Summary
Background
Hand rubs containing alcohols such as isopropanol (IPA) or ethanol (EtOH) are widely
used for hygienic hand disinfection, and are presented in different formats (i.e.
liquid, gel or foam).
Aim
To determine if there is any difference in efficacy between these two active ingredients
in the three formats. In addition, an assessment of the drying time was undertaken.
Two non-commercial, ‘standard’ formulations were tested in each format: one containing
60% IPA, and the other containing 80% EtOH.
Methods
EN 1500 tests were performed with 20 volunteers to assess efficacy. The reference
product was 2 x 3 mL of 60% IPA for 60 s, as described in EN 1500 (2013). The test
products were 3 mL of liquid, gel or foam format; one full EN 1500 test was performed
for each formulation (60% IPA and 80% EtOH). To assess drying time, two different
volumes (1.5 and 3.0 mL) of the test formulations in liquid, gel or foam format were
applied to the hands of 15 volunteers. Volunteers self-reported when their hands were
dry; at the end of the test, the volunteers were asked to rate the time taken to dry
on a three-point scale (too short, OK, too long).
Findings
This study found no difference in antibacterial efficacy attributable to formulation
or format for the two ‘standard’ ABHR formulations, as assessed by EN 1500. When measured
objectively, the EtOH-based formulations dried more rapidly than the IPA-based formulations,
and for both formulations, gels took longer to dry than other formats. User perception
of drying time broadly agreed with objective measurement.
Conclusion
Given that there was no difference in efficacy and only moderate difference in drying
time, it is proposed that ABHR in liquid, foam or gel format may be appropriate, provided
that the specific product passes the required efficacy and safety standards.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Hospital InfectionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care.WHO, Geneva2009 (Available at:) ([last accessed September 2017])
- Epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England.J Hosp Infect. 2014; 86: S1-S70
- Hygienic hand disinfection.Infect Control. 1984; 5: 18-22
- Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Infection Control Programme.Lancet. 2000; 356: 1307-1312
- Limited efficacy of alcohol-based hand gels.Lancet. 2002; 359: 1489-1490
- Efficacy of hand disinfectants against vancomycin-resistant enterococci in vitro.J Hosp Infect. 1999; 42: 143-150
- Comparison of waterless hand antisepsis agents at short application times: raising the flag of concern.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003; 24: 160-164
- Efficacy of ethanol-based hand foams using clinically relevant amounts: a cross-over controlled study among healthy volunteers.BMC Infect Dis. 2010; 10: 78
- The relative influences of product volume, delivery format and alcohol concentration on dry-time and efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs.BMC Infect Dis. 2014; 14: 511
- Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics. Hygienic handrub. Test method and requirements (phase 2/step 2).2013
- Modern applied statistics with S.4th ed. Springer, New York2002
- Simultaneous inference in general parametric models.Biometr J. 2008; 50: 346-363
- R: a language and environment for statistical computing.R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna2017 (Available at:)https://www.R-project.org/Date accessed: August 1, 2017
- Dose considerations for alcohol-based hand rubs.J Hosp Infect. 2017; 95: 175-182
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 30, 2017
Accepted:
September 24,
2017
Received:
August 1,
2017
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
