Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-2jptb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-18T07:09:09.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative evaluation of the immediate and sustained antibacterial action of two regimens, based on triclosan- and chlorhexidine-containing handwash preparations, on volunteers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

C. A. Bartzokas ,
J. E. Corkill ,
T. Makin  and
E. Parry
C. A. Bartzokas
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Clatterbridge Hospital, Bebington, Wirral L63 4JY
J. E. Corkill
Affiliation:
University Department of Medical Microbiology, Duncan Building, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Prescot Street, Liverpool L7 8XW
T. Makin
Affiliation:
University Department of Medical Microbiology, Duncan Building, Royal Liverpool Hospital, Prescot Street, Liverpool L7 8XW
E. Parry
Affiliation:
Department of Business Studies, Manchester Polytechnic, Aytoun Building, Aytoun Street, Manchester M1 3GH
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The degerming effect of a 3 min handwash with 2% triclosan, or 4% chlorhexidine, in detergent and enhanced efficacy of either antiseptic in isopropyl alcohol, was evaluated in volunteers. Handwashing with either antiseptic preparation reduced the normal flora by a factor of 10; alcohol rubbing by approximately a factor of 1000. Both regimens eliminated Micrococcus roseus, artificially inoculated before every procedure. The sustained action of the same detergent preparations was further studied in gloved and ungloved hands by the Vinson's ‘finger imprint test’. In the gloved hand both antiseptics inhibited Staphylococcus epidermidis for 4 h. In the ungloved hand however, triclosan remained active longer than chlorhexidine. Whilst the activity of chlorhexidine was short-lived against a clinical isolate of S. aureus, particularly in the ungloved hand, the sustained effect of triclosan against the same strain persisted for 4 h on either hand.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 98 , Issue 3 , June 1987 , pp. 337 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

References

REFERENCES

Aly, R. & Maibach, H. I. (1979). Comparative study on the antimicrobial effect of 0·5% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol on the normal flora of hands. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 37, 610–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aly, R. & Maibach, H. I. (1980). A comparison of the antimicrobial effect of 0·5% chlorhexidine (‘Hibistat’) and 70% isopropyl alcohol on hands contaminated with Serratia marcescens. Clinical Experimental Dermatology 5. 197–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayliffe, G. A. J., Babb, J. R. & Lilly, H. A. (1981). Tests for Hand Disinfection. In Disinfectants: their use and evaluation of effectiveness (ed. Collins, C. H., Allwood, M. C., Bloomfield, S. F. and Fox, A.), pp. 37–59. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bartzokas, C. A., Corkill, J. E., Makin, T. & Pinder, D. C. (1983 a). Assessment of the remanent antibacterial effect of a 2% triclosan-detergent preparation on the skin. Journal of Hygiene 91, 521–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartzokas, C. A., Gibson, M. F., Graham, R. & Pinder, D. C. (1983 b). A comparison of triclosan and chlorhexidine preparations with GO per cent isopropyl alcohol for hygienic hand disinfection. Journal of Hospital Infection 4, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfitt, W., Dixon, S. & Hamilton-Miller, J. M. T. (1985). Resistance to antiseptics in methicillin and gentamicin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Lancet i, 1442–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, J. & Sanderson, P. (1980). Surgical glove punctures. Journal of Hospital Infection 1, 84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Federal Register (1974). OTC Topical antimicrobial products. Federal Register 39(179), 33140.Google Scholar
Federal Register (1978). OTC Topical Antimicrobial Products. Federal Register 43(4), 1215.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1948). The Fisher-Yates test of significance in 2x2 contingency tables. Biometrika 35, 145–156.Google ScholarPubMed
La Rocca, M. A. & La Rocca, P. T. (1982). An evaluation of the antimicrobial effect of a hand sponge-brush impregnated with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiclens). Developments in Industrial Microbiology 23, 543–546.Google Scholar
Lowbury, E. J. L. & Lilly, H. A. (1960). Disinfection of the hands of surgeons and nurses. British Medical Journal 1, 1445–1450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowbury, E. J. L. & Lilly, H. A. (1973). Use of 4% chlorhexidine detergent solution (Hibiscrub) and other methods of skin disinfection. British Medical Journal 1, 510–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowbury, E. J. L., Lilly, H. A. & Ayliffe, G. A. J. (1974). Preoperative disinfection of surgeons' hands: use of alcoholic solutions and effects of gloves on skin flora. British Medical Journal 4, 370–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, A. F., Rosenberg, A. & Alatary, S. D. (1978). Comparative evaluation of surgical scrub preparation. Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics 146, 63–65.Google Scholar
Reber, H., Müntener, M., Neck, K. & Lips, U. (1975). Zur prufmethodik der chirurgeschen handedesinfektion. Zentralblalt für Bacleriologie und Hygiene im Abteilung Originate 160, 601–627.Google Scholar
Rotter, M., Koller, W. & Wewalka, G. (1981). Eignung von chlorhexidinglukonat- und PVP-Jod-haltigen präparationen zur händedesinfektion. Hygiene und Medizin 6, 425–430.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Slade, P. D., Williams, E. & Bartzokas, C. A. (1986). Psychological contributions to the control of hospital infection. In Current Issues in Clinical Psychology (ed. Eisenberg, N. and Glasgow, D.). London: Gower.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. J. (1978). An evaluation of hand-washing techniques. Nursing Times 74, 54–55, 108–110.Google Scholar
Vinson, L. J., Ambye, E. L., Bennett, A. G., Schneider, W. C. & Travers, J. J. (1961). In vitro tests for measuring antibacterial activity of toilet soap and detergent bars. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 50, 827–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walter, C. W. & Kundsin, R. B. (1969). The bacteriologic study of surgical gloves from 250 operations. Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics 129, 949–952.Google ScholarPubMed
Werner, H.-P. & Borneff, J. (1980). Die charakterisierung der desinfizierenden wirksamkeit von händedesinfektionsverfahren am beispiel von 0·5% chlorhexidingluconat in 70% isopropylalkohol. Hygiene und Medizin 5, 61–70.Google Scholar