Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:53:22.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Importance of Neutralizes in the Stripping Fluid in a Simulated Healthcare Personnel Handwash

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Lee Benson ,
Lee Bush  and
Destin LeBlanc
Lee Benson*
Affiliation:
Calgon Vestal Laboratories, St. Louis, Missouri
Lee Bush
Affiliation:
Calgon Vestal Laboratories, St. Louis, Missouri
Destin LeBlanc
Affiliation:
Calgon Vestal Laboratories, St. Louis, Missouri
*
Calgon Vestal Laboratories, PO Box 147, St. Louis, MO 63166-0147
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) healthcare personnel handwash procedure allows for the use of a non-neutralizing stripping fluid after washing with an antimicrobial handwash product. The antimicrobial in the handwash product can remain active up until the time of neutralization or plating. A modified healthcare personnel handwash procedure using a pigskin substrate and a 4% chlorhexidine gluconate handwash product was used to demonstrate the need for a neutralizer in the stripping fluid. When tests were run with and without neutralizers in the dilution blanks, but with adequate neutralizers in the stripping fluid, there were no significant differences (p>.05) between results obtained after five washes or after each wash. When tests were run with a non-neutralizing stripping fluid, significant differences were noticed in the first and the fifth wash (p<.05), and in the presence or absence of neutralizers in the dilution blanks (p<.05). The data generated indicate that in order to determine the true activity of an antimicrobial handwash product, an adequate neutralizer should be incorporated into the stripping fluid and not just the dilution media. They also suggest that neutralizer carry-over from the stripping fluid is not a valid concern.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 11 , Issue 11 , November 1990 , pp. 595 - 599
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The tentative final monograph for OTC topical antimicrobial products Federal Register. 1978;43:1210–1249.Google Scholar
2. Ayliffe, GAJ. Surgical scrub and skin disinfection. Infect Control. 1984;5:23–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Ayliffe, GAJ, Babb, JR, Quoraishi, AH. A test for ‘hygienic’ hand disinfection. J Clin Pathol. 1978;3331:923–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Larson, E. Current handwashing issues. Infect Control. 1984;5:15–17.10.1017/S0195941700058732CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Rotter, ML. Hygienic hand disinfection. Infect Control. 1984;5:18–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Rotter, M, Wewalka, G, Roller, W. Influence of some variables on the results of evaluation of procedures for hygienic hand disinfection. Hyg Med. 1981;7:157–166.Google Scholar
7. Larson, EL, Eke, PI, Laughon, BE. Effects of sampling time on bacterial yield from the hands. Am J Infect Control. 1987;15:272–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Rotter, M. Are models useful for testing hand antiseptics? J Hosp Infect. 1988;11:236–243.10.1016/0195-6701(88)90193-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Reybrouck, G. Efficacy of inactivators against 14 disinfectant substances. Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologie Hygiene. 1979;B168;480–492.Google Scholar
10. Russell, AD, Ahonkhai, I, Rogers, DT. A review: microbiological applications of the inactivation of antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. Appl Bact. 1979;46:207–245.10.1111/j.1365-2672.1979.tb00818.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Standard test methods for evaluating inactivators of antimicrobial agents used in disinfectant, sanitizer, and antiseptic products. ASTM E 1054-85. Philadelphia, Pa: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1985;761–763.Google Scholar
12. Bush, LW, Benson, LM, White, JH. Pigskin as test substrate for evaluating topical antimicrobial activity. J Clin Microbiol. 1986;24:343–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Schlotzhauer, SD, Littell, RC. SAS System for Elementary Statistical Analysis. Carey, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.; 1987.Google Scholar
14. Bissett, DL, McBride, JF. The use of the domestic pig as an animal model of human dry skin and for comparison of dry and normal skin properties. Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists. 1984;34:316–326.Google Scholar
15. Meyer, W, Schwarz, R, Neurand, K. The skin of domestic mammals as a model for the human skin, with special reference to the domestic pig. Curr Probt Dermatol. 1978;7:39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Smith, RF, Evans, BL. Bacteria of porcine skin, xenografts, and treatment with neomycin sulfate. Appl Microbiol. 1972;23:293–297.10.1128/am.23.2.293-297.1972CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed