• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

重新审视手擦拭与凝胶搓揉的争论:高乙醇含量的手擦拭是否比乙醇凝胶搓揉更有效?

Revisiting the hand wipe versus gel rub debate: is a higher-ethanol content hand wipe more effective than an ethanol gel rub?

机构信息

Special Pathogens Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

出版信息

Am J Infect Control. 2010 Nov;38(9):678-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.07.002.

DOI:10.1016/j.ajic.2010.07.002
PMID:21034977
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidelines for hand hygiene state that the use of alcohol-based hand wipes is not an effective substitute for the use of an alcohol-based hand rub or handwashing with an antimicrobial soap and water. The objective of this study was to determine whether a hand wipe with higher ethanol content (65.9%) is as effective as an ethanol hand rub or antimicrobial soap in removing bacteria and spores from hands.

METHODS

In two separate experiments, the hands of 7 subjects were inoculated with a suspension of Serratia marcescens or Geobacillus stearothermophilus. Subjects washed with each of 3 different products: 65.9% ethanol hand wipes (Sani-Hands ALC), 62% ethanol gel rub (Purell), and antimicrobial soap containing 0.75% triclosan (Kindest Kare).

RESULTS

A total of 56 observations were analyzed for S marcescens removal and 70 observations were analyzed for G stearothermophilus removal. The rank order of product efficacy for both bacteria and spore removal was antibacterial soap > 65.9% ethanol hand wipes >62% ethanol hand rub. Mean S marcescens log reductions (±SD) for the 65.9% ethanol alcohol wipe, 62% ethanol alcohol rub, and antimicrobial foam soap were 3.44 ± 0.847, 2.32 ± 1.065, and 4.44 ± 1.018, respectively (P < .001). Mean G stearothermophilus log reductions for the 65.9% ethanol wipe, 62% ethanol rub, and antimicrobial foam soap were 0.51 ± 0.26, -0.8 ± 0.32 increase over baseline, and 1.72 ± 0.62, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The alcohol-based hand wipe containing 65.9% ethanol was significantly more effective than the 62% ethanol rub in reducing the number of viable bacteria and spores on the hands.

摘要

背景

疾病控制与预防中心的手部卫生指南指出,使用酒精擦手巾不是替代使用酒精搓手液或用抗菌肥皂和水洗手的有效方法。本研究的目的是确定含有更高乙醇含量(65.9%)的擦手巾是否与乙醇搓手液或抗菌肥皂一样有效,可从手上清除细菌和孢子。

方法

在两项独立的实验中,7 名受试者的手被接种了马氏肠杆菌或嗜热脂肪芽孢杆菌的悬浮液。受试者用 3 种不同产品中的每一种进行清洗:65.9%乙醇擦手巾(Sani-Hands ALC)、62%乙醇凝胶搓手液(Purell)和含有 0.75%三氯生的抗菌肥皂(Kindest Kare)。

结果

共分析了 56 次对马氏肠杆菌清除的观察结果和 70 次对嗜热脂肪芽孢杆菌清除的观察结果。这两种细菌和孢子清除的产品效果排序是抗菌肥皂>65.9%乙醇擦手巾>62%乙醇手搓液。65.9%乙醇酒精擦手巾、62%乙醇酒精搓手液和抗菌泡沫皂对马氏肠杆菌的平均 log 减少量(±SD)分别为 3.44 ± 0.847、2.32 ± 1.065 和 4.44 ± 1.018(P<.001)。65.9%乙醇擦手巾、62%乙醇搓手液和抗菌泡沫皂对嗜热脂肪芽孢杆菌的平均 log 减少量分别为 0.51 ± 0.26、基线水平增加 0.8 ± 0.32 和 1.72 ± 0.62(P<.001)。

结论

含 65.9%乙醇的酒精擦手巾在减少手上存活细菌和孢子数量方面明显比 62%乙醇搓手液更有效。

相似文献

1
Revisiting the hand wipe versus gel rub debate: is a higher-ethanol content hand wipe more effective than an ethanol gel rub?重新审视手擦拭与凝胶搓揉的争论:高乙醇含量的手擦拭是否比乙醇凝胶搓揉更有效?
Am J Infect Control. 2010 Nov;38(9):678-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.07.002.
2
Letter regarding "Revisiting the hand wipe versus gel rub debate: is a higher ethanol content hand wipe more effective than ethanol gel rub?".
Am J Infect Control. 2011 Apr;39(3):258-60; author reply 261-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2011.02.003.
3
Letter in response to "Revisiting the hand wipe versus gel rub debate: is a higher ethanol content hand wipe more effective than an ethanol gel rub?".
Am J Infect Control. 2011 Apr;39(3):260-1; author reply 261-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2011.02.002.
4
How effective are hand antiseptics for the postcontamination treatment of hands when used as recommended?按照推荐使用时,手部消毒剂对手部污染后的处理效果如何?
Am J Infect Control. 2008 Jun;36(5):356-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2007.07.017.
5
Effectiveness and microbial contamination of an in-house alcohol-based hand rub.内部酒精基洗手液的有效性和微生物污染情况
J Med Assoc Thai. 2005 Dec;88 Suppl 10:S161-5.
6
Effect of a 1 min hand wash on the bactericidal efficacy of consecutive surgical hand disinfection with standard alcohols and on skin hydration.1分钟洗手对使用标准酒精进行连续外科手消毒的杀菌效果及皮肤水合作用的影响。
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2006 May;209(3):285-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2006.01.002. Epub 2006 Feb 20.
7
Single treatment with ethanol hand rub is ineffective against human rhinovirus--hand washing with soap and water removes the virus efficiently.单次使用乙醇手部免洗液对人鼻病毒无效——用肥皂和水洗手能有效地去除病毒。
J Med Virol. 2012 Mar;84(3):543-7. doi: 10.1002/jmv.23222.
8
An alcohol hand rub containing a synergistic combination of an emollient and preservatives: prolonged activity against transient pathogens.一种含有润肤剂和防腐剂协同组合的酒精擦手液:对暂居病原体具有持久活性。
J Hosp Infect. 2005 Jan;59(1):12-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2004.06.030.
9
Efficacy of an alcohol-based healthcare hand rub containing synergistic combination of farnesol and benzethonium chloride.含有法尼醇和苄索氯铵协同组合的酒精基医疗保健手部消毒剂的功效
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2006 Sep;209(5):477-87. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2006.04.006. Epub 2006 Jun 5.
10
Short-term assessment of training of medical students in the use of alcohol-based hand rub using fluorescent-labeled hand rub and skin hydration measurements.使用荧光标记洗手液和皮肤水合测量对医学生进行酒精基洗手液使用培训的短期评估。
Am J Infect Control. 2009 May;37(4):338-40. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.06.007. Epub 2008 Dec 6.

引用本文的文献

1
In Vitro Efficacy of Foam Hand Sanitizers Against Enveloped and Non-Enveloped Viruses.泡沫洗手液对包膜病毒和非包膜病毒的体外有效性
Food Environ Virol. 2025 Apr 3;17(2):24. doi: 10.1007/s12560-025-09640-8.