Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:55:52.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microbiological Efficacy and Tolerability of a New, Non-Alcohol-Based Hand Disinfectant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Niina Agthe ,
Kirsi Terho ,
Tiina Kurvinen ,
Marianne Routamaa ,
Reijo Peltonen ,
Kirsi Laitinen  and
Mari Kanerva
Niina Agthe*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki
Kirsi Terho
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control and Hospital Hygiene, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Tiina Kurvinen
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control and Hospital Hygiene, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Marianne Routamaa
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control and Hospital Hygiene, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Reijo Peltonen
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control and Hospital Hygiene, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Kirsi Laitinen
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki
Mari Kanerva
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki
*
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, PO Box 41 (Mannerheimintie 172), FIN-00014, University of Helsinki, Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

Alcohol-based hand disinfectants are widely used in hospitals. Occasionally, there is a need for non-alcohol-based products, but alternatives have been scarce. We studied the microbiological efficacy and tolerability of a water-based hand disinfectant for healthcare workers.

Design.

A water-based hand disinfectant was introduced as the only hand disinfectant in 5 wards in Turku University Hospital, Finland. Ninety-nine healthcare workers participated in fingerprint sampling during the 7-week study period. In another ward, 26 healthcare workers who were using alcohol-based hand disinfectant acted as control subjects for the skin reaction studies. The water-based product was tested in the laboratory according to the European standard EN 12791. We obtained 292 fingerprint samples before disinfection and 302 after disinfection. The opinions of healthcare workers were collected by use of a questionnaire, and skin reactions were assessed subjectively by use of questionnaires and objectively by measuring moisture and transepidermal water loss.

Results.

When tested in accordance with the European standard, the product met the requirements for short-term and long-term efficacy. The results of the fingerprint test showed that there was a statistically significant decrease in colonization of the fingertips before and after disinfection (P < .001).

The users of the water-based hand disinfectant reported dry skin more often than did control subjects, but visual inspection and the results of the moisture measurement showed no difference between the users of the water-based hand disinfectant and the control subjects. Transepidermal water loss measurement also showed no deterioration of skin condition.

Conclusions.

The water-based hand disinfectant was shown to be an effective hand disinfectant that caused relatively little skin irritation and can serve as a hand hygiene alternative in situations in which alcohol-based disinfectant cannot be used.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 30 , Issue 7 , July 2009 , pp. 685 - 690
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Larson, E, Girard, R, Pessoa-Silva, CL, Boyce, J, Donaldson, L, Pittet, D. Skin reactions related to hand hygiene and selection of hand hygiene products. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:627–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Houben, E, De Paepe, K, Rogiers, V. Skin condition associated with intensive use of alcoholic gels for hand disinfection: a combination of biophysical and sensorial data. Contact Dermatitis 2006;54:261–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Grove, GL, Zerweck, CR, Heilman, JM, Pyrek, JD. Methods for evaluating changes in skin condition due to the effects of antimicrobial hand cleansers: two studies comparing a new waterless Chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol-emollient antiseptic preparation with a conventional water-applied product. Am J Infect Control 2001;29:361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Cimiotti, JP, Marmur, ES, Nesin, M, Hamlin-Cook, P, Larson, EL. Adverse reactions associated with an alcohol-based hand antiseptic among nurses in a neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Kampf, G, Rudolf, M, Labadie, JC, Barrett, SP. Spectrum of antimicrobial activity and user acceptability of the hand disinfectant agent Sterillium Gel. J Hosp Infect 2002;52:141–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Kramer, A, Bernig, T, Kampf, G. Clinical double-blind trial on the dermal tolerance and user acceptability of six alcohol-based hand disinfectants for hygienic hand disinfection. J Hosp Infect 2002;51:114–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Buxbaum, A, Kratzer, C, Graninger, W, Georgopoulos, A. Antimicrobial and toxicological profile of the new biocide Akacid Plus. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;58:193–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Kratzer, C, Tobudic, S, Assadian, O, Buxbaum, A, Graninger, W, Georgopoulos, A. Validation of Akacid Plus as a room disinfectant in the hospital setting. Appi Environ Microbiol 2006;72:3826–3831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Kratzer, C, Tobudic, S, Graninger, W, Buxbaum, A, Georgopoulos, A. In vitro antimicrobial activity of the novel polymeric guanidine Akacid Plus. J Hosp Infect 2006;63:316–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Marchetti, MG, Kampf, G, Finzi, G, Salvatorelli, G. Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of five products for surgical hand disinfection according to prEN 12054 and prEN 12791. J Hosp Infect 2003;54:63–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Rotter, ML, Kampf, G, Suchomel, M, Kundi, M. Population kinetics of the skin flora on gloved hands following surgical hand disinfection with 3 propanol-based hand rubs: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:346–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Nuutinen, J, Alanen, E, Autio, P, Lahtinen, MR, Harvima, I, Lahtinen, T. A closed unventilated chamber for the measurement of transepidermal water loss. Skin Res Technol 2003;9:85–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Alanen, E, Nuutinen, J, Nicklen, K, Lahtinen, T, Monkkonen, J. Measurement of hydration in the stratum corneum with the MoistureMeter and comparison with the Corneometer. Skin Res Technol 2004;10:32–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Pessoa-Silva, CL, Dharan, S, Hugonnet, S, et al.Dynamics of bacterial hand contamination during routine neonatal care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:192–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Kac, G, Podglajen, I, Gueneret, M, Vaupre, S, Bissery, A, Meyer, G. Microbiological evaluation of two hand hygiene procedures achieved by healthcare workers during routine patient care: a randomized study. J Hosp Infect 2005;60:32–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Sickbert-Bennett, EE, Weber, DJ, Gergen-Teague, MF, Rutala, WA. The effects of test variables on the efficacy of hand hygiene agents. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:69–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed