Less and less–influence of volume on hand coverage and bactericidal efficacy in hand disinfection

BMC Infectious Diseases

Muhammad Bashir⁴  Nicolas Nowak¹  Sven Eggerstedt³  Sigunde Ruselack³  Günter Kampf² 

[1] Scientific Affairs, Bode Chemie GmbH, Melanchthonstr. 27, 22525 Hamburg, Germany;Institut für Hygiene und Umweltmedizin, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 49a, 17475 Greifswald, Germany;Development, Bode Chemie GmbH, Melanchthonstr. 27, 22525 Hamburg, Germany;MicroBioTest Division of Microbac Laboratories, Inc, 105 Carpenter Drive, Sterling, VA, USA

关键词: Efficacy;    Volume;    Hand coverage;    Alcohol-based hand rub;   

Others  :  1145701
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2334-13-472

 received in 2013-02-12, accepted in 2013-09-18,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Some manufacturers recommend using 1.1 mL per application of alcohol-based handrubs for effective hand disinfection. However, whether this volume is sufficient to cover both hands, as recommended by the World Health Organization, and fulfills current efficacy standards is unknown. This study aimed to determine hand coverage for three handrubs (two gels based on 70% v/v and 85% w/w ethanol and a foam based on 70% v/v ethanol) applied at various volumes.

Methods

Products were tested at product volumes of 1.1 mL, 2 mL, 2.4 mL as well as 1 and 2 pump dispenser pushes; the foam product was tested in addition at foam volumes of 1.1 mL, 2 mL, and 2.4 mL. Products were supplemented with a fluorescent dye and 15 participants applied products using responsible application techniques without any specific steps but the aim of completely covering both hands. Coverage quality was determined under ultraviolet light by two blinded investigators. Efficacy of the three handrubs was determined according to ASTM E 1174-06 and ASTM E 2755-10. For each experiment, the hands of 12 participants were contaminated with Serratia marcescens and the products applied as recommended (1.1 mL for 70% v/v ethanol products; 2 mL for the 85% w/w ethanol product). Log₁₀-reduction was calculated.

Results

Volumes < 2 mL yielded high rates of incomplete coverage (67%–87%) whereas volumes ≥ 2 mL gave lower rates (13%–53%). Differences in coverage were significant between the five volumes tested for all handrubs (p < 0.001; two-way ANOVA) but not between the three handrubs themselves (p = 0.796). Application of 1.1 mL of 70% v/v ethanol rubs reduced contamination by 1.85 log₁₀ or 1.60 log₁₀ (ASTM E 1174-06); this failed the US FDA efficacy requirement of at least 2 log₁₀. Application of 2 mL of the 85% w/w ethanol rub reduced contamination by 2.06 log₁₀ (ASTM E 1174-06), fulfilling the US FDA efficacy requirement. Similar results were obtained according to ASTM E 2755-10.

Conclusions

Our data indicated that handrubs based on 70% ethanol (v/v) with a recommended volume of 1.1 mL per application do not ensure complete coverage of both hands and do not achieve current ASTM efficacy standards.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kampf et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Anonym: WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care. First global patient safety challenge clean care is safer care. Geneva: WHO; 2009.
• [2]Rotter M, Skopec M: Entwicklung der Händehygiene und die Bedeutung der Erkenntnisse von Ignaz Ph. Semmelweis. In Hände-hygiene im gesundheitswesen. Edited by Kampf G. Berlin: Springer; 2003:1-27.
• [3]Dharan S, Hugonnet S, Sax H, Pittet D: Comparison of waterless hand antisepsis agents at short application times: raising the flag of concern. Infect Contr Hosp Epidemiol 2003, 24(3):160-164.
• [4]EN 1500:1997: Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics. Hygienic hand disinfection. Test method and requirement (phase 2, step 2). Brussels: CEN–Comité Européen de Normalisation; 1997.
• [5]Kampf G, Reichel M, Feil Y, Eggerstedt S, Kaulfers P-M: Influence of rub-in technique on required application time and hand coverage in hygienic hand disinfection. BMC Infect Dis 2008, 8:149. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Kramer A, Rudolph P, Kampf G, Pittet D: Limited efficacy of alcohol-based hand gels. Lancet 2002, 359:1489-1490.
• [7]Kampf G, Marschall S, Eggerstedt S, Ostermeyer C: Efficacy of ethanol-based hand foams using clinically relevant amounts: a cross-over controlled study among healthy volunteers. BMC Infect Dis 2010, 10:78. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Edmonds SL, Macinga DR, Mays-Suko P, Duley C, Rutter J, Jarvis WR, Arbogast JW: Comparative efficacy of commercially available alcohol-based hand rubs and world health organization-recommended hand rubs: formulation matters. Am J Infect Contr 2012, 40(6):521-525.
• [9]Anonymous: Tentative final monograph for health care antiseptic products; proposed rule. Federal Reg 1994, 59(116):31401-31452.
• [10]Kampf G: How effective are hand antiseptics for the post-contamination treatment of hands when used as recommended? Am J Infect Contr 2008, 36(5):356-360.
• [11]Edmonds S, Macinga DR, Paulson D: The influence of ABHR product format on in vivo efficacy: a meta-analysis. Am J Infect Contr 2012, 40(5):e43.
• [12]American Society for Testing and Materials International: ASTM E 1174-06: Standard test method for evaluation of the effectiveness of healthcare personnel handwash formulations. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2006.
• [13]American Society for Testing and Materials International: ASTM E 1054-08: standard test methods for evaluation of inactivators of antimicrobial agents. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2008.
• [14]American Society for Testing and Materials International: ASTM E 2755-10: standard test method for determining the bacteria-eliminating effectiveness of hand sanitizer formulations using hands of adults. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2010.
• [15]Kampf G, Shaffer M, Hunte C: Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidin-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment. BMC Infect Dis 2005, 5:48. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Eggerstedt S: Comparative efficacy of commercially available alcohol-based hand rubs and world health organization-recommended hand rubs. Am J Infect Contr 2013, 41(5):472-474.
• [17]Goroncy-Bermes P, Koburger T, Meyer B: Impact of the amount of hand rub applied in hygienic hand disinfection on the reduction of microbial counts on hands. J Hosp Infect 2010, 74(3):212-218.
• [18]Kampf G, Kramer A: Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004, 17(4):863-893.
• [19]Cheeseman KE, Denyer SP, Hosein IK, Williams GJ, Maillard JY: Evaluation of the bactericidal efficacy of three different alcohol hand rubs against 57 clinical isolates of S. aureus. J Hosp Infect 2009, 72(4):319-325.
• [20]Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Aktion Saubere Hände: Positionspapier “Einreibemethode”. 2011. http://www.aktion-sauberehaende.de/downloads/pdf/ASH_Positionspapier_Einreibemethode_30092011.pdf webcite