Instant Hand Sanitizer Research Articles

ANALISIS HARGA OBAT DAN ALAT KESEHATAN DIMASA PANDEMI COVID-19 (STUDI LITERATUR PEMIKIRAN IBNU TAIMIYAH DAN ABU YUSUF)

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a tremendous impact on the health sector. This study aims to analyze the prices of drugs and medical devices during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of Ibn Taimiyah and Abu Yusuf. The research method used in this research is literature study. The price of masks which are usually only Rp. 25,000, at the beginning of the pandemic it became Rp. 500,000, Dettol instant hand sanitizer which normally costs Rp. 12,600 to Rp. 126,000. The government's policy to minimize price increases is by limiting the export of masks and supervising traders. This policy is relevant to the thought of Abu Yusuf who said that he did not agree with the government that set the price. The thoughts of Abu Yusuf who oppose the opinion that prices are inversely proportional to the amount of inventory are not relevant to the conditions that occur. If viewed from Ibn Taimiyah's thought, there are individuals who commit price fraud while the goods are really needed by the community, the government is allowed to set prices, but the government does not do it and only makes efforts to normalize prices.
 Keywords; Price Mechanism, COVID-19, Abu Yusuf, Ibn Taymiyya.

Effectiveness of different instant hand sanitizers against normal flora and some selected pathogenic bacteria

To maintain hygienic life it is important to follow the rules of sanitation. Hand sanitation is one of the most necessary parts of keeping personal hygiene. As hands are used directly for person to person contact, contact with animals, food preparation and so on, they can transmit microorganisms to and from all of these sources coming in contact. So if proper hand sanitation is maintained, the transfer of microorganisms will be decreased which can ultimately reduce the transmission of some pathogenic microorganisms to a susceptible host from own self directly or from the animals after handling them. Susceptible people getting harmful pathogenic bacteria can get sick if they find their appropriate routes of entry into them. During food preparation and taking meals, microorganisms can get entrance into the body from hands as well as microbes contaminating foods from the hands can proliferate in the foods causing spoilage and also release toxins causing food borne infection and food borne intoxication respectively. To reduce such risks people need to wash hands on routine basis especially on food processing zone it should be washed with water and soap which results in greater cleaning. People now use instant hand sanitizer after washing hands with water giving an extra protection. Sanitizers works best on hands with no visible sign of dirt. In the current study, five alcohol based hand sanitizers were selected to determine the ability of these sanitizers to decrease the loads of microorganisms from the hands of the five selected volunteers. During the study, it has been found that alcohol based instant hand sanitizer do decrease the loads of microbial flora from the hands but not in satisfactory level. Even they possessed very low effectivity against some pathogenic bacteria. These products can be used only where water is not available to decrease the loads of microbes from the hands.
 Stamford Journal of Microbiology, Vol.8(1) 2018: 10-14

Nosocomial urinary tract infections: A review.

Nosocomial urinary tract infections are a common complication in healthcare systems worldwide. A review of the literature was performed in June 2014 using the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) database, through either PubMed or Ovid as a search engine, to identify publications regarding nosocomial urinary tract infections (NUTIs) definition, epidemiology, etiology and treatment.According to current definitions, more than 30% of nosocomial infections are urinary tract infections (UTIs). A UTI is defined 'nosocomial' (NUTI) when it is acquired in any healthcare institution or, more generally, when it is related to patient management. The origin of nosocomial bacteria is endogenous (the patient's flora) in two thirds of the cases. Patients with indwelling urinary catheters, those undergoing urological surgery and manipulations, long-stay elderly male patients and patients with debilitating diseases are at high risk of developing NUTIs. All bacterial NUTIs should be treated, whether the patient is harboring a urinary catheter or not. The length of treatment depends on the infection site. There is abundance of important guidance which should be considered to reduce the risk of NUTIs (hand disinfection with instant hand sanitizer, wearing non-sterile gloves permanently, isolation of infected or colonized catheterized patients). Patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria can generally be treated initially with catheter removal or catheter exchange, and do not necessarily need antimicrobial therapy. Symptomatic patients should receive antibiotic therapy. Resistance of urinary pathogens to common antibiotics is currently a topic of concern.

Inactivation of surrogate coronaviruses on hard surfaces by health care germicides

BackgroundIn the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak, finding viral nucleic acids on hospital surfaces suggested surfaces could play a role in spread in health care environments. Surface disinfection may interrupt transmission, but few data exist on the effectiveness of health care germicides against coronaviruses on surfaces.MethodsThe efficacy of health care germicides against 2 surrogate coronaviruses, mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) and transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), was tested using the quantitative carrier method on stainless steel surfaces. Germicides were o-phenylphenol/p-tertiary amylphenol) (a phenolic), 70% ethanol, 1:100 sodium hypochlorite, ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA), instant hand sanitizer (62% ethanol), and hand sanitizing spray (71% ethanol).ResultsAfter 1-minute contact time, for TGEV, there was a log10 reduction factor of 3.2 for 70% ethanol, 2.0 for phenolic, 2.3 for OPA, 0.35 for 1:100 hypochlorite, 4.0 for 62% ethanol, and 3.5 for 71% ethanol. For MHV, log10 reduction factors were 3.9 for 70% ethanol, 1.3 for phenolic, 1.7 for OPA, 0.62 for 1:100 hypochlorite, 2.7 for 62% ethanol, and 2.0 for 71% ethanol.ConclusionOnly ethanol reduced infectivity of the 2 coronaviruses by >3-log10 after 1 minute. Germicides must be chosen carefully to ensure they are effective against viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus.

Evaluation of the Instant Hand Sanitizer with or without Chloroxylenol Disinfectant for Hand Disinfection

Evaluation of the Instant Hand Sanitizer with or without Chloroxylenol Disinfectant for Hand Disinfection

Efficacy of ethanol-based hand foams using clinically relevant amounts: a cross-over controlled study among healthy volunteers

BackgroundFoams containing 62% ethanol are used for hand decontamination in many countries. A long drying time may reduce the compliance of healthcare workers in applying the recommended amount of foam. Therefore, we have investigated the correlation between the applied amount and drying time, and the bactericidal efficacy of ethanol foams.MethodsIn a first part of tests, four foams (Alcare plus, Avagard Foam, Bode test foam, Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer) containing 62% ethanol, which is commonly used in U.S. hospitals, were applied to 14 volunteers in a total of seven variations, to measure drying times. In a second part of tests, the efficacy of the established amount of foam for a 30 s application time of two foams (Alcare plus, Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer) and water was compared to the EN 1500 standard of 2 × 3 mL applications of 2-propanol 60% (v/v), on hands artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli. Each application used a cross-over design against the reference alcohol with 15 volunteers.ResultsThe mean weight of the applied foam varied between 1.78 and 3.09 g, and the mean duration to dryness was between 37 s and 103 s. The correlation between the amount of foam applied and time until hands felt dry was highly significant (p < 0.001; Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.724; 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.93). By linear correlation, 1.6 g gave an intercept of a 30 s application time. Application of 1.6 g of Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer (mean log10-reduction: 3.05 ± 0.45) and Alcare plus (3.58 ± 0.71) was significantly less effective than the reference disinfection (4.83 ± 0.89 and 4.60 ± 0.59, respectively; p < 0.001). Application of 1.6 g of water gave a mean log10-reduction of 2.39 ± 0.57.ConclusionsWhen using 62% ethanol foams, the time required for dryness often exceeds the recommended 30 s. Therefore, only a small volume is likely to be applied in clinical practice. Small amounts, however, failed to meet the efficacy requirements of EN 1500 and were only somewhat more effective than water.

The Effect of Instant Hand Sanitizer Format on Nosocomial Infection Rate: Do Foam and Gel Instant Hand Sanitizers Have Equivalent Efficacy?

The Effect of Instant Hand Sanitizer Format on Nosocomial Infection Rate: Do Foam and Gel Instant Hand Sanitizers Have Equivalent Efficacy?

Alcohol-Based Instant Hand Sanitizer Use in Military Settings: A Prospective Cohort Study of Army Basic Trainees

We investigated the impact of a customized alcohol-based instant hand sanitizer hand-hygiene regimen in an Army basic training setting. The entire population at the U.S. Army Field Artillery Training Center, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, participated in the 13-week prospective cohort study between January 18, 2005 and April 18, 2005. Two training battalions were randomly assigned to the control group, one to the primary intervention group (customized Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer regimen, education, reinforcement) and one to the secondary intervention group (customized Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer regimen). When compared to the control group, intervention groups experienced 40% less respiratory illness (p < 0.001), 48% less gastrointestinal illness (p < 0.02), 44% less lost training time (p < 0.001), and 31% fewer health care encounters (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that this intervention is capable of significantly reducing illness in this setting and has the potential to help reduce absenteeism in the military workforce as a whole.

Alcohol-based hand sanitizer: Can frequent use cause an elevated blood alcohol level?

Recently health care systems and infection control organizations have begun advocating the routine use of alcohol-based instant hand sanitizers (ABHS) in conjunction with routine handwashing. 1 Health care professionals functioning in high patient census areas such as an immunization clinic or emergency department (ED) may apply ABHS more than 10 times in an hour if using these products prior to and just following patient evaluation. 2 Little is known about the effects of frequent use of ABHS on blood alcohol concentrations. Because dermal absorption of isopropyl alcohol has been demonstrated in a previous study, 3 it is of forensic and medical-legal importance to elucidate the effects of frequent use of ABHS on serum blood ethanol levels. We report a case of a negative serum ethanol level in a physician using ABHS on an extraordinarily frequent basis over a period of 2 hours. CASE REPORT A 38-year-old emergency physician was participating in a hospital-sponsored survey of various alcoholbased hand sanitizers. The hospital was attempting to decide which product to purchase and was fielding a number of products for health care providers to use and assess. The physician had tested 3 previous products and decided to test the tolerability of the fourth ABHS (a 62% denatured alcohol [ethanol] product) under the most extreme conditions, using it 25 times over the course of 2 hours. The product was used in accordance with instructions, applying 5 mL of the ABHS to both hands and forearms and rubbing until dry. Immediately following the final application of the ABHS, a blood alcohol level was drawn in conjunction with other laboratory tests that were ordered for a routine physical examination. The skin was prepped before the blood draw with a nonalcohol-based iodine product. The blood alcohol level measurement demonstrated a serum level of ,5 mg/dL (less than the minimum detection level for the laboratory).

Medical Pearl: Rinse-free instant hand sanitizer for use as dermoscopy fluid

Dermoscopy, or epiluminescence microscopy, is a noninvasive technique commonly used to visualize subsurface skin structures. It has been shown to improve the detection of melanoma and also to aid in the diagnosis of non-melanocytic lesions including pigmented basal cell carcinomas, hemangiomas, and seborrheic keratoses. 1-2 Dermoscopy utilizes a handheld instrument with halogen illumination to achieve 10-fold magnification of skin lesions. Typically, an immersion fluid is placed on the skin to smooth out skin surface irregularities and to decrease light reflectivity. By decreasing reflectivity, a greater amount of light penetrates the epidermis and dermis, optimizing visualization of deeper structural components. Previously, various immersion fluids including oils (mineral oil, immersion oil, and olive oil), alcohols (ethanol and isopropanol), water, and ultrasound gel have been used. 3 The two largest dermatoscope manufacturers (Episcope; Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY; Delta 10 Dermatoscope; Heine USA Ltd, Dover, NH) both recommend using mineral oil, and one of them (Heine USA Ltd) markets dermatoscopy oil. However, oil-based fluids are messy, can stain clothing, and require cleansing of both the skin surface and dermatoscope following examination to remove the greasy residue. For these reasons, liquid isopropyl alcohol is sometimes used; however, it evaporates quickly and may not sufficiently decrease reflectivity.

Prevention of food worker transmission of foodborne pathogens: risk assessment and evaluation of effective hygiene intervention strategies

AbstractThe infected food handler can be responsible for the transmission of infectious intestinal diseases (IID) caused by foodborne pathogens. It is believed that personal hygiene practices with varying levels of complexity can help prevent foodborne pathogens from entering the food chain. Overall, it has been difficult to reach a consensus among stakeholders on precisely which intervention measures should be employed in food handling environments to effectively reduce IID rates. Through a study of over 300 reports of outbreaks attributed to ill or asymptomatic food handlers, hazards and contributory factors responsible for foodborne illness outbreaks were identified. With the use of the risk analysis software platforms of Analytica®, @Risk, and GoldSim®, models were created to explore measures of hygiene effectiveness. Through the use of appropriate models, results of various personal hygiene intervention measures were explored for the development of preventive management strategies, designed to improve food‐handling practices at various levels of the food chain. These included exclusion of ill food handlers, vaccination for hepatitis A virus, handwashing combined with drying, wearing of gloves, and use of instant hand sanitizers and fingernail brushes. This was accomplished by modeling pathogen transfer and transmission routes from food handler via foods, beverages and common contact surfaces using GoldSim® and Monte Carlo simulations. A lottery model was also created to understand risk as an interrelated overlapping extremes driven system, comprised of the three components of hygiene frequency, efficacy and cross‐contamination. Data gaps were identified with respect to areas where considerable variability and uncertainty exists in order to establish research priorities.

A Surprising New Medium for Specimen Preservation and Display

220 Who would have guessed that antibacterial hand sanitizers are a passably good arthropod preservative and display medium? I stumbled upon that unlikely use nearly two years ago when one of our company service technicians brought me a partially used bottle of instant hand sanitizer that a customer had given him when he inquired about pest specimens for identification. The bottle, which had been kept uncapped on the customer’s bathroom vanity, contained 14 pumace flies, Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, suspended in perfect condition within the top inch of the viscous transparent liquid contents. Apparently the pomice flies were attracted to the fragrance of the hand sanitizer and became entrapped, reminiscent of fossil insects in amber. I was impressed by the specimen display potential of this line of personal hygiene products, so in addition to monitoring the condition of the D. melanogaster specimens during the months to follow, I purchased three brands of instant hand sanitizer for comparison in a (nonstatistically significant) study of their efficacy as arthropod preservatives. As a structural pest management industry consultant and technical director, I considered how wonderful it would be to position perishable specimens in an inexpensive, readily available, clear, viscous medium for use in arthropod identification workshops and reference. Said medium would have most of the benefits of plastic resin mounts with none of the shortcomings. Was it too good to be true? Were there hidden disappointments? Traditional preservative fluids (Borrer et al. 1989), as every taxonomist and collection curator knows, include:

Use limitations of alcoholic instant hand sanitizer as part of a food service hand hygiene program

AbstractThe efficiency of either handwashing or use of alcoholic instant hand sanitizers (AIHS) has been reported against normal microflora (NF) or transient microflora (TF) using marker bacteria or viruses. Most studies were performed to support use in health care employing techniques that poorly mimic food service. When AIHS is used alone, application quantity, exposure period, alcoholic concentrations and type influence effectiveness. Relevant to the food industry, little work has been done in order to understand the variables affecting efficacy when handwashing and AIHS are combined. Although AIHS has been suggested as a replacement for fingernail brushes in health care, little is known about either application when heavy soil is present. The experiments described examine the effects of sanitizer quantity on efficacy when used after a standard handwash and use of AIHS to disinfect the nail region when contaminated with high levels of organic soil. In these studies, subjects contaminated hands or nail region with TF marker, either Serratia marcescens in Tryptone soya broth or Escherichia coli JM109 in ground beef, respectively. One hand or selected fingers are sampled to establish TF and/or NF baseline counts. For handwashing and AIHS use, hands were washed with a mild antimicrobial soap (AS) (0.5% triclosan), followed by paper towel drying and application of various quantities of AIHS. With fingernail studies, hands and nail regions were washed with tap water, bland soap (BS), AS, AIHS, BS and AIHS or fingernail brush with BS. Using the combined handwash and AIHS to enhance the hygiene process, there were significant (P ≤ 0.05) increases in efficacy as quantity of AIHS increased, a significant difference in efficacy over handwashing alone is seen only when larger quantities (3 mL and 6 mL) of AIHS are employed. In fingernail studies, overall lower levels of E. coli were removed from artificial vs. natural nails and a statistically significantly (P ≤ 0.05) improvement was seen when a fingernail brush was used over all other methods, including BS wash followed by AIHS.

Reduction of Illness Absenteeism in Elementary Schools Using an Alcohol-free Instant Hand Sanitizer

Hand washing is the most effective way to prevent the spread of communicable disease. The purpose of this double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to assess whether an alcohol-free, instant hand sanitizer containing surfactants, allantoin, and benzalkonium chloride could reduce illness absenteeism in a population of 769 elementary school children and serve as an effective alternative when regular soap and water hand washing was not readily available. Prior to the study, students were educated about proper hand washing technique, the importance of hand washing to prevent transmission of germs, and the relationship between germs and illnesses. Children in kindergarten through the 6th grade (ages 5-12) were assigned to the active or placebo hand-sanitizer product and instructed to use the product at scheduled times during the day and as needed after coughing or sneezing. Data on illness absenteeism were tracked. After 5 weeks, students using the active product were 33% less likely to have been absent because of illness when compared with the placebo group.

Innocents Lost

I recalled an incident my mother once related about Mr. Franklin. In his business he dealt with a lot of people every day yet appeared to stay remarkably well, rarely falling prey to any "bug" going around. One day my mother asked how he managed to do that. His interesting reply was that every now and then during the day he would simply pour some rubbing alcohol over his hands. In light of all the instant hand-sanitizers on the market today, many containing alcohol, Dock Franklin was evidently a man ahead of his time! The ride back home didn't take very long (we opted to make the return trip on some of the newer roads), but it gave me time to reflect on the afternoon. It had been a good one. The faded, sepia-toned memories in my mind had, for a few hours that day, taken on a new life and color and vibrancy. Somehow I felt reconnected and renewed. Those old roads had served to reinforce a link with my past and provide me with a sentimental journey that I needed, perhaps more than I knew. And because of that, I'm glad some of those old roads can still be found. Innocents Lost In the still of the night, lowings deep and distressed Drift through my bedroom window, and I know Without seeing that the truck has visited The farm up the hill, and mothers cry. I turn off the lamp, stretch myself out. Across the double bed their cries scrape a nerve, Something which cannot be retrieved. I toss and turn, as to the slaughterhouse I ride. Wrong choices, stungun to the temple Of all we thought we had. I never meant to hurt you. For what do we know of prods we resist? Looking back, it's easy to see what was At stake, the bloody dismembering. —Rusty Freeman 11 ...

Reduction of Illness Absenteeism in Elementary Schools Using an Alcohol-free Instant Hand Sanitizer

Asthma has become the most common chronic illness among children. Indoor environments appear to play a substantial role in the development of asthma. Recent studies indicate strong evidence of a causal relationship between exposure to certain indoor environmental pollutants and development and/or exacerbation of asthma in susceptible individuals. Allergens of concern include those produced by dust mites, cockroaches, cats, dogs, and molds. It is important to better understand this relationship and take preventive and corrective steps to reduce or eliminate these sources in schools, homes, and day care centers. Measures include tracking of asthma and allergic response incidents; monitoring for the presence of allergens and molds; effective cleaning procedures; prompt repair of water leaks and/or moisture problems; control of indoor relative humidity; and proper operation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.

EFFECT OF SANITIZERS ON LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES ATTACHED TO LATEX GLOVES

Contamination of ready‐to‐eat seafoods with Listeria monocytogenes is a major concern of the seafood industry. One means of control is the use of hand sanitizers. Five sanitizers (chlorine bleach, Zep‐i‐dineTM, Zepamine ATM, ZepTM Instant Hand Sanitizer, and Ultra‐KleenTM) were evaluated for effectiveness against L. monocytogenes attached to latex gloves in the presence of phosphate buffered saline or crab cooking water. Cooking water had been used to boil the crabs and was heavily laden with organic nutrients. Chlorine, Zepamine ATM, and Ultra‐KleenTM reduced numbers of attached L. monocytogenes to nondetectable levels in the presence of phosphate buffered saline; Zep‐i‐dineTM and ZepTM Instant Hand Sanitizer were less effective. In the presence of crab cooking water, only Ultra‐KleenTM reduced cell numbers to nondetectable levels; the effectiveness of the remaining sanitizers was reduced. Extreme care must be taken when choosing hand sanitizers as their efficacy may be affected by organic residues on the gloves of food handlers.