是时候重新审视推荐的洗手液配方了——一项体外研究

N. Sachdeva, M. Suryavanshi, J. Jaipuria, Vandana Bhushan, K. Sharma
{"title":"是时候重新审视推荐的洗手液配方了——一项体外研究","authors":"N. Sachdeva, M. Suryavanshi, J. Jaipuria, Vandana Bhushan, K. Sharma","doi":"10.46798/ijam.2021.v23i02.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The world health organization (WHO) in 2009 in their consensus recommendation on hand hygiene has suggested two formulations of hand sanitizers which are also the basis of main components of most commercial and medical grade hand sanitizers today.We evaluated the in vitro antimicrobial efficacy of ten different hand sanitizers (seven commercial including herbal (sanitizer 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10) and three of medical grade (sanitizers 6, 7 and 8). Method: The efficacy of hand sanitizers was checked against five ATCC strains: Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus hemolyticus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus faecalis. Experiment was performed in three parts. The first part was performed in triplicate to see the zone of inhibition for each sanitizer. The second part was performed to see the duration of action of each hand sanitizer and third part (in triplicates) was performed to see the efficacy of active components individually (alcohol and disinfectant in different dilutions).Results: Sanitizers with ethanol and chlorhexidine as main ingredients (6 and 8) showed zone of inhibition for all tested gram positive and negative bacteria. Sanitizer 7 (propanol and mecetronium ethyl sulphate as main components) showed zone of inhibition for all tested bacteria except Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Other hand sanitizers did not show any zone of inhibition after incubation for 24 hours at 37oC. For second part hand sanitizer 6inhibited growth for all bacteria at all-time points (15, 30, 45 and60 seconds) and Sanitizer 8(ethanol and chlorhexidine as main components) showed growth inhibition only after 15seconds. Other hand sanitizers did not show any growth inhibition. For the third part, all dilutions of ethanol and propanol (60%, 70% and 80%) were unable to inhibit growth of any ATCC strain. Disinfectant 2.5v/v chlorhexidine was able to inhibit all five bacteria.0.2 gm mecetronium ethyl sulphate showed inhibition for all except Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Conclusion: Hand sanitizers with alcohol only as their main ingredient were unable to inhibit growth of ATCC strains. Hand sanitizers with both alcohol and disinfectant performed better .These findings preludes for further in vivo studies to validate 2009-WHO hand sanitizer preparations and suggest modifications.","PeriodicalId":13518,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Applied Microbiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time to relook at formulationsrecommended for hand sanitizers formulations -An in vitro study\",\"authors\":\"N. Sachdeva, M. Suryavanshi, J. Jaipuria, Vandana Bhushan, K. Sharma\",\"doi\":\"10.46798/ijam.2021.v23i02.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: The world health organization (WHO) in 2009 in their consensus recommendation on hand hygiene has suggested two formulations of hand sanitizers which are also the basis of main components of most commercial and medical grade hand sanitizers today.We evaluated the in vitro antimicrobial efficacy of ten different hand sanitizers (seven commercial including herbal (sanitizer 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10) and three of medical grade (sanitizers 6, 7 and 8). Method: The efficacy of hand sanitizers was checked against five ATCC strains: Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus hemolyticus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus faecalis. Experiment was performed in three parts. The first part was performed in triplicate to see the zone of inhibition for each sanitizer. The second part was performed to see the duration of action of each hand sanitizer and third part (in triplicates) was performed to see the efficacy of active components individually (alcohol and disinfectant in different dilutions).Results: Sanitizers with ethanol and chlorhexidine as main ingredients (6 and 8) showed zone of inhibition for all tested gram positive and negative bacteria. Sanitizer 7 (propanol and mecetronium ethyl sulphate as main components) showed zone of inhibition for all tested bacteria except Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Other hand sanitizers did not show any zone of inhibition after incubation for 24 hours at 37oC. For second part hand sanitizer 6inhibited growth for all bacteria at all-time points (15, 30, 45 and60 seconds) and Sanitizer 8(ethanol and chlorhexidine as main components) showed growth inhibition only after 15seconds. Other hand sanitizers did not show any growth inhibition. For the third part, all dilutions of ethanol and propanol (60%, 70% and 80%) were unable to inhibit growth of any ATCC strain. Disinfectant 2.5v/v chlorhexidine was able to inhibit all five bacteria.0.2 gm mecetronium ethyl sulphate showed inhibition for all except Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Conclusion: Hand sanitizers with alcohol only as their main ingredient were unable to inhibit growth of ATCC strains. Hand sanitizers with both alcohol and disinfectant performed better .These findings preludes for further in vivo studies to validate 2009-WHO hand sanitizer preparations and suggest modifications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Applied Microbiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Applied Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46798/ijam.2021.v23i02.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Applied Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46798/ijam.2021.v23i02.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:世界卫生组织(世卫组织)在2009年关于手部卫生的共识建议中提出了两种洗手液配方,这也是当今大多数商业和医疗级洗手液主要成分的基础。我们对10种不同的洗手液进行了体外抗菌效果评价,其中包括7种市售的中草药洗手液(洗手液1、2、3、4、5、9和10)和3种医用洗手液(洗手液6、7和8)。方法:检测洗手液对5种ATCC菌株的抗菌效果:金黄色葡萄球菌、溶血性葡萄球菌、铜绿假单胞菌、大肠杆菌和粪肠球菌。实验分三部分进行。第一部分一式三份,以观察每种消毒剂的抑制区。第二部分是观察每种洗手液的作用持续时间,第三部分(一式三份)是观察有效成分(不同稀释度的酒精和消毒剂)的功效。结果:以乙醇和氯己定为主要成分的消毒液(6和8)对革兰氏阳性菌和阴性菌均有抑制区。以丙醇和硫酸乙酯为主要成分的消毒液7对除铜绿假单胞菌外的所有细菌均有抑制区。其他洗手液在37℃条件下孵育24小时后无任何抑制区。第二部分,洗手液6在所有时间点(15、30、45和60秒)均对细菌生长有抑制作用,而洗手液8(主要成分为乙醇和氯己定)仅在15秒后才对细菌生长有抑制作用。其他洗手液没有显示出任何生长抑制作用。在第三部分,乙醇和丙醇的所有稀释度(60%,70%和80%)都不能抑制ATCC菌株的生长。消毒液2.5v/v氯己定对5种细菌均有抑制作用,0.2 gm硫酸甲酯对除铜绿假单胞菌外的5种细菌均有抑制作用。结论:仅以酒精为主要成分的洗手液不能抑制ATCC菌株的生长。含酒精和消毒剂的洗手液效果更好。这些发现为进一步的体内研究奠定了基础,以验证2009年世卫组织的洗手液制剂并提出修改建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Time to relook at formulationsrecommended for hand sanitizers formulations -An in vitro study
Purpose: The world health organization (WHO) in 2009 in their consensus recommendation on hand hygiene has suggested two formulations of hand sanitizers which are also the basis of main components of most commercial and medical grade hand sanitizers today.We evaluated the in vitro antimicrobial efficacy of ten different hand sanitizers (seven commercial including herbal (sanitizer 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10) and three of medical grade (sanitizers 6, 7 and 8). Method: The efficacy of hand sanitizers was checked against five ATCC strains: Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus hemolyticus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus faecalis. Experiment was performed in three parts. The first part was performed in triplicate to see the zone of inhibition for each sanitizer. The second part was performed to see the duration of action of each hand sanitizer and third part (in triplicates) was performed to see the efficacy of active components individually (alcohol and disinfectant in different dilutions).Results: Sanitizers with ethanol and chlorhexidine as main ingredients (6 and 8) showed zone of inhibition for all tested gram positive and negative bacteria. Sanitizer 7 (propanol and mecetronium ethyl sulphate as main components) showed zone of inhibition for all tested bacteria except Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Other hand sanitizers did not show any zone of inhibition after incubation for 24 hours at 37oC. For second part hand sanitizer 6inhibited growth for all bacteria at all-time points (15, 30, 45 and60 seconds) and Sanitizer 8(ethanol and chlorhexidine as main components) showed growth inhibition only after 15seconds. Other hand sanitizers did not show any growth inhibition. For the third part, all dilutions of ethanol and propanol (60%, 70% and 80%) were unable to inhibit growth of any ATCC strain. Disinfectant 2.5v/v chlorhexidine was able to inhibit all five bacteria.0.2 gm mecetronium ethyl sulphate showed inhibition for all except Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Conclusion: Hand sanitizers with alcohol only as their main ingredient were unable to inhibit growth of ATCC strains. Hand sanitizers with both alcohol and disinfectant performed better .These findings preludes for further in vivo studies to validate 2009-WHO hand sanitizer preparations and suggest modifications.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Optimization of medium and media components for maximum biomass of Halobacterium salinarum NRC-1 using Response Surface Methodology Lipase production by three thermophilic fungi Probiosimilarity Study: A Comprehensive Approach to Compare the Attributes of Marketed Probiotics Containing Bacillus clausii Revisiting SARS-CoV-2: Evolution, polymorphism and compatibility with human tRNA pool in a lineage over a month Role of Phosphate Solubilizing Rhizobacteria in Growth and Productivity of Green Leafy Vegetables. A Review
×
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