Search results for: Jerome Ferrer

Authors: Danielle Slomberg, Jerome Labille, Riccardo Catalano, Jean-Claude Hubaud, Alexandra Lopes, Alice Tagliati, Teresa Fernandes

Abstract:

In the assessment and management of cosmetics and personal care products, sunscreens are of emerging concern regarding both human and environmental health. Organic UV blockers in many sunscreens have been evidenced to undergo rapid photodegradation, induce dermal allergic reactions due to skin penetration, and to cause adverse effects on marine systems. While mineral UV-blockers may offer a safer alternative, their fate and impact and resulting regulation are still under consideration, largely related to the potential influence of nanotechnology-based products on both consumers and the environment. Nanometric titanium dioxide (TiO₂) UV-blockers have many advantages in terms of sun protection and asthetics (i.e., transparency). These UV-blockers typically consist of rutile nanoparticles coated with a primary mineral layer (silica or alumina) aimed at blocking the nanomaterial photoactivity and can include a secondary organic coating (e.g., stearic acid, methicone) aimed at favouring dispersion of the nanomaterial in the sunscreen formulation. The nanomaterials contained in the sunscreen can leave the skin either through a bathing of everyday usage, with subsequent release into rivers, lakes, seashores, and/or sewage treatment plants. The nanomaterial behaviour, fate and impact in these different systems is largely determined by its surface properties, (e.g. the nanomaterial coating type) and lifetime. The present work aims to develop the eco-design of sunscreens through the minimisation of risks associated with nanomaterials incorporated into the formulation. All stages of the sunscreen’s life cycle must be considered in this aspect, from its manufacture to its end-of-life, through its use by the consumer to its impact on the exposed environment. Reducing the potential release and/or toxicity of the nanomaterial from the sunscreen is a decisive criterion for its eco-design. TiO₂ UV-blockers of varied size and surface coating (e.g., stearic acid and silica) have been selected for this study. Hydrophobic TiO₂ UV-blockers (i.e., stearic acid-coated) were incorporated into a typical water-in-oil (w/o) formulation while hydrophilic, silica-coated TiO₂ UV-blockers were dispersed into an oil-in-water (o/w) formulation. The resulting sunscreens were characterised in terms of nanomaterial localisation, sun protection factor, and photo-passivation. The risk to the direct aquatic environment was assessed by evaluating the release of nanomaterials from the sunscreen through a simulated laboratory aging procedure. The size distribution, surface charge, and degradation state of the nano-composite by-products, as well as their nanomaterial concentration and colloidal behaviour were determined in a variety of aqueous environments (e.g., seawater and freshwater). Release of the hydrophobic nanocomposites into the aqueous environment was driven by oil droplet formation while hydrophilic nano-composites were readily dispersed. Ecotoxicity of the sunscreen by-products (from both w/o and o/w formulations) and their risk to marine organisms were assessed using coral symbiotes and tropical corals, evaluating both lethal and sublethal toxicities. The data dissemination and provided risk knowledge from the present work will help guide regulation related to nanomaterials in sunscreen, provide better information for consumers, and allow for easier decision-making for manufacturers.

Keywords: alteration, environmental fate, sunscreens, titanium dioxide nanoparticles

Procedia PDF Downloads 248

Authors: Jerome Dalphinis, Vishal Patel

Abstract:

The Bailiwick of Jersey is an island British crown dependency situated off the coast of France. Jersey General Hospital’s emergency department sees approximately 40,000 patients a year. It’s outside the NHS, with secondary care being free at the point of care. Sedation is a continuum which extends from a normal conscious level to being fully unresponsive. Procedural sedation produces a minimally depressed level of consciousness in which the patient retains the ability to maintain an airway, and they respond appropriately to physical stimulation. The goals of it are to improve patient comfort and tolerance of the procedure and alleviate associated anxiety. Indications can be stratified by acuity, emergency (cardioversion for life-threatening dysrhythmia), and urgency (joint reduction). In the emergency department, this is most often achieved using a combination of opioids and benzodiazepines. Some departments also use ketamine to produce dissociative sedation, a cataleptic state of profound analgesia and amnesia. The response to pharmacological agents is highly individual, and the drugs used occasionally have unpredictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, which can always result in progression between levels of sedation irrespective of the intention. Therefore, practitioners must be able to ‘rescue’ patients from deeper sedation. These practitioners need to be senior clinicians with advanced airway skills (AAS) training. It can lead to adverse effects such as dangerous hypoxia and unintended loss of consciousness if incorrectly undertaken; studies by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) have reported avoidable deaths. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine, UK (RCEM) released an updated ‘Safe Sedation of Adults in the Emergency Department’ guidance in 2017 detailing a series of standards for staff competencies, and the required environment and equipment, which are required for each target sedation depth. The emergency department in Jersey undertook audit research in 2018 to assess their current practice. It showed gaps in clinical competency, the need for uniform care, and improved documentation. This spurred the development of a checklist incorporating the above RCEM standards, including contraindication for procedural sedation and difficult airway assessment. This was approved following discussion with the relevant heads of departments and the patient safety directorates. Following this, a second audit research was carried out in 2019 with 17 completed checklists (11 relocation of joints, 6 cardioversions). Data was obtained from looking at the controlled resuscitation drugs book containing documented use of ketamine, alfentanil, and fentanyl. TrakCare, which is the patient electronic record system, was then referenced to obtain further information. The results showed dramatic improvement compared to 2018, and they have been subdivided into six categories; pre-procedure assessment recording of significant medical history and ASA grade (2 fold increase), informed consent (100% documentation), pre-oxygenation (88%), staff (90% were AAS practitioners) and monitoring (92% use of non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, capnography, and cardiac rhythm monitoring) during procedure, and discharge instructions including the documented return of normal vitals and consciousness (82%). This procedural sedation checklist is a safe intervention that identifies pertinent information about the patient and provides a standardised checklist for the delivery of gold standard of care.

Keywords: advanced airway skills, checklist, procedural sedation, resuscitation

Procedia PDF Downloads 99