Böhlandt Antje, Groeneveld Svenja, Fischer Elke, Schierl Rudolf
a Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Clinical Center , Ludwig Maximilians University , Munich , Germany.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2015;12(6):384-92. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2015.1009985.
Occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs has been documented for decades showing widespread contamination in preparation and administration areas. Apart from preventive measures, efficient cleaning of surfaces is indispensable to minimize the exposure risk. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of three cleaning agents after intentional contamination by gemcitabine (GEM) and 5-fluorouracile (5-FU) on four different surface types usually installed in healthcare settings. Glass, stainless steel, polyvinylchloride (PVC), and laminated wood plates were contaminated with 20 ng/μl GEM and 2 ng/μl 5-FU solutions. Wipe samples were analyzed for drug residues after cleaning with a) distilled water, b) aqueous solution containing sodium dodecyl sulfate (10 mM) and 2-propanol (SDS-2P), and c) Incides N (pre-soaked) alcoholic wipes. Quantification was performed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) for GEM and gas chromato-graphy-tandem mass spectrometry (GCMS/MS) for 5-FU. Recovery was determined and cleaning efficiency was calculated for each scenario. Mean recoveries were 77-89% for GEM and 24-77% for 5-FU and calculated cleaning efficiencies ranged between 95 and 100% and 89 and 100%, respectively. Residual drug amounts were detected in the range nd (not detected) - 84 ng GEM/sample and nd - 6.6 ng 5-FU/sample depending on surface type and cleaning agent. Distilled water and SDS-2P had better decontamination outcomes than Incides N wipes on nearly all surface types, especially for GEM. Regarding 5-FU, the overall cleaning efficiency was lower with highest residues on laminated wood surfaces. The tested cleaning procedures are shown to clean glass, stainless steel, PVC, and laminated wood with an efficiency of 89-100% after contamination with GEM and 5-FU. Nevertheless, drug residues could be verified by wipe samples. Pure distilled water and SDS in an alcoholic-aqueous solution expressed an efficient cleaning performance, especially with respect to GEM. The study results demonstrate the need to adapt cleaning procedures to the variety of drugs and surface types to develop effective decontamination strategies.
几十年来,职业接触抗肿瘤药物的情况已有记录,显示在制剂调配和给药区域存在广泛污染。除了预防措施外,对表面进行有效清洁对于将接触风险降至最低必不可少。本研究的目的是评估在医疗环境中通常安装的四种不同表面类型被吉西他滨(GEM)和5-氟尿嘧啶(5-FU)故意污染后,三种清洁剂的清洁效果。玻璃、不锈钢、聚氯乙烯(PVC)和层压木板被20 ng/μl的GEM溶液和2 ng/μl的5-FU溶液污染。清洁后,擦拭样本用于分析药物残留,清洁方式如下:a)蒸馏水;b)含有十二烷基硫酸钠(10 mM)和异丙醇的水溶液(SDS-2P);c)Incides N(预浸泡)酒精擦拭巾。通过高效液相色谱法(HPLC)对GEM进行定量分析,通过气相色谱-串联质谱法(GCMS/MS)对5-FU进行定量分析。确定回收率并计算每种情况下的清洁效率。GEM的平均回收率为77%-89%,5-FU的平均回收率为24%-77%,计算得出的清洁效率分别在95%至100%和89%至100%之间。根据表面类型和清洁剂的不同,每个样本中检测到的残留药物量在未检出(nd)至84 ng GEM/样本和nd至6.6 ng 5-FU/样本范围内。在几乎所有表面类型上,蒸馏水和SDS-2P的去污效果都优于Incides N擦拭巾,尤其是对于GEM。对于5-FU,总体清洁效率较低,层压木表面的残留量最高。经测试,在用GEM和5-FU污染后,所采用的清洁程序对玻璃、不锈钢、PVC和层压木板的清洁效率为89%-100%。然而,通过擦拭样本仍可检测到药物残留。纯蒸馏水和酒精-水溶液中的SDS表现出高效的清洁性能,尤其是对于GEM。研究结果表明,需要根据药物种类和表面类型调整清洁程序,以制定有效的去污策略。