|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Soap = antiseptic? Y/N
- 2 Treating yeast infections?
- 3 Mercurochrome
- 4 NaCl?
- 5 What about colloidal silver?
- 6 How about Ethyl Green aka 'Zelyonka' in a list of 'Some common antiseptics'?
- 7 RfX (Request for expansion :-] ): Microbial resistance?
- 8 Ethacridine lactate should be added to the list of antiseptics
- 9 How it works
- 10 Products Including This
- 11 Negative Effects ?
- 12 "celicular single helix microbes"
- 13 Microcyn
- 14 Found a Link for Antiseptic Hydrogen Peroxide citation
- 15 Antiseptics are generally distinguished from antibiotics by the latter's ability to be transported through the lymphatic system to destroy bacteria within the body
Soap = antiseptic? Y/N
Ok, I'm going to ask this here because I don't know. Soap is a powerful antibacterial agent because it disrupts cell membranes. It can be used on the surfaces of the skin. Is soap (or detergents in general) an antiseptic? Dwmyers 22:30, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I don't know but this lecture suggests that soap is a disinfectant theresa knott 12:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Soap/detergent may be used to treat infections, but I don't think it is because it is any kind of antiseptic. It simply removes the pathogens and their food source through emulsification.
Also, Sodium Hypochlorite (bleach) is NOT an antiseptic. It is a disinfectant. "Atiseptic" implies a substance that can routinely be used on skin. --LanceVictor 17:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- In fact, sodium hypochlorite can be used as a skin/wound antiseptic, provided that the concentration of it does not exceed 0.5-1.0% and that the pH of the solution is adjusted to 7-8 (a 0.5% aqueous NaClO with pH neutralised towards 7 by boric acid and is colored by 0.05% potassium permanganate is known as Daquin's solution (or, la solution de Daquin, in french)). It was, along with diluted phenolic solutions and tincture of iodine/Lugol's iodine one of the very first antiseptics used mainly in continetnal Europe from about 1860's to 1920's. It had a very good microbicidal effect and was along with Lugol's iodine the most potent antiseptic used.--Spiperon 00:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Treating yeast infections?
"Uses in suppositories to treat yeast infections of the vagina"? Should that be "pessaries" or should there be a comma in that? Is it true at all? - Anon
- It's certainly true Iris. See:
Mercurochrome -- any real evidence to support "reportedly works better than any other antiseptic"? I don't think that it's completely accurate to say that the U.S. FDA banned its distribution. The FDA removed it from the generally recognized as safe and effective list. A new producer of mercurochrome would have to go through the FDA's approval process. (Of course in practice, this will never happen since mercurochrome isn't patented.) The phrase "ostensibly due to the mercury poisoning scare" is blatently POV. --126.96.36.199 07:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Who uses salt as an antiseptic?
- Noone any more. However, it was used historically. See Salting. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
What about colloidal silver?
I guess this one is missing from the list...
How about Ethyl Green aka 'Zelyonka' in a list of 'Some common antiseptics'?
RfX (Request for expansion :-] ): Microbial resistance?
Can someone who works in an appropriate field (chemistry, pharmaceuticals, medicine, biology, etc) write a section on microbial resistance to antiseptics? That is, does it exist, can it develop over the years (if not, why), etc. Thanks. — Lumbercutter 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It is commonly thought that either limes or lemons have antiseptic properties. Is this true?
Ethacridine lactate should be added to the list of antiseptics
It is reasonably common outside North America, effective, and has some interesting properties (including immunomodulative ones when used on open wounds; see http://www.woundsresearch.com/article/4542)
How it works
Products Including This
Negative Effects ?
Wikipedia is supposed to be educational; it's not a propagandaPedia. The section "Negative Effects" implies that there really is a negative effect whereas when you read it, it only states a theory (and worse, it links to evolution which is again another theory yet to be proven). Why I came here to the talk page? Because my brother told me to stop using antiseptic and let my wounds heal by itself because using antiseptic "has negative effects" which is developing terrifying super-microbes that cannot be killed by presently known antiseptics. I asked him who told him that. He said wikipedia and he gave me this link. Yes. its terrifying how wikipedia miseducate people. This section must be enhanced or rewritten not to be easily misunderstood or not to be misleading to the readers. And one more thing, when the section title says "Negative Effects", it should mean negative effects, not a "theoretical possible negative effects". Maybe editors can change the title to the more appropriate phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"celicular single helix microbes"
Huh, does this even mean anything? I'm pretty sure "celicular" isn't actually a word and "single helix microbes" is just as meaningless. The closest thint to a meaning I could come up with for the latter is either something like helicobacter pylori or sphirochetes, and even then there's no particular reason to test antiseptics against them in particular. Seriously, the whole sentence here reads like scifi technobabble or something made by google translate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Just noting that the Microcyn article with the same content was deleted for advertising. Instead of deletion, the potential for PH-neutral solutions could be mentioned in the Sodium Hypochlorite section. As is, Microcyn is the only trademark in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Found a Link for Antiseptic Hydrogen Peroxide citation
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17151171 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Antiseptics are generally distinguished from antibiotics by the latter's ability to be transported through the lymphatic system to destroy bacteria within the body
This is rubbish, and contradicts the main article on antibiotics.
So an antibiotic has the "ability to be transported through the lymphatic system"? Well, I could take anything and inject it into the circulatory system and it will, sooner or later, get into the lymphatic system.