The Impact of the Three Most Common Hand Cleansing Methods on the Bacterial Profile: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Zean Zefenkey
{"title":"The Impact of the Three Most Common Hand Cleansing Methods on the Bacterial Profile: A Randomized Clinical Trial","authors":"Zean Zefenkey","doi":"10.53986/ibjm.2022.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The hand harbors different species of bacteria that may play a role in the transmission of infectious diseases. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the bacterial profile of hands and assess the efficacy of the three most common methods of hand cleansing on the reduction of that bacteria. Materials and methods: Hand swaps were collected from 150 adults. The identity of bacteria was done by standard microbiological procedures. Each participant applied one of three selected methods of hand cleansing namely, handwashing with water and plain soap, hand rubbing with an alcohol-based sanitizer, and hand wiping with alcohol-free hand sanitizer wipes. A second swap was collected after cleansing to determine the efficacy of each method by calculating the percentage of the reduction of isolated bacteria. Results: Most isolated bacteria were commensal flora like Coagulase Negative Staphylococcus (92%), and Corynebacterium spp (81.3%). Other pathogenic bacteria were isolated mainly, Staphylococcus aureus (32%), Escherichia coli (10%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (2.6%), Klebsiella spp (2.6%) and Acinetobacter spp. (2%). The hand rubbing was more efficacy than handwashing without a statistically significant difference (P>0.05), and the hand wiping had lower efficacy than the other two methods with statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Conclusions: The hand is a serious source of infection due to the variety of bacteria on it. These bacteria can be eliminated either by handwashing with water and plain soap or hand rubbing with an alcohol-based sanitizer. Alcohol-free hand sanitizer wipes should be used just for cleaning without disinfection due to their low efficacy as a sanitizer.","PeriodicalId":13190,"journal":{"name":"Iberoamerican Journal of Medicine","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iberoamerican Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53986/ibjm.2022.0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: The hand harbors different species of bacteria that may play a role in the transmission of infectious diseases. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the bacterial profile of hands and assess the efficacy of the three most common methods of hand cleansing on the reduction of that bacteria. Materials and methods: Hand swaps were collected from 150 adults. The identity of bacteria was done by standard microbiological procedures. Each participant applied one of three selected methods of hand cleansing namely, handwashing with water and plain soap, hand rubbing with an alcohol-based sanitizer, and hand wiping with alcohol-free hand sanitizer wipes. A second swap was collected after cleansing to determine the efficacy of each method by calculating the percentage of the reduction of isolated bacteria. Results: Most isolated bacteria were commensal flora like Coagulase Negative Staphylococcus (92%), and Corynebacterium spp (81.3%). Other pathogenic bacteria were isolated mainly, Staphylococcus aureus (32%), Escherichia coli (10%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (2.6%), Klebsiella spp (2.6%) and Acinetobacter spp. (2%). The hand rubbing was more efficacy than handwashing without a statistically significant difference (P>0.05), and the hand wiping had lower efficacy than the other two methods with statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Conclusions: The hand is a serious source of infection due to the variety of bacteria on it. These bacteria can be eliminated either by handwashing with water and plain soap or hand rubbing with an alcohol-based sanitizer. Alcohol-free hand sanitizer wipes should be used just for cleaning without disinfection due to their low efficacy as a sanitizer.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三种最常见的洗手方法对细菌分布的影响:一项随机临床试验
导读:手上藏有不同种类的细菌,这些细菌可能在传染病的传播中起作用。因此,本研究旨在确定手上的细菌分布,并评估三种最常见的洗手方法对减少细菌的功效。材料和方法:收集150名成人的手交换。细菌的鉴定是通过标准微生物程序完成的。每位参与者使用三种选定的洗手方法中的一种,即用水和普通肥皂洗手,用含酒精的洗手液搓手,以及用不含酒精的洗手液湿巾擦手。清洗后收集第二次交换,通过计算分离细菌减少的百分比来确定每种方法的功效。结果:分离到的细菌以共生菌群为主,如凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌(92%)和棒状杆菌(81.3%)。其他病原菌主要为金黄色葡萄球菌(32%)、大肠杆菌(10%)、铜绿假单胞菌(2.6%)、克雷伯氏菌(2.6%)和不动杆菌(2%)。搓手优于洗手,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);擦手低于其他两种方法,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。结论:手部细菌种类繁多,是严重的感染源。这些细菌可以通过用水和普通肥皂洗手或用含酒精的洗手液洗手来消除。无酒精洗手液湿巾的消毒效果不高,只能用于清洁,不能消毒。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Antibiotic resistance and adherence to clinical guidelines in the Emergency Department. Are we doing it right? MicroRNAs and their role in newborn weight Age dependence of chemical element contents in normal human breast investigated using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry Use of stem cell-enriched fat grafts in facial reconstruction: have they demonstrated superiority over autologous fat grafting? Cerebral tuberculomas: manifestation of extrapulmonary tuberculosis in an immunocompromised patient. A case report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1