rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The virus can be killed on surfaces - not so much within human cells.

Most things that will kill the virus are also quite harmful to human cells. That is why we do not chug sanitizer or bathe the body with UV radiation. In fact, I have an appointment in another couple of weeks to have some cancerous cells removed from my face - most likely caused by UV exposure. I need to a better job of shielding my face .... can you imagine the cancer that would result if I would regularly bathe my whole body in UV radiation?

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

There is a difference between toxic and hazardous. Almost everything is toxic to some extent. Different materials are assigned an LD50 designation to indicate just how toxic they are. Hazardous is a measure of how likely that material is to cause harm. While methanol is more toxic than ethanol, the hazard arises from consuming it vs rubbing it on your skin as a sanitizing agent. In that application, your major hazard is dry skin, not illness or death. The government issues safety data sheets to inform the public as to the hazards associated with any particular material. They are next to useless because they are written by attorneys whose goal is to protect their manufacturing clients by describing them in such negative terms that dish detergent sounds like snake venom.

I use glass cleaner for sanitizing my hands. It's the same as hand sanitizers minus the ingredients to make them smell good (and cost far less than sanitizers particularly in today's environment). Both are essentially Isopropyl alcohol, a surfactant and water plus something to make the hand sanitizer smell good along with a thickening agent to make application easier.

I'm a retired chemist who has worked in the department of safety assessment for a pesticide manufacturer so I have some experience with the issue.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

There is a risk of toxicity via skin absorption:

"In the industrial setting, inhalation of high concentrations of methanol vapor and absorption of methanol through the skin are as effective as the oral route in producing toxic effects."
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750029.html

Though probably unlikely from small amounts of hand sanitizer use by an adult. Conceivably more risk for a small child if exposed to significant amounts.

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

The whole issue is about assessing risk. Alcohols, any of them are far more hazardous ingested vs topical application. Quantity or concentration is also a factor in assessing the hazard in topical use. Simply rubbing it on your hands is far less hazardous vs taking a bath in the stuff. Essentially the hazardous risks of rubbing it on your hands as a sanitizer is very small and when compared with other every day hazardous risks in your environment and should be acceptable to most adults. But that's the beauty of our country. We all get to decide for ourselves how to manage everyday risks and can choose almost any method we choose as long as it does not impose a burden on someone else.

And while I'm on a roll, FDA Approval is somewhat ethereal as well. The FDA does not approve individual products, it provides lists of materials that are approved for uses in food or have the potential to become part of food. If a company uses only materials from these lists, they can claim FDA Approval. They are still liable for the safety of their products can can be sued when problems occur regardless of what they claim.

newtoyou Loc: Eastport

Does not denatured ethyl alcohol use ten percent Methyl alcohol as a denaturant? At least in the US.
It MAY be higher %age than that.
It is often called " methylated spirits"
That would explain the poisonous quality.
Methyl alcohol is not made by fermentation, but by destructive distillation of celulose.
Bill

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

I think we are rapidly approaching the point of trying to pick "fly excrement" out of pepper. Methanol, ethanol and isopropanol all have roughly the same toxicity as far as humans are concerned and I suspect the little Covid buggers as well. The problem is that methanol and isopropanol have far more toxic and therefore more hazardous metabolites when consumed than ethanol. That's why we drink the later and avoid the former ones. And the relevant issue is the hazards associated with their intended use, a short term application to the skin, not taking a bath in the stuff.

No one has raised the issue that isopropanol is similar to methonal when consumed but it is commonly used as a sanitizing agent. I suspect that methanol is the least effective sanitizer because it is the most volatile and would be present for a shorter period of time. The same is true for concentrations of alcohol in sanitizers, 50%, 70% or 90%. They all will serve their purpose but take a little longer. And I think we're back to trying to pick fly excrement out of pepper.

And my real point is that we all get to decide for ourselves how we want to handle the situation. The only downside to washing with soap and hot water is that it is generally not available at the exit to stores, etc. and hand sanitizers are.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Doesn’t soap and hot water take much longer but do much better at removing physical material {like real dirt}??

Reuss Griffiths Loc: Ravenna, Ohio

I suspect the difference is that washing removes the little blighters while sanitizing kills them. Neither process is 100% effective so you pays your money and you makes your choice. And sanitizers are a lot more portable.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Both ‘kill’ them by cutting through the layer of fat that covers them.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

Except that alcohol doesn't kill spore-forming organisms. Perhaps the most relevant is the anaerobic bacterium, Clostridium difficile, or "C. diff" which has been responsible for outbreaks of diarrhea worldwide, especially in health care facilities. The reliable way to prevent transmission is the use of soap and water. To the extent that in the hospital room of a patient with known or suspected C. diff, the ubiquitous hand sanitizer will have been removed or covered in caution tape, to force staff and visitors to use soap and water.