The Ministry of Public Health will today ask the Guyana Water Inc (GWI) to explain its use of the controversial antiseptic Polyhexanide, sold under the name Antinfek, in its treatment of water countrywide given the concerns about its performance and possible effects on humans.
“I will definitely ask my officers to have GWI explain,” Minister of Health Dr. George Norton told Stabroek News yesterday.
GWI Managing Director Richard Van West-Charles declined to comment on the matter yesterday.
The Minister of Health’s statement follows email correspondence released by Director of the Government Analyst-Food and Drug, Marlan Cole, among himself, GWI’s chemical engineer, Deon Anderson and representatives of the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) , which question Anderson’s proposed use of the polymer.
“I thought that after my last email, and not hearing anything else that the matter was closed and they would not go ahead with the implementation,” Cole told Stabroek News yesterday.
He said that he was very disturbed when he yesterday read in the Guyana Times that GWI has stopped using chlorine to treat water here and is instead using Antinfek; a chemical according to Cole that has not been tested or certified by the GA-FDD and has had negative reviews and a ban on its use in Haiti.
““They didn’t even say let us do a pilot…over the years we used chlorine and that has been effective. I don’t know who ordered this and under what basis but this is very disturbing and I will have to get to the bottom of it…this is serious. We all use this water and we don’t know what it is being treated with?” Cole questioned.
The email correspondence begins on June 20th with the GWI Chemical Engineer writing to the Consultant in Epidemiology & Environmental Health of PAHO/WHO in Guyana, Dr. Mariano Bonet Gorbea seeking advice as GWI was considering using the disinfectant Antinfek 10H, to treat water here.
The mails were also copied to Van West-Charles to keep him up to date on feedback, Anderson informed Gorbea.
He explained that the disinfectant is produced by Dove Biotech and provides an internet link for information on the drug (http://documents.mx/documents/ antinfek-10h.html).
“The product has been proven to consistently disinfect potable water, leaving it free of total or fecal coliforms. We are in possession of the test results from countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Pakistan, etc. showing it’s consistent eradication of both total and fecal coliforms among other micro-organisms. The residual lasts longer than chlorine in distribution networks and is not consumed by organics/ inorganics in the water, as is the case of chlorine.
GWI has also tested this product in the past in its laboratory and it has shown favourable results. We also have toxicology reports on this product (in hard copy), of which I would be more than happy to provide you with a copy,” Anderson states.
However, he pointed out that before GWI could consider using the disinfectant at full scale, they themselves had concerns as the only certification the product has, is by the Food and Drugs Association of Thailand. He said that the product is also manufactured in Thailand.
“Are there more certifications available on this product, or is this one sufficient? The active ingredients are PHMB and to a lesser extent silver ions. At the dosages prescribed: 0.2 mg/l, there should be no worry of any negative effect on human health (toxicology reports can support this), however we would prefer to be able to monitor the residuals. Currently there are difficulties in locating an equipment that can monitor the residuals. The manufacturing company, when contacted, however, noted that they are developing an equipment that can monitor same. What is PAHO’s position on this? Does PAHO have any other information/ documentation on the use of this product for water disinfection?” he further asks.
The PAHO/WHO consultant, replies the same day explaining that he will do some research and will also send a copy of the queries to Senior Advisor, Water, Sanitation and Environmental Health for the Caribbean Sub region with PAHO/WHO Adrianus (Ton) Vlugman, who is resident in Barbados, for his advice on the drug. A copy was also sent to Cole for his comments and position on the purifier.
Systematically
However, he points out that the Thailand registration was not enough to accept the product in Guyana for “using systematically in water treatment”.
“Let us be in touch to have a good technical and legal response to your questions,” Dr Gorbea states.
The next day, Dr Vlugman replies and encloses a download on Polyhexanide, the active ingredient in Antinfek 10H but says that while the concerns expressed by Anderson were very valid he had no answers to the questions posed and had such contacted his colleagues in WDC and SEARO for assistance.
Nonetheless Dr. Vlugman pointed out that Polyhexanide “is described as a pesticide and health based guideline is 0.2 mg/l in drinking water, but should never exceed 0.7 mg/l, based on short term exposure.”
He cautions that long term exposure, such as use in drinking water, has not been studied and would be very risky to try as a substitute for the already tried and tested chlorine. “With the difficulty of chemical analyses …. and thus process control monitoring it seems to me a very risky substitute for chlorine,” Vluygman asserts.
One of PAHO/WHO’s officials from its Divisional Waterborne Disease Center, Dr Mauricio Pardon, joined the communication on the 23rd of June and agreed with Dr Vlugman’s stance that it was risky to try the substance as a substitute. He goes on to ask if Dr Vlugman had an “idea of the economics of using the product instead of Chlorine?”
That same day, Dr Gorbea wrote to the GWI engineer and her colleagues asking that the Head of GWI’s comments also be shared before a decision is made about the proposed action.
Anderson replied stating “PHMB (the active ingredient) has been in use for around 60 years and has had most applications in surface disinfection, Surgical & non-surgical wound dressings, Surgical Bath/Sitz bath, Routine antisepsis during minor incisions, Catheterisation, Scopy etc, First aid, and even irrigation practices.
“The article sent by Dr. Vlugman was very useful and it supports his statement (with which I totally concur) that health based guideline is 0.2 mg/l in drinking water, but should never exceed 0.7 mg/l.The toxicology reports associated with this product also support this health based guideline.”
He also informed that he would be preparing a cost-benefit analysis on the product compared with chlorine while applying “even lower dosages of the product and compare its effectiveness on Total coliforms and E.Coli,” although he did not state where this trial would be done.
Anderson also summarised his belief saying what “I have gathered from all the contributions so far is that caution should be exercised, but if we can put process control in place to ensure consistent compliance with 0.2 mg/l of PHMB, then this should be fine.”
He sent the group a document gathered from the British Journal of Environmental Sciences saying that it “highlights in abstract” that PHMB “is an environmentally friendly product noncorrosive and nontoxic to both humans and animals.”
But his view was corrected by Dr Vlugman who pointed out that the referenced article speaks to the use of the drug topically and as a disinfectant in animal drinking water.
“Is there any research on safety to human health of PHMB as disinfectant in drinking water? The 0.2 mg/l is based on short term exposure to rats,” Dr Vlugman states.
“Your proposal is interesting 1. It would indeed be interesting to know the result of the cost benefit analyses, assuming there is no negative impact to human health 2. What method are you using to measure the concentration of PHMB in water and its residual effect( that is the great advantage of chlorine),” he adds while stating that in the meantime he will will pursue comments from WHO on the application of PHMB in drinking water.
‘To use or not to use?’
On June 30th Cole asked, “this product should therefore not be suitable to treat household drinking water in Guyana also?” and correspondence he said for him ended there.
Cole wants to know if the GWI went ahead and implemented the use of the drug to treat water for Guyana’s citizenry without the necessary approval from the GA-FDD.
“I have so much on my plate but this is a serious issue and tomorrow morning (today) very early I will be seeking to get answers from GWI if they are using this drug without permission,” he told Stabroek News.
“I have researched and see that this drug was banned from use in Haiti because it was not effective in the treatment of some water-borne bacteria and so on there. Why are we using it here?” he questioned.
The Minister of Public Health told Stabroek News that the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Dr Shamdeo Persaud will be leading GA-FDD in seeking clarity in the issue. “Food and Drug falls under my CMO and that instruction will come tomorrow (today) definitely,” Norton said.
GWI faces questions over unapproved water purifier
The Ministry of Public Health will today ask the Guyana Water Inc (GWI) to explain its use of the controversial antiseptic Polyhexanide, sold under the name Antinfek, in its treatment of water countrywide given the concerns about its performance and possible effects on humans.
“I will definitely ask my officers to have GWI explain,” Minister of Health Dr. George Norton told Stabroek News yesterday.
GWI Managing Director Richard Van West-Charles declined to comment on the matter yesterday.
The Minister of Health’s statement follows email correspondence released by Director of the Government Analyst-Food and Drug, Marlan Cole, among himself, GWI’s chemical engineer, Deon Anderson and representatives of the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) , which question Anderson’s proposed use of the polymer.
“I thought that after my last email, and not hearing anything else that the matter was closed and they would not go ahead with the implementation,” Cole told Stabroek News yesterday.
He said that he was very disturbed when he yesterday read in the Guyana Times that GWI has stopped using chlorine to treat water here and is instead using Antinfek; a chemical according to Cole that has not been tested or certified by the GA-FDD and has had negative reviews and a ban on its use in Haiti.
““They didn’t even say let us do a pilot…over the years we used chlorine and that has been effective. I don’t know who ordered this and under what basis but this is very disturbing and I will have to get to the bottom of it…this is serious. We all use this water and we don’t know what it is being treated with?” Cole questioned.
The email correspondence begins on June 20th with the GWI Chemical Engineer writing to the Consultant in Epidemiology & Environmental Health of PAHO/WHO in Guyana, Dr. Mariano Bonet Gorbea seeking advice as GWI was considering using the disinfectant Antinfek 10H, to treat water here.
The mails were also copied to Van West-Charles to keep him up to date on feedback, Anderson informed Gorbea.
He explained that the disinfectant is produced by Dove Biotech and provides an internet link for information on the drug (http://documents.mx/documents/ antinfek-10h.html).
“The product has been proven to consistently disinfect potable water, leaving it free of total or fecal coliforms. We are in possession of the test results from countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Pakistan, etc. showing it’s consistent eradication of both total and fecal coliforms among other micro-organisms. The residual lasts longer than chlorine in distribution networks and is not consumed by organics/ inorganics in the water, as is the case of chlorine.
GWI has also tested this product in the past in its laboratory and it has shown favourable results. We also have toxicology reports on this product (in hard copy), of which I would be more than happy to provide you with a copy,” Anderson states.
However, he pointed out that before GWI could consider using the disinfectant at full scale, they themselves had concerns as the only certification the product has, is by the Food and Drugs Association of Thailand. He said that the product is also manufactured in Thailand.
“Are there more certifications available on this product, or is this one sufficient? The active ingredients are PHMB and to a lesser extent silver ions. At the dosages prescribed: 0.2 mg/l, there should be no worry of any negative effect on human health (toxicology reports can support this), however we would prefer to be able to monitor the residuals. Currently there are difficulties in locating an equipment that can monitor the residuals. The manufacturing company, when contacted, however, noted that they are developing an equipment that can monitor same. What is PAHO’s position on this? Does PAHO have any other information/ documentation on the use of this product for water disinfection?” he further asks.
The PAHO/WHO consultant, replies the same day explaining that he will do some research and will also send a copy of the queries to Senior Advisor, Water, Sanitation and Environmental Health for the Caribbean Sub region with PAHO/WHO Adrianus (Ton) Vlugman, who is resident in Barbados, for his advice on the drug. A copy was also sent to Cole for his comments and position on the purifier.
Systematically
However, he points out that the Thailand registration was not enough to accept the product in Guyana for “using systematically in water treatment”.
“Let us be in touch to have a good technical and legal response to your questions,” Dr Gorbea states.
The next day, Dr Vlugman replies and encloses a download on Polyhexanide, the active ingredient in Antinfek 10H but says that while the concerns expressed by Anderson were very valid he had no answers to the questions posed and had such contacted his colleagues in WDC and SEARO for assistance.
Nonetheless Dr. Vlugman pointed out that Polyhexanide “is described as a pesticide and health based guideline is 0.2 mg/l in drinking water, but should never exceed 0.7 mg/l, based on short term exposure.”
He cautions that long term exposure, such as use in drinking water, has not been studied and would be very risky to try as a substitute for the already tried and tested chlorine. “With the difficulty of chemical analyses …. and thus process control monitoring it seems to me a very risky substitute for chlorine,” Vluygman asserts.
One of PAHO/WHO’s officials from its Divisional Waterborne Disease Center, Dr Mauricio Pardon, joined the communication on the 23rd of June and agreed with Dr Vlugman’s stance that it was risky to try the substance as a substitute. He goes on to ask if Dr Vlugman had an “idea of the economics of using the product instead of Chlorine?”
That same day, Dr Gorbea wrote to the GWI engineer and her colleagues asking that the Head of GWI’s comments also be shared before a decision is made about the proposed action.
Anderson replied stating “PHMB (the active ingredient) has been in use for around 60 years and has had most applications in surface disinfection, Surgical & non-surgical wound dressings, Surgical Bath/Sitz bath, Routine antisepsis during minor incisions, Catheterisation, Scopy etc, First aid, and even irrigation practices.
“The article sent by Dr. Vlugman was very useful and it supports his statement (with which I totally concur) that health based guideline is 0.2 mg/l in drinking water, but should never exceed 0.7 mg/l.The toxicology reports associated with this product also support this health based guideline.”
He also informed that he would be preparing a cost-benefit analysis on the product compared with chlorine while applying “even lower dosages of the product and compare its effectiveness on Total coliforms and E.Coli,” although he did not state where this trial would be done.
Anderson also summarised his belief saying what “I have gathered from all the contributions so far is that caution should be exercised, but if we can put process control in place to ensure consistent compliance with 0.2 mg/l of PHMB, then this should be fine.”
He sent the group a document gathered from the British Journal of Environmental Sciences saying that it “highlights in abstract” that PHMB “is an environmentally friendly product noncorrosive and nontoxic to both humans and animals.”
But his view was corrected by Dr Vlugman who pointed out that the referenced article speaks to the use of the drug topically and as a disinfectant in animal drinking water.
“Is there any research on safety to human health of PHMB as disinfectant in drinking water? The 0.2 mg/l is based on short term exposure to rats,” Dr Vlugman states.
“Your proposal is interesting 1. It would indeed be interesting to know the result of the cost benefit analyses, assuming there is no negative impact to human health 2. What method are you using to measure the concentration of PHMB in water and its residual effect( that is the great advantage of chlorine),” he adds while stating that in the meantime he will will pursue comments from WHO on the application of PHMB in drinking water.
‘To use or not to use?’
On June 30th Cole asked, “this product should therefore not be suitable to treat household drinking water in Guyana also?” and correspondence he said for him ended there.
Cole wants to know if the GWI went ahead and implemented the use of the drug to treat water for Guyana’s citizenry without the necessary approval from the GA-FDD.
“I have so much on my plate but this is a serious issue and tomorrow morning (today) very early I will be seeking to get answers from GWI if they are using this drug without permission,” he told Stabroek News.
“I have researched and see that this drug was banned from use in Haiti because it was not effective in the treatment of some water-borne bacteria and so on there. Why are we using it here?” he questioned.
The Minister of Public Health told Stabroek News that the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Dr Shamdeo Persaud will be leading GA-FDD in seeking clarity in the issue. “Food and Drug falls under my CMO and that instruction will come tomorrow (today) definitely,” Norton said.
