to find pathogens especially protozoa which can cause occasional infections. Cysts are resistant to chlorination and require physical treatment to be removed. Connected to that, the source water is also important and how it is treated prior to disinfection, and there are some claims by environmental engineer that pathogen testing is not exhaustive enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Australia there have been some interesting initiatives to help fill the hand sanitiser gell. One boutique  distiller (Archie Rose) has swappedx to ethanol and geared up to produce sanitiser. Similar scenario in some of the grape/wine areas where grapes have been tainted by smoke form the fires and are not usable for producing wine.

They are interesting feel good stories,  ut to be frank, I still cant obtain any hand sanitiser when I shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2020 at 12:19 PM, John Cuthber said:

I used the word "pathogens" for a reason.

So, what you are saying is that if there are significant (i.e. pathogenic) numbers of them, it's because the chlorination process is inadequate and you have a problem.

I can spend my day indoors with very little exposure to coronavirus.
I can't avoid drinking water.

No John.  Although treated water is not sterile, bacteria in drinking water are large from the distribution system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read, parasites are also a bit of a problem. There was the famous case where someone infected themselves with Naegleria fowleri by nasal irrigation with tap water. Normally the low concentrations are fine when consumed, but the nose allowed penetration via the nasal mucosa and they entered the brain via the olfactory nerves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.