Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:28:27.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Surfactant Systems and Moisturizing Products on the Residual Activity of a Chlorhexidine Gluconate Handwash Using a Pigskin Substrate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Lee Benson ,
Destin LeBlanc ,
Lee Bush  and
John White
Lee Benson*
Affiliation:
Calgon Vestal Laboratories, St. Louis, Missouri
Destin LeBlanc
Affiliation:
Calgon Vestal Laboratories, St. Louis, Missouri
Lee Bush
Affiliation:
Calgon Vestal Laboratories, St. Louis, Missouri
John White
Affiliation:
Calgon Vestal Laboratories, St. Louis, Missouri
*
Calgon Vestal Laboratories, 5035 Manchester, St. Louis, MO 63110
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A series of handwashing experiments using a pigskin substrate and Serratia marcescens as the contaminant compared the residual activity of a chlorhexidine detergent handwash product alone and incombination with anionic and nonionic-based moisturizing products and surfactant systems. The anionic based moisturizing products and the anionic surfactant system almost completely destroyed the residual antibacterial activity of the chlorhexidine, while the nonionic-based products had minimal effect.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , February 1990 , pp. 67 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1990

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. Garner, JS, Favero, MS. Guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control; 1985.Google Scholar
2. Semmelweis, I. The etiology, the concept and the prophylaxis of child-bed fever CA Hartleben's Verlag-Expedition, 1861. Birmingham: Classics of Medicine Library; 1981.Google Scholar
3. Khan, MN. Interruption of shigellosis by handwashing. Trans Roy Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1982; 76:164–168.10.1016/0035-9203(82)90266-8Google Scholar
4. Black, RE, Dykes, AC, Anderson, KE, et al. Handwashing to prevent diarrhea in day care centers. Am J Epidemiol. 1981; 113:445–451.10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Larson, E. APIC guidelines for infection control practices, guideline for use of topical antimicrobial agents. Am J Infect Control. 1988;16:253–266.10.1016/S0196-6553(88)80005-1Google Scholar
6. Gardner, JF, Gray, KG, Chlorhexidine. In: Block, SS, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization and Preservation 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1983, pp 251–270.Google Scholar
7. Larson, E, Eke, PI, Wilder, MP, et al. Quantity of soap as a variable in handwashing. Infect Control. 1987; 8:371–375.10.1017/S0195941700067436Google Scholar
8. Bartzokas, CA, Corkill, JE, Makin, T. Evaluation of the skin disinfecting activity and cumulative effect of chlorhexidine and triclosan handwash preparations on hands artificially contaminated with Serratia marcescens . Infect Control. 1987; 8:163–167.Google Scholar
9. Larson, E. Proper use of lotions can offset skin damage from handwashing. Hosp Infect Control. 1988; 9:121–122.Google Scholar
10. Walsh, B, Blakemore, PH, Drabu, YJ. The effect of handcream on the antibacterial activity of chlorhexidine. J Hosp Infect. 1987; 9:30–33.10.1016/0195-6701(87)90091-0Google Scholar
11. Bush, LW, Benson, LM, White, JH. Pig skin as test substrate for evaluating topical antimicrobial activity. J Clin Microbiol. 1986; 24:343–348.10.1128/jcm.24.3.343-348.1986Google Scholar
12. Federal Register: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Federal Register, OTC topical antimicrobial products. Federal Register. Jan 6, 1978, Part II. 43:1210–1249.Google Scholar
13. Schlotzhauer, SD, Littell, RC. SAS System for Elementary Statistical Analysis. 1987.Google Scholar