The use of alcoholic paper wipes for routine hand cleansing: results of trials in two hospitals

Jones, Matthew; Rowe, GeorgeG.; Jackson, B; Pritchard, Naomi

doi:10.1016/0195-6701(86)90123-4

Cited by 22 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although 6 mL of AIHS is common in health care-related efficacy studies, a volume of 6 mL is difficult to hold in the palm of the hand and would be unsuitable for food processing/service. This study confirms work that shows 1 mL of alcohol significantly less effective than 3 mL of alcohol and that small quantities were less effective than handwashing alone (Marples & Towers 1979;Mackintosh & Hoffman 1984;Jones et al 1986). Figure 2 shows the results of a regression analysis of both data described above and data presented in Table 1 (where comparable).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

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: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

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

“…However, because finger and palm friction is important for reducing microbial loads, these wipes also must include antimicrobial compounds. Alcohol-impregnated paper hand wipes were effective for surface sanitization (63,127), and have been advocated as an alternative to hand washing in hospitals in place of or as an alternative to soap and water (29). Various alcohol concentrations have been studied for their effectiveness in wipes, e.g., 80% ethanol and 15% glycerol for removal of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus from the hands of nurses on ward rounds (126) and 70% isopropyl alcohol for removal of Campylobacter spp.…”

Section: Antimicrobial Wipesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outbreaks Where Food Workers Have Been Implicated in the Spread of Foodborne Disease. Part 10. Alcohol-Based Antiseptics for Hand Disinfection and a Comparison of Their Effectiveness with Soaps

Todd

Michaels²,

Holah

et al. 2010

Journal of Food Protection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alcohol compounds are increasingly used as a substitute for hand washing in health care environments and some public places because these compounds are easy to use and do not require water or hand drying materials. However, the effectiveness of these compounds depends on how much soil (bioburden) is present on the hands. Workers in health care environments and other public places must wash their hands before using antiseptics and/or wearing gloves. However, alcohol-based antiseptics, also called rubs and sanitizers, can be very effective for rapidly destroying some pathogens by the action of the aqueous alcohol solution without the need for water or drying with towels. Alcohol-based compounds seem to be the most effective treatment against gram-negative bacteria on lightly soiled hands, but antimicrobial soaps are as good or better when hands are more heavily contaminated. Instant sanitizers have no residual effect, unlike some antimicrobial soaps that retain antimicrobial activity after the hygienic action has been completed, e.g., after hand washing. Many alcohol-based hand rubs have antimicrobial agents added to them, but each formulation must be evaluated against the target pathogens in the environment of concern before being considered for use. Wipes also are widely used for quick cleanups of hands, other body parts, and surfaces. These wipes often contain alcohol and/or antimicrobial compounds and are used for personal hygiene where water is limited. However, antiseptics and wipes are not panaceas for every situation and are less effective in the presence of more than a light soil load and against most enteric viruses.

show abstract

“…(iv) Remove gloves and gowns before leaving the patient's room, and wash hands immediately with an antiseptic soap or use a waterless antiseptic agent (66,133,192). Hands can be contaminated via glove leaks or during glove removal, and bland soap is relatively ineffective in removing VRE from the hands (40,63,141,143,205).…”

Section: Prevention and Control Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY After they were first identified in the mid-1980s, vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) spread rapidly and became a major problem in many institutions both in Europe and the United States. Since VRE have intrinsic resistance to most of the commonly used antibiotics and the ability to acquire resistance to most of the current available antibiotics, either by mutation or by receipt of foreign genetic material, they have a selective advantage over other microorganisms in the intestinal flora and pose a major therapeutic challenge. The possibility of transfer of vancomycin resistance genes to other gram-positive organisms raises significant concerns about the emergence of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. We review VRE, including their history, mechanisms of resistance, epidemiology, control measures, and treatment.

show abstract

The use of alcoholic paper wipes for routine hand cleansing: results of trials in two hospitals

Cited by 22 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

Outbreaks Where Food Workers Have Been Implicated in the Spread of Foodborne Disease. Part 10. Alcohol-Based Antiseptics for Hand Disinfection and a Comparison of Their Effectiveness with Soaps

Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About