Spanish
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
BMC Infectious Diseases 2005-Jun

Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment.

Solo los usuarios registrados pueden traducir artículos
Iniciar sesión Registrarse
El enlace se guarda en el portapapeles.
Günter Kampf
Marc Shaffer
Corrine Hunte

Palabras clave

Abstracto

BACKGROUND

Effective neutralization in testing hand hygiene preparations is considered to be a crucial element to ensure validity of the test results, especially with the difficulty to neutralize chlorhexidine gluconate. Aim of the study was to measure the effect of chemical neutralization under practical test conditions according to EN 1500.

METHODS

We have investigated two ethanol-based hand rubs (product A, based on 61% ethanol and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate; product B, based on 85% ethanol). The efficacy of products (application of 3 ml for 30 s) was compared to 2-propanol 60% (v/v) (two 3 ml rubs of 30 s each) on hands artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli using a cross-over design with 15 volunteers. Pre-values were obtained by rubbing fingertips for 1 minute in liquid broth. Post-values were determined by sampling immediately after disinfection in liquid broth with and without neutralizers (0.5% lecithin, 4% polysorbate 20).

RESULTS

The neutralizers were found to be effective and non-toxic. Without neutralization in the sampling fluid, the reference disinfection reduced the test bacteria by 3.7 log10, product B by 3.3 log10 and product A by 4.8 log10 (P = 0.001; ANOVA). With neutralization the reference disinfection reduced the test bacteria by 3.5 log10, product B by 3.3 log10 and product A by 2.7 log10 (P = 0.011; ANOVA). In comparison to the reference treatment Product B lead to a lower mean reduction than the reference disinfection but the difference was not significant (P > 0.1; Wilcoxon-Wilcox test). Without neutralizing agents in the sampling fluid, product A yielded a significantly higher reduction of test bacteria (4.8; P = 0.02) as compared to the situation with neutralizing agents (2.7; P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

The crucial step of neutralization lies in the sampling fluid itself in order to stop any residual bacteriostatic or bactericidal activity immediately after the application of the preparation, especially with chlorhexidine gluconate-containing preparations. This is particularly important at short application times such as the 30 s.

Únete a nuestra
página de facebook

La base de datos de hierbas medicinales más completa respaldada por la ciencia

  • Funciona en 55 idiomas
  • Curas a base de hierbas respaldadas por la ciencia
  • Reconocimiento de hierbas por imagen
  • Mapa GPS interactivo: etiquete hierbas en la ubicación (próximamente)
  • Leer publicaciones científicas relacionadas con su búsqueda
  • Buscar hierbas medicinales por sus efectos.
  • Organice sus intereses y manténgase al día con las noticias de investigación, ensayos clínicos y patentes.

Escriba un síntoma o una enfermedad y lea acerca de las hierbas que podrían ayudar, escriba una hierba y vea las enfermedades y los síntomas contra los que se usa.
* Toda la información se basa en investigaciones científicas publicadas.

Google Play badgeApp Store badge