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

Monique Courtenay, Lina Ramirez, Beth Cox, Inyee Han, Xiuping Jiang, Paul Dawson
{"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,&nbsp;Lina Ramirez,&nbsp;Beth Cox,&nbsp;Inyee Han,&nbsp;Xiuping Jiang,&nbsp;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 &lt;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> &lt; 0.05) in removing <i>E. coli</i> from hands and the levels remaining after this method were below the threshold of detection (&lt;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,&nbsp;Lina Ramirez,&nbsp;Beth Cox,&nbsp;Inyee Han,&nbsp;Xiuping Jiang,&nbsp;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 &lt;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> &lt; 0.05) in removing <i>E. coli</i> from hands and the levels remaining after this method were below the threshold of detection (&lt;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}
引用次数: 22

摘要

卫生工作者推荐了各种手部卫生技术。在美国,国家餐饮协会(NRA) ServSafe®计划指南包括建议的洗手制度。ServSafe方案与暴露于被耐氨苄青霉素大肠杆菌JM 109菌株污染的碎牛肉(约106个细胞/g)或液体溶液(约106个细胞/mL)后,用温水和冷水冲洗和不洗手/冲洗手套进行比较。还评估了含酒精的洗手液替代洗手液的效果。ServSafe,温水冲洗和冷水冲洗使手上的大肠杆菌细胞减少98.0,64.4和42.8% log10 cfu/mL,分别使手上的大肠杆菌细胞从未洗手的3.6 log10 cfu/mL减少到1,1.4和2,1 log10 cfu/mL。当在洗手过程中戴着乙烯基食品服务手套时,手套比只洗手或洗手时保留了更多的细菌。当使用基于乙醇的消毒液而不是洗手时,手上的残留量为2.9至3.4 log10 cfu/mL。在这些实验中测试的所有洗手处理中,美国NRA推荐的方法在去除手上的大肠杆菌方面最有效(P < 0.05),并且该方法后的剩余水平低于检测阈值(<10 cfu/手)。
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
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).

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
Letter To The Editor Editorial Reply Reply Reply
×
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