The effectiveness of chlorine dioxide gas in portable personal disinfectants to inhibit bacterial growth.

Disinfectants, especially air disinfectants, are necessary to prevent the potential spread of pathogens (bacteria and viruses) in the pandemic era and minimize the spread of pathogens. Some of the commercial disinfectant products that are often used generally contain chlorine dioxide (ClO2) gas. This study tested the effectiveness of two different commercial disinfectants, a liquid stick disinfectant and a powder disinfection card, to carry out the disinfection of pathogenic bacteria in the environment. These two disinfectants were used as a medium for releasing chlorine dioxide gas which has a much stronger bactericidal effect. In the form of liquid stick, ClO2 is more effective in the disinfection process rather than in the form of powder. The effectiveness of the liquid disinfectant in inhibiting the growth of pathogenic bacteria is influenced by the temperature and the area of the open space covered. Considering that the release from both disinfectants used is very small (0.002 ppmv/h), it takes a small area to ensure that the disinfection process runs effectively.

Can nasal irrigation with chlorine dioxide be considered as a potential alternative therapy for respiratory infectious diseases? The example of COVID-19.

Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is a high-level disinfectant that is safe and widely used for sterilization. Due to the limitations on preparing a stable solution, direct use of ClO2 in the human body is limited. Nasal irrigation is an alternative therapy used to treat respiratory infectious diseases. This study briefly summarizes the available evidence regarding the safety/efficacy of directly using ClO2 on the human body as well as the approach of nasal irrigation to treat COVID-19. Based on the available information, as well as a preliminary experiment that comprehensively evaluated the efficacy and safety of ClO2, 25-50 ppm was deemed to be an appropriate concentration of ClO2 for nasal irrigation to treat COVID-19. This finding requires further verification. Nasal irrigation with ClO2 can be considered as a potential alternative therapy to treat respiratory infectious diseases, and COVID-19 in particular.

Effectiveness of a Water Disinfection Method Based on Osmosis and Chlorine Dioxide for the Prevention of Microbial Contamination in Dental Practices.

In dental clinics, the infections may be acquired through contaminated devices, air, and water. Aerosolized water may contain bacteria, grown into the biofilm of dental unit waterlines (DUWLs). We evaluated a disinfection method based on water osmosis and chlorination with chlorine dioxide (O-CD), applied to DUWL of five dental clinics. Municipal water was chlorinated with O-CD device before feeding all DUWLs. Samplings were performed on water/air samples in order to research total microbial counts at 22-37 °C, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Legionella spp., and chlorine values. Water was collected from the taps, spittoons, and air/water syringes. Air was sampled before, during, and after 15 min of aerosolizing procedure. Legionella and P. aeruginosa resulted as absent in all water samples, which presented total microbial counts almost always at 0 CFU/mL. Mean values of total chlorine ranged from 0.18-0.23 mg/L. Air samples resulted as free from Legionella spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Total microbial counts decreased from the pre-aerosolizing (mean 2.1 × 102 CFU/m3) to the post-aerosolizing samples (mean 1.5 × 10 CFU/m3), while chlorine values increased from 0 to 0.06 mg/L. O-CD resulted as effective against the biofilm formation in DUWLs. The presence of residual activity of chlorine dioxide also allowed the bacteria reduction from air, at least at one meter from the aerosolizing source.

Acute respiratory distress after exposure to chlorine dioxide-based disinfectant.

A hospital cleaner developed acute respiratory distress after working with a chlorine dioxide-based disinfectant. The content of chlorine dioxide in the product is below the limit that would require the product to be labelled as hazardous to health, but we show with a simple estimation that the relevant threshold limit values for chlorine dioxide in the working atmosphere may be exceeded under normal use of the product. This may have implications for risk assessment of the use of such chlorine dioxide-based disinfectants and may warrant stricter regulations for labelling these products.

A systematic review on chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant.

The COVID-19 pandemic has tremendously increased the production and sales of disinfectants. This study aimed to systematically review and analyze the efficacy and safety of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant. The literature relating to the use of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant was systematically reviewed in January 2021 using databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were studies that investigated the use of chlorine dioxide to assess the efficacy, safety, and impact of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant. Out of the 33 included studies, 14 studies focused on the disinfectant efficacy of chlorine dioxide, 8 studies expounded on the safety and toxicity in humans and animals, and 15 studies discussed the impact, such as water treatment disinfection using chlorine dioxide. Chlorine dioxide is a safe and effective disinfectant, even at concentrations as low as 20 to 30 mg/L. Moreover, the efficacy of chlorine dioxide is mostly independent of pH. Chlorine dioxide can be effectively used to disinfect drinking water without much alteration of palatability and can also be used to destroy pathogenic microbes, including viruses, bacteria, and fungi from vegetables and fruits. Our review confirms that chlorine dioxide is effective against the resistant Mycobacterium, H1N1, and other influenza viruses. Studies generally support the use of chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant. The concentration deemed safe for usage still needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Factors associated with the consumption of chlorine dioxide to prevent and treat COVID-19 in the Peruvian population: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Chlorine dioxide has been promoted as an alternative for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, especially in Peru, despite the lack of evidence to support its efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the factors associated with chlorine dioxide consumption in the Peruvian population. METHODS: Analytical cross-sectional study. An adult Peruvian population was evaluated where chlorine dioxide consumption was divided into two groups according to the purpose of use: as prevention (individuals without COVID-19 history) and as treatment (individuals with COVID-19 history). The associated factors in each group were evaluated using Poisson regressions with the bootstrapping resampling method. RESULTS: Of 3610 participants included, 3213 reported no history of COVID-19, and 397 had been infected. The prevalence of chlorine dioxide consumption to prevent or treat COVID-19 was 8 and 16%, respectively. Factors either positively or negatively associated with chlorine dioxide consumption for prevention were male sex (aPR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.09-1.71), being an adult or older adult (aPR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.35-0.82), having a health sciences student within the family unit (aPR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.02-1.87), using medical information as the main source of information of COVID-19 (aPR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.40-0.80), having comorbidities for COVID-19 (aPR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.01-1.82), considering COVID-19 dangerous and deadly (aPR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.45-0.74), using medications (aPR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.25-2.06) and plants to prevent COVID-19 (aPR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.21-2.36), considering chlorine dioxide ineffective (aPR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.18-0.24), and being uninformed of its efficacy (aPR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.16-0.28). In addition, factors associated with chlorine dioxide consumption for treatment were considering COVID-19 dangerous and deadly (aPR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.33-0.96), considering chlorine dioxide ineffective (aPR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.12-0.42), and being uninformed of its efficacy (aPR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07-0.32). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of chlorine dioxide consumption to treat COVID-19 was higher than prevent. It is important to apply information strategies, prioritizing population groups with certain characteristics that are associated with a higher consumption pattern.

Intestinal perforation associated with chlorine dioxide ingestion: an adult chronic consumer during COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most devastating worldwide crises in recent years. During this pandemic, people have been exposed to products that have not been proven to be safe and effective against COVID-19. We present an adult chronic consumer of chlorine dioxide, in which a fatal outcome is described. This case demonstrates that for people searching products to protect themselves from COVID-19, unregulated access to industrial disinfectants represents a dangerous alternative. To date, there is no scientific evidence to uphold the use of chlorine dioxide or chlorine derivatives as preventive or therapeutic agents against COVID-19. Researchers and general population must take into consideration the fatal possible consequences of not following communications and warnings from health authorities and government institutions.

Chlorine dioxide is a more potent antiviral agent against SARS-CoV-2 than sodium hypochlorite.

BACKGROUND: A new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) abruptly emerged in Wuhan, China, in 2019 and rapidly spread globally to cause the COVID-19 pandemic. AIM: To examine the anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of the potent disinfectant Cleverin, the major disinfecting component of which is chlorine dioxide (ClO2); and to compare the results with that of sodium hypochlorite in the presence or absence of 0.5% or 1.0% foetal bovine serum (FBS). METHODS: Concentrated SARS-CoV-2 viruses were treated with various concentrations of ClO2 and sodium hypochlorite and 50% tissue culture infective dose was calcurated to evaluate the antiviral activity of each chemical. FINDINGS: When SARS-CoV-2 viruses were treated with 0.8 ppm ClO2 or sodium hypochlorite, viral titre was decreased only by 1 log10 TCID50/mL in 3 min. However, the viral titre was decreased by more than 4 log10 TCID50/mL when treated with 80 ppm of each chemical for 10 s regardless of presence or absence of FBS. It should be emphasized that treatment with 24 ppm of ClO2 inactivated more than 99.99% SARS-CoV-2 within 10 s or 99.99% SARS-CoV-2 in 1 min in the presence of 0.5% or 1.0% FBS, respectively. By contrast, 24 ppm of sodium hypochlorite inactivated only 99% or 90% SARS-CoV-2 in 3 min under similar conditions. Notably, except for ClO2, the other components of Cleverin such as sodium chlorite, decaglycerol monolaurate, and silicone showed no significant antiviral activity. CONCLUSION: Altogether, the results strongly suggest that although ClO2 and sodium hypochlorite are strong antiviral agents in absence of organic matter but in presence of organic matter, ClO2 is a more potent antiviral agent against SARS-CoV-2 than sodium hypochlorite.

Acute kidney injury secondary to chlorine dioxide use for COVID-19 prevention.

Chlorine dioxide has been historically used as a disinfecting agent for drinking water supplies and surfaces. Widespread use as an alternative option for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has emerged due to a lack of specific treatment. We present the case of a 55-year-old male who developed acute kidney injury and disseminated intravascular coagulation after chlorine dioxide prophylactic ingestion, with regression after therapy with hemodialysis.

Nebulized CLODOS Technology Shows Clear Virucidal Properties against the Human Coronavirus HCoV-229E at Non-Cytotoxic Doses.

The emergent human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and its high infectivity rate has highlighted the strong need for new disinfection systems. Evidence has proven that airborne transmission is an important route of spreading for this virus. Therefore, this short communication introduces CLODOS Technology®, a novel strategy to disinfect contaminated surfaces. It is a product based on stable and 99% pure chlorine dioxide, already certified as a bactericide, fungicide and virucide against different pathogens. In this study, CLODOS Technology®, by direct contact or thermonebulization, showed virucidal activity against the human coronavirus HCoV-229E at non-cytotoxic doses. Different conditions such as nebulization, exposure time and product concentration have been tested to standardize and optimize this new feasible method for disinfection.

Disinfectants In Interventional Practices.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to provide relevant, aggregate information about a variety of disinfectants and antiseptics, along with potential utility and limitations. While not exhaustive, this review's goal is to add to the body of literature available on this topic and give interventional providers and practitioners an additional resource to consider when performing procedures. RECENT FINDINGS: In the current SARS-CoV2 epidemiological environment, infection control and costs associated with healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are of paramount importance. Even before the onset of SARS-CoV2, HAIs affected nearly 2million patients a year in the USA and resulted in nearly 90,000 deaths, all of which resulted in a cost to hospitals ranging from US$28 billion to 45 billion. The onset SARS-CoV2, though not spread by an airborne route, has heightened infection control protocols in hospitals and, as such, cast a renewed focus on disinfectants and their utility across different settings and organisms. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of disinfectants used in the inpatient setting.

Chlorine dioxide and chlorine derivatives for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review. / Dióxido de cloro y derivados del cloro para prevenir o tratar la COVID-19: revisión sistemática.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of chlorine dioxide solution and chlorine derivatives used in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: This review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and follows the guidelines provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A librarian developed and executed the search strategy; it was further reviewed by two of the authors and complemented by manual search. Randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and case reports were included; in vitro or animal studies were excluded. Abstract and full-text screening according to pre-defined eligibility criteria were performed by two reviewers independently using web application Rayyan QCRI. Disagreements on study selection were resolved by a third reviewer. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020200641). RESULTS: Neither published nor pre-print studies evaluating the use of chlorine dioxide or derivatives on SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified. The only finding was an unpublished observational study registry which has no results released yet. CONCLUSIONS: To date, there are no scientific evidence to uphold the use of chlorine dioxide or derivatives as preventive or therapeutic agents against COVID-19.

OBJETIVOS: Realizar una revisión sistemática acerca de la efectividad y seguridad del uso de dióxido de cloro y derivados del cloro, en la prevención o el tratamiento de la COVID-19. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se siguieron las pautas internacionales de elaboración de revisiones sistemáticas de PRISMA y el Manual Cochrane para revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones. La estrategia de búsqueda la desarrolló un bibliotecario y la revisaron dos de los autores. Se complementó la búsqueda electrónica con una búsqueda manual. Se incluyeron ensayos clínicos aleatorizados, estudios cuasiexperimentales, estudios de cohorte, estudios de casos y controles, estudios de corte transversal y reportes de casos; y se excluyeron estudios in vitro o realizados en animales. Dos revisores, de forma independiente, seleccionaron los estudios según los criterios de elegibilidad definidos, usando el aplicativo web Rayyan, en caso de discordancia se hizo partícipe a un tercer revisor. El protocolo de la revisión sistemática se registró en PROSPERO (CRD42020200641). RESULTADOS: No se identificó ningún estudio publicado ni en proceso de publicación que haya evaluado el uso del dióxido de cloro o derivados del cloro, administrado por vía inhalatoria, oral o parenteral en humanos, como agente preventivo o terapéutico de la COVID-19 o en infecciones por otros coronavirus. Solo se identificó el registro de un único estudio catalogado como observacional que hasta ahora no tiene resultados. CONCLUSIONES: A la fecha, no existe evidencia científica que apoye el uso del dióxido de cloro o derivados del cloro para prevenir o tratar la COVID-19.

Can chlorine dioxide prevent the spreading of coronavirus or other viral infections? Medical hypotheses.

Motivation: Viruses have caused many epidemics throughout human history. The novel coronavirus [10] is just the latest example. A new viral outbreak can be unpredictable, and development of specific defense tools and countermeasures against the new virus remains time-consuming even in today's era of modern medical science and technology. In the lack of effective and specific medication or vaccination, it would be desirable to have a nonspecific protocol or substance to render the virus inactive, a substance/protocol, which could be applied whenever a new viral outbreak occurs. This is especially important in cases when the emerging new virus is as infectious as SARS-CoV-2 [4]. Aims and structure of the present communication: In this editorial, we propose to consider the possibility of developing and implementing antiviral protocols by applying high purity aqueous chlorine dioxide (ClO2) solutions. The aim of this proposal is to initiate research that could lead to the introduction of practical and effective antiviral protocols. To this end, we first discuss some important properties of the ClO2 molecule, which make it an advantageous antiviral agent, then some earlier results of ClO2 gas application against viruses will be reviewed. Finally, we hypothesize on methods to control the spread of viral infections using aqueous ClO2 solutions.