Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T00:04:22.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Efficacy of Several New Handwashing Agents for Removing Non-Transient Bacterial Flora from Hands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Allan J. Morrison Jr. ,
Jean Gratz ,
Ignacio Cabezudo  and
Richard P. Wenzel
Allan J. Morrison Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Virginia Hospital, Charlottesville, Virginia
Jean Gratz
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Virginia Hospital, Charlottesville, Virginia
Ignacio Cabezudo
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Virginia Hospital, Charlottesville, Virginia
Richard P. Wenzel*
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Virginia Hospital, Charlottesville, Virginia
*
Department of Internal Medicine, Box473, University of Virginia Hospital, Charlottesville, VA 22908
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Forty subjects participated in a study of four handwashing agents evaluated for their efficacy in removing non-transient bacteria: 70% isopropanol, 0.05% stabilized iodine, 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, and 1% para-chloro-meta-xylenol. Each subject performed a non-medicated handwash to remove transient flora. Afterwards, three consecutive experimental handwashes were performed using a 10-second contact time, and a fourth handwash employed a 1-minute contact time. Quantitative post-handwash cultures were obtained using the sterile bag technique incorporating an effective agent neutralizer. Significant mean log10 reductions were documented for chlorhexidine gluconate, but only after the third (P=.05) and fourth (p=.004) handwash; however, the total log10 reduction was less than 1.0 for any single agent.

Subsequently, three evaporative handwash agents, including 70% isopropanol, 0.5% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropanol, and a 60% isopropanol formulation containing evaporative retardants, were tested in 14 subjects. Contact time was prolonged to the point of evaporation prior to culturing. Four consecutive post-handwash cultures were obtained after performing a baseline pre-handwash culture. When compared with the other two evaporative agents, the 60% isopropanol formulation demonstrated significant mean log10 reductions for each handwash (p ≤ .03), with a total log10 reduction of 2.9 over all four handwashes (p=.0001). The brief contact time incorporated in our handwashing technique reflects clinical usage patterns. The marked bacterial reduction demonstrated by the 60% isopropanol formulation warrants further study.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 7 , Issue 5 , May 1986 , pp. 268 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1986

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.Burke, JP, Ingall, D, Klein, JO, et al: Proteus mirabilis infections in a hospital nursery traced to a human carrier. N Engl J Med 1971:284:115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Maki, DG, Control of colonization and transmission of pathogenic bacteria in the hospital. Ann Intern Med 1978;89:777–780.Google Scholar
3.Knittle, MA, Eitzman, DV, Baer, H: Role of hand contamination of personnel in the epidemiology of gram-negative nosocomial infections. J Pediatr 1975;86:433–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Casewell, M, Phillips, I, Hands as a route of transmission for Klebsiella species. Br Med J 1977;2:1315–1317.Google Scholar
5.Mortimer, SA, Lipsitz, PJ, Wolensky, E, et al: Transmission of staphylococci between newborns: Importance of the hands of personnel. Am J Dis Child 1962;104:289–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Fox, MK, Langer, SB, Weils, RW, How good are handwashing practices? Am J Nurs 1974;74:1676–1678.Google Scholar
7.Albert, RK. Condie, F, Hand-washing patterns in medical intensive-care units. N Engl J Med 1981;304:1464–1466.Google Scholar
8.Preston, GA, Larson, EL, Stamm, WE, The effect of private isolation rooms on patient care practices, colonization, and infection in an intensive care unit. Am J Med 1980;70:641–645.Google Scholar
9.Price, PB, The bacteriology of normal skin; a new quantitative test applied to a studvof the bacterial flora and the disinfectant action of mechanical cleansing. J Infect Dis 1938;63:301–318.Google Scholar
10.Larson, EL, Persistent carriage of gram-negative bacteria on hands. Am J Infect Control 981;9:112–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Bruun, JN, Solberg, CO, Hand carriage of grant-negative bacilli and Staphylococcus aureus. Br Med J 1973:2:580–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Lilly, HA, Lowbury, EJL, Transient skin flora: Their removal by cleansing or disinfection in relation to their model of deposition. J Clin Pathol 1978;31:919–922.Google Scholar
13.Steere, AC, Mal Hson, GF, Handwashing practices for the prevention of nosocomial infections. Ann Intern Med 1975;83:683–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Centers for Disease Control: National Nosocomial Injections Study Snmtnan: 1983.Google Scholar
15.Hann, JB, The source of the resident flora. Hand 1973;5:247–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Lowbury, EJL, Lilly, HA, Bull, JP, Disinfection of hands: Removal of resident bacteria'. Br Med J 1963;1:1251–1256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Larson, EL, Handwashing and skin physiologic and bacteriologie aspects. Infect Control 1985;6:14–23.Google Scholar
18.Larson, EL, Strom, MS. Evans, CA, Analysis of three variables in sampling solutions used to assay bac teria of hands: Type of solution, use of antiseptic neutralizers, and solution temperature. J Clin Microbiol 1980;12:355–360.Google Scholar
19.Ayliffe, GAJ, Babb, JR. Bridges, K, et al: Comparison of two methods for assessing the removal of total organisms and pathogens from the skin. J Hug 1975;75:259–274.Google Scholar
20.Quraishi, ZA, McCuckin, M. Biais, FX, Duration of handwashing in intensive care units; A descriptive study. Am J Inf ect Control 1984;11:83–87.Google Scholar
21.Sprunt, K, Redman, W, Leidv, G, Antibacterial effectiveness of routine handwashing. Pediatrics 1973;52:264–271.Google Scholar
22.Brawley, RL, Cabezudo, I, Guenthner, SH, et al: Evaluation of handwash agents using brief contact time. Presented at the 24th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington, D.C. October 8-H), 1984.Google Scholar
23.Federal Register 1978:43:1210–1249.Google Scholar
24.Daniel, W, Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences, ed 3. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1983, pp 223–225.Google Scholar
25.Miller, PJ, Semmelweis. Infect Control 1982;3:405–409.Google Scholar
26.Massanari, RM, Hierholzer, WJ, A crossover comparison of antiseptic soaps on nosocomial infection rates in intensive care units. Presented at the 11th Annual APIC Educational Conference, Washington, D.C., June 3-7. 1984.Google Scholar
27.Makt, D, Hecht, J, Antiseptic containing handwashing agents reduce nosocomial infections—A prospective study. Presented at the 22nd Inter-science Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Miami Beach, Florida, October 4-6, 1982.Google Scholar
28.Reybrouck, G, Efficacy of inactivators against 14 disinfectant substances. Zentralbl Baktenol Mikrobwl Hyg [B] 1979;168:480–492.Google Scholar
29.Sheikh, W, Development and validation of a neutralize! system ibr in vitro evaluation of some antiseptics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981;19:429–434.Google Scholar
30.MacKinnon, IH, The use of inactivators in the evaluation of disinfectants. Hug 1974;73:189–195.Google Scholar