Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 09 September 2009 15:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adams777 A regular salesman to my transport section tried to sell the manager an aerosol which he claimed would kill the swine flu virus on contact. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I thought disinfectants killed bacteria but not viruses. Does anyone have an authorative view on the use of aerosols to kill viruses? I know the swine flu virus only remains virulent for about 15 minutes on hard and soft surfaces etc and is completely harmless inside 24 hours. I work across two schools so anything to help protect staff (over 400) and pupils (over 1300) would be immensely helpful. Adam
Admin  
#2 Posted : 09 September 2009 16:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By LMR As one who has had the swine flu in the family and is acutely sensitive to the propellant gases in aerosols anything that is sprayed into the air is likely to have a more harmful effect on people than a virus - anaphylaxis can be exciting! Soap, water and tissues... personal hygiene and a lined bin to contain used tissues which is disposed of daily and not emptied to save pennies and re-use bin liners. Where water and soap are in short supply the use of a no water hand sanitiser is an option but only under those circumstances will it be of any use.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 09 September 2009 16:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By LMR On a more serious note risk assess then consider COSHH as you are adding gases to the air and have inhalation, ingestion problems in relation to the propellant in addition to the contents as people always overuse these sprays. It worries me that there are more and more of these sprays being put on the market with noone considering what is in them as part of COSHH or anything else.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 09 September 2009 16:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Barrie (Badger) Etter A bit extreme but consider the DSEAR Regs as well. I didn't beleive my last company would come under it until I attended a district meeting where the lecturer insisted that majority of aerosols come under that reg due to the flammable propellant in general use. Badger
Admin  
#5 Posted : 09 September 2009 17:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tabs Yes, many sprayed products kill viruses and bacteria. http://www.dettol.co.uk/sf_nursery.shtml Take a look at one such product (no, nothing to do with me at all). Many products are available in a pump-action trigger spray - no propellant gasses. Are they worth it? That's for you to decide.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 24 September 2009 08:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Graham Halliday Sounds like nonsense to me, how would you know where to spray for a start. The safest way is to use tissues and clean your hands/surfaces regularly. We recently installed some flu prevention signs and posters around the building and have seen much improved levels of hygiene around the building (we also provide a hand rud, tissues and bin at each workstation). The signs we bought are great because they fit in with our standard safety signage - it took a while to find something suitable but found them at www.leosignage.com
Admin  
#7 Posted : 24 September 2009 10:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By LMR Tabs A point that should be considered is not just the propellant gasses being released but the actual spray itself which is more likely to be a danger to anyone with repsiratory problems. Any antiviral spray or anti-bacterial spray will contain sensitisers as part of their content. I am the lucky one I already know I have been sensitised... but anyone can become sensitised as a result of exposure at any time! (that is if you call having a life threatening condition lucky!)I remove myself from areas of risk from the onset; but try explaining that a spray to maybe avoid a virus that you may not catch has created a sensitivity more life threatening than the virus.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 24 September 2009 11:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By steven n A friend of mine's brother was recently on Dragons den with his product which is completely non-hazardous and non-toxic. It is proven to kill most viruses and germs such as C-diff, MRSA and indeed swine flu, needless to say the recent swine flu outbreaks have been very profitable for him!
Admin  
#9 Posted : 24 September 2009 11:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tabs LMR - thanks for that additional info. I hope Adam re-reads this. I do have a follow-on question to you though, on some flights I use the cabin crew come down the aisle spraying for bugs (not bothered about proper definitions for the sake of this) ... would that be a threat to your health? If you have encountered that, how did the crew react? Sorry to hear about your condition, it must be a real challenge to avoid exposure in general.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 24 September 2009 12:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By garyh "A friend of mine's brother was recently on Dragons den with his product which is completely non-hazardous and non-toxic". I would be interested to know how this could possibly be true. If it is non hazardous, and non toxic how can it kill anything? What is it?
Admin  
#11 Posted : 24 September 2009 13:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By LMR Yes sprays of that nature are an extreme risk to my life not my health... a sensitised reaction does not affect your health just the ability to live. I can no longer fly due to risks from people and perfume, i can no longer go shopping in many places due to shoe repairers, decorators, perfume counters I have to stay in my own motorhome as I cannot risk hotels or i have to call and make sure they are not decorating or use no bleach in the room for several days ....the list is endless..... I carry a ffp3 minimum face mask to put on to go to public toilets or supermarkets that have shoe repairers/dry cleaners within them... it scares the public and they think i am up to something no good! There is no part of my life that has not been affected by this. This was as a result of exposure at work to degreasants which dissolved the gloves we were wearing and the boss said carry on as it is not dissolving your skin but makes your hands soft!!!! and THAT is why i got into H&S to protect the me's of the future from bosses like him. Anyone can take the step beyond the headache on exposure to becoming sensitised and then your life is turned upside down. A sensitised reaction is not the same as asthmatic or allergic reactions. They may look the same but are not... and I have a fear of being put in ambulance and being treated wrongly as i have bronchiectasis as well. I am now taking up hobbies which have to be outdoors to avoid exposure; see me with the face mask if i have to use a fire extinguisher in the pits at a race circuit! Thank you for asking what effects this has - you can see it is totally life changing. As for a non-toxic etc spray ... it is something that is being added to the air so it may well be a mildly irritant to the lungs.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 24 September 2009 13:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Joanne Lewis The Education Group has a networking event on 25th November at Leicester Racecourse where among other subjects medication in schools will be discussed. This could be an avenue for information and discussion. Please see the Education Groups webpage.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 24 September 2009 14:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By steven n Garyh, http://www.germwarfare.co.uk/ To be honest I know very little of the product, I only became aware of it due to my friends brother going on Dragons Den. This is the first time I have seen the website for the product.
Admin  
#14 Posted : 24 September 2009 14:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Blenkharn I would be very cautious with the claims made in the web site referred to above. A quick glance reveals mush advertising hyperbole and flimflam, and an obvious lack of understanding of matters of microbiology. They cannot get the names or classification correct fort he bugs that they list, and state that they have passed various BS specifications when those specifications refer to the approach to testing and not to any judgement regarding activity of the product under test. The active constituent is not stated, beyond some meaningless trade name. The market is awash with products such as this, and most are quite good as an adjunct to basic standards of hand hygiene and good old fashioned cleaning. They are not miracle products, and though formulations differ none are unique. In this particular case, the advertising flimflam seems completely off-the-wall and puts in my mind considerable concerns regarding the ethical and technical standards and ability of those responsible. Caveat emptor
Admin  
#15 Posted : 24 September 2009 15:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By LMR looking at the msds there are a lot of ethanols and ethers etc in most of these products.... so yes used in the air they would be a concern to anyone with respiratory conditions as most of the ingredients listed, certainly on the sprays, are known sensitisers. The best thing is personal hygiene, soap and water, paper towels, paper tissues and bins with lids and new bin liners each day! simple, inexpensive and effective! Honestly, the virus will go rampant round society and we can best protect ourselves by looking after ourselves and not spraying the world with some spray or other but using good old fashioned hot water and a soap!
Admin  
#16 Posted : 24 September 2009 16:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By AHS Plenty of things will do that and shine the u bend of the WC aswell.
Admin  
#17 Posted : 24 September 2009 18:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By steven n I would like to point out that I am in no way connected to the product I posted a link to in a previous reply. If anyone felt I was breaking AUG 3 I apologise.
Admin  
#18 Posted : 25 September 2009 08:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter F. The use of a aerosol doesn't come under the DSEAR regs. That's taking it to far. Soap and water as mentioned or hand gels, it's all about personal hygiene. Is it really the role of the H&S advisor or the role of a EHO to advise?
Admin  
#19 Posted : 25 September 2009 13:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adams777 Hi all and thanks for all the information. I think it was LMR who hoped I had read other posts concerning aerosols and sensitisation. Obviously I have and needless to say after the salesman emailed me I politely said no. I had instigated additional soap in washrooms, hand gel dispensers in all work areas with packets of tissues and specific bins for disposal of tissues. Lastly all staff have been apprised of possible dermatitis from using the alcohol based gels. Did I see this mentioned in another post a few weeks ago? I think I did. Once again thanks for all the good and educative advice. Have a nice weekend Adam
Admin  
#20 Posted : 25 September 2009 13:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham Adam Re dermatitis from alcohol sanitising gels, there are plenty of studies that show clearly that the ones that are buffered, i.e. contain an emollient, are not likely to cause this problem. In fact, there is a much greater potential for dermatitis from frequent hand washing. Several studies have shown that skin that is damaged, in some cases from excessive hand washing, is more likely to become colonised by transient (pathogenic) microorganisms which are then more difficult to remove. Chris
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.