{"title":"不同的手卫生制度对去除和/或杀灭手上的大肠杆菌的影响","authors":"Monique Courtenay, Lina Ramirez, Beth Cox, Inyee Han, Xiuping Jiang, Paul Dawson","doi":"10.1111/j.1471-5740.2005.00114.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Various hand hygiene techniques have been recommended by sanitarians. In the USA, the National Restaurant Association (NRA) ServSafe<sup>®</sup> program guidelines include a recommended hand washing regime. The ServSafe regime was compared to rinsing with warm and cool water and no washing/rinsing for bare hands and gloves after exposure to ground beef (approximately 10<sup>6</sup> cells/g) or liquid solution (approximately 10<sup>6</sup> cells/mL) contaminated with an ampicillin-resistant <i>Escherichia coli</i> JM 109 strain<i>.</i> The efficacy of alcohol-based hand sanitizers to replace hand washing was also evaluated. ServSafe, warm water rinse and cool water rinse reduced <i>E. coli</i> cells on hands by 98.0, 64.4 and 42.8% log<sub>10</sub> cfu/mL, resulting in <1, 1.4, and 2,1 log<sub>10</sub> cfu/mL <i>E. coli</i> on hands, respectively, from 3.6 log<sub>10</sub> cfu/mL on unwashed hands. When vinyl food service gloves were worn during the hand washing treatments, gloves retained more bacteria than when only hands were rinsed or washed. From 2.9 to 3.4 log<sub>10</sub> cfu/mL remained on hands when ethanol-based sanitizers were used instead of hand washing. Of all hand washing treatments tested in these experiments, the US NRA recommended method was most effective (<i>P</i> < 0.05) in removing <i>E. coli</i> from hands and the levels remaining after this method were below the threshold of detection (<10 cfu/hand).</p>","PeriodicalId":100547,"journal":{"name":"Food Service Technology","volume":"5 2-4","pages":"77-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1471-5740.2005.00114.x","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of various hand hygiene regimes on removal and/or destruction of Escherichia coli on hands\",\"authors\":\"Monique Courtenay, Lina Ramirez, Beth Cox, Inyee Han, Xiuping Jiang, Paul Dawson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1471-5740.2005.00114.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Various hand hygiene techniques have been recommended by sanitarians. In the USA, the National Restaurant Association (NRA) ServSafe<sup>®</sup> program guidelines include a recommended hand washing regime. The ServSafe regime was compared to rinsing with warm and cool water and no washing/rinsing for bare hands and gloves after exposure to ground beef (approximately 10<sup>6</sup> cells/g) or liquid solution (approximately 10<sup>6</sup> cells/mL) contaminated with an ampicillin-resistant <i>Escherichia coli</i> JM 109 strain<i>.</i> The efficacy of alcohol-based hand sanitizers to replace hand washing was also evaluated. ServSafe, warm water rinse and cool water rinse reduced <i>E. coli</i> cells on hands by 98.0, 64.4 and 42.8% log<sub>10</sub> cfu/mL, resulting in <1, 1.4, and 2,1 log<sub>10</sub> cfu/mL <i>E. coli</i> on hands, respectively, from 3.6 log<sub>10</sub> cfu/mL on unwashed hands. When vinyl food service gloves were worn during the hand washing treatments, gloves retained more bacteria than when only hands were rinsed or washed. From 2.9 to 3.4 log<sub>10</sub> cfu/mL remained on hands when ethanol-based sanitizers were used instead of hand washing. Of all hand washing treatments tested in these experiments, the US NRA recommended method was most effective (<i>P</i> < 0.05) in removing <i>E. coli</i> from hands and the levels remaining after this method were below the threshold of detection (<10 cfu/hand).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100547,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food Service Technology\",\"volume\":\"5 2-4\",\"pages\":\"77-84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1471-5740.2005.00114.x\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food Service Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-5740.2005.00114.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Service Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-5740.2005.00114.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effects of various hand hygiene regimes on removal and/or destruction of Escherichia coli on hands
Various hand hygiene techniques have been recommended by sanitarians. In the USA, the National Restaurant Association (NRA) ServSafe® program guidelines include a recommended hand washing regime. The ServSafe regime was compared to rinsing with warm and cool water and no washing/rinsing for bare hands and gloves after exposure to ground beef (approximately 106 cells/g) or liquid solution (approximately 106 cells/mL) contaminated with an ampicillin-resistant Escherichia coli JM 109 strain. The efficacy of alcohol-based hand sanitizers to replace hand washing was also evaluated. ServSafe, warm water rinse and cool water rinse reduced E. coli cells on hands by 98.0, 64.4 and 42.8% log10 cfu/mL, resulting in <1, 1.4, and 2,1 log10 cfu/mL E. coli on hands, respectively, from 3.6 log10 cfu/mL on unwashed hands. When vinyl food service gloves were worn during the hand washing treatments, gloves retained more bacteria than when only hands were rinsed or washed. From 2.9 to 3.4 log10 cfu/mL remained on hands when ethanol-based sanitizers were used instead of hand washing. Of all hand washing treatments tested in these experiments, the US NRA recommended method was most effective (P < 0.05) in removing E. coli from hands and the levels remaining after this method were below the threshold of detection (<10 cfu/hand).