Cargando…

Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment

BACKGROUND: Effective neutralization in testing hand hygiene preparations is considered to be a crucial element to ensure validity of the test results, especially with the difficulty to neutralize chlorhexidine gluconate. Aim of the study was to measure the effect of chemical neutralization under pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kampf, Günter, Shaffer, Marc, Hunte, Corrine
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181814/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15963239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-5-48
_version_ 1782124633437241344
author Kampf, Günter
Shaffer, Marc
Hunte, Corrine
author_facet Kampf, Günter
Shaffer, Marc
Hunte, Corrine
author_sort Kampf, Günter
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Effective neutralization in testing hand hygiene preparations is considered to be a crucial element to ensure validity of the test results, especially with the difficulty to neutralize chlorhexidine gluconate. Aim of the study was to measure the effect of chemical neutralization under practical test conditions according to EN 1500. METHODS: We have investigated two ethanol-based hand rubs (product A, based on 61% ethanol and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate; product B, based on 85% ethanol). The efficacy of products (application of 3 ml for 30 s) was compared to 2-propanol 60% (v/v) (two 3 ml rubs of 30 s each) on hands artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli using a cross-over design with 15 volunteers. Pre-values were obtained by rubbing fingertips for 1 minute in liquid broth. Post-values were determined by sampling immediately after disinfection in liquid broth with and without neutralizers (0.5% lecithin, 4% polysorbate 20). RESULTS: The neutralizers were found to be effective and non-toxic. Without neutralization in the sampling fluid, the reference disinfection reduced the test bacteria by 3.7 log(10), product B by 3.3 log(10 )and product A by 4.8 log(10 )(P = 0.001; ANOVA). With neutralization the reference disinfection reduced the test bacteria by 3.5 log(10), product B by 3.3 log(10 )and product A by 2.7 log(10 )(P = 0.011; ANOVA). In comparison to the reference treatment Product B lead to a lower mean reduction than the reference disinfection but the difference was not significant (P > 0.1; Wilcoxon-Wilcox test). Without neutralizing agents in the sampling fluid, product A yielded a significantly higher reduction of test bacteria (4.8; P = 0.02) as compared to the situation with neutralizing agents (2.7; P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: The crucial step of neutralization lies in the sampling fluid itself in order to stop any residual bacteriostatic or bactericidal activity immediately after the application of the preparation, especially with chlorhexidine gluconate-containing preparations. This is particularly important at short application times such as the 30 s.
format Text
id pubmed-1181814
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-11818142005-07-30 Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment Kampf, Günter Shaffer, Marc Hunte, Corrine BMC Infect Dis Research Article BACKGROUND: Effective neutralization in testing hand hygiene preparations is considered to be a crucial element to ensure validity of the test results, especially with the difficulty to neutralize chlorhexidine gluconate. Aim of the study was to measure the effect of chemical neutralization under practical test conditions according to EN 1500. METHODS: We have investigated two ethanol-based hand rubs (product A, based on 61% ethanol and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate; product B, based on 85% ethanol). The efficacy of products (application of 3 ml for 30 s) was compared to 2-propanol 60% (v/v) (two 3 ml rubs of 30 s each) on hands artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli using a cross-over design with 15 volunteers. Pre-values were obtained by rubbing fingertips for 1 minute in liquid broth. Post-values were determined by sampling immediately after disinfection in liquid broth with and without neutralizers (0.5% lecithin, 4% polysorbate 20). RESULTS: The neutralizers were found to be effective and non-toxic. Without neutralization in the sampling fluid, the reference disinfection reduced the test bacteria by 3.7 log(10), product B by 3.3 log(10 )and product A by 4.8 log(10 )(P = 0.001; ANOVA). With neutralization the reference disinfection reduced the test bacteria by 3.5 log(10), product B by 3.3 log(10 )and product A by 2.7 log(10 )(P = 0.011; ANOVA). In comparison to the reference treatment Product B lead to a lower mean reduction than the reference disinfection but the difference was not significant (P > 0.1; Wilcoxon-Wilcox test). Without neutralizing agents in the sampling fluid, product A yielded a significantly higher reduction of test bacteria (4.8; P = 0.02) as compared to the situation with neutralizing agents (2.7; P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: The crucial step of neutralization lies in the sampling fluid itself in order to stop any residual bacteriostatic or bactericidal activity immediately after the application of the preparation, especially with chlorhexidine gluconate-containing preparations. This is particularly important at short application times such as the 30 s. BioMed Central 2005-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC1181814/ /pubmed/15963239 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-5-48 Text en Copyright © 2005 Kampf et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kampf, Günter
Shaffer, Marc
Hunte, Corrine
Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment
title Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment
title_full Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment
title_fullStr Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment
title_full_unstemmed Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment
title_short Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment
title_sort insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181814/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15963239
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-5-48
work_keys_str_mv AT kampfgunter insufficientneutralizationintestingachlorhexidinecontainingethanolbasedhandrubcanresultinafalsepositiveefficacyassessment
AT shaffermarc insufficientneutralizationintestingachlorhexidinecontainingethanolbasedhandrubcanresultinafalsepositiveefficacyassessment
AT huntecorrine insufficientneutralizationintestingachlorhexidinecontainingethanolbasedhandrubcanresultinafalsepositiveefficacyassessment