Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T21:47:16.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remote Site Production of Sterile Purified Water from Available Surface Water

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Michael A. Taylor ,
Elaine F. Alambra ,
John Anes ,
Joel Behnke ,
Brandusa Enachescu ,
Carolyn L. Fitzgerald ,
Megan Fortado  and
Mark L. Sizelove
Michael A. Taylor*
Affiliation:
PRIS Medical Corporation, Napa, California, USA
Elaine F. Alambra
Affiliation:
PRIS Medical Corporation, Napa, California, USA
John Anes
Affiliation:
PRIS Medical Corporation, Napa, California, USA
Joel Behnke
Affiliation:
PRIS Medical Corporation, Napa, California, USA
Brandusa Enachescu
Affiliation:
PRIS Medical Corporation, Napa, California, USA
Carolyn L. Fitzgerald
Affiliation:
PRIS Medical Corporation, Napa, California, USA
Megan Fortado
Affiliation:
PRIS Medical Corporation, Napa, California, USA
Mark L. Sizelove
Affiliation:
PRIS Medical Corporation, Napa, California, USA
*
PRIS Medical Corporation, 118 Dodd Court American Canyon, CA 94503 E-mail: mtaylor@prismedical.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A water purification and sterilization device was tested for its functional capabilities. Challenge water consisting of potable water augmented with bacteria, endotoxin, virus, suspended solids, and dissociable ions (sodium chloride, lead or arsenic salts) was passed through the device. The product water quality attributes were analyzed. The device demonstrated reduction in bacteria of >7 logs, endotoxin was reduced by >4 logs, virus was reduced by >4 logs, and dissociable ions were reduced by >3 logs. The product water of the device met the limits for a range of chemical entities specified by the United States Pharmacopeia and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. The product water met the quality attributes of Sterile Water for Injection, USP, Sterile Purified Water, USP, and the Water for Dialysis. The device provides a logistical advantage in reducing the weight of transport of packaged water by 83% and the cube by 67%. It operates manually by gravity and is disposable after a single use. The device provides an effective alternative to the transport and use of packaged sterile water in remote locations by production of sterile water at the pointof-need using available water. It also is capable of producing safe drinking water following the production of clinical waters. This device has been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for production of three liters Sterile Purified Water, USP from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grade drinking water.

Keywords

bacteriaendotoxinwaterdrinking waterinfection controlpurificationpurified watersterilizationsterile watervirus
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 266 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Barr, JE: Principles of wound cleansing. Ostomy/Wound Manag 1995;41(supplement): S15–S21.Google Scholar
2.Lawrence, JC:Wound irrigation. J Wound Care 1997;6(1):23–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. need Au: Cuts and scrapes. Proper care, 2000–2002. Available at http://www.coolnurse.com/cuts.htm. Accessed 30 August 2004.Google Scholar
4. Center for Disease Control: Guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control. 1985.MMWR 1987;36(No. 2S Supplement) and MMWR 1988;37.Google Scholar
5.Newman, M: Care of percutaneous endoscopic gastronstomy (PEG) wound site. Barnet & Chase Farm Hospitals. NHS Trust. Middlesex University, 1999, July; Available at http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/rctsh/ebp/pegcat.rtf Accessed 02 November 2001.Google Scholar
6.Center for Disease Control: Recommended infection-control practices for dentistry. MMWR 1993;42 (No. RR-8).Google Scholar
7.Center for Disease Control: General recommendations on immunization recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP). MMWR 1994;43(RR01):1–38.Google Scholar
8.Waldman, R: Cholera vaccination in refugee settings [editorial]. JAMA 1998;279.No. 7. Available at http://www/jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v279n7/ffull/jed71075.html. Accessed 02 November 2001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: USPHS / IDSA Guidelines for the prevention of opportunistic infections in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus. MMWR 1999;48(No. RR-10):1–59.Google Scholar
10.McKee, R: Military Liaison, Aircraft Coordination After-Action Report, to Special Operation Fire Rescue Division, California Office of Emergency Services, Oct. 2000.Google Scholar
11.US Pharmacopeia 24 & National Formulary 19, Official Monographs / Sterile Water for Injection, 2000, p 1753.Google Scholar
12.Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI): AAMI Dialysis Monograph Series, Water Quality for Dialysis 3rd Edition, RD5, 1998, pp 10.Google Scholar
13.ANSI/AAMI RD62:2001, Water Treatment Equipment for Hemodialysis applications.Google Scholar
14. Conceptual design for a small, lightweight, point-of-use, drinking water maker. Part 1 Available water analysis and proof-of-concept testing, In Press, Defense Technical Information Center.Google Scholar
15. Microbial Evaluation of Filters for Sterilizing Liquids, HIMA Document No. 3, 1982, April, Vol. 4.Google Scholar
16.Leahy, TJ, Sullivan, JM, Validation of Bacterial Retention Capabilities of Membrane Filters, Pharm. Tech., 1978, Nov., 2:65–75.Google Scholar
17.U.S. Pharmacopeia 24, The National Formulary 19, Physical Tests <85> Bacterial Endotoxins Test, 2000, pp 1829.+Bacterial+Endotoxins+Test,+2000,+pp+1829.>Google Scholar
18.Lytle, CD, Duff, JE, Fleharty, B et al. : A sensitive method for evaluating condoms as virus barriers, Journal of AOAC International 1997,80(2):319–324.Google Scholar
19.Landon, S: General Procedures for the Propagation of Bacteriophage, Amer. Type Culture Collection, 1998, May.Google Scholar
20.US Pharmacopeia 24, National Formulary 19, Physical Tests <645> Water Conductivity, 2000, pp 1928.+Water+Conductivity,+2000,+pp+1928.>Google Scholar
21. Ibid. pp 1977.Google Scholar
22.US Pharmacopeia 24, The National Formulary 19, Solutions Mercuric-Potassium Iodide TS, Alkaline (Nessler's Reagent), 2000, pp 2236.Google Scholar
23.HACH Method 8013, Silver Diethyldithiocarbamate Method, HACH Company, 6/03 11ed.Google Scholar
24. EPA Method 2007.Google Scholar
25. HACH Method 8167, DOD Method, HACH Company, 6/03 11ed.Google Scholar
26.UPS Rate and Service Guide, Daily Rates Effective January 5, 2004, Publication 01970103 1/04, Copyright 2004.Google Scholar
27. U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet, C-141 Starlifter, Available at http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=93&page=1, 15 July 2004.Google Scholar