European norms in hand hygiene

In the area of hand hygiene, European Norms exist, or are under development, with regard to protective gloves and for assessing the antimicrobial efficacy of hand disinfectants. Important norms for gloves are EN 420 (General requirements), EN 374 (Protective gloves against chemicals and microorganisms) and EN 455 (Medical gloves for single use). A suspension test for the demonstration of bactericidal activity (prEN 12054) is obligatory for hand disinfectants in all fields of application; a test to prove activity against yeasts applies only to hygienic hand rub. (Optional) Claims for virucidal activities can be substantiated by prEN 1476 and, in future, for mycobactericidal capacity by a test which is still under development. In vivo tests exist for post-contamination treatments, hygienic hand wash and hygienic hand rub (EN 1499 and EN 1500 respectively), and for the preoperative surgical hand rub/wash (prEN 12791). The two former tests employ artificially contaminated hands, the latter test is done with clean hands. All in vivo tests use reference hand treatments (with unmedicated soap or 2-propanol 60% (vol.) or 1-propanol 60% (vol.), respectively) against the results of which are compared with those achieved with the product under test and with the same volunteers. An antiseptic soap needs to be significantly more efficacious than unmedicated soap, a product for hygienic hand rub must not be inferior to the reference treatment with 2-propanol, and a surgical hand disinfectant must not cause a smaller bacterial reduction than the reference preparation with 1-propanol, immediately, and after 3 h. An (optional) claim for sustained activity of a surgical disinfectant needs to be demonstrated by achieving a significantly stronger bacterial reduction after 3 h than the reference preparation.     

Efficacy of 2 alcohol-based gels and 1 alcohol-based rinse for surgical hand disinfection.

We assessed the efficacy of 2 alcohol-based gels and 1 alcohol-based rinse for surgical hand disinfection, using European standard EN 12791. Volunteers performed surgical hand disinfection with a reference product and each of the 3 study products, with 1-week intervals between disinfection episodes. The immediate and sustained antimicrobial activities of each study product were not significantly less than those of the reference product. The study products passed the efficacy requirements of the EN 12791 standard, and they are considered suitable for surgical hand disinfection.     

Comparison of two test methods for the determination of sufficient antimicrobial activity of three commonly used alcohol-based hand rubs for hygienic hand disinfection

In Europe, the antimicrobial efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs is determined with a quantitative suspension test (prEN 12054) and a test under practical conditions (EN 1500). Another test method has recently been published by the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology (DGHM) with four differences to the European system in the in vitro tests: additional qualitative suspension tests with product dilutions to the ineffective range; a selection of the most resistant Gram-negative test strains in the qualitative suspension test, which should be used adjacent to Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the quantitative suspension test; a high organic load in the quantitative suspension tests (0.3% albumin and 0.3% sheep erythrocytes); and an aqueous control in the quantitative suspension test. According to DGHM, the in vitro tests should be followed by EN 1500. We have determined the antimicrobial efficacy of three commonly used alcohol-based hand rubs according to both methods. prEN 12054 was carried out without organic load. The qualitative suspension tests (DGHM) were carried out with P. aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus hirae and Candida albicans. The quantitative suspension test (DGHM) was carried out with product dilutions of 75%, 50% and 25%, and a high organic load using the following test organisms: P. aeruginosa, P. mirabilis (one product only), S. aureus, E. hirae and C. albicans. All these suspension tests were carried out in quadruplicate with each product and exposure time. EN 1500 was carried out with 3 mL of each product and an application time of 30 s. All three products achieved the required bactericidal activity of prEN 12054 and the new DGHM method within 30 s, and were equally effective with the reference hand disinfection of EN 1500 within 30 s. In our study, the DGHM test method did not provide additional information for hand rubs which exhibit their bactericidal efficacy with 3 mL within 30 s (EN 1500).     

Ethanol in pre-surgical hand rubs: concentration and duration of application for achieving European Norm EN 12791

In Europe, ethanol is a common active agent in hand rub formulations and nowadays it is also recommended in guidelines for hand hygiene published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and by the World Health Organization. However, data on the range of concentrations and durations of application providing a basis for passing the efficacy test of the European norm EN 12791 are still lacking. Therefore, the bactericidal efficacy of rubbing clean hands with pure ethanol in volume concentrations of 95%, 85% or 75% during 3 min was compared with that of the reference procedure of EN 12791 employing n-propanol 60% v/v for 3 min, immediately and 3h after disinfection. Ethanol 85% was also tested at a 5 min application. A Latin-square design was used with 20 randomly allotted volunteers. Whereas the mean immediate bacterial reductions caused by ethanol at concentrations of 75% (log RF 1.68) and 95% (log RF 2.70) were significantly less efficacious compared to that of the reference (log RF 3.27), at 85% they were not significantly less active with both applications, 3 and 5 min (log RFs 2.90 and 3.12, respectively). Three hours after antisepsis, the bacterial reduction on the gloved hand was only significantly less efficacious than that of the reference when 75% ethanol was used. It is concluded that ethanol-based hand rubs have a good chance of meeting the EN 12791 requirements if their ethanol concentration is >75% v/v but <95% v/v and if they are applied for at least 3 min.     

Hand disinfection according to the European Standard EN 1500 (hygienic handrub): a study with gram-negative and gram-positive test organisms.

It was the aim of this study to compare the efficacy of alcohol-based hand disinfectants according to European Standard EN 1500 (hygienic handrub), using the routine test organism Escherichia coli and, additionally, Micrococcus luteus as a surrogate for Gram-positive pathogens. One ethanol-based hand disinfectant (product A) and one propanol-based hand disinfectant (product B) were used in all experiments. Product B (propanol-based) was significantly more effective against both test organisms than product A (ethanol-based) in quantitative suspension tests but not in tests simulating practical conditions. In the experiments according to EN 1500 germ reduction rates obtained with the ethanol-containing formulation A were identical for E. coli and M. luteus. Product B was slightly, but not significantly more effective against M. luteus. To conclude, using E. coli as the test organism for evaluating the antibacterial efficacy of alcoholic hand disinfectants under practical conditions even appears to be sufficient to permit the drawing of conclusions for Gram-positive pathogens. However, more alcohol-based hand disinfectants should be tested in further studies to verify the results obtained.     

Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of five products for surgical hand disinfection according to prEN 12054 and prEN 12791

Surgical hand disinfection (with an alcohol-based hand rub) and surgical handwash (with an antiseptic-based liquid soap) are accepted measures to reduce the risk for surgical site infections. The new European Standards allow a comparison of their antimicrobial efficacy. The bactericidal activity of surgical hand rubs [Sterillium and Softaman, (active ingredient=alcohols)] and handwashes [Derman plus (triclosan), Hibiscrub (chlorhexidine) and Betadine (PVP-iodine)] was tested according to the prEN 12054 suspension test using Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus hirae, and to prEN 12791 for the effect on resident skin flora in comparison with 1-propanol, 60% (v/v). All five products achieved a reduction of test bacteria within 3 min of >10(5)-fold so fulfilling prEN 12054. However, only Hibiscrub, Sterillium and Softa Man met the requirements of prEN 12791, giving a mean reduction of resident micro-organisms (immediate and sustained effect) which was not significantly lower than the reference alcohol (P>0.1; Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test). Sterillium was significantly more effective than the reference alcohol (immediate and sustained affect). Products for surgical hand disinfection may have equal antimicrobial activity in suspension tests but show large differences under practical conditions. Healthcare workers should not rely on results from suspension tests when deciding on a product for surgical hand disinfection.     

Testing of the World Health Organization-recommended formulations for surgical hand preparation and proposals for increased efficacy

The 2009 World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines on hand hygiene in health care recommend alcohol-based hand rubs for both hygienic and pre-surgical hand treatment. Two formulations based on ethanol 80% v/v and 2-propanol 75% v/v are proposed for local preparation in healthcare settings where commercial products are not available or too expensive. Both formulations and our suggested modifications (using mass rather than volume percent concentrations) were evaluated for their conformity with the efficacy requirements of the forthcoming amendment of the European Norm (EN) 12791, i.e. non-inferiority of a product when compared with a reference procedure (1-propanol 60% v/v for 3 min) immediately and 3 h after antisepsis. In this study, the WHO-recommended formulations were tested for 3 min and 5 min. Neither formulation met the efficacy requirements of EN 12791 with 3 min application. Increasing the respective concentrations to 80 w/w (85% v/v) and 75 w/w (80% v/v), together with a prolonged application of 5 min, rendered the immediate effect of both formulations non-inferior to the reference antisepsis procedure. This was not the case with the 3h effect, which remained significantly inferior to the reference. Although the original formulations do not meet the efficacy requirements of EN 12791, the clinical significance of this finding deserves further clinical trials. To comply with the requirement of EN 12791, an amendment to the formulations is possible by increasing the alcohol concentrations through changing volume into mass percent and prolonging the duration of application from 3 min to 5 min.     

Intra-laboratory reproducibility of the hand hygiene reference procedures of EN 1499 (hygienic handwash) and EN 1500 (hygienic hand disinfection)

The bactericidal efficacy of hand antiseptic products is determined in Europe using two norms--EN1499 (hygienic handwash), and EN 1500 (hygienic hand disinfection) based on reducing the counts of bacteria on artificially contaminated hands. Each requires 12-15 data sets per test and comparison with a reference procedure. Recent research using EN 1500 suggested that most alcohol-based hand gels are significantly less effective than the reference alcohol (2-propanol 60%), whereas liquid alcohol-based rubs are not. However concerns about the accuracy and reproducibility of the norm reference procedures have been raised. We therefore analysed 23 experiments carried out using EN 1500 representing 342 hand disinfection procedures, and 12 experiments using EN 1499 representing 178 handwashes, all performed in the same laboratory for reproducibility of the reference procedures. The reference alcohol gave a mean log(10) reduction factor (RF) of 4.64 +/- 0.93; only one data set gave a significantly higher result (5.14, P = 0.034), and one significantly lower (4.05; P = 0.034). Analysis of all 23 means revealed no significant difference (P = 0.188; ANOVA model). The reference soap gave a mean reduction of 2.82 +/- 0.49. Two data sets were significantly higher than this (3.35,P < 0.001; 3.12, P < 0.001) and two significantly lower (2.55, P = 0.031; 2.47,P = 0.004). Analysis of all the means did reveal a significant difference (P < 0.001, ANOVA model), which is probably explained by the smaller standard deviations of these results. Pre-values (bacteria recovered from fingers before a reference procedure) correlated significantly with RFs for both hand disinfection (correlation coefficient: 0.291;P = 0.01) and handwash (correlation coefficient: 0.372, P = 0.01). Overall both procedures gave accurate and reproducible results.     

Spectrum of antimicrobial activity and user acceptability of the hand disinfectant agent Sterillium Gel

The antimicrobial efficacy of alcohol-based hand gels has been shown to be significantly less than liquid hand rubs probably because of a lower concentration of alcohol. Sterillium Gel is the first hand gel with 85% ethanol. Its antimicrobial efficacy and user acceptability was studied. Bactericidal activity was tested according to prEN 12054 against Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus hirae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli (suspension test) and EN 1500 (15 volunteers; four replicates), fungicidal activity according to EN 1275 against Candida albicans and spores of Aspergillus niger (suspension test) and tuberculocidal activity against Mycobacterium terrae using the DGHM suspension test. Virucidal activity was determined in suspension tests based on reduction of infectivity with and without interfering substances (10% fetal calf serum; 0.3% erythrocytes and 0.3% bovine serum albumin). Ninety-six healthcare workers in hospitals in France and the UK used the gel for four weeks and assessed it by filling out a questionnaire. The gel was bactericidal (a reduction factor of > 10(5)-fold), tuberculocidal (reduction factor > 10(5)) and fungicidal (reduction factor > 10(4)) in 30 s. Irrespective of interfering substances the gel inactivated orthopoxvirus and herpes simplex virus type 1 and 2 in 15 s, adenovirus in 2 min, poliovirus in 3 min and papovavirus in 15 min by a factor of > 10(4)-fold. Rotavirus and human immunodeficiency virus were inactivated in 30 s (without interfering substances). Under practical use conditions it was as effective in 30 s as the reference alcohol in 60 s. Most users described the tackiness, aggregation, skin feeling after use and smell as positive or acceptable. A total of 65.6% assessed the new gel to be better than a comparator irrespective of its type (gel or liquid). Overall Sterillium Gel had a unique spectrum of antimicrobial activity. It is probably the first alcohol-based hand gel to pass EN 1500 in 30 s. Due to the excellent acceptance by healthcare workers it may significantly improve compliance for hand hygiene and thereby help to reduce the incidence of nosocomial infection.     

Assessment of the antibacterial activity of tea tree oil using the European EN 1276 and EN 12054 standard suspension tests

The activity of tea tree oil (TTO) and TTO-containing products was investigated according to the EN 1276 and EN 12054 European suspension methods. The activity of different concentrations of TTO, a hygienic skin wash (HSW), an alcoholic hygienic skin wash (AHSW) and an alcoholic hand rub (AHR) was investigated. These formulations were assessed in perfect conditions with the EN 12054 test, and in perfect conditions as well as in the presence of interfering substances with the EN 1276 test, against Staphylococcus aureus, Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. With the latter test, the activity of the same formulations without TTO was also assessed as a control. With the EN 1276 test, the AHR achieved a >10(5)-fold reduction against all four test organisms within a 1-min contact time. The AHSW achieved a >or=10(5)-fold reduction against A. baumannii after a 1-min contact time and against S. aureus, E. coli and P. aeruginosa after a 5-min contact time. The efficacy of TTO appeared to be dependent on the formulation and the concentration tested, the concentration of interfering substances and, lastly, the organism tested. Nevertheless, 5% TTO achieved a >10(4)-fold reduction in P. aeruginosa cell numbers after a 5-min contact time in perfect conditions. TTO (5%) in 0.001% Tween 80 was significantly more active against E. coli and P. aeruginosa than against S. aureus and A. baumannii. With the EN 12054 test, after a 1-min contact time, 5% TTO in 0.001% Tween 80 and the AHSW achieved a >10(4)-fold reduction in E. coli and A. baumannii cell numbers, respectively, and the AHR achieved a >4 log10 reduction against all organisms tested. The formulations used in this study are now being tested using a novel ex vivo method as well as the in vivo European standard handwashing method EN 1499.     

Reproducibility and workability of the European test standard EN 12791 regarding the effectiveness of surgical hand antiseptics: a randomized, multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reproducibility and workability of the in vivo test model of the European test standard EN 12791 regarding the effectiveness of surgical hand antiseptics and, as a secondary objective, to evaluate the power of the model to discriminate between the effectiveness of various formulations of surgical hand antiseptics. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter study with a Latin square design. SETTING: Five laboratories at 2 universities, 2 disinfectant manufacturers, and 1 private testing institution. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty healthy adults in each laboratory. INTERVENTION: Surgical hand antisepsis was performed by scrubbing with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% detergent (CHG) or by rubbing the hands with propan-2-OL (70% by volume; Iso 70) or ethanol 85% (E 85); rubbing the hands and forearms for 3 minutes with propan-1-OL (N 60) was used as the reference disinfection procedure. We deliberately chose to use these antiseptics at the given concentrations because they were intended to cover the range of typical antiseptics submitted for approval according to EN 12791. METHODS: In once-weekly tests, the immediate effects of the 4 antiseptics were established according to the method laid down in EN 12791 by assessing the release of skin flora from the fingertips as viable bacteria counts per milliliter of sampling fluids before treatment and viable bacteria counts immediately after treatment, separately for both hands, such that after 4 weeks each volunteer had used every formulation once. RESULTS: The mean log reduction factor (RF) for the release of bacterial skin flora (the log RF was calculated as the log count before treatment minus the log count after treatment) and corresponding standard deviations for the 4 hand antisepsis formulations were as follows: for CHG, 1.1+/-0.3 colony-forming units (cfu) per milliliter of sampled fluid; for Iso 70, 1.7+/-0.3 cfu/mL; for E 85, 2.1+/-0.3 cfu/mL; and for N 60, 2.4+/-0.4 cfu/mL. The differences between these values proved significant (P<.001) by analysis of variance and in Tukey's "honestly significantly different" (HSD) post hoc test. Although, with regard to their immediate antibacterial activity, the same ranking of these antiseptics was found at all laboratories, the levels of efficacy were significantly different across laboratories (P<.001); no statistical difference was found between left and right hands (P>.01). Relating the log RF values of the other 3 formulations to those of the reference formulation (N 60) abolished differences between laboratories (P=.16); in addition, the interclass correlation coefficient decreased from 9.1% to 4.5%. With 20 volunteers, a minimum difference of 0.47 log between the mean log RFs of the reference formulation and an inferior test formulation will be detected as significant at an alpha of .05 (1-sided) and a 1- beta value of .8. CONCLUSION: The test method described in EN 12791 yielded the same conclusion on the effectiveness of the tested formulations in every laboratory and proved, therefore, reproducible and workable.     

An alcohol hand rub containing a synergistic combination of an emollient and preservatives: prolonged activity against transient pathogens

A new alcohol-based hand antiseptic (Octoxy hand rub) containing a synergistic combination of an emollient (Octoxyglycerine) and preservatives was developed and evaluated for immediate and prolonged activity against transient bacteria. The in vitro and in vivo antimicrobial efficacy was compared with other alcohol hand rubs containing preservative/antimicrobial (Prevacare and Avagard). In vitro evaluation was carried out using a tube-dilution method and a pig-skin model. Rapid and prolonged efficacy in vivo was evaluated against Staphylococcus epidermidis on the hands of volunteers. Octoxy hand rub was 100% effective in rapidly killing pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in vitro. In volunteers, all three hand rubs gave a significant reduction in microbial count within 15s. Octoxy hand rub showed significantly higher efficacy against S. aureus and Escherichia coli than Avagard and Prevacare 15 min after application to the pig-skin model, and against S. epidermidis in both the pig-skin model and in volunteers. Use of Octoxy hand rub with broad-spectrum immediate and prolonged antimicrobial activity may be a very effective way of improving hand hygiene without exposing the hands to higher concentrations of antimicrobials.     

World Health Organization-recommended hand-rub formulations do not meet European efficacy requirements for surgical hand disinfection in five minutes

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended two hand-rub formulations for local production based on 80% ethanol or 75% isopropanol (both v/v). We have looked at their efficacy according to EN 12791. Twenty-six subjects treated their hands with the reference procedure (n-propanol, 60%) for 3 min or with one of the two formulations for 1.5, 3 or 5 min (Latin square design). Post-values (immediate effect) were taken from one hand, the other hand was gloved for 3 h. After the glove had been taken off, the second post-value was taken (3 h effect). The mean log(10) reduction of each hand rub at all three application times was compared to Hodges and Lehmann's reference procedure for non-inferiority. In the first block the reference procedure reduced bacterial load by 2.43 log(10) (immediate effect) and 2.22 log(10) (3 h effect). The efficacy of the ethanol-based formulation (e.g. immediate efficacy of 1.41 log(10) at 5 min) was inferior to the reference procedure at all application times [lower 95% confidence interval (CI): less than -0.75]. In the second block the reference procedure reduced bacterial load by 2.72 log(10) (immediate effect) and 2.26 log(10) (3 h effect). The efficacy of the isopropanol-based formulation (e.g. immediate efficacy of 2.05 log(10) at 5 min) was also inferior to the reference procedure at all application times (lower 95% CI: less than -0.75). Both WHO-recommended hand-rub formulations failed to meet the EN 12791 efficacy requirements for surgical hand disinfection within 5 min. A higher concentration of the active ingredients may improve the efficacy.     

Improving adherence to surgical hand preparation

At present, no universal agreement on detailed practice for surgical hand preparation exists. In order to fill this gap, in 2002 a Franco-German recommendation for surgical hand preparation was published as a first step towards a generally accepted European recommendation. Based on an assessment of the actual literature, a protocol for surgical hand preparation is discussed with the aim to recommend evidence-based standard procedures including prerequisites, washing and disinfection phase, and its practical implementation. In contrast to hygienic hand disinfection, for surgical hand preparation compliance is not an issue, since it mostly is regarded as a ceremony which is carried out without exception. Nevertheless, the following factors influence acceptance and efficacy: skin tolerance, ease of use, duration of procedure, and recommended time), potential for impaired efficacy due to incorrect performance of the procedure, possibility of systemic risks and irritating potential by applied preparations, religious restrictions, ecological aspects, costs and safety. Here, we report our experience with the introduction of a new hand preparation regime in all surgical disciplines in our university hospital based on the above factors. The following statements were evaluated: 1) The immediate efficacy of an alcohol-based hand disinfectant is impaired by a preceding hand wash for up to 10 minutes. Therefore hands should not be routinely washed before the disinfection period unless there is a good reason for it such as visible soiling. 2) A shortened application time (1.5 minutes) is equal to 3 min in terms of efficacy. 3) Hands should be air dried before gloves are put on, otherwise the perforation rate of gloves will increase. 4) The efficacy of alcohol-based disinfectants is significantly higher when hands are allowed to dry for 1 minute after the washing phase and before the disinfection phase. To clarify the above questions before the establishment of the modified technique, the surgical team was invited to a meeting. As a result, the heads of surgical departments supported the new technique and decided to change their practice.     

Comparison of waterless hand antisepsis agents at short application times: raising the flag of concern.

OBJECTIVE: Although alcohol-based hand rinses and gels have recommended application times of 30 to 60 seconds, healthcare workers usually take much less time for hand hygiene. We compared the efficacies of four alcohol-based hand rubs produced in Europe (hand rinses A, B, and C and one gel formulation) with the efficacy of the European Norm 1500 (EN 1500) reference waterless hand antisepsis agent (60% 2-propanol) at short application times. DESIGN: Comparative crossover study. SETTING: Infection Control Program laboratory of a large tertiary-care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve healthy volunteers. INTERVENTION: Measurement of residual bacterial counts and log reduction factors following inoculation of fingertips with Staphylococcus aurens American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) 6538, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442, and a clinical isolate of Enterococcus faecalis. RESULTS: All hand rinses satisfied EN 1500 standards following a single application for 15 and 30 seconds, but reduction factors for the gel formulation were significantly lower for all tested organisms (all P < .025). CONCLUSIONS: Under stringent conditions similar to clinical practice, all three hand rinses proved to be more efficacious than the marketed alcohol-based gel in reducing bacterial counts on hands. Further studies are necessary to determine the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based gels and whether they are as efficacious as alcohol-based rinses in reducing the transmission of nosocomial infections.     

中国和欧盟医用外科口罩细菌检测方法对回收率的影响

 目的 明确我国和欧盟医用外科口罩细菌检测方法回收率的差异。方法 采用微生物回收的方法对中国《医用外科口罩(YY 0469-2011)》和欧盟《医用口罩要求和试验方法(EN 14683-2019)》中的检测方法回收率进行对比分析,并探索两种方法中最优方法的环节。结果 EN 14683-2019检测方法回收率高达65.1%,高于YY 0469-2011标准近4倍;洗脱方式为机械振摇,洗脱效果不如手动振摇法(回收率为68.6%);EN 14683-2019的可接受标准严于YY 0469-2011的可接受标准。结论 EN 14683-2019的洗脱液中含有表面活性成分(吐温20),提高了检测方法的回收率;YY 0469-2011方法中手动振摇的洗脱方式对微生物的洗脱效果要优于EN 14683-2019方法中的机械振摇法。     

Evaluation of particulate filtering respirators using inward leakage (IL) or total inward leakage (TIL) testing--Korean experience

Korean certification regulation for particulate filtering respirators requires inward leakage (IL) or total inward leakage (TIL) testing according to European Standard EN 13274-1, and the standard levels of compliance are similar to those of the European Standard. This study was conducted to evaluate particulate filtering respirators being commercially used in the Korean market using an IL or TIL test and the validity of standard level in Korea. Three half masks and 10 filtering facepieces (two top class, four 1st class and four 2nd class)-a total of 13 brand name respirators-were selected for the test with panels of 10 subjects. Each subject was classified with nine facial dimension grid squares in accordance with face length and lip length. IL or TIL testing was conducted at the laboratory of the 3M Innovation Center in which the experimental instruments and systems were established in compliance with European standards. The testing procedure followed EN 13274-1 (2001). As expected, leakages of half masks were less than those of filtering facepieces and the latter were significantly different among brands. TILs of the 1st class filtering facepieces were found to be much more than those of the 2nd class and the result may cause a wearer to get confused when selecting a mask. The main route leakage for filtering facepieces may not be the filter medium but the face seal. Therefore, it is necessary to develop well-fitting filtering facepieces for Koreans. Because leakages were significantly different for different facial dimensions, a defined test panel for IL or TIL testing according to country or race should be developed. A more precise method to demonstrate fit, for example, fit testing such as in the US regulations, will be needed before IL or TIL testing or when selecting a respirator. Another finding implies that geometric mean of five exercises for IL or TIL may be better than arithmetic mean to establish a standard individual subject mean.     

Efficacy of alcohol-based gels compared with simple hand wash and hygienic hand disinfection

A recent research letter on the limited efficacy of alcohol-based hand gels has alerted the global infection control community and raised the question of the true significance of data obtained according to EN 1500. It has been described that a 1 min simple hand wash reduces artificial contamination of hands by a log(10) reduction factor of 2.8 and a 1 min reference hand disinfection with 2-propanol (60%, v/v) by a factor of 4.6 steps. The EN 1500 gel data show that the 30 s efficacy of most gels is closer to a simple hand wash than to the reference hand disinfection. The 30 s efficacy of most alcohol-based liquid products and one gel, however, is almost identical to the reference hand disinfection. In many European countries alcohol-based liquid products have been established as a standard practice in hygienic hand disinfection for decades. Replacement of these products with most available gels would be a step backward in terms of efficacy and has still to be seen critically from the efficacy point of view.     

洁芙柔消毒凝胶消毒效果观察

目的了解洁芙柔消毒凝胶对微生物的杀灭效果.方法采用悬液定量杀菌试验和现场消毒效果进行观察.结果该消毒凝胶对大肠埃希菌、金黄色葡萄球菌和白色念珠菌作用1 min杀灭率均为100%;洁芙柔消毒凝胶对手上自然菌作用3 min,杀灭率为99.02%.结论洁芙柔消毒凝胶是一种凝胶状醇类消毒剂,杀菌力强,且具护肤成分,消毒后手感干爽,是一种较为理想的外科手消毒剂.