Cargando…

Molecular iodine is not responsible for cytotoxicity in iodophors

BACKGROUND: Ten percent povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was initially promoted as ‘tamed iodine’ as the chemical activity of the active biocide, uncomplexed or free molecular iodine (I(2)), is reduced 30- to 50-fold compared with Lugol's solution. The idea that I(2) is responsible for topical iodine st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Freeman, C., Duan, E., Kessler, J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Healthcare Infection Society. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8813190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35124143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2022.01.015
_version_ 1784644793776734208
author Freeman, C.
Duan, E.
Kessler, J.
author_facet Freeman, C.
Duan, E.
Kessler, J.
author_sort Freeman, C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Ten percent povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was initially promoted as ‘tamed iodine’ as the chemical activity of the active biocide, uncomplexed or free molecular iodine (I(2)), is reduced 30- to 50-fold compared with Lugol's solution. The idea that I(2) is responsible for topical iodine staining and irritation remains widely held. However, there are no controlled studies that characterize the cytotoxicity and staining of the hydrophobic I(2) species compared with the other hydrophilic iodine species that comprise over 99.9% of the total iodine in topical iodine disinfectants. AIMS: To compare the staining properties of the I(2) species with other topical iodine disinfectants; to evaluate if the concentrations of I(2) in diluted PVP-I used to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in the nasal cavity are potentially cytotoxic; and to determine if high concentrations of I(2) can be delivered beyond the stratum corneum into the hypodermis, which could provide a mechanistic rationale for I(2) out-gassing. METHODS: Five liquid compositions that contained complexed and uncomplexed (free) I(2) in aqueous and non-aqueous carriers were used to evaluate the interaction of I(2) with mammalian cells in culture as well as human and pig skin. FINDINGS: Concentrations of I(2) (7800 ppm) that are 1500 times higher than that found in PVP-I can be applied to skin without irritation and staining. I(2) is not cytotoxic at concentrations >100 times higher than that found in PVP-I, and does not contribute materially to staining of skin at concentrations found in Lugol's solution (approximately 170 ppm). I(2) can partition into hypodermis tissue, remain there for hours and out-gas from skin. PVP-I and Lugol's solution are highly effective topical disinfectants, but do not facilitate diffusion of I(2) through the stratum corneum. CONCLUSION: The maximum concentration of I(2) found in diluted PVP, approximately 25 ppm, is not cytotoxic or irritating. The potential clinical utility of I(2) has been limited by incorporating this broad-spectrum biocide into acidic aqueous formulations that contain numerous chemical species that contribute toxicity but not biocidal activity. I(2) can be delivered topically into hypodermis tissue without irritation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8813190
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Healthcare Infection Society.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88131902022-02-04 Molecular iodine is not responsible for cytotoxicity in iodophors Freeman, C. Duan, E. Kessler, J. J Hosp Infect Article BACKGROUND: Ten percent povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was initially promoted as ‘tamed iodine’ as the chemical activity of the active biocide, uncomplexed or free molecular iodine (I(2)), is reduced 30- to 50-fold compared with Lugol's solution. The idea that I(2) is responsible for topical iodine staining and irritation remains widely held. However, there are no controlled studies that characterize the cytotoxicity and staining of the hydrophobic I(2) species compared with the other hydrophilic iodine species that comprise over 99.9% of the total iodine in topical iodine disinfectants. AIMS: To compare the staining properties of the I(2) species with other topical iodine disinfectants; to evaluate if the concentrations of I(2) in diluted PVP-I used to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in the nasal cavity are potentially cytotoxic; and to determine if high concentrations of I(2) can be delivered beyond the stratum corneum into the hypodermis, which could provide a mechanistic rationale for I(2) out-gassing. METHODS: Five liquid compositions that contained complexed and uncomplexed (free) I(2) in aqueous and non-aqueous carriers were used to evaluate the interaction of I(2) with mammalian cells in culture as well as human and pig skin. FINDINGS: Concentrations of I(2) (7800 ppm) that are 1500 times higher than that found in PVP-I can be applied to skin without irritation and staining. I(2) is not cytotoxic at concentrations >100 times higher than that found in PVP-I, and does not contribute materially to staining of skin at concentrations found in Lugol's solution (approximately 170 ppm). I(2) can partition into hypodermis tissue, remain there for hours and out-gas from skin. PVP-I and Lugol's solution are highly effective topical disinfectants, but do not facilitate diffusion of I(2) through the stratum corneum. CONCLUSION: The maximum concentration of I(2) found in diluted PVP, approximately 25 ppm, is not cytotoxic or irritating. The potential clinical utility of I(2) has been limited by incorporating this broad-spectrum biocide into acidic aqueous formulations that contain numerous chemical species that contribute toxicity but not biocidal activity. I(2) can be delivered topically into hypodermis tissue without irritation. The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Healthcare Infection Society. 2022-04 2022-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8813190/ /pubmed/35124143 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2022.01.015 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Article
Freeman, C.
Duan, E.
Kessler, J.
Molecular iodine is not responsible for cytotoxicity in iodophors
title Molecular iodine is not responsible for cytotoxicity in iodophors
title_full Molecular iodine is not responsible for cytotoxicity in iodophors
title_fullStr Molecular iodine is not responsible for cytotoxicity in iodophors
title_full_unstemmed Molecular iodine is not responsible for cytotoxicity in iodophors
title_short Molecular iodine is not responsible for cytotoxicity in iodophors
title_sort molecular iodine is not responsible for cytotoxicity in iodophors
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8813190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35124143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2022.01.015
work_keys_str_mv AT freemanc moleculariodineisnotresponsibleforcytotoxicityiniodophors
AT duane moleculariodineisnotresponsibleforcytotoxicityiniodophors
AT kesslerj moleculariodineisnotresponsibleforcytotoxicityiniodophors