{"title":"[用不同方法制备的布罗氏溶液和新布罗氏溶液的稳定性和抗菌活性评估]。","authors":"Masako Kinoshita, Rina Yamagishi, Yohei Iizaka, Masaki Takigawa, Yojiro Anzai, Atsushi Urano, Kaoru Hirose, Takehisa Hanawa, Hiroyuki Tanaka","doi":"10.1248/yakushi.24-00082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Burow's solution is a 13% aluminum acetate solution used for treating chronic suppurative otitis media. However, multiple formulations for Burow's and neo-Burow's solutions are used as in-hospital preparations. Each formulation uses different types and amounts of reagents, and takes a different time to prepare. Thus, the ions, including aluminum ion (Al<sup>3+</sup>), and other molecules in the prepared Burow's and neo-Burow's solutions are not identical, and the pH also differs. Furthermore, details about the antibacterial activity of these preparations are unknown. This study evaluated the stability and antibacterial activity of four Burow's and two neo-Burow's solutions prepared using different methods. Preparation times ranged from 20 min to 3 d, and the pH ranged from 2.2 to 4, meaning some solutions were more acidic or more basic than the pH 3 devised by Burow. In addition, the Al<sup>3+</sup> concentrations ranged from 0.05 to 1.51 mol/L, meaning some solutions were more concentrated or diluted than 13% aluminum acetate (0.64 mol/L). One of the Burow's solutions we prepared produced a white residue after 14 d, making it difficult to ensure stability. In addition, confirming the antibacterial activity of another Burow's solution against the test bacteria was problematic. Despite the differences in pH and Al<sup>3+</sup> concentrations between the various Burow's and neo-Burow's solutions, the antibacterial activity was equivalent. It was considered necessary to use the basic data obtained in this study to select a formulation for each hospital. Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of each formulation in clinical settings will be a subject for future study.</p>","PeriodicalId":23810,"journal":{"name":"Yakugaku zasshi : Journal of the Pharmaceutical Society of Japan","volume":"144 9","pages":"887-896"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Evaluation of the Stability and Antibacterial Activity of Burow's and Neo-Burow's Solutions was Prepared Using Different Methods].\",\"authors\":\"Masako Kinoshita, Rina Yamagishi, Yohei Iizaka, Masaki Takigawa, Yojiro Anzai, Atsushi Urano, Kaoru Hirose, Takehisa Hanawa, Hiroyuki Tanaka\",\"doi\":\"10.1248/yakushi.24-00082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Burow's solution is a 13% aluminum acetate solution used for treating chronic suppurative otitis media. However, multiple formulations for Burow's and neo-Burow's solutions are used as in-hospital preparations. Each formulation uses different types and amounts of reagents, and takes a different time to prepare. Thus, the ions, including aluminum ion (Al<sup>3+</sup>), and other molecules in the prepared Burow's and neo-Burow's solutions are not identical, and the pH also differs. Furthermore, details about the antibacterial activity of these preparations are unknown. This study evaluated the stability and antibacterial activity of four Burow's and two neo-Burow's solutions prepared using different methods. Preparation times ranged from 20 min to 3 d, and the pH ranged from 2.2 to 4, meaning some solutions were more acidic or more basic than the pH 3 devised by Burow. In addition, the Al<sup>3+</sup> concentrations ranged from 0.05 to 1.51 mol/L, meaning some solutions were more concentrated or diluted than 13% aluminum acetate (0.64 mol/L). One of the Burow's solutions we prepared produced a white residue after 14 d, making it difficult to ensure stability. In addition, confirming the antibacterial activity of another Burow's solution against the test bacteria was problematic. Despite the differences in pH and Al<sup>3+</sup> concentrations between the various Burow's and neo-Burow's solutions, the antibacterial activity was equivalent. It was considered necessary to use the basic data obtained in this study to select a formulation for each hospital. Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of each formulation in clinical settings will be a subject for future study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yakugaku zasshi : Journal of the Pharmaceutical Society of Japan\",\"volume\":\"144 9\",\"pages\":\"887-896\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yakugaku zasshi : Journal of the Pharmaceutical Society of Japan\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1248/yakushi.24-00082\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yakugaku zasshi : Journal of the Pharmaceutical Society of Japan","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1248/yakushi.24-00082","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
[Evaluation of the Stability and Antibacterial Activity of Burow's and Neo-Burow's Solutions was Prepared Using Different Methods].
Burow's solution is a 13% aluminum acetate solution used for treating chronic suppurative otitis media. However, multiple formulations for Burow's and neo-Burow's solutions are used as in-hospital preparations. Each formulation uses different types and amounts of reagents, and takes a different time to prepare. Thus, the ions, including aluminum ion (Al3+), and other molecules in the prepared Burow's and neo-Burow's solutions are not identical, and the pH also differs. Furthermore, details about the antibacterial activity of these preparations are unknown. This study evaluated the stability and antibacterial activity of four Burow's and two neo-Burow's solutions prepared using different methods. Preparation times ranged from 20 min to 3 d, and the pH ranged from 2.2 to 4, meaning some solutions were more acidic or more basic than the pH 3 devised by Burow. In addition, the Al3+ concentrations ranged from 0.05 to 1.51 mol/L, meaning some solutions were more concentrated or diluted than 13% aluminum acetate (0.64 mol/L). One of the Burow's solutions we prepared produced a white residue after 14 d, making it difficult to ensure stability. In addition, confirming the antibacterial activity of another Burow's solution against the test bacteria was problematic. Despite the differences in pH and Al3+ concentrations between the various Burow's and neo-Burow's solutions, the antibacterial activity was equivalent. It was considered necessary to use the basic data obtained in this study to select a formulation for each hospital. Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of each formulation in clinical settings will be a subject for future study.