We use alcohol based hand gel which is flammable at our premises - hospital - and in some areas patients have been known to set fires , should we change it to a different make which may not be as effective in infection control, is the question? The risk is low with the gel, but it is there and there is evidence in other hospitals of it being used.EG lEICESTERSHIRE rOYAL Any thoughts SBH

As a healthcare (medical), occupational and environmental microbiologist, I should declare a possible conflict of interest in this discussion!

Can you not use the foam type?

Deal with it - what does that mean? Oh and it seems your surveys results were incorrect . Note the link. I was seeking opinions not condesending remarks SBH

If you are unable to deal with the safe manufacture, warehousing and distribution of flammables, get someone else to deal with it. The fundamental point is that it can and should be dealt with, competently and efficiently, to support the delivery of product to the point of use. You must consider reading the peer review literature and not to rely solely upon a single report put together by a reporter who blames a disturbed and possibly 'insane' patient setting fire to a pile of clothes. Did you not think to ask about the prohibition of clothes in hospitals, or just ban patients as based upon your news report it is they who might be categorised a the primary fire risk! And read my previous comments carefully. Think about the problem and your 'evidence', set against properly measured data and a practical and balanced judgement that you reject seemingly because I am unimpressed by the rather crazy deductions that you draw from a single press report. As awful as the incident was, your thoughts to prohibition of alcohol hand gel are so wide of the mark as to be risible. As for condescending, try taking your proposal to the relevant clinical IPC team and management board. As I noted previously, you will get very badly burned. But feel free to try. I was hoping to save you the effort, but will not do so again. Your rejection of advice, and the provision of links to extensive peer-reviewed research data is regrettable and upsetting. Perhaps next time I should not bother, particularly in light of the tone of your response. If in future you do not get any negative responses take care to avoid construing that as anything other than an unwillingness of others to provide sound information that you here reject out-of-hand in favour of a ill-thought out knee-jerk assumption that simply lacks credence.

I have looked at the ignition of Ethanol and Isopropyl Alcohol at 70% solution with water at volumes ranging from 500 ml to 2 litres. It is my opinion that the combustion of these materials would not generate sufficient radiant heat flux so as to result in incapacity in the event of fire. However, based on projected thermal radiation levels, the ignition of certain thermally thin materials (fabrics etc) may be possible in the event of prolonged exposure. Based on my findings, I would recommend that: Single containers installed in an egress corridor should not exceed a maximum capacity of 1 litre. Where practicable, this should be reduced to a maximum capacity of 500 ml. Containers should be positioned at least 1 metres apart. Alcohol based dispensers should not be located within lift/elevators. Alcohol-based hand rub dispensers should not be installed over electrical outlets or near other potential sources of ignition. All storage of replacement alcohol-based hand rub containers, regardless of the quantity, should be within an approved flammable liquid storage cabinet. The following results based on my calculations my be of some use: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/...%20Release%20rev%201.pdf http://dl.dropbox.com/u/...%20Release%20Rev%201.pdf