We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Rinsing only with water or washing with soap and water are common methods of skin decontamination for skin contaminated during a chemical hazard release. The null hypothesis was that a 15-minute water irrigation (decontamination method 1) would not be superior to decontamination using a microfiber towel, followed by a wet wipe (Signature Select Softly Flushable Tissue Better Living Brands LLC, Pleasanton, CA), followed by using another microfiber towel (decontamination method 2).
Methods
A simulated contaminant (Magic Fluorescent Glow Paint for Face and Body, iLC Shenzhen Fulimei Technology Co. LTD, Shenzhen, the People’s Republic of China) was applied to the dorsal skin of each subject’s forearms. Then, photographs of these subject’s skin were taken before and after decontamination of the simulated contaminant by using either decontamination method 1 or 2. Each of the subjects underwent both decontamination methods in separate trials, with each subject using one forearm for decontamination method 1 and their other forearm for decontamination method 2. Discrete points of contamination were quantified on the photographs that were taken with the skin illuminated by ambient visible light or ultraviolet light (395nm, Roceei ultraviolet flashlight, China).
Results
Under visible light, no residual contamination was seen by inspecting photographs taken after decontaminating with either method. Under ultraviolet light, less visible contamination was seen by inspecting photographs taken after decontaminating with method 1 than after decontaminating with method 2.
Conclusion
In this study, skin decontamination with water irrigation was superior to skin decontamination without water irrigation.
This chapter discusses the decontamination of humans after exposure to a hazardous substance. Much of the current knowledge surrounding decontamination and the management of the contaminated patient is based primarily on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, and common sense. Individuals who are able to walk into a shower and clean themselves receive a more thorough decontamination than non-ambulatory individuals. Historically, mass exposure to chemicals has been due to agents in the form of a vapor or gas. Clothing removal essentially completes the decontamination process. Recognizing that contaminated victims are present is the first critical step for a successful decontamination program. A basic tenet of emergency response is ensuring scene safety; failure to ensure the safety of responders and other nearby persons risks the creation of more victims. To assist with environmental protection, medical and health workers should dispose of contaminant and contaminated items in a fashion consistent with safe practices.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.