Suppr超能文献

不同洗手液抗菌效果的比较评估:一项研究。

Comparative assessment of antimicrobial efficacy of different hand sanitizers: An study.

作者信息

Jain Vardhaman Mulchand, Karibasappa Gundabaktha Nagappa, Dodamani Arun Suresh, Prashanth Vishwakarma K, Mali Gaurao Vasant

机构信息

Department of Public Health Dentistry, ACPM Dental College, Dhule, Maharashtra, India.

出版信息

Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2016 Sep;13(5):424-431. doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.192283.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of four different hand sanitizers against , , , , and as well as to assess and compare the antimicrobial effectiveness among four different hand sanitizers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study is an study to evaluate antimicrobial efficacy of Dettol, Lifebuoy, PureHands, and Sterillium hand sanitizers against clinical isolates of the aforementioned test organisms. The well variant of agar disk diffusion test using Mueller-Hinton agar was used for evaluating the antimicrobial efficacy of hand sanitizers. McFarland 0.5 turbidity standard was taken as reference to adjust the turbidity of bacterial suspensions. Fifty microliters of the hand sanitizer was introduced into each of the 4 wells while the 5 well incorporated with sterile water served as a control. This was done for all the test organisms and plates were incubated in an incubator for 24 h at 37΀C. After incubation, antimicrobial effectiveness was determined using digital caliper (mm) by measuring the zone of inhibition.

RESULTS

The mean diameters of zones of inhibition (in mm) observed in Group A (Sterillium), Group B (PureHands), Group C (Lifebuoy), and Group D (Dettol) were 22 ± 6, 7.5 ± 0.5, 9.5 ± 1.5, and 8 ± 1, respectively. Maximum inhibition was found with Group A against all the tested organisms. Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance, followed by test for group-wise comparisons. The difference in the values of different sanitizers was statistically significant at < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Sterillium was the most effective hand sanitizer to maintain the hand hygiene.

摘要

背景

评估四种不同洗手液对[具体细菌名称未给出]、[具体细菌名称未给出]、[具体细菌名称未给出]、[具体细菌名称未给出]和[具体细菌名称未给出]的抗菌效果,并评估和比较四种不同洗手液之间的抗菌效力。

材料与方法

本研究是一项[具体研究类型未给出]研究,旨在评估滴露、力士、纯之手和施特灵洗手液对上述受试微生物临床分离株的抗菌效果。使用穆勒-欣顿琼脂的琼脂平板扩散试验的改良变体来评估洗手液的抗菌效果。以麦氏0.5浊度标准作为参考来调整细菌悬液的浊度。将50微升洗手液分别加入4个孔中,而第5个孔加入无菌水作为对照。对所有受试微生物均如此操作,平板在37℃的培养箱中孵育24小时。孵育后,使用数字卡尺(毫米)测量抑菌圈来确定抗菌效力。

结果

在A组(施特灵)、B组(纯之手)、C组(力士)和D组(滴露)中观察到的抑菌圈平均直径(毫米)分别为22±6、7.5±0.5、9.5±1.5和8±1。A组对所有受试微生物的抑制作用最大。数据采用方差分析进行统计学分析,随后进行组间比较的[具体检验方法未给出]检验。不同洗手液的值差异在P<0.001时具有统计学意义。

结论

施特灵是维持手部卫生最有效的洗手液。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/01b7/5091001/bc184efe8478/DRJ-13-424-g001.jpg

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