SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Harrison, B. R
Right arrow Articles by Kloos, M. D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Harrison, B. R
Right arrow Articles by Kloos, M. D
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Penetration and splash protection of six disposable gown materials against fifteen antineoplastic drugs

Bruce R Harrison, MS, RPh

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, St. Louis, Missouri

Michael D Kloos, PharmD

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, St. Louis, Missouri

Introduction. Six commercially available, disposable protective gown materials were tested for splash protection and penetration against 15 antineoplastic drugs and five control solutions.

Materials. The commercially available drugs in standard concentrations included etoposide, teniposide, docetaxel, paclitaxel, carmustine, topotecan, irinotecan, doxorubicin, liposomal doxorubicin, vinorelbine, cisplatin, carboplatin, mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide, and fluorouracil. Control solutions included water, saline, 10% ethanol, fluorescein aqueous, and fluorescein in 25% ethanol.

Methods. A6 3 6 cm gown sample was placed on an absorptive pad on the work surface of a biological safety cabinet. A single drop of each solution was dropped onto the gown from a height of 20 cm to simulate a simple splash. Each dispensed drop was observed for 1 minute. Two endpoints were used: (a) absorption into the gown material versus beading on the gown surface and (b) visible detection of the drug on the opposite side of the gown.

Results. Two gowns failed; one (ChemoPlust) allowed penetration of 10 solutions and the other (ChemoBloct Wraparound), four solutions. Three gowns allowed non-water soluble drugs to soak into the material but did not allow penetration: Tyvekt (five drugs), ChemoBloct Maximum (two drugs), and CYTA (one drug). Only one gown (Saranext) provided complete splash protection, with beading on the gown surface observed for all agents.

Conclusions. Gowns with polyethylene or vinyl coating provided adequate splash protection and prevented penetration of the challenge chemicals during the 1-minute observation period. Polypropylene-based gowns did not provide adequate splash protection and should not be used to prepare chemotherapy.

Key Words: Penetration test • splash protection • chemical protective clothing • antineo-plastic drug

Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, Vol. 5, No. 2, 61-66 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/107815529900500201
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
ASHP Guidelines on Handling Hazardous Drugs
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., June 15, 2006; 63(12): 1172 - 1191.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Advertisement