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

1990 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 595-599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Benson ◽  
Lee Bush ◽  
Destin LeBlanc
Keyword(s):  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Chlorhexidine Gluconate ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Carry Over ◽  
True Activity

AbstractThe 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.

Evaluation of the Skin Disinfecting Activity and Cumulative Effect of Chlorhexidine and Triclosan Handwash Preparations on Hands Artificially Contaminated with Serratia marcescens

1987 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 163-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.A. Bartzokas ◽  
J.E. Corkill ◽  
T. Makin
Keyword(s):  
Antibacterial Activity ◽  
Serratia Marcescens ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Cumulative Effect ◽  
Chlorhexidine Gluconate ◽  
Colony Forming Units ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Testing Standards ◽  
Reduction Factors

AbstractThe initial and cumulative efficacy of two antiseptic handwash preparations in eliminating Serratia marcescens from hands was evaluated on volunteers. Two antiseptics with persistent skin antibacterial activity, 4% chlorhexidine gluconate in detergent and 1.5% triclosan in natural soap, were studied in a new protocol designed according to Food and Drug Administration guidelines. After a single handwash, both preparations exhibited a degerming action statistically superior to the mechanical elimination of the marker organism that was achieved by the nonmedicated controls. Following a further nine hand recontamination sequence with 109 colony-forming units (cfu)/mL S marcescens (mean pre-disinfection baseline, log10 6.6), the efficacy of chlorhexidine and triclosan was significantly augmented: the mean log10 reduction factors were 4.15 and 3.78, respectively. In the absence of internationally accepted testing standards for antiseptic handwash products, the significance of protocol variables is discussed. The advantages to preventative microbiology of antiseptics with persistent skin antibacterial activity are highlighted.

Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Two Topical Antiseptic Products: Chlorhexidine Gluconate + Isopropyl Alcohol and Povidone- Iodine + Isopropyl Alcohol

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 156-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Art
Keyword(s):  
Drug Administration ◽  
Vascular Access ◽  
Isopropyl Alcohol ◽  
Povidone Iodine ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Chlorhexidine Gluconate ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
The Past ◽  
American Society ◽  
The U.S

Abstract While antiseptic products containing a combination of chlorhexidine gluconate and isopropyl alcohol (CHG+IPA) have gained in popularity over the past several years in preparing and maintaining vascular access sites, the data used to support their use over products containing povidone-iodine (PVP-I) have been based solely on comparisons of aqueous CHG or CHG+IPA to aqueous PVP-I alone. No studies have compared aqueous CHG or CHG+IPA to PVP-I+IPA or aqueous PVP-I preceded by IPA. When compared using methods established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), the safety and efficacy of PVP-I+IPA was found to be less irritating and faster acting than CHG+IPA; both PVP-I+IPA and CHG+IPA demonstrated persistence for 7 days.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document