Talk:Povidone-iodine

Piercings

Can be used to clean piercings.

Not a good idea, as it reacts with metals. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Relatively less toxic to mammalian cells?

The article presently states: "Slow release of iodine from the PVPI complex in solution minimizes iodine toxicity towards mammalian cells." This doesn't make much sense and doesn't explain why mammalian cells are relatively resistant to betadine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.237.23 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Bacteria barrier?

I removed the following: Povidone-iodine leaves a yellow film on the skin, which is a barrier for bacteria. The film is non-irritating.

I'm pretty sure PVPI is not a persistent antiseptic. The yellow is from Iodine staining, but it's not a barrier for bacteria. — Zaui (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As a chemist, the yellow-brown color indicates the presence of unreacted iodine still present in the povidone iodine complex. As such the film is still active as an antiseptic until the color disappears. However, unless the film has moisture present, it cannot actually react to destroy microbes so acting as a barrier in dry conditions may be questionable. Betadine comes in two forms, a topical liquid and as a detergent skin cleanser for surgical scrubbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethechemist (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If used correctly Betadine should be worked into a lather then washed off- there should be little or no skin staining and no visible film.Saxophobia 00:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't this page be deleted and replaced with an article on generic povidone iodine? It seems promotional in nature. --Quality Alison 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i work in helicopters and when i hurt my self a little bit this product is very good to heal avoiding infection .,hugobell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.142.181.127 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should remain because most laypeople only know of the brand Betadine, and they don't know its actually Povidone-iodine203.161.69.72 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to Betadine

An interesting article in the January 2010 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/362/1/18 showed significant benefits to using a Chlorhexidine-Alcohol pre-surgical disinfectant in place of the more traditional povidone-iodine. The results of the study are compelling, and I believe have high public service and education value -- particularly if one is doing research before surgery! (I have vested interest in neither povidone nor chlorhexidine.) I also agree with user talk:203.161.69.72; I would not have known that p-i is Betadine, with which I am familiar. More backup information (which might be incorporated into the Wiki, or perhaps its own page, is available here: http://blogs.chron.com/medblog/archives/2010/01/houston_researc_1.html --User:jtonti 22:17 6 January 2010 (EDT) —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

error

The picture where 'gauze' has been used on a wound, is not gauze. It is in fact a parafin-impregnated mesh with brandnames like 'Bactigras'. It has also not been applied correctly in the picture, and it is probably more detrimental to this wound than beneficial. - emesis 121.215.52.20 (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Misleading historical section

The article says "Following the discovery of iodine by Bernard Courtois in 1811, it has been broadly used for the prevention and treatment of skin infections, and the treatment of wounds. Iodine has been recognized as an effective broad-spectrum bactericide, and it is also effective against yeasts, molds, fungi, viruses, and protozoans." This is very misleading, and gives the impression that doctors commonly used it to prevent inflections soon after 1811. In fact doctors by the mid 19th century fought against the advice of Semmelweis to wash their hands in between dissecting corpes and performing surgery, since prior to Pasteur, Lister and Koch's work in the late 1800's the germ theory of disease was not part of medical practice, so applying iodine to kill germs or prevent infection soon after 1811 is very unlikely. So when is the earliest documented medical use of iodine on skin woulds to prevent infection? Granted, 19th century doctors naively used a great many irritating or toxic substances in treating visible skin eruption from syphilis, and might randomly apply externally or give internally just about anything, such as "iron, arsenic, iodine and sarsaparilla (British Medical Journal, 1858)" in a tactic of throwing "everything but the kitchen sink" at an ailment without a real idea that the iodine tincture killed germs or prevented infection from a cut or abrasion. I suggest revising the section to say "Iodine was discovered by Bernard Courtois in 1811. In the late 19th century it began to be broadly used..." and continuing. The year or decade it was adopted should be lurking somewhere in a history of medicine, but I've not seen reference to use of iodine in my recent reading about Lister (he used phenol/carbolic acid, or zinc compounds), Pasteur or Koch. Some early to mid 19th century doctors used chemicals thought to prevent fermentation to treat woulds (without knowledge of germs as agents of infection) so iodine might have seen early use from that basis, after the early work of Pasteur. Edison (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Povidone-iodine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070711095628/http://www.usp.org/USPNF/faq.html to http://www.usp.org/USPNF/faq.html#III_Q3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Liquid product banned in UK?

Can a UK editor please confirm what I've been told this week by a Bristol (Tesco) pharmacist—that liquid p-i is no longer on sale in the UK owing to its potential use as an ingredient in bomb-making? As a visitor from Australia, I was seeking to replenish my simple first-aid kit. The pharmacist said the liquid had been withdrawn by law more than three years ago and offered a powder-impregnated dressing as a substitute. If this is the case, the article needs to be updated. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess that the sought information would be published in the latest edition of the British National Formulary. The article cites a 2015 edition (BNF 69), whereas the latest edition should be BNF 77 (February 2019), with BNF 78 about to appear in September 2019. It may be available online, but not to me in Australia. In the meantime, I have learned here that "A mixture of povidone solution and hydroxide peroxide 3% will explode", and found this relevant article in Scientific American. Bjenks (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't visited UK in recent years, but here are my online observations in October 2020:

Betadine(R) containing iodine is not marketed online here, instead they market completely unrelated products: https://www.betadine.co.uk/

If you look at the image, this product contains 1% PVP-Iodine. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Betadine-Gargle-refreshingly-flavoured-therapeutic/dp/B078LN28SJ

https://www.vetsend.co.uk/betadine/ Wound products: "Unfortunately, the Betadine is not available for sale anymore. Please have a look at Vetramil or Wound Ointment for alternatives".

--91.159.185.71 (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

Mention https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/povidone#Etymology Jidanni (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Complaint section

@Iodinehead2020: Concerning your edit, if you make edits directly in the article, you should fix it, not complain about. Complaints are for the talk page where we hash things out and then fix the article. Is this the "Gottardi J Hosp Infect" source that you were referring to? Per WP:MEDRS, we normally need secondary source (review articles) to support medical claims and Gottardi appears to be primary. Boghog (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Nail fungus

Of all people my veterinarian recommended a liquid that he had to come back my nail fungus. He called the liquid Valdo. That’s vodo. An exhausted Internet search show that the liquid contained I saw Isodine.

More information about that is hard to find. But nothing to conclusions I decided that Bernadine might work. My veterinarian in Mexico is the one who started all this. His liquid has been working marvelously but it ran out so I’m continuing with Bentadine. It’s too soon to tell whether the progress continues. Please add any thoughts or warnings. 200.68.186.188 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)