sir,
a)if i touch large or small amount of fresh blood in environment, and then i touch my eyes or cut or nose  . what is possiblity of hiv transmission?
b)i read that if large of blood comes in contact with mucous membrane , this can lead to hiv infection??

c) is probability of hiv infection is higher for actively bleeding cut than mucous membrane like eyes?/

Welcome to our Forum.  It appears that you have been misinformed about what constitute risks for HIV acquisition.  HIV is spread through penetrative sexual encounters and injection of infected material deep into tissue.  HIV is NOT spread though indirect contact with infected material which may be present on inanimate surfaces.  Questions such as yours deal with theoretical situations which have never been proven to lead to infection and which simply lead to unwarranted concerns.  Further, such questions serve no useful purpose and are not the purpose of this site where we do our best to provide science-based answers to questions related to real life events.  Thus in answer to your theoretical questions:

a)if i touch large or small amount of fresh blood in environment, and then i touch my eyes or cut or nose  . what is possiblity of hiv transmission?

This is not a risk factor for acquisition of HIV, whether the amount of blood is large or small.

b)i read that if large of blood comes in contact with mucous membrane , this can lead to hiv infection??

This is a theoretical concern which has not been shown to occur and certainly does not lead to meaningful risk for HIV acquisition.

c) is probability of hiv infection is higher for actively bleeding cut than mucous membrane like eyes?/

Neither of these sorts of exposures represent sufficiently large risks for HIV to be able to provide a meaningful risk of infection.

I have answered your questions.  I hope you will now refrain from asking more theoretical questions of this sort.  EWH

---

Sir,thanks

Please read my reply again, the amount of blood makes MO difference- still no difference.  EWH
---

1) I read from Dr.  Bob post that if you have unprotected  Sexual with known hiv individual, hiv testing is to be done at 6 months also.  I was wondering why 6 months and why not  3 months window period?? What do you think??

We do not debate statements made on the internet on our Forum.  The recommendation that 6 months need to pass before testing is conclusive is overly conservative and out of date. Even three months is longer than needed.  Perhaps you were reading an older post from Dr. Bob.  Using currently available 4th generation tests, HIV test results at any time more than 4 weeks (28 days) after an exposure are conclusive. 

This is my 3rd reply to your questions.  As per Forum policy, this thread will be closed later today.  EWH

---