Does the amount of pain caused by using an anti-septic have any relation to how “well” it works?
Because I’m wondering why alcohol (as an anti-septic) is used when hydrogen peroxide (sp) is available and absolutely pain free?
Are there any inherent advantages to using alcohol on open wounds?
Antiseptics are often somewhat toxic to vulnerable tissues. They are more toxic to the smaller and more vulnerable microbes
There is no link between the irritation of a antiseptic and its antiseptic ability. For example, 70% ethanol in water is a superior bacteriocidal to 100% ethanol, which is much more painful, and can more readily impair healing or encourage scarring if overused
Hydrogen peroxide is a fairly good antiseptic. in fact, your own white blood cells and related microbe-killing cells use peroxides as their main direct weapon against live bacteria. If alcohol has an advantage, it is that it is a better skin cleanser and faster acting.
I’m sure I’m overlooking some details that others will provide…
How much faster acting would it be? I was under the impression one of the advantages would be “quicker drying” (Hydrogen peroxide seems to act like water and doesn’t evaporate as quickly as alcohol).
Also, H2O2 is very unstable and breaks down readily when exposed to heat and light…and I believe also just over time. So, alcohol makes a better anti-septic to store in the medicine cabinet.
Mercurochrome didn’t burn either, but the mercury in it is not so good for some folks (I react with skin rash), or the environment.