Storage and utilization patterns of cleaning products in the home: Toxicity implications

Sawalha, Ansam F.

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2007.03.007

Cited by 28 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies showed that many families do not adopt the recommended storage practices for household cleaning products. 19,20 For example, one study found that 38% to 55% of parents reported keeping poisons locked in a cabinet; however, home observations found that almost none of the families stored poisons correctly. 21 The rates of safe poison storage may be even lower in low-income, urban settings; a study by Santer and Stocking 22 found that few homes had a locked storage space for poisons and household cleaning products were stored "suboptimally.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Household Cleaning Product-Related Injuries Treated in US Emergency Departments in 1990–2006

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT:Household cleaning products are responsible for many unintentional poisonings in children and are consistently in the top 5 categories for pediatric poisoning exposure. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:Rates of cleaning product-related injuries among children treated in EDs decreased 46% during the 17-year study period. The products associated most often with injuries were bleach (37.1%) and low-molecular weight hydrocarbons, acids/alkalis, and detergents (30.4%). abstract OBJECTIVE:The goal was to examine comprehensively the patterns and trends of household cleaning product-related injuries among children treated in US emergency departments. METHODS:Through use of the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database, cases of unintentional, nonfatal, household cleaning product-related injuries were selected by using product codes for drain cleaners, ammonia, metal polishes/tarnish removers, turpentine, dishwasher detergents, acids, swimming pool chemicals, oven cleaners, pine oil cleaners/disinfectants, laundry soaps/detergents, toilet bowl products, abrasive cleaners, general-purpose household cleaners, noncosmetic bleaches, windshield wiper fluids, caustic agents, lye, wallpaper cleaners, room deodorizers/fresheners, spot removers, and dishwashing liquids. Products were categorized according to major toxic ingredients, mode of action, and exposure. RESULTS:An estimated 267 269 children Յ5 years of age were treated in US emergency departments for household cleaning product-related injuries. The number of injuries attributable to household cleaning product exposure decreased 46.0% from 22 141 in 1990 to 11 964 in 2006. The product most-commonly associated with injury was bleach (37.1%). Children 1 to 3 years of age accounted for 72.0% of cases. The primary mechanism of injury was ingestion (62.7%). The most common source or container was spray-bottles (40.1%). Although rates of household cleaner-related injuries from regular bottles or original containers and kitchenware decreased during the study period, spraybottle injury rates showed no decrease. CONCLUSION:Although national rates of household cleaning productrelated injuries in children decreased significantly over time, the number of injuries remains high. Pediatrics 2010;126:509-516

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Household Cleaning Product-Related Injuries Treated in US Emergency Departments in 1990–2006

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are many different types of poisons, including biological agents, such as plants and insect/animal stings or bites; 4‐6 pharmaceuticals/medications; 7,8 chemicals, such as heavy metals like lead and mercury; 9‐11 toxic gases, such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide; 12‐15 household cleaning/cosmetic products; 16‐18 and pesticides, including organophosphates and carbamates (insecticides), paraquat and diquat (herbicides), and quinone and captan (fungicides) 19‐22 . Furthermore, acute poisoning may be intentional (suicide attempt) or unintentional (accidental), environmental, or occupational.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective assessment of acute poisoning incidents by nonpharmaceutical agents in Jordan: Data from Pharmacy One™ Poison Call Center, 2014 to 2018—Part I

Yehya

Albals

Issa

et al. 2020

Pharmacology Res & Perspec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Pharmacy One™ Poising Call Center (P 1 PCC), located in Amman, Jordan, was created to address deficiencies identified by the pharmacy service, including in the management of poisoning cases. The aims of this study were to analyze the patterns of poisoning cases reported to the P 1 PCC and to describe the role of the P 1 PCC pharmacist in ensuring preparedness and managing the response to poisoning cases. In addition, the information from these interventions was used to survey human poisoning in Jordan. This is a retrospective descriptive study of acute poisoning incidents in the Jordanian population, as recorded by the P 1 PCC during the period 2014-2018.Inquiries received by the P 1 PCC were recorded on a predesigned form. The year, patient demographics, toxic agent involved, and circumstances of the poisoning event were all fully documented utilizing Oracle and Excel spreadsheets. A total of 1992 poisoning incidents were reported to the P1PCC, predominately (68.59%) via 911 phone calls. Reports were predominantly from males (1.67:1). Children were the second most common age group after adolescents (22.62% and 42.49%, respectively). The most frequent causative nonpharmaceutical agents were household products (17%) in preschool children and animal bites (20%) in adolescents. Most of the poisoning incidents (74.63%) occurred at home. Unintentional poisoning (54.12%), with mild medical outcomes (61.45%), accounted for most of the poisoning incidents caused by exposure to household products. These data may represent the most recent picture of poisoning incidents in Jordan. Emergency medical services were provided by experienced pharmacy practitioners at the P 1 PCC, to respond to emergency needs in the community in a professional manner. Therefore, the need for unnecessary hospitalization and the cost of ambulance dispatch were minimized, which are highly valuable outcomes. K E Y W O R D SJordan, pharmacist, Pharmacy One™, poison control center

show abstract

“…Whilst the household bleach and NaDCC-based disinfectants have well-known applications in household disinfection, industrial cleaning facilities, prevention of disease and water treatment, there are reported hazards associated with using these products (Winder 2001;Sawalha 2007;Smolinske & Kaufman 2007). The concentration and duration of exposure to the chlorine-releasing product determines the range of toxicity effects observed which could include injuries to the digestive and respiratory tract and haemorrhagic necrosis which could potentially lead to fatality (Kanne et al 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The toxic effects of bleach exposure have been extensively studied (Andiran et al 1999;Adair et al 2007;Sawalha 2007;Presgrave et al 2008;Bernard et al 2009;McKenzie et al 2010) with adverse events reported for chemical burns, mucosal and soft tissue damage, inhibition of fibroblast activity, allergic reactions, non-specific lower respiratory tract symptoms, bronchial hyper-responsiveness and rare fatalities. Heiling et al (2001) reported that sodium hypochlorite and NaDCC at concentrations higher than 0.01 % and 0.02 % were lethal to human dermal fibroblasts in vitro.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of the sensitivity of fourStaphylococcus aureusisolates to two chlorine-based disinfectants and an eco-friendly commercially available cleaning agent

Adukwu¹,

Allen²,

Phillips³

2014

International Journal of Environmental Health Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of household bleach, a sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC)-based disinfectant and an eco-friendly cleaning agent (EFCA) on four Staphylococcus aureus strains, including two isolated from community infections. The products were assessed using the suspension (EN 1276) and surface (EN 13697) tests, while biofilm activity was determined using the 96-well plate method. Bleach and NaDCC caused > 5 log reduction in viable counts within 5 min in suspension, whilst on surfaces the reduction was < 3 log. Bleach at 5000 ppm free available chlorine completely eradicated MSSA NCTC 13297 and PVL CA MSSA biofilms within 10 min, but not at 500 and 50 ppm, NaDCC was less effective against biofilms. The EFCA demonstrated no antimicrobial activity. It is of concern that at the recommended "use" dilution, bleach did not eradicate biofilms. Although increasing contact time and/or concentration should improve the activity, this may not be acceptable to the user.

show abstract

Storage and utilization patterns of cleaning products in the home: Toxicity implications

Cited by 28 publications

References 29 publications

Household Cleaning Product-Related Injuries Treated in US Emergency Departments in 1990–2006

Household Cleaning Product-Related Injuries Treated in US Emergency Departments in 1990–2006

Retrospective assessment of acute poisoning incidents by nonpharmaceutical agents in Jordan: Data from Pharmacy One™ Poison Call Center, 2014 to 2018—Part I

A comparison of the sensitivity of fourStaphylococcus aureusisolates to two chlorine-based disinfectants and an eco-friendly commercially available cleaning agent

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About