Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T12:50:36.457Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hygienic Hand Disinfection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

M.L. Rotter
M.L. Rotter*
Affiliation:
Hygiene-Institute of University Vienna, Austria
*
Hygiene Institute of University Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, A-1095, Vienna, Austria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of hygienic hand disinfection is to render hands safe after contact with pathogens. Comparing effects of disinfection procedures on infection ratios is too difficult for routine purposes but the degerming efficacy may be determined in laboratory tests with volunteers. In the Vienna test model the efficacy of a specific procedure being tested is compared to that of a standard disinfection (rubbing into hands 3 ml of iso-propanol 60% v/v, 30 seconds, twice) tested in parallel with the same volunteers. This ensures standardization, thus comparability of results between laboratories, and provides the investigator with a yardstick for efficacy. The model includes artificial contamination, assessment of the release of test bacteria (E. Coli ATCC 11229) before and after disinfection by the finger tip method, and addition of neutralizers to sampling fluids. Alcohols in appropriate concentrations are highly effective (log reductions: >4.0) whereas procedures employing disinfectant detergents act like soap (log reductions: ≤ 3.2) and may cause dissemination of pathogens.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 18 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1984

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. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hygiene und Mikrobiologié. Richtlinien für die Prüfung und Bewertung chemischer Desinfektionsverfahren—Erster Teilabschnitt. Zbl Bakt Hyg, 1. Abt Orig B 1981;172:528–556.Google Scholar
2. Österreichische Gesellschaft für Hygiene, Mikrobiologie und Präventivmedizin: Richtlinie vom 4. November 1980 für die Bewertung der Desinfektionswirkung von Verfahren für die Hygienische Händedesinfektion. Österreichische Krankenhauszeitung 1981;22:23–31.Google Scholar
3. Lesky, E: Die Wiener Medizinische Schule im 19. Jahrhundert. Graz, Böhlaus Nachf, 1965, p 212.Google Scholar
4. Pachner, F: Za Životy Matek - Životni Drama I.F. Semelweise. Prague, Stâtni zdra votnické Nakladatestvi, 1959, p 50.Google Scholar
5. Redaction: Höchst wichtige Erfahrungen über die Ätiologie der in Gebäranstalten epidemischen Puerperalfieber. Zeitschrift der k.k. Gesellschaft der Ärzte zu Wien 1848;4:242–244.Google Scholar
6. Semmelweis, IP: Die Athiologie, der Begriff und die Prophylaxis des Kindbettfiebers. Wien, Harlebens Verlag, 1861.Google Scholar
7. Cohen, J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, revised ed. New York, Academic Press, 1977, pp 179–213.Google Scholar
8. Kundi, M, Koller, W, Mittermayer, H, et al: Thoughts upon the construction of requirements of disinfection procedures concerning contaminated hands. Zbl Bakt Hyg, I. Abt Orig B 1975;161:165–177.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Rotter, M, Mittermayer, H, Kundi, M: Investigations on the model of the artificially contaminated hand—Proposal of a test method. Zbl Bakt Hyg , I. Abt Orig B 1974;159:560–581.Google Scholar
10. Rotter, M: Händedesinfektion, in Horn, H, Privor, J, Weoffen, W (eds): Handbuch der Desinfektion und Sterilisation, vol. V. Berlin, VEB Verlag Volk und Gesundheit, 1983, vol 5, in press.Google Scholar
11. US General Services Administration. O-T-C drugs generally recognized as safe, effective and not misbranded—Tentative final order. US Federal Register 1978;43(4):1210–1249.Google Scholar
12. Rotter, M, Wewalka, G, Koller, W: Influence of some variables on the results of evaluations of procedures for hygienic hand disinfection. Hygiene Medizin 1981;7:157–166.Google Scholar
13. Aly, R, Maibach, HI: Comparative study on the antimicrobial effect of 0.5% Chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol on the normal flora of hands. Appi Environ Microbiol 1979;37:610–613.Google Scholar
14. Aly, R, Maibach, HI: A comparison of the antimicrobial effect of 0.5% Chlorhexidine (‘Hibistat’) and 70% iso-propanol on hands contaminated with S. marcescens . Clin Exp Dermatol 1980;5:197–201.Google Scholar