ArticleScientific reports2023
Management of decontamination in chemical accidents: a laboratory model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid and efficient decontamination of the skin is a major task for emergency rescue services in the event of a chemical accident involving humans. While rinsing the skin with water (and soap) has been the standard procedure, some skepticism has developed in recent years regarding the situational suitability of this method. The efficacy of three different decontamination materials/techniques (Easyderm® cleaning cloth, water-soaked all-purpose sponge, rinsing with water) in removing Capsaicin, Bromadiolone, Paraquat and 2,2'-dichlorodiethylether (DCEE) from porcine skin was compared. Different cleaning motions (wiping, twisting, pressing) with the Easyderm® were evaluated for their effectiveness in removing Capsaicin from porcine skin. Finally, the impact of different exposure times of the skin to Capsaicin on the decontamination process were investigated. Contaminant recovery rates (CRRs) were analysed in the skin and in each decontamination material using high-performance-liquid-chromatography (HPLC; used for Capsaicin, Bromadiolone, Paraquat) or gas chromatography (GC; used for DCEE). Wiping the skin with the amphiphilic Easyderm® was most effective for decontamination of Capsaicin and DCEE, while the water rinsing method gave the best results for removing Paraquat and Bromadiolone. Both wiping with the Easyderm® and rotating the Easyderm® were significantly more effective in cleaning Capsaicin-contaminated skin than pressing the Easyderm® on the contamination area alone. Prolonged exposure times of the porcine skin to Capsaicin were associated with a decrease in efficacy of the following decontamination. Emergency rescue services should have materials available that can remove both hydrophilic and hydrophobic substances from skin. Since not all of our results for comparing different decontamination materials were as distinct as we expected, there are likely several other factors determining the efficacy of skin decontamination in some cases. Time is key; therefore, first responders should try to begin the decontamination process as soon as possible after arriving at the scene.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.