ArticlePDF Available

An Overview on Currrent Regulation and Evaluation of Biocidal Products

Authors:

Abstract

A biocidal product is a substance or mixture prepared to limit, destroy, neutralize or control the effects of a harmful microorganism, plants and animals. The active substance in a biocidal product can be a natural oil or extract, a chemical substance or a microorganism, virus or fungus. Biocides consist of four main groups: disinfectants, preservatives (wood, paint, etc.), pest control and other type of biocidal products. A biocidal substance can also be added to a product to make the product itself into a biocidal product. These products range from disinfectants, hand sanitizers, preservatives, insect repellents, to rodenticides and insecticides and are used to protect humans, animals, materials and articles by controlling the intended target organism by a chemical or biological action. To make sure the use of biocidal products do not have unacceptable risks for people, animals and the environment, they are regulated to control their marketing, sale and use. In the current study biocidal products have been overviewed in the scope of current European Union regulations, product types and conformity tests. Peer Review History: Received 1 September 2019; Revised 9 October; Accepted 7 November, Available online 15 November 2019 Academic Editor: Dr. Amany Mohamed Alboghdadly, Princess Nourah bint abdulrahman university, Riyadh, amalbgadley@pnu.edu.sa Received file: Reviewer's Comments: Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Barkat Ali Khan, Kampala International University , Uganda, barki.gold@gmail.com Dr. Sally A. El-Zahaby, Pharos University in Alexandria, Egypt, sally.elzahaby@yahoo.com
ALGIN YAPAR et al. Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Research
ISSN: 2456-8058 35 CODEN (USA): UJPRA3
Available online on 15.11.2019 at http://ujpr.org
Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Research
An International Peer Reviewed Journal
Open access to Pharmaceutical research
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non
Commercial Share Alike 4.0 License which permits unrestricted non commercial use, provided the original
work is properly cited
Volume 4, Issue 5, 2019
REVIEW ARTICLE
AN OVERVIEW ON CURRENT REGULATION AND EVALUATION OF
BIOCIDAL PRODUCTS
Aslı ŞAHİNER1, Evren ALGIN YAPAR2*
1Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ege University, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey.
2Department of Analysis and Control Laboratories, Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency, 06100 Sıhhiye, Ankara,
Turkey.
ABSTRACT
A biocidal product is a substance or mixture prepared to limit, destroy, neutralize or control the effects of a harmful
microorganism, plants and animals. The active substance in a biocidal product can be a natural oil or extract, a chemical substance
or a microorganism, virus or fungus. Biocides consist of four main groups: disinfectants, preservatives (wood, paint, etc.), pest
control and other type of biocidal products. A biocidal substance can also be added to a product to make the product itself into a
biocidal product. These products range from disinfectants, hand sanitizers, preservatives, insect repellents, to rodenticides and
insecticides and are used to protect humans, animals, materials and articles by controlling the intended target organism by a
chemical or biological action. To make sure the use of biocidal products do not have unacceptable risks for people, animals and the
environment, they are regulated to control their marketing, sale and use. In the current study biocidal products have been
overviewed in the scope of current European Union regulations, product types and conformity tests.
Keywords: Biocidal products, conformity tests for biocidal products, disinfectants.
Article Info: Received 18 September 2019; Revised 9 October; Accepted 7 November, Available online 15 November 2019
Cite this article-
ŞAHİNER A, ALGIN YAPAR E. An overview on current regulation and evaluation of biocidal products.
Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 2019; 4(5): 35-39.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22270/ujpr.v4i5.315
Address for Correspondence:
Assos. Prof. Evren ALGIN YAPAR, Department of Analysis and Control Laboratories, Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices
Agency, 06100 Sıhhiye, Ankara, Turkey. Tel: +90 312 565 53 70, E-mail: evrenalgin@yahoo.com
INTRODUCTION
According to the Biocidal Products Regulation [BPR,
Reg. (EU) 528/2012] of European Commission (EC), a
biocidal product is defined as a product or substance
intended to eliminate, control or prevent the effects of
harmful organisms for human and animal health and to
control organisms harmful to natural or manufactured
materials1. The use of chemical biocides is a
fundamental protection in the prevention and control of
microbial growth in medical, veterinary, domestic and
industrial environments2. Biocides are used a great
extent in the healthcare environment for the
disinfection of equipments, surfaces, water, and for
antisepsis of skin and wound. Besides biocides are used
for the preservation of pharmaceuticals and
sterilization of medical devices3. In the 20th century,
the development of cationic biocides such as
quaternary ammonium compounds, biguanides,
aldehydes, peroxigens and phenolics had been an
enormous increase in the number of active compounds
used for disinfection, sterilization and preservation4.
Biocides are the main armoury in the disinfection
programme of food industry to control pathogenic and
spoilage microorganisms5. Biocidal products also
constitute the antimicrobial component of
nanomaterials used in food packaging in recent years6.
Preservatives are an important part of biocides and
used to protect industrial products, cosmetics, metal
and wood materials, textile products from microbial
spoilage. Isothiazolinone biocides are broadly used in
various industrial applications for the control of
microbial growth.
Between the biocides, 5-chloro-2-methyl-4isothiazolin-
3-one (CMIT), 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (MIT), 1,
2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one (BIT),4, 5-dichloro-2-noctyl-
4-isothiazolin-3-one (DCOIT) are the most commonly
used as preservative active substance7. Effective and
proper use of insecticide and rodenticide group
biocides is also important for the protection of human
and environmental health. Permethrin, tetramethrin,
cypermethrin are commonly used insecticide active
substance for product type8.
Misuse of biocidal products brings about some
problems such as resistance development and toxicity.
The spreading usage of products containing low
concentrations of commonly used biocides have raised
ALGIN YAPAR et al. Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Research
ISSN: 2456-8058 36 CODEN (USA): UJPRA3
some concerns about the possible development of
microbial resistance. Laboratory studies have
demonstrated that bacteria can become resistant to a
biocide, and that resistant bacteria can develop cross-
resistance to other biocides and antibiotics9. High
concentrations of biocides generally have toxic effects
not only for humans but also for the environment.
Therefore, a legal guideline for environmental risk
evaluation for biocidal products is being prepared10.
The toxicity of some biocides associated with
dermatitis, occupational asthma and irritation has been
reported11,12,13.
The use of commercially available biocidal products is
regulated according to the EU Biocidal Products
Regulation. In this study biocidal products have been
overviewed in the scope of current EU regulations,
product types and conformity tests.
RULES FOR BIOCIDAL PRODUCTS
The aim of the Biocidal Products Regulation (Reg.
(EU) 528/2012) is to determine the rules for the
production and the use of biocidal products, as well as
to provide a protection from health and environmental
risks. The main rule is that biocidal products must be
authorized before they are placed on the market. This
regulation applies to biocidal products containing or
forming one or more active substances.
A biocidal product is a substance or mixture designed
to limit, destroy, neutralize or control the effects of a
harmful organism. All biocidal products contain one or
more active substances. The active ingredients give the
product the desired biocidal properties. Active
substances used in biocidal products must be
authorised within the EU before they can be put on the
market. Before the approval of an active substance, its
effect on the environment and human health is
assessed. To ensure legal certainty, Active substances
from the Union list approved for use in biocidal
products has been established. In order to market an
active substance that has not been previously
authorized or under examination, It must be applied for
authorization to The European Chemical Agency
(ECHA)14.
The following conditions must be met in order to
license a biocidal product:
The active substances must be approved for the
type of product concerned and the conditions
specified for these active substances must be met.
It must be sufficiently effective.
The biocidal product must not produce
unacceptable resistance or cross-resistance on target
organisms. There should be no unacceptable effects
such as unnecessary pain and suffering for
vertebrates.
The biocidal product or its residues must not have
an unacceptable effect on food and feed, directly or
indirectly.
The biocidal product or its residues must not have an
unacceptable effect on the environment, groundwater,
surface water, drinking water, soil and air.
It should not have undesirable effects on non-target
organisms.
It should not have undesirable effects on the
ecosystem and biodiversity.
The chemical identity, quantities and technical
equivalence of the active and inactive substances in
the biocidal product should be determined.
Toxicological and ecotoxicological information
should be provided where appropriate.
PRODUCT TYPES
In order to make a suitable assessment of exposure and
risk to health and the environment as a result of a
biocidal product’s use, the EU has determined the
different product types of biocidal products. According
to the Biocidal Products Regulation (EU) 528/2012,
biocides are classified in four main categories and
twenty-two specific product types1.
Disinfectants
PT 1- Human hygiene: Products are used for human
hygiene. The primary purpose of these products is to
disinfect human skin and scalp.
PT 2- Disinfectants and algaecides: The aim of these
products is to disinfect surfaces and equipment that are
not contact with food or feeding stuff. Areas of use
include air conditioning systems, aquariums,
swimming pools, and private, public and industrial
areas. It is also used for disinfection of air, water other
than human or animal consumption, waste water,
hospital waste and soil. They are incorporated into
textiles, textures, paints and other articles to produce
treated products.
PT 3- Veterinary hygiene: Antiseptics and
disinfectants that are used for veterinary hygiene. Used
for disinfecting animal shelters and transport
equipment and surfaces.
PT 4- Food and feed area: It is used disinfecting
equipment, surfaces or piping related to the production,
transportation, storage of food or feed.
PT 5- Drinking water: Products in this group are
used for disinfection of drinking water for human and
animal consumption.
Preservatives
PT 6- In-can preservatives: It is used for the
protection of cosmetic products, medical products or
medical devices and manufactured products with
microbial deterioration and control to ensure shelf life.
PT 7- Film preservatives: These products are
used for the protection of films and coatings by
controlling microbial deterioration or algae growth for
the purpose of protecting the objects such as paint,
plastic, wall adhesives, paper.
PT 8- Wood preservatives: These products are used
for the protection of wood and wood products by
controlling organisms that damage wood, including
insects.
PT 9- Fibre, leather, rubber and polymerised
materials preservatives: These preservatives are used
for the preservation of polymers and fibres, such as
textile, rubber, leather or paper by the control of
microbiological degradation.
PT 10- Construction material preservatives: The
purpose of these products are to preserve masonry,
construction materials and composite materials except
ALGIN YAPAR et al. Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Research
ISSN: 2456-8058 37 CODEN (USA): UJPRA3
for wood by the control of bacterial, fungal and algal
attack.
PT 11- Preservatives for liquid-cooling and
processing systems: Products in this group are used to
protect liquids used in cooling water and other water
systems from microorganisms.
PT 12- Slimicides: This group is used to control or
prevent the formation of slime in equipment and
materials used in industrial areas.
PT 13- Working or cutting fluid preservatives:
These products aim to control microbial deterioration
in fluids used for metal, glass or other materials.
PEST CONTROL
PT 14- Rodenticides: These products aim to control
of rodents, except for attraction or repulsion.
PT 15- Avicides: Purpose of use is to control birds,
except for attraction or repulsion.
PT 16- Molluscicides, vermicides and products to
control other invertebrates: Used for the control of
invertebrates such as molluscs, worms and other, by
means other than attraction or repulsion.
PT 17- Piscicides: These products purpose is to
control of fish.
PT 18- Insecticides, acaricides and products to
control other arthropods: These products are used for
the control of arthropods such as insects, crustaceans
and spiders.
PT 19- Repellents and attractants: These are used
to control harmful organisms by attracting or repelling,
are used for directly on the skin or indirectly in
environments of human or animal.
PT 20- Control of other vertebrates: These products
are used for controlling vertebrates other than those
included by the other product types.
OTHER BIOCIDAL PRODUCTS
PT 21- Antifouling products: These products aim to
control the growth of fouling microorganisms, plant or
animal species on vessels, aquaculture equipment or
other construction used in water.
PT 22- Embalming and taxidermist fluids: These
products are used for the disinfection and preservation
of human or animal corpses and parts.
CONFORMITY TESTS OF BIOCIDAL
PRODUCTS
Physical and Chemical Properties of the Active
Substance
When evaluating the physicochemical properties of the
active substances in the biocidal product, the
appropriate method should be selected and
experimental results given priority, provided that it
operates within the validity range. Data on
physicochemical properties should be reliable15.
Physical parameters
Appearance: The physical parameters of the product
should be measured and reported at 20 °C ambient
temprature, and 101.3 kPa atmospheric pressure. The
physical state of the product may be solid, liquid, or
gaseous. The colour and odour must be reported at
parameters mentioned above, Odour associated with
the active substance described in laboratories or
production plants, must be reported. This can be e.g.
odourless, characteristic of aromatic compounds,
ammonia-like, biting, faint, pungent, slight, sweetish or
other. Substances that are hazardous by inhalation
should not be investigated for their odour properties15.
Melting and freezing points: The melting point must
be measured up to 360 °C. Generally, it should be
determined if the freezing point of liquid substances is
above 20°C. EC method A.1 (Melting / Freezing
Temperature) should be used as the test method. The
use of Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) or
Differential Thermo Analysis (DTA) is
recommended16.
Acidity and alkalinity: For water-containing active
substances, the pH of the active substance itself must
be tested according to the CIPAC method MT 75.317. If
solid and nonaqueous liquid active substances are to be
used in biocidal products, the pH of an aqueous
dilution of 1% of the active substance should be
determined. Acidity (pH <4) or alkalinity (pH >10) of
the products should be determined according to the
CIPAC method MT 19118.
Boiling point: The boiling point must be measured up
to 360 °C according to EC method A.2 (Boiling
temperature)19. The boiling point should be measured
at of 101.3 kPa (Standart atmospheric pressure) unless
decomposition occurs.
Density: Density for liquids and solids is tested
according to OECD Test Guideline 109 (Density of
Liquids and Solids)20. The relative density of gases can
be calculated from their molecular weight and the Ideal
Gas Law. Polymer density should be determined by
buoyancy methods.
Additional physical tests may be performed depending
on the product type.
Chemical Properties:
Approved analytical methods should be used for the
determination of active substances and, where
necessary, residues. Methods should be able to fully
characterize analytes and quantitatively identify them.
Therefore, the methods should be validated by
laboratories. The method validation parameters should
include recovery, repeatability, selectivity/specificity,
limit of detection and limit of quantification. Methods
should avoid hazardous substances and where possible,
use commonly available techniques/equipment. The
active substance analysis is carried out using
titrimetric, spectroscopic or chromatographic methods
according to the chemical properties of the substance.
HPLC, GC, GC-MS, AAS, ICP systems are the most
commonly used analytical methods. In the analyzes, it
is evaluated whether the content of the active substance
is in accordance with the manufacturer's declaration. It
is accepted that the content of the active substance will
vary with each batch and as a result of sampling and
analytical errors. These changes must be within a
certain limit. The tolerance limits applied to the active
substances are given in the table below15.
Storage stability tests:
Tests to prove that the biocidal product is stable during
storage and shelf life.
Accelerated storage test:
Stability tests are performed with CIPAC method MT
46.3 accelerated stability results are used to indicate
that the biocidal product will remain stable over a two-
ALGIN YAPAR et al. Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Research
ISSN: 2456-8058 38 CODEN (USA): UJPRA3
year shelf life. However, the biocidal product must also
be tested under ambient temperature conditions.
Accelerated stability data are also indicative of the
stability of the biocidal product when exposed to a
higher temperature than optimum temperatures. If the
biocidal product should not be stored at high
temperatures, the label should contain a warning
statement. If the active substance is sensitive to high
temperature, the accelerated stability test can be carried
out at lower temperatures for longer periods21.
Long term storage test:
Long term stability test is carried out at 25°C for 2
years to determine whether the product will remain
stable in the commercial packaging during the shelf
life. During this time the condition of the product is
supported by chemical analysis data.
Low temperature stability test (liquids):
The relevant test method for low temperature stability
is the CIPAC method MT 39.3. The product is stored
for seven days at 0 °C, and its stability is examined.
Some types of formulations may need to be
investigated for stability to freeze/thaw22.
Efficacy Tests:
To determine the claimed efficacy of the biocidal
product or active substance, itsbiological/
microbiological activity needs to be evaluated using
appropriate methods. Efficacy is described as the
ability of a biocidal product to perform the claimed
activity when used according to the instructions
recommended on the product label. Studies should be
conducted using appropriate methods to demonstrate
that the product is sufficiently effective against
organisms under conditions of use (concentration,
duration, application method, etc.).
There are different types of studies to determine the
efficacy of the product23.
Screening tests:
Screening tests are generally not related to
practical/field conditions and are only performed with
the active substance. Therefore, such tests are used
during product development.
Laboratory studies: These are the studies performed
according to the standard criteria for determining the
efficiency in the laboratory.
Simulation tests in the laboratory:
Simulation tests are more appropriate to demonstrate
effectiveness. It simulates the field conditions where
the product will be used under laboratory conditions.
For example, for a product intended for disinfection of
hard surfaces, a suspension test and surface test with
the relevant EN standards is sufficient.
Field tests: Field tests are a good indicator to see how
the efficacy of the biocidal product is affected by field
conditions. The results of biocidal treated samples or
areas are compared with those of untreated control
samples or areas.
Efficacy tests should be carried out in according to
CEN, ISO, OECD, ASTM standard protocols. If
standard method are not available, validated in-house
methods can be used. For the disinfectant group, the
product must have at least “cidal” effect on the target
organisms of the relevant standard when tested
according to the phase 1 and phase 2 step 1 suspension
methods of the EN standards. An appropriate method
should be selected considering the area where the
disinfectant is used24-27. For preservatives group,
biocidal activity is mostly a static activity showed on
challenge tests on some target organisms, in the related
product matrix. When a curative effect is claimed, it is
sufficient to show that the microbial reduction in the
treated samples is significantly greater than that of the
untreated control samples. For pest control products,
only biological activity can be demonstrated for a
target organism (eg, control of mice or mosquito
control).
Testing for Skin Irritation:
Disinfectants used for human hygiene and insecticides
that contact with the skin should be tested for irritation.
In vitro and in vivo assays are used to study the skin
irritation potential of a biocidal product28.
The EC method B.46 and OECD Test Guideline 439,
known as Reconstructed Human Epidermis Model
Test, are the methods used for in vitro skin irritation29-
30. Animal testing should be used as a last resort to
determine the irritant potential of the products. In vivo
tests can be used if there are certain limitations to
conducting the in vitro test to study the irritation
potential of the biocidal product. EC method B.4 Acute
Toxicity: Dermal Irritation/Corrosion, OECD Test
Guideline 404: Acute Dermal Irritation/Corrosion test
methods may be used31-32.
CONCLUSION
As a conclusion, the use of chemical biocides is a
fundamental protection in the prevention and control of
microbial growth in medical, veterinary, domestic and
industrial environments. Biocides are used a great
extent in the healthcare environment for the
disinfection of equipments, surfaces, water, and for
antisepsis of skin and wound. Misuse of biocidal
products brings about some problems such as
resistance development and toxicity. The spreading
usage of products containing low concentrations of
commonly used biocides has raised some concerns
about the possible development of microbial resistance.
Laboratory studies have demonstrated that bacteria can
become resistant to a biocide, and that resistant bacteria
can develop cross-resistance to other biocides and
antibiotics. High concentrations of biocides generally
have toxic effects not only for humans but also for the
environment. In this context biocidal products need to
be enlarged in regulations and control in terms of
traceability due to their extensive and increase in use.
REFERENCES
1. Commission Regulation, EC 2012. Regulation (EU) No
528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and
use of biocidal products.
2. Ribeiro M, Simões LC, Simões M. Biocides. Reference
Module in Life Sciences, Encyclopedia of Microbiology 4th
ed. Elsevier Inc 2018; 478-490.
3. Maillard JY. Antimicrobial biocides in the healthcare
environment: efficacy, usage, policies, and perceived
problems. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2005; 1(4):307-320.
ALGIN YAPAR et al. Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Research
ISSN: 2456-8058 39 CODEN (USA): UJPRA3
4. Russell AD. Introduction of biocides into clinical practice and
the impact on antibiotic-resistant bacteria. J Apl Micro 2002;
92:12135.
5. Holah J, Taylor J, Dawson D and Hall K. Biocide use in the
food industry and the disinfectant resistance of persistent
strains of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli. J Apl
Micro 2002; 92:111-120.
6. Bradley EL, Castle L, Chaudhry Q. Applications of
nanomaterials in food packaging with a consideration of
opportunities for developing countries. Trends Food Sci Tech
2011; 22(11):604-610.
7. Williams, TM. The Mechanism of Action of Isothiazolone
Biocide. NACE International Conference Paper, 2006.
8. Fang F, Bernigaud C, Candy K, Melloul E, Izri A, Durand R,
Botterel F, Chosidow O, Huang W, Guillot J. Efficacy
assessment of biocides or repellents for the control of
Sarcoptes scabiei in the environment. Parasit Vectors 2015;
8:416.
9. Russell AD. Biocide use and antibiotic resistance: the
relevance of laboratory findings to clinical and environmental
situations. The Lanc Infect Dis 2003; 3(12): 794-803.
10. Coors A, Vollmar P, Heim J, Sacher F, Kehrer A.
Environmental risk assessment of biocidal products:
identification of relevant components and reliability of a
component-based mixture assessment. Environ Sci Eur 2018;
30(1):3.
11. Vyas A, Pickering CAC, Oldham LA, Francis HC, Fletcher
AM, Merrett T, Niven RMcL. Survey of symptoms,
respiratory function, and immunology and their relation to
glutaraldehyde and other occupational exposure among
endoscopy nursing employee. Occupational Environmental
Medicine 2000; 57:752759.
12. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. The benefits of surface disinfection.
AJIC 2004; 32:22631.
13. Rideout K, Teschke K, Dimich-Ward H, Kennedy SM.
Considering risks to healthcare workers from glutaraldehyde
alternatives in high-level disinfection. J Hosp Infect 2005;
59:411.
14. ECHA 2014, Transitional Guidance on Regulation (EU) No
528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and
use of biocidal products (Biocidal Products Regulation, the
BPR). European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, Finland, May
2014.
15. ECHA 2018, Guidance on the Biocidal Products Regulation
Volume I: Identity of the active substance/physico-chemical
properties/analytical methodologyInformation Requirements,
Evaluation and Assessment. Parts A+B+C
16. Commission Regulation EC No 440/2008 laying down test
methods pursuant to Regulation EC No 1907/2006 of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration,
Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
(REACH) (originally published as Council Regulation EC No
440/2008, corrigendum according to Official Journal of the
European Union dated June 3, 2008, L 143/55), Annex, Part A,
A.1. Melting/Freezing Temperature, Official Journal of the
European Union, L 142, 51.
17. Collaborative International Pesticide Analytical Council, Ltd.
CIPAC Handbook, MT 75.3 Determination of pH Values,
CIPAC, Hatching Green, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England,
1999.
18. Collaborative International Pesticide Analytical Council, Ltd.
CIPAC Handbook, MT 191 acidity or alkalinity of
formulations CIPAC, Hatching Green, Harpenden,
Hertfordshire, England, 2005.
19. Official Journal of the European Communities L 383 A, 15-21,
1992.
20. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 1,
Test No. 109: Density of liquids and solids, 2012.
21. Collaborative International Pesticides Analytical Council Ltd.
(CIPAC) Handbook, “MT 46.3 Accelerated Storage
Procedure”, (Dobrat & Martin, Eds.) Published by Black Bear
Press Ltd., 2000.
22. Collaborative International Pesticides Analytical Council Ltd.
(CIPAC) Handbook, “MT 39.3 Low temperature stability of
liquid formulations”, (Dobrat & Martin, Eds.) Published by
Black Bear Press Ltd., 2000.
23. ECHA (2018) Guidance on the Biocidal Products Regulation
Volume II: Efficacy Part A: Information Requirements.
24. European Committee for Standardization. Chemical
disinfectants and antiseptics Quantitative suspension test for
the evaluation of bactericidal activity of chemical disinfectants
and antiseptics used in food, industrial, domestic, and
institutional areastest method and requirements, (phase 2/step
1) European Standard EN 1276, 2010.
25. European Committee for Standardization. Chemical
disinfectants and antiseptics Quantitative suspension test for
the evaluation of fungicidal activity of chemical disinfectants
and antiseptics used in food, industrial, domestic, and
institutional areas Test method and requirements, (phase
2/step 1) European Standard EN 1650+A1, 2013.
26. European Committee for Standardization. Chemical
disinfectants and antiseptics Quantitative suspension test for
the evaluation of bactericidal activity for instruments used in
the medical area. Test method and requirements (phase 2/step
1), European Standard EN 13727+A2, 2015.
27. European Committee for Standardization. Chemical
disinfectants and antiseptics- Quantitative suspension test for
the evaluation of fungicidal activity of chemical disinfectants
for instruments used in the medical area - Test method and
requirements (phase 2, step 1), European Standard EN 13624,
2013.
28. ECHA 2018 Guidance on the Biocidal Products Regulation
Volume III: Human health Part A: Information Requirements
Version 1.2 May 2018.
29. EC Testing Method B.46. In vitro skin irritation: reconstructed
human epidermis model test. Council Regulation EC No
761/2009
30. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Test No. 439:
In vitro skin irritation Reconstructed human epidermis test
method, 2013.
31. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Test No. 404:
Acute dermal irritation/corrosion, 2002.
32. EC Testing Method B.4. Acute toxicity: dermal
irritation/corrosion. Council Regulation (EC) No 440/2008
Part B.
Table 1: Tolerance limits of the active substance content.
Declared nominal content
of active [g/kg or g/L]
Tolerance limit
≤25
±15% (homogenous formulations)
±25% (non-homogenous preparations)
25 - 100
±10%
100 - 250
±6%
250 - 500
±5% o
> 500
±2.5%
... A decreasing arsenal of effective wood preservatives emphasizes the need for research into new protective strategies to prolong the useful service life of wood and new chemical classes of protectants based on extractives that could serve as scaffolds for bio-inspired pesticides. Internationally, the Biocidal Product Regulation 528/2012, formerly known as Biocidal Directive 98/8/EC, authorizes the trade and use of wood preservatives in Europe [86]. Biocides are approved for 5 or 10 years, and authorization requires an acceptance procedure, where the risks to the environment and human health are assessed. ...
Article
Full-text available
Naturally durable wood pre-dates preservative-treated wood and has been demonstrated to offer a suitable service life for certain applications where preservative-treated wood is not feasible. Heartwood extractives have been demonstrated to impart bio-deteriorative resistance to naturally durable wood species. These extractives are typically found in the heartwood of living trees and are produced either by the death of parenchyma cells or as the result of external stimuli. The mechanisms of natural durability are not well understood, as heartwood extractives can be extremely variable in their distribution, composition, and efficacy in both living and harvested trees. The underlying complexity of heartwood extractives has hindered their standardization in residential building codes for use as wood preservatives. The use of naturally durable lumber is not always feasible, as woods with exceptionally durable heartwood do not typically yield lumber with acceptable machining properties. A potential approach to overcome the inherent difficulty in establishing guidelines for the appropriate use of naturally durable wood is to focus solely on the extractives as a source of bioactive protectants based on the strategies used on living and dead wood to repel the agents of biodeterioration. This critical review summarizes the relevant literature on naturally durable woods, their extractives, and their potential use as bio-inspired wood protectants. An additional discussion will be aimed at underscoring the past difficulties in adopting this approach and how to overcome the future hurdles.
... Control methods, such as antibiotics and biocides, are confronted with problems of antibiotic resistance and pollution. In fact, the regulation of biocidal products is in constant evolution with improving commercial solution quality to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment as well as antifouling efficacy [14]. This is why it is necessary to be proactive and actively work on the discovery of new alternatives to these agents. ...
Article
Full-text available
Biofilms, responsible for many serious drawbacks in the medical and marine environment, can grow on abiotic and biotic surfaces. Commercial anti-biofilm solutions, based on the use of biocides, are available but their use increases the risk of antibiotic resistance and environmental pollution in marine industries. There is an urgent need to work on the development of ecofriendly solutions, formulated without biocidal agents, that rely on the anti-adhesive physico-chemical properties of their materials. In this context, exopolysaccharides (EPSs) are natural biopolymers with complex properties than may be used as anti-adhesive agents. This study is focused on the effect of the EPS MO245, a hyaluronic acid-like polysaccharide, on the growth, adhesion, biofilm maturation, and dispersion of two pathogenic model strains, Pseudomonas aeruginosa sp. PaO1 and Vibrio harveyi DSM19623. Our results demonstrated that MO245 may limit biofilm formation, with a biofilm inhibition between 20 and 50%, without any biocidal activity. Since EPSs have no significant impact on the bacterial motility and quorum sensing factors, our results indicate that physico-chemical interactions between the bacteria and the surfaces are modified due to the presence of an adsorbed EPS layer acting as a non-adsorbing layer.
Article
Full-text available
Background Biocidal products are mixtures of one or more active substances (a.s.) and a broad range of formulation additives. There is regulatory guidance currently under development that will specify how the combined effects of the a.s. and any relevant formulation additives shall be considered in the environmental risk assessment of biocidal products. The default option is a component-based approach (CBA) by which the toxicity of the product is predicted from the toxicity of ‘relevant’ components using concentration addition. Hence, unequivocal and practicable criteria are required for identifying the ‘relevant’ components to ensure protectiveness of the CBA, while avoiding unnecessary workload resulting from including by default components that do not significantly contribute to the product toxicity. The present study evaluated a set of different criteria for identifying ‘relevant’ components using confidential information on the composition of 21 wood preservative products. Theoretical approaches were complemented by experimentally testing the aquatic toxicity of seven selected products. Results For three of the seven tested products, the toxicity was underestimated for the most sensitive endpoint (green algae) by more than factor 2 if only the a.s. were considered in the CBA. This illustrated the necessity of including at least some additives along with the a.s. Considering additives that were deemed ‘relevant’ by the tentatively established criteria reduced the underestimation of toxicity for two of the three products. A lack of data for one specific additive was identified as the most likely reason for the remaining toxicity underestimation of the third product. In three other products, toxicity was overestimated by more than factor 2, while prediction and observation fitted well for the seventh product. Considering all additives in the prediction increased only the degree of overestimation. Conclusions Supported by theoretical calculations and experimental verifications, the present study developed criteria for the identification of CBA-relevant components in a biocidal product. These criteria are based on existing criteria stated in the regulation for classification, labelling and packaging of substances. The CBA was found sufficiently protective and reliable for the tested products when applying the here recommended criteria. The lack of available aquatic toxicity data for some of the identified relevant components was the main reason for underestimation of product toxicity.
Article
Full-text available
Sarcoptes scabiei infection is a contagious disease affecting both humans and animals. The transmission occurs either by direct contact or from the environment where mites could survive several days remaining infective. The number of products available for environmental control of S. scabiei is very limited. The objective of the present study was to assess the efficacy of biocides or repellents against S. scabiei var suis. Tested products included pyrethroids: permethrin, esdepallethrin and bioresmethrin, bifenthrin, cypermethrin and imiprothrin, cyfluthrin, tetramethrin and sumithrin. We also tested repellents: DEET, icaridin and IR3535. Sarcoptes scabiei var suis mites were collected from experimentally-infected pigs. For each test, 20 live mites of all motile stages were placed in a plastic Petri dish and sprayed uniformly by each product. Control mites were sprayed by distilled water. The study was performed in triplicate under room conditions and the mites were inspected under a stereomicroscope at intervals (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60 min, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 24 h) after exposure to the products. All the products, except the combination of tetramethrin and sumithrin (A-PAR®), were able to kill all mites within 24 h. The median survival time was 50 ± 30.4 min, 120 ± 309 min, 10 ± 5.9 min, 40 ± 36.8 min, 15 ± 7.3 min, 180 ± 417 min and 1440 ± 600 min when mites were exposed to permethrin 4 %, permethrin 0.6 %, esdepallethrin and bioresmethrin, bifenthrin, cypermethrin and imiprothrin, cyfluthrin, tetramethrin and sumithrin, respectively. The median survival time was 20 ± 6.5 min, 15 ± 4.3 min, 30 ± 42.1 min and 15 ± 4.9 min for DEET 25, DEET 50, icaridin 20 and IR3535 20 %, respectively. The results of the present study could support evidence-based use of biocides and repellents in households, hospitals and farms.
Article
Full-text available
Due to concerns over glutaraldehyde's toxicity, two substitutes have recently been introduced; ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA), and a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid. There is limited information about the health effects for employees from these products. This study assesses the current practices regarding the use of high-level disinfectants in British Columbian hospitals and predicts the relative toxicities of each product. Industry practices were compiled using a comprehensive survey of current practices and decision processes in all hospitals in British Columbia. Of 95 hospitals, 64 returned surveys; 80% of these used high-level disinfection. Among user hospitals, 49% used glutaraldehyde alone and 51% had introduced alternatives. Concern about staff health was the most common reason for substituting, but this was frequently not considered when choosing specific alternatives. Hospitals that involved occupational health, infection control or regional staff in high-level disinfectant decisions used glutaraldehyde alternatives less often. In most hospitals, it was difficult to find individuals who were knowledgeable about the use of disinfectants. Potential health effects associated with each type of high-level disinfectant were assessed by review of the published literature and available manufacturers' data along with qualitative structure-activity relationship analysis. Results indicated that although all products irritate the skin and respiratory tract, OPA is a potential dermal and respiratory sensitizer but hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid do not cause allergic reactions. Despite little being known about the risks to employees from glutaraldehyde alternatives, their use is widespread. The potential risks of all high-level disinfectants are serious; thus regulators and users are faced with important risk management decisions before and after they have been introduced into the workplace.
Article
OBJECTIVES To find the nature and incidence of symptoms experienced by a large sample of hospital endoscopy nurses. To find whether nurses in endoscopy units develop asthma under current working conditions in endoscopy units. To obtain analytically reliable data on exposure concentrations of glutaraldehyde (GA) vapour in endoscopy units, and to relate them to individual hygiene and work practices. To characterise any exposure-response relations between airborne GA and the occurrence of work related symptoms (WRSs). Due to the growing concern about the perceived increase in WRSs among workers regularly exposed to biocides, all of whom work within a complex multiexposure environment, a cross sectional study was designed. METHODS Current endoscopy nurses (n=348) from 59 endoscopy units within the United Kingdom and ex-employees (who had left their job for health reasons (n=18) were surveyed. Symptom questionnaires, end of session spirometry, peak flow diaries, skin prick tests (SPTs) to latex and common aeroallergens, and measurements of total immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IgE specific to GA and latex were performed. Exposure measurements included personal airborne biocide sampling for peak (during biocide changeover) and background (endoscopy room, excluding biocide changeover) concentrations. RESULTS All 18 ex-employees and 91.4% of the current nurses were primarily exposed to GA, the rest were exposed to a succinaldehyde-formaldehyde (SF) composite. Work related contact dermatitis was reported by 44% of current workers exposed to GA, 56.7% of those exposed to SF composite, and 44.4% of ex-employees. The prevalence of WRSs of the eyes, nose, and lower respiratory tract in current workers exposed to GA was 13.5%, 19.8%, and 8.5% respectively and 50%, 61.1%, and 66.6% in the ex-employees. The mean percentage predicted forced expired volume in 1 second (ppFEV 1 ) for ex-employees (93.82, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 88.53 to 99.11) was significantly lower (p<0.01) than that of current workers exposed to GA (104.08, 95% CI 102.35 to 105.73). Occupational peak flow diaries completed by current workers with WRSs of the lower respiratory tract showed no evidence of bronchial asthma (<15% variation). Six per cent of the population had positive latex SPTs. Positive indications of one GA specific IgE and 4.1% latex specific IgE occurred. There was no conformity between the latex specific IgE and positive SPTs. Positive SPTs to latex were associated with WRSs of dermatitis and ocular WRSs, but no other WRSs. Exposures were above the current maximum exposure limit (MEL) of 0.2 mg/m ³ (0.05 ppm) in eight of the units investigated. A significant relation existed between peak GA concentrations and work related chronic bronchitis and nasal symptoms (after adjustment for types of local ventilation) but not to other WRSs. Peak GA concentrations were significantly higher in units that used both negative pressure room and decontaminating unit ventilation. CONCLUSION This study documents a significant level of symptoms reported in the absence of objective evidence of the physiological changes associated with asthma. Ex-employees and current workers with WRSs warrant further study to elucidate the cause and mechanisms for their symptoms. Ventilation systems used for the extraction of aldehydes from the work area may be less effective than expected and due to poor design may even contribute to high peak exposures.
Article
This concise review describes the science and technology developments made towards applications of nanomaterials in food packaging materials. The technical benefits of actual and near-market applications are described. The uncertainties over risks that some of these novel materials may pose to consumer safety and environmental safety are outlined along with the corresponding regulatory barrier that this poses to innovation and new product development. Finally, some opportunities and approaches are proposed for developing countries to gain the expected benefits of the newly emerging nanotechnologies. This could involve taking the new science and technology, developed already for retail packaging, and adapting it for more local needs.
Article
To find the nature and incidence of symptoms experienced by a large sample of hospital endoscopy nurses. To find whether nurses in endoscopy units develop asthma under current working conditions in endoscopy units. To obtain analytically reliable data on exposure concentrations of glutaraldehyde (GA) vapour in endoscopy units, and to relate them to individual hygiene and work practices. To characterise any exposure-response relations between airborne GA and the occurrence of work related symptoms (WRSs). Due to the growing concern about the perceived increase in WRSs among workers regularly exposed to biocides, all of whom work within a complex multiexposure environment, a cross sectional study was designed. Current endoscopy nurses (n=348) from 59 endoscopy units within the United Kingdom and ex-employees (who had left their job for health reasons (n=18) were surveyed. Symptom questionnaires, end of session spirometry, peak flow diaries, skin prick tests (SPTs) to latex and common aeroallergens, and measurements of total immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IgE specific to GA and latex were performed. Exposure measurements included personal airborne biocide sampling for peak (during biocide changeover) and background (endoscopy room, excluding biocide changeover) concentrations. All 18 ex-employees and 91.4% of the current nurses were primarily exposed to GA, the rest were exposed to a succinaldehyde-formaldehyde (SF) composite. Work related contact dermatitis was reported by 44% of current workers exposed to GA, 56.7% of those exposed to SF composite, and 44.4% of ex-employees. The prevalence of WRSs of the eyes, nose, and lower respiratory tract in current workers exposed to GA was 13.5%, 19.8%, and 8.5% respectively and 50%, 61.1%, and 66.6% in the ex-employees. The mean percentage predicted forced expired volume in 1 second (ppFEV(1)) for ex-employees (93.82, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 88.53 to 99.11) was significantly lower (p<0.01) than that of current workers exposed to GA (104.08, 95% CI 102.35 to 105.73). Occupational peak flow diaries completed by current workers with WRSs of the lower respiratory tract showed no evidence of bronchial asthma (<15% variation). Six per cent of the population had positive latex SPTs. Positive indications of one GA specific IgE and 4.1% latex specific IgE occurred. There was no conformity between the latex specific IgE and positive SPTs. Positive SPTs to latex were associated with WRSs of dermatitis and ocular WRSs, but no other WRSs. Exposures were above the current maximum exposure limit (MEL) of 0.2 mg/m(3) (0.05 ppm) in eight of the units investigated. A significant relation existed between peak GA concentrations and work related chronic bronchitis and nasal symptoms (after adjustment for types of local ventilation) but not to other WRSs. Peak GA concentrations were significantly higher in units that used both negative pressure room and decontaminating unit ventilation. This study documents a significant level of symptoms reported in the absence of objective evidence of the physiological changes associated with asthma. Ex-employees and current workers with WRSs warrant further study to elucidate the cause and mechanisms for their symptoms. Ventilation systems used for the extraction of aldehydes from the work area may be less effective than expected and due to poor design may even contribute to high peak exposures.
Article
Biocides and other antimicrobial agents have been employed for centuries. Much later, iodine found use as a wound disinfectant, chlorine water in obstetrics, alcohol as a hand disinfectant and phenol as a wound dressing and in antiseptic surgery. In the early part of the twentieth century, other chlorine-releasing agents (CRAs), and acridine and other dyes were introduced, as were some quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs, although these were only used as biocides from the 1930s). Later still, various phenolics and alcohols, formaldehyde and hydrogen peroxide were introduced and subsequently (although some had actually been produced at an earlier date) biguanides, iodophors, bisphenols, aldehydes, diamidines, isocyanurates, isothiazolones and peracetic acid. Antibiotics were introduced clinically in the 1940s, although sulphonamides had been synthesized and used previously. After penicillin came streptomycin and other aminoglycosides-aminocyclitols, tetracyclines, chloramphenicol, macrolides, semi-synthetic beta-lactams, glycopeptides, lincosamides, 4-quinolones and diaminopyrimidines. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is causing great concern. Mechanisms of such resistance include cell impermeability, target site mutation, drug inactivation and drug efflux. Bacterial resistance to biocides was described in the 1950s and 1960s and is also apparently increasing. Of the biocides listed above, cationic agents (QACs, chlorhexidine, diamidines, acridines) and triclosan have been implicated as possible causes for the selection and persistence of bacterial strains with low-level antibiotic resistance. It has been claimed that the chronological emergence of qacA and qacB determinants in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus mirrors the introduction and usage of cationic biocides.
Article
The aims of the project were threefold: to survey the use of disinfectants in the UK food industry; to assess the product and environmental microflora of selected food factories for the persistence of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli; and to determine the disinfectant resistance of any persistent strains. A survey of the use of disinfectants in the UK food industry was undertaken in which a total of 40 sites were visited and a further 77 postal questionnaires were returned from farms, food manufacture, food transport and food retail sites. Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) were predominantly used, applied in small volumes as a mist. Approximately 30,000 samples from the product and environment of five chilled food factories were examined for L. monocytogenes and E. coli over a 3 year period. A total of 181 L. monocytogenes and 176 E. coli isolates were ribotyped to yield 19 and 34 ribogroups, respectively. Some strains were isolated only from the product, a number only from the environment and others from both niches. Some strains were seen to be persistent for the duration of the sampling exercise (2-3 years). The most common L. monocytogenes and E. coli strains, together with two environmental L. monocytogenes strains, were assessed for any resistance to commercial disinfectants as compared with a laboratory L. monocytogenes disinfectant testing strain. The resistance of the L. monocytogenes and E. coli strains isolated from the factory were not significantly different from the laboratory control strain. Persistent strains of L. monocytogenes and E. coli are found in the UK food industry, though this persistence is not related to their increased susceptibility to the most commonly used disinfectants. The concept of a persistent microflora in food factories will have an impact on the future selection of suitable control options, including the use of biocides.
Article
Antibiotics are used as chemotherapeutic drugs, and biocides are used as antiseptics, disinfectants, and preservatives. Several factors affect biocidal activity, notably concentration, period of contact, pH, temperature, the presence of interfering material, and the types, numbers, location, and condition of microorganisms. Bacterial cells as part of natural or artificial (laboratory) biofilm communities are much less susceptible than planktonic cells to antibiotics and biocides. Assessment of biocidal activity by bactericidal testing is more relevant than by determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. Biocides and antibiotics may show some similarities in their mechanisms of action and common mechanisms of bacterial insusceptibility may apply, but there are also major differences. In the laboratory, bacteria can become less susceptible to some biocides. Decreased resistance may be stable or unstable and may be accompanied by a low-level increase in antibiotic resistance. Laboratory studies are useful for examining stress responses and basic mechanisms of action and of bacterial insusceptibility to antibacterial agents. Translation of such findings to the clinical and environmental situations to provide evidence of a possible relation between biocide use and clinical antibiotic resistance is difficult and should be viewed with caution.