Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T09:23:04.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Detergents compared with each other and with antiseptics as skin ‘degerming’ agents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. A. Lilly ,
E. J. L. Lowbury  and
M. D. Wilkins
H. A. Lilly
Affiliation:
MRC Industrial Injuries and Burns Unit, Birmingham Accident Hospital
E. J. L. Lowbury
Affiliation:
MRC Industrial Injuries and Burns Unit, Birmingham Accident Hospital
M. D. Wilkins
Affiliation:
MRC Industrial Injuries and Burns Unit, Birmingham Accident Hospital
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.

Three detergent preparations (bar soap, ‘Hibiscrub’ base and ‘LIC 76’), two antiseptic preparations (0·5% chlorhexidine in 95% ethyl alcohol and an alcohol jelly, ‘Alcogel’), and one antiseptic-detergent solution (4% chlorhexidine gluconate in a detergent base, ‘Hibiscrub’) were compared for their effectiveness, on a single use, in reducing the yield of bacteria from the hands of volunteers. The antiseptic and antiseptic-detergent preparations were more effective than the detergents, with a mean reduction in yield of skin bacteria of 96·0% after use of alcoholic chlorhexidine and of 81·2% after use of Hibiscrub. One of the detergents, LIC 76, appeared more effective than the others, causing a mean reduction in the yield of skin bacteria of 41·5%, compared with reductions of 4·6% by the Hibiscrub detergent base and an increase of 3·2% with bar soap; unlike the other detergents, LIC 76 was found to have appreciable bacteristatic and bactericidal properties.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 82 , Issue 1 , February 1979 , pp. 89 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

References

REFERENCES

Lilly, H. A. & Lowbury, E. J. L. (1978). Transient skin flora: Their removal by cleansing or disinfection in relation to their mode of deposition. Journal of Clinical Pathology (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowbury, E. J. L. & Lilly, H. A. (1960). Disinfection of the hands of surgeons and nurses. British Medical Journal i, 1445–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowbury, E. J. L. & Lilly, H. A. (1973). Use of 4% chlorhexidine detergent solution (Hibiscrub) and other methods of skin disinfection. British Medical Journal i, 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 iv, 369–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowbury, E. J. L., Lilly, H. A. & Bull, J. P. (1960). Disinfection of the skin of operation sites. British Medical Journal ii, 1039–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. B. (1957). Surgical antiseptics. In Antiseptics, Disinfectants, Fungicides and Sterilization (ed. Reddish, G. F.), 2nd ed., pp. 399–421. London: Kimpton.Google Scholar
Rotter, M., Mittermayer, H. & Kundi, M. (1974). Investigations on the model of the artificially contaminated hand: proposal of a test method. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde, Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene, Abteilung 1: Orig. B 159, 560–81.Google ScholarPubMed