A Method of Assessing the Efficacy of Hand Sanitizers: Use of Real Soil Encountered in the Food Service Industry

Charbonneau, Duane; Ponte, J. M.; Kochanowski, Barbara A.

doi:10.4315/0362-028x-63.4.495

Cited by 28 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Efficacy of AIHS in reducing microbial populations on hands (Miller et al 1994;Paulson 1994;Charbonneau et al 2000;Kramer et al 2002) or fingernails (Mahl 1989;McNeil et al 2001) has been studied previously with somewhat different conclusions from what are reported here. To simulate actual-use conditions, the volunteers where not instructed to concentrate on fingernail areas when rubbing with alcohol gel.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 66%

“…Statistical significance P £ 0.05 indicated by differing letters (A, B, C, D and X). This inability to remove organic residues has also been reported in other studies (Miller et al 1994;Paulson 1994;Charbonneau et al 2000;Kramer et al 2002) and was likely responsible for the low efficacy of AIHS. It should be noted that testing procedures in the two studies reporting greater efficacy with AIHS were significantly different from those used in this study.…”

Section: Figuresupporting

confidence: 72%

“…Paulson 1994;Charbonneau et al 2000;Kramer et al 2002). Statistical significance P £ 0.05 indicated by differing letters (A, B, C, D and X).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Use limitations of alcoholic instant hand sanitizer as part of a food service hand hygiene program

Michaels¹,

Gangar²,

Lin

et al. 2003

Food Serv Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficiency of either handwashing or use of alcoholic instant hand sanitizers (AIHS) has been reported against normal microflora (NF) or transient microflora (TF) using marker bacteria or viruses. Most studies were performed to support use in health care employing techniques that poorly mimic food service. When AIHS is used alone, application quantity, exposure period, alcoholic concentrations and type influence effectiveness. Relevant to the food industry, little work has been done in order to understand the variables affecting efficacy when handwashing and AIHS are combined. Although AIHS has been suggested as a replacement for fingernail brushes in health care, little is known about either application when heavy soil is present. The experiments described examine the effects of sanitizer quantity on efficacy when used after a standard handwash and use of AIHS to disinfect the nail region when contaminated with high levels of organic soil. In these studies, subjects contaminated hands or nail region with TF marker, either Serratia marcescens in Tryptone soya broth or Escherichia coli JM109 in ground beef, respectively. One hand or selected fingers are sampled to establish TF and/or NF baseline counts. For handwashing and AIHS use, hands were washed with a mild antimicrobial soap (AS) (0.5% triclosan), followed by paper towel drying and application of various quantities of AIHS. With fingernail studies, hands and nail regions were washed with tap water, bland soap (BS), AS, AIHS, BS and AIHS or fingernail brush with BS. Using the combined handwash and AIHS to enhance the hygiene process, there were significant (P ≤ 0.05) increases in efficacy as quantity of AIHS increased, a significant difference in efficacy over handwashing alone is seen only when larger quantities (3 mL and 6 mL) of AIHS are employed. In fingernail studies, overall lower levels of E. coli were removed from artificial vs. natural nails and a statistically significantly (P ≤ 0.05) improvement was seen when a fingernail brush was used over all other methods, including BS wash followed by AIHS.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 66%

Section: Figuresupporting

confidence: 72%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use limitations of alcoholic instant hand sanitizer as part of a food service hand hygiene program

Michaels¹,

Gangar²,

Lin

et al. 2003

Food Serv Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For all tests in this study, volunteers contaminated their hands (both left and right) by manipulating a fresh, uncooked chicken, as recommended by Charbonneau et al. (2000).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers

Snelling

Saville

Stevens

et al. 2010

Journal of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims:To compare an ultra-rapid hand dryer against warm air dryers, with regard to: (A) bacterial transfer after drying and (B) the impact on bacterial numbers of rubbing hands during dryer use.Methods and Results:The Airblade™ dryer (Dyson Ltd) uses two air ‘knives’ to strip water from still hands, whereas conventional dryers use warm air to evaporate moisture whilst hands are rubbed together. These approaches were compared using 14 volunteers; the Airblade™ and two types of warm air dryer. In study (A), hands were contaminated by handling meat and then washed in a standardized manner. After dryer use, fingers were pressed onto foil and transfer of residual bacteria enumerated. Transfers of 0–107 CFU per five fingers were observed. For a drying time of 10 s, the Airblade™ led to significantly less bacterial transfer than the other dryers (P<0·05; range 0·0003–0·0015). When the latter were used for 30–35 s, the trend was for the Airblade to still perform better, but differences were not significant (P>0·05, range 0·1317–0·4099). In study (B), drying was performed ± hand rubbing. Contact plates enumerated bacteria transferred from palms, fingers and fingertips before and after drying. When keeping hands still, there was no statistical difference between dryers, and reduction in the numbers released was almost as high as with paper towels. Rubbing when using the warm air dryers inhibited an overall reduction in bacterial numbers on the skin (P < 0·05).Conclusions:Effective hand drying is important for reducing transfer of commensals or remaining contaminants to surfaces. Rubbing hands during warm air drying can counteract the reduction in bacterial numbers accrued during handwashing.Significance and Impact of the Study:The Airblade™ was superior to the warm air dryers for reducing bacterial transfer. Its short, 10 s drying time should encourage greater compliance with hand drying and thus help reduce the spread of infectious agents via hands.

show abstract

“…While hand sanitizers may be important in limiting the spread of contagious disease, they are not effective against anthrax and Clostridium difficile . Hand sanitizers are not good at removing visible dirt from the hands and are best used on clean hands that might contain nonvisible dirt . While hand sanitizers can solubilize intercellular lipids, a study in healthcare workers demonstrated better skin condition with the use of hand sanitizers as opposed to frequent hand washing…”

Section: Cleanser Formulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The science behind skin care: Cleansers

Draelos

2017

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two of the most important skin care categories with profound dermatologic implications are cleansers and moisturizers. Cleansers are composed of alkaline soaps or the less barrier-damaging synthetic detergents, known as syndets. The lower skin irritation and dryness found with syndets are related to their reduced tendency to cause protein denaturation due to the charge density of protein-bound micelle-like surfactant aggregates. Many cleansing formulations are available for purchase to meet hygiene needs varying by sex, age, ethnicity, occupation, environment, personal preferences, and the presence or absence of skin disease. This discussion covers the science of skin cleansing.

show abstract

A Method of Assessing the Efficacy of Hand Sanitizers: Use of Real Soil Encountered in the Food Service Industry

Cited by 28 publications

References 9 publications

Use limitations of alcoholic instant hand sanitizer as part of a food service hand hygiene program

Use limitations of alcoholic instant hand sanitizer as part of a food service hand hygiene program

Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers

The science behind skin care: Cleansers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About