Bode Science Center, Bode Chemie GmbH, Melanchthonstraße 27, Hamburg, 22525, Germany ; Institut für Hygiene und Umweltmedizin, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Straße 49a, Greifswald, 17489, Germany.
Microbiology, Bode Chemie GmbH, Melanchthonstraße 27, Hamburg, 22525, Germany.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2013 Jun 12;2:19. doi: 10.1186/2047-2994-2-19. eCollection 2013.
Some national hospital hygiene societies in Europe such as the French society for hospital hygiene (SFHH) have positive lists of disinfectants. Few hand disinfectants with a rather low concentration of ethanol are listed by one society as effective for hygienic hand disinfection with 3 mL in 30 s including a virucidal activity in 30 s or 60 s, but published data allow having doubts. We have therefore evaluated the efficacy of three commonly used hand disinfectants according to EN 1500 and EN 14476.
Products 1 (Aniosgel 85 NPC) and 2 (Aniosrub 85 NPC) were based on 70% ethanol, product 3 (ClinoGel derma+) on 60% ethanol and 15% isopropanol (all w/w). They were tested in 3 laboratories according to EN 1500. Three mL were applied for 30 s and compared to the reference treatment of 2 × 3 mL applications of isopropanol 60% (v/v), on hands artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli. Each laboratory used a cross-over design against the reference alcohol with 15 or 20 volunteers. The virucidal activity of the products was evaluated (EN 14476) in one laboratory against adenovirus and poliovirus in different concentrations (80%, 90%, 97%), with different organic loads (none; clean conditions; phosphate-buffered saline) for up to 3 min.
Product 1 revealed a mean log10-reduction of 3.87 ± 0.79 (laboratory 1) and 4.38 ± 0.87 (laboratory 2) which was significantly lower compared to the reference procedure (4.62 ± 0.89 and 5.00 ± 0.87). In laboratory 3 product 1 was inferior to the reference disinfection (4.06 ± 0.86 versus 4.99 ± 0.90). Product 2 revealed similar results. Product 3 fulfilled the requirements in one laboratory but failed in the two other. None of the three products was able to reduce viral infectivity of both adenovirus and poliovirus by 4 log10 steps in 3 min according to EN 14476.
Efficacy data mentioned in a positive list published by a society for hospital hygiene should still be regarded with caution if they quite obviously contradict published data on the same or similar products.
欧洲的一些国家医院卫生协会，如法国医院卫生协会（SFHH），有消毒杀菌剂的正面清单。一家协会将浓度相当低的乙醇的少数几种手部消毒剂列为有效杀菌剂，可用于卫生手部消毒，使用 3 毫升，30 秒内起效，包括 30 秒或 60 秒的病毒杀灭活性，但已发表的数据令人怀疑。因此，我们根据 EN 1500 和 EN 14476 评估了三种常用手部消毒剂的功效。
产品 1（Aniosgel 85 NPC）和 2（Aniosrub 85 NPC）基于 70%乙醇，产品 3（ClinoGel derma+）基于 60%乙醇和 15%异丙醇（均为 w/w）。它们在 3 个实验室中根据 EN 1500 进行了测试。使用 3 毫升，作用 30 秒，并与参考治疗方案 2×3 毫升异丙醇 60%（v/v）进行比较，参考治疗方案用于人工污染大肠杆菌的手部。每个实验室使用交叉设计，用 15 或 20 名志愿者对参考酒精进行了评估。产品的病毒杀灭活性（EN 14476）在一个实验室中用不同浓度（80%、90%、97%）的腺病毒和脊髓灰质炎病毒进行了评估，不同有机负荷（无；清洁条件；磷酸盐缓冲盐水）作用时间最长 3 分钟。
产品 1 的平均 log10 减少率为 3.87±0.79（实验室 1）和 4.38±0.87（实验室 2），明显低于参考程序（4.62±0.89 和 5.00±0.87）。在实验室 3 中，产品 1 劣于参考消毒（4.06±0.86 与 4.99±0.90）。产品 2 显示出相似的结果。产品 3 在一个实验室中符合要求，但在另外两个实验室中失败。根据 EN 14476，这三种产品均无法在 3 分钟内将腺病毒和脊髓灰质炎病毒的病毒感染力降低 4 log10 步。
如果社会卫生协会公布的正面清单中的功效数据明显与同一种或类似产品的已发表数据相矛盾，那么仍应谨慎对待。
