Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:34:54.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of low-concentration iodophors for germicidal hand washing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

M. E. Stiles  and
A. Z. Sheena
M. E. Stiles
Affiliation:
Department of Foods and Nutrition, the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2M8
A. Z. Sheena
Affiliation:
Department of Foods and Nutrition, the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2M8
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 efficacy of iodophor germicides containing different concentrations of available iodine against transient (inoculated) bacteria and the natural hand microflora was compared with chlorhexidine gluconate (2 and 4%) liquid detergent (Hibitane), non-germicidal soap and a tap water rinse. The tap water rinse was ineffective compared with all other treatments. Only 4% chlorhexidine gluconate liquid detergent and iodophor containing 0·75% available iodine were significantly better than the non-germicidal soap for reduction of transient bacteria, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas fluorescens, that had been inoculated onto hands. These agents also caused a significant reduction in the number of ‘natural’ micro-organisms released from hands after a standard 15 s hand wash. The low-concentration iodophor products and the product containing 2% chlorhexidine gluconate failed to give results significantly better than the non-germicidal control soap. Baird-Parker medium and standard aerobic plate counts were highly correlated (r = 0·82), so that for studies of Gram-negative bacteria inoculated onto hands as a transient microflora, counts on Baird-Parker medium give a reasonable indication of the natural (residual) hand microflora.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 94 , Issue 3 , June 1985 , pp. 269 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

References

REFERENCES

A.O.A.C. (1975). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 12th ed., p. 947. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Ayliffe, G. A. J., Babb, J. R. & Quoraishi, A. H. (1978). A test for ‘hygienic’ hand disinfection. Journal of Clinical Pathology 31, 923–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkelman, R. L., Holland, B. W. & Anderson, R. L. (1982). Increased bactericidal activity of dilute preparations of povidone-iodine solutions. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 15, 635–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, J., Babb, J. R., Ayliffe, G. A. J. & Ellis, S. H. (1977). The effect on the skin microflora of bathing with antiseptic solutions. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 3, 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joress, S. M. (1962). A study of disinfection of the skin: a comparison of povidone-iodine and other agents used for surgical scrubs. Annals of Surgery 155, 296–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lilly, H. A. & Lowbury, E. J. L. (1978). Transient skin microflora. Their removal by cleansing or disinfection in relation to their mode of deposition. Journal of Clinical Pathology 31, 919–922.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, J. L. (1972). Fundamentals of Experimental Design, 2nd ed., p. 259. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Noble, W. C. & Somerville, D. (1974). Microbiology of Human Skin. London: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Ojajārvi, J. (1976). An evaluation of antiseptics used for hand disinfection in wards. Journal of Hygiene 76, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ojajārvi, J. (1980). Effectiveness of hand washing and disinfection methods in removing transient bacteria after patient nursing. Journal of Hygiene 85, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, A. F., Rosenberg, A. & Alatary, S. D. (1978). Comparative evaluation of surgical scrub preparations. Surgery, Gynecology and Obsetrics 146, 63–65.Google ScholarPubMed
Rotter, M., Mittermayer, H. & Kundi, M. (1974). Investigations on the model of the artificially contaminated hand. Proposal of a test method. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie und Hygiene I. Abteilung Original B 159, 560–581.Google ScholarPubMed
Sheena, A. Z. & Stiles, M. E. (1982). Efficacy of germicidal hand wash agents in hygienic hand disinfection. Journal of Food Protection 45, 713–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheena, A. Z. & Stiles, M. E. (1983 a). Immediate and residual (substantive) efficacy 'of germicidal hand wash agents. Journal of Food Protection 46, 629–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheena, A. Z. & Stiles, M. E. (1983 b). Efficacy of germicidal hand, wash agents against transient bacteria inoculated onto hands. Journal of Food Protection 46, 722–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheena, A. Z. & Stiles, M. E. (1983 c). Comparison of barrier creāms and germicides for hand hygiene. Journal of Food Protection 46, 943–946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shelanski, H. A. & Shelanski, M. V. (1956). PVP-iodine: history, toxicity and therapeutic uses. The Journal of the International College of Surgeons 25, 727–734.Google ScholarPubMed
Stiles, M. E. & Ng, L.-K. (1981). Use of Baird-Parjier's medium to enumerate Staphylococcus aureus in meats. Journal of Food Protection 44, 538–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
U.S. Patent (1981). Germicidal iodine compositions with enhanced iodine stability. U.S. Patent No. 4,271,149, 06 2, 1981.Google Scholar
Van Der Hoeven, E. & Hinton, N. A. (1968). An assessment of the prolonged effect of antiseptic scrubs on the bacterial flora of the hands. Canadian Medical Association Journal 99, 402–407.Google ScholarPubMed