Assessment of quality of alcohol-based hand sanitizers used in Johannesburg area during the CoViD-19 pandemic.

Since the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (CoViD-19), the World Health Organization has recommended that, in absence of soap and water, alcohol-based hand sanitizer can be used to prevent the transmission of coronaviruses. Unfortunately, many media and anecdotal reports indicate that many alcohol-based hand sanitizers sold in South Africa are substandard and some contain potentially toxic ingredients. The study aimed to identify hand sanitizers used in the Johannesburg area during the CoViD-19 pandemic that do not contain the recommended alcohol concentration of at least 70% propanol or 60% ethanol, and contain traces of toxic ingredients. Hand sanitizers randomly collected from various traders around Johannesburg were analyzed using Agilent auto sampler coupled to a gas chromatograph utilizing flame ionisation detection. Of the 94 hand sanitizer samples collected, three preparations contained no alcohol, whereas the rest contained either ethanol, 2-propanol or 1-propanol or a combination of two alcohols. Of the alcohol-containing hand sanitizers, 37 (41%) contained less than 60% alcohol. Ethyl acetate, isobutanol and other non-recommended alcohols (methanol and 3-methyl-butanol) were also identified. Consumers are therefore warned that among the many brands of hand sanitizers found around Johannesburg, there are some substandard preparations and some that contain traces of toxic ingredients.

Quantifying Ethanol in Ethanol-Based Hand Sanitizers by Headspace Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detector (HS-GC/FID).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic sharply increased the demand for ethanol-based gel hand sanitizers, leading to a shortage of these products. Consequently, regulatory health agencies worldwide have altered their regulatory guidelines on ethanol quality to meet this high demand, raising concerns about product quality. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify ethanol content and to qualitatively assess common impurities in ethanol-based gel hand sanitizers by headspace (HS) gas chromatography (GC) with flame ionization detector (FID). METHODS: To quantify the ethanol content, 0.10 g of the sample was weighed in a 20 mL HS vial and 5 mL of deionized water was added. Regarding the qualitative approach, 0.25 g of the sample was weighed and 4 mL of deionized water was added. The samples were incubated and then 400 µL of the HS was injected into the GC/FID. Forty-eight products purchased in Brazil were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirteen products presented at least one nonconformity regarding the ethanol quantity. Two samples presented an average ethanol concentration below the lower limit considered effective. Twelve samples presented acetaldehyde or ethyl acetate. CONCLUSION: The huge demand for ethanol-based gel hand sanitizers may have impacted their quality. Because concern with proper hand hygiene tends to remain an issue for a long period, more studies about quality control of hand sanitizers will be needed. HIGHLIGHTS: A simple and fast HS-GC/FID method to quantify ethanol in ethanol-based gel hand sanitizers was developed, validated, and applied to commercial samples in Brazil. The regulatory authorities must be more vigilant to ensure that the commercially available products meet the recommended specifications.

Nontargeted Analysis of Face Masks: Comparison of Manual Curation to Automated GCxGC Processing Tools.

Masks constructed of a variety of materials are in widespread use due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and people are exposed to chemicals inherent in the masks through inhalation. This work aims to survey commonly available mask materials to provide an overview of potential exposure. A total of 19 mask materials were analyzed using a nontargeted analysis two-dimensional gas chromatography (GCxGC)-mass spectrometric (MS) workflow. Traditionally, there has been a lack of GCxGC-MS automated high-throughput screening methods, resulting in trade-offs with throughput and thoroughness. This work addresses the gap by introducing new machine learning software tools for high-throughput screening (Floodlight) and subsequent pattern analysis (Searchlight). A recursive workflow for chemical prioritization suitable for both manual curation and machine learning is introduced as a means of controlling the level of effort and equalizing sample loading while retaining key chemical signatures. Manual curation and machine learning were comparable with the mask materials clustering into three groups. The majority of the chemical signatures could be characterized by chemical class in seven categories: organophosphorus, long chain amides, polyethylene terephthalate oligomers, n-alkanes, olefins, branched alkanes and long-chain organic acids, alcohols, and aldehydes. The olefin, branched alkane, and organophosphorus components were primary contributors to clustering, with the other chemical classes having a significant degree of heterogeneity within the three clusters. Machine learning provided a means of rapidly extracting the key signatures of interest in agreement with the more traditional time-consuming and tedious manual curation process. Some identified signatures associated with plastics and flame retardants are potential toxins, warranting future study to understand the mask exposure route and potential health effects.

Analysis of Commercial Hand Sanitisers amid CoViD-19: Are We Getting the Products that We Need?

The CoViD-19 pandemic has caused a sudden spike in demand and production of hand sanitisers. Concerns are rising regarding the quality of such products, as the safeguard of consumers is a priority worldwide. We analyse here the ethanolic content of seven off-the-shelf hand sanitiser gels (two biocides and five cosmetics) from the Italian market, using gas chromatography. The WHO recommends that products containing ethanol should have 60-95% (v/v) alcohol. Four of the tested hand gels have ethanolic contents within the recommended range, while three products (all cosmetics) contain < 60% (v/v), i.e. 52.1% (w/w), ethanol. The product with the lowest alcoholic content has 37.1% w/w ethanol. Toxic methanol is not found in any of the hand sanitisers. We show, in addition, that products with the highest ethanolic content have generally greater antibacterial activity. In conclusion, all tested products are complying with the EU regulations, as the three "substandard" products are classified as cosmetics, whose purpose is cleaning and not disinfecting. Nevertheless, if such hand cleaners were inappropriately used as hand disinfectants, they might be ineffective. Thus, consumer safety relays on awareness and ability to distinguish between biocidal and cosmetics hand gels. The obtained results might sensitise the scientific community, health agencies and ultimately consumers towards the risks of using hand sanitisers of substandard alcoholic concentration. If the wrong product is chosen by consumers, public health can be compromised by the inappropriate use of "low-dosed" cosmetic gels as disinfectants, particularly during the period of the CoViD-19 pandemic.