Literature DB >> 11934038

Risk assessment of hand washing efficacy using literature and experimental data.

Rebecca Montville1, Yuhuan Chen, Donald W Schaffner.   

Abstract

This study simulated factors that influence the levels of bacteria on foodservice workers' hands. Relevant data were collected from the scientific literature and from laboratory experiments. Literature information collected included: initial bacterial counts on hands and water faucet spigots, bacterial population changes during hand washing as effected by soap type, sanitizing agent, drying method, and the presence of rings. Experimental data were also collected using Enterobacter aerogenes as a surrogate for transient bacteria. Both literature and experimental data were translated into appropriate discrete or probability distribution functions. The appropriate statistical distribution for each phase of the hand washing process was determined. These distributions were: initial count on hands, beta (2.82, 2.32, 7.5); washing reduction using regular soap, beta (3.01, 1.91, -3.00, 0.60); washing reduction using antimicrobial soap, beta (4.19, 2.99, -4.50, 1.50); washing reduction using chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), triangular (-4.75, -1.00, 0); reductions from hot air drying, beta (3.52, 1.92, -0.20, 1.00); reduction from paper towel drying, triangular (-2.25, -0.75, 0); reduction due to alcohol sanitizer, gamma (-1.23, 4.42) -5.8; reduction due to alcohol-free sanitizer, gamma (2.22, 5.38) -5.00; and the effect of rings, beta (8.55, 23.35, 0.10, 0.45). Experimental data were fit to normal distributions (expressed as log percentage transfer rate): hand-to-spigot transfer, normal (-0.80, 1.09); spigot to hand, normal (0.36, 0.90). Soap with an antimicrobial agent (in particular, CHG) was observed to be more effective than regular soap. Hot air drying had the capacity to increase the amount of bacterial contamination on hands, while paper towel drying caused a slight decrease in contamination. There was little difference in the efficacy of alcohol and alcohol-free sanitizers. Ring wearing caused a slight decrease in the efficacy of hand washing. The experimental data validated the simulated combined effect of certain hand washing procedures based on distributions derived from reported studies. The conventional hand washing system caused a small increase in contamination on hands vs. the touch-free system. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the primary factors influencing final bacteria counts on the hand were sanitizer, soap, and drying method. This research represents an initial framework from which sound policy can be promulgated to control bacterial transmission via hand contacts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11934038     DOI: 10.1016/s0168-1605(01)00666-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Food Microbiol        ISSN: 0168-1605            Impact factor:   5.277


  9 in total

1.  Topical applications of chlorhexidine to the umbilical cord for prevention of omphalitis and neonatal mortality in southern Nepal: a community-based, cluster-randomised trial.

Authors:  Luke C Mullany; Gary L Darmstadt; Subarna K Khatry; Joanne Katz; Steven C LeClerq; Shardaram Shrestha; Ramesh Adhikari; James M Tielsch
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-03-18       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Sensor recorded changes in rates of hand washing with soap in response to the media reports of the H1N1 pandemic in Britain.

Authors:  Diana S Fleischman; Gregory D Webster; Gaby Judah; Mícheál de Barra; Robert Aunger; Valerie A Curtis
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Children Are Exposed to Fecal Contamination via Multiple Interconnected Pathways: A Network Model for Exposure Assessment.

Authors:  Yuke Wang; Christine L Moe; Peter F M Teunis
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 4.000

4.  Multisite survey of bacterial contamination in ready-to-eat meat products throughout the cooking and selling processes in urban supermarket, Nanjing, China.

Authors:  Shao-Kang Wang; Ling-Meng Fu; Guo-Wei Chen; Hong-Mei Xiao; Da Pan; Ruo-Fu Shi; Li-Gang Yang; Gui-Ju Sun
Journal:  Food Sci Nutr       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 2.863

Review 5.  Methods for recovering microorganisms from solid surfaces used in the food industry: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Rached Ismaïl; Florence Aviat; Valérie Michel; Isabelle Le Bayon; Perrine Gay-Perret; Magdalena Kutnik; Michel Fédérighi
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2013-11-14       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Video observation of hand hygiene practices during routine companion animal appointments and the effect of a poster intervention on hand hygiene compliance.

Authors:  Maureen E C Anderson; Jan M Sargeant; J Scott Weese
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 2.741

7.  Transfer and Decontamination of S. aureus in Transmission Routes Regarding Hands and Contact Surfaces.

Authors:  Pernilla Arinder; Pär Johannesson; Ingela Karlsson; Elisabeth Borch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Handwashing and risk of respiratory infections: a quantitative systematic review.

Authors:  Tamer Rabie; Valerie Curtis
Journal:  Trop Med Int Health       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 9.  Comparison of electric hand dryers and paper towels for hand hygiene: a critical review of the literature.

Authors:  K A Reynolds; J D Sexton; A Norman; D J McClelland
Journal:  J Appl Microbiol       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 3.772

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.