Chemical Forums
Specialty Chemistry Forums => Biochemistry and Chemical Biology Forum => Topic started by: Polleke on April 16, 2012, 05:35:15 AM
-
Hallo all,
I have been discussing the following problem: if you make a 70% ethanol solution to disinfect a bench or laminar flow cabinat, should you then make it with demineralized water, double destilled or MQ water or jut with tap water?
Some argue that you should use the most pure form of water in terms of: less contaminated with "germs", however I think this is not a problem and its more about the possibility of getting precipitation reactions in your tap water due to too many salts still present (and that the presence of bacteria in tap water doesnt matter at all).
-
I find it unlikely that any life from tapwater will survive in 70% ethanol, otherwise this would not be a very effective disinfectant after all.
I don't see a particularly good reason to use purified water in a disinfectant solution for lab benches.
-
I usually make this with deionized water, but I have never thought about it before. Tap water is fine, for the reason that Dan gave. If I felt that the ions in tap water were something I wanted to avoid having on the benchtop, I would just use deionized water.
-
I usually make this with deionized water, but I have never thought about it before. Tap water is fine, for the reason that Dan gave. If I felt that the ions in tap water were something I wanted to avoid having on the benchtop, I would just use deionized water.
But then again: the ions , would they make such a big difference?
The only idea that I could find in favor of using dH2O is because of the ions in hard water could perhaps start to form lime in bottles or perhaps cause precipitation and this make it possible for bacteria to grow in it, but this seems far fetched.
So I find it weird that so many labs use more expensive water to prepare the 70% solution rather then just use the tap water.
-
Bacteria will not grow in 70% ethanol regardless of precipitates. You can make up 70% ethanol and dump in as much lime as you like, there will be no life.
-
Bacteria will not grow in 70% ethanol regardless of precipitates. You can make up 70% ethanol and dump in as much lime as you like, there will be no life.
Then perhaps is because of the lime blocking the squirt bottles?
This is the only real reason I can find: the lime blocking the squirt bottles or making small limespots in glasware perhaps.
-
The chance of lime build up blocking a squirt bottle is astronomically slow.
I would say any of the water in your list would work just fine. But tap water will be the cheapest.
-
Polleke,
Tap water is fine... If your lab is anything like ours, I suspect the tap water has fewer microbeasties in it than the MilliQ anyhow!
One thing I would watch at audit time (particularly as if I remember rightly you work in the UK) is that it is technically illegal to use duty free spirit (most grades of ethanol in scientific use) for cleaning purposes and your employer could be fined if this is found to be the case... As an alternative you could always use 70% IMS (Industrial Methylated Spirits); its good enough for decon in the NHS so it must be pretty effective and it doesn't upset the HMRC ;)
Cheers
R
-
Actually I've never thought about using Tap water .I used to use distilled water.
-
Actually I've never thought about using Tap water .I used to use distilled water.
That is just it: every lab is used to using distilled water and I just wondered why!
If I tell them you can use tap water too... they just laugh at me and think I am crazy.
I really dont understand where the idea came from that you do need to use distilled water to make 70% ethanol.
-
I assume it is required to pass audit
or
eliminate possible objections when doing research and you need to make sure no outside factors are present
wow talk about reviving an old post from the dead
-
I assume it is required to pass audit
or
eliminate possible objections when doing research and you need to make sure no outside factors are present
wow talk about reviving an old post from the dead
I can understand this if you would need the 70% ethanol to do (for example) a DNA extraction or something molecular..
I can get that, however 90% of the 70% ethanol spray bottles are just used to clean the bench where you work.. I dont see the point in that. Its more a waste of demiwater.
And about passing the audit, I dont know, I doubt it to be honest they would check how you make your ethanol.
-
Don't worry the QA people know how to check everything. There are even SOP's to tell you how to blow your nose.
-
Don't worry the QA people know how to check everything. There are even SOP's to tell you how to blow your nose.
haha true.
But for me its just about the fact that people make it with demiwater because someone told them to do it like that and because everyone is doing it like that.. they keep doing it like that.
Nobody seems to question it.
-
I don't think its unreasonable to specify distilled or deionized water for ethanol-based disinfecting solutions. Tap water is an undefined product, it may contain random dissolved salts, depending on the time of the year, or the location. Above, someone has stated that it might be more microbiologically clean that the DI system, but even if that is true sometimes, its not under the facilities control, so if its important, you never know if its always the case, for all times at all facilities. You're not going to be allowed to use tap water, if there is an auditing process, it just looks sloppy. And being slightly sloppy, when it doesn't really matter, doesn't make you look ingenious, it makes people wonder, "What other corners do they cut, 'round here." c.f. : http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=29560.msg112551#msg112551
-
I don't think its unreasonable to specify distilled or deionized water for ethanol-based disinfecting solutions. Tap water is an undefined product, it may contain random dissolved salts, depending on the time of the year, or the location. Above, someone has stated that it might be more microbiologically clean that the DI system, but even if that is true sometimes, its not under the facilities control, so if its important, you never know if its always the case, for all times at all facilities. You're not going to be allowed to use tap water, if there is an auditing process, it just looks sloppy. And being slightly sloppy, when it doesn't really matter, doesn't make you look ingenious, it makes people wonder, "What other corners do they cut, 'round here." c.f. : http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=29560.msg112551#msg112551
I can see your reasoning, but still find it weird to use a pure product (or more expensive product) like demiwater to make 70% ethanol solution that you use to clean your working bench for example.
I really find it weird.
I also dont see the impact of the random salts, dont see how that would matter for 90% of the usage of the 70% ethanol.
You said that the tap water is not under the control of the facility, but be honest: how many facilities test their demiwater on a regular base to check if its still up to standards?
I have worked in a lab for a few years now and there was never (!) a real control on the demiwater. And its in many labs the same thing.
Another thing: many labs have a system that uses a plastic tube (that is attached to the tap (valve)) to fill their bottles with demiwater, this plastic tube is often used for many months/years without ever being cleaned. I am not sure you know a lot about biofilmformation, but I can tell you that those plastic tubes are often filled with bacteria and other "crap".
(I have also read literature in which is stated that in some labs they even found algea(!) growing in the systems that were used for demiwater or even worse, miliQ water systems.
If you indeed use a regulary checked demiwater system I can see your point, but for many of the labs this is not the case.
About using distilled water: is that not really really expensive?
-
If you work in a cGMP environment quality control and following procedures are paramount, even for labs. Our water quality sometimes gave us more problems than anything else and was constantly monitored. Everything is documented for the batch records. The slightest variation is noted and investigated.
If this is not done you can get all sorts of warnings from the governmental authority (if they find out and they can do snap unannounced inspections) even up to banning the sale of your products, costs a lot of money and usually heads roll.
This is not usually the case in normal research labs where you do not have the same degree of quality control.
-
If you work in a cGMP environment quality control and following procedures are paramount, even for labs. Our water quality sometimes gave us more problems than anything else and was constantly monitored. Everything is documented for the batch records. The slightest variation is noted and investigated.
If this is not done you can get all sorts of warnings from the governmental authority (if they find out and they can do snap unannounced inspections) even up to banning the sale of your products, costs a lot of money and usually heads roll.
This is not usually the case in normal research labs where you do not have the same degree of quality control.
I understand this, but I doubt majority of us is working in such labs with strict protocols.
-
It might be more people than you think. In the company I was in there were more people in development labs than in med. chem.
Also consider hospital labs, forensic labs, food testing labs, etc etc etc.
-
It might be more people than you think. In the company I was in there were more people in development labs than in med. chem.
Also consider hospital labs, forensic labs, food testing labs, etc etc etc.
Indeed.
Thats true.
I can understand it in such labs, but other labs...
Its not about not being prepared to use the products as described, its more about the idea behind why you use things.
Eg. to clean a bench in a lab where you simply use it to disinfect.
-
Eg. to clean a bench in a lab where you simply use it to disinfect.
Why are you disinfecting it at all, if it isn't also important that that also be clean, and dust, and mineral scale free as well? If iron oxide builds up, and the surface ends up rust colored, would you actually say, "Yeah, yeah, I know, but its disinfected even though it looks tatty."? What if some day you read in the newspaper about a serious sewage failure in your municipality, perhaps caused by a natural disaster. Probably your work surface status is the last thing you'd worry about, but after the disaster is taken care of, isn't some of your work now in doubt? And which ones? Will you just dump all of it, just to be sure? Or pass all of it, until someone notices a problem?
-
Eg. to clean a bench in a lab where you simply use it to disinfect.
Why are you disinfecting it at all, if it isn't also important that that also be clean, and dust, and mineral scale free as well? If iron oxide builds up, and the surface ends up rust colored, would you actually say, "Yeah, yeah, I know, but its disinfected even though it looks tatty."? What if some day you read in the newspaper about a serious sewage failure in your municipality, perhaps caused by a natural disaster. Probably your work surface status is the last thing you'd worry about, but after the disaster is taken care of, isn't some of your work now in doubt? And which ones? Will you just dump all of it, just to be sure? Or pass all of it, until someone notices a problem?
You are speaking of very extreme examples.
The tab water here is very clean.
And iron oxide builds up and causing rust on a working bench? A little bit extreme...
And about the sewage failure in general: I dont get your point because the demiwater is also made with tapwater.. And the system that generates the tapwater for you is not a system that removes bacteria really..
I really dont see your point (microbiology wise) here.
I can understand the part of water that is free of minerals, but this is often not a necessity for the usage of the ethanol.