Comparison of the Activity of Alcohol-Based Handrubs Against Human Noroviruses Using the Fingerpad Method and Quantitative Real-Time PCR

Liu, Pengbo; Macinga, David R.; Fernández, M; Zapka, Carrie A.; Hsiao, Hui-Mien; Berger, Brynn; Arbogast, James W.; Moe, Christine L.

doi:10.1007/s12560-011-9053-x

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are consistent with previous findings that the in vivo activity of ABHRs is not solely dependent upon alcohol concentration (12,24,28). In a previous study, the 70% EtOH AF gel provided significantly greater HNV reduction than did other hand hygiene products that contained >85% ethanol (24).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hand Hygiene Regimens for the Reduction of Risk in Food Service Environments

Edmonds¹,

McCormack²,

Zhou³

et al. 2012

Journal of Food Protection

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pathogenic strains of Escherichia coli and human norovirus are the main etiologic agents of foodborne illness resulting from inadequate hand hygiene practices by food service workers. This study was conducted to evaluate the antibacterial and antiviral efficacy of various hand hygiene product regimens under different soil conditions representative of those in food service settings and assess the impact of product formulation on this efficacy. On hands contaminated with chicken broth containing E. coli, representing a moderate soil load, a regimen combining an antimicrobial hand washing product with a 70% ethanol advanced formula (EtOH AF) gel achieved a 5.22-log reduction, whereas a nonantimicrobial hand washing product alone achieved a 3.10log reduction. When hands were heavily soiled from handling ground beef containing E. coli, a wash-sanitize regimen with a 0.5% chloroxylenol antimicrobial hand washing product and the 70% EtOH AF gel achieved a 4.60-log reduction, whereas a wash-sanitize regimen with a 62% EtOH foam achieved a 4.11-log reduction. Sanitizing with the 70% EtOH AF gel alone was more effective than hand washing with a nonantimicrobial product for reducing murine norovirus (MNV), a surrogate for human norovirus, with 2.60- and 1.79-log reductions, respectively. When combined with hand washing, the 70% EtOH AF gel produced a 3.19-log reduction against MNV. A regimen using the SaniTwice protocol with the 70% EtOH AF gel produced a 4.04-log reduction against MNV. These data suggest that although the process of hand washing helped to remove pathogens from the hands, use of a wash-sanitize regimen was even more effective for reducing organisms. Use of a high-efficacy sanitizer as part of a wash-sanitize regimen further increased the efficacy of the regimen. The use of a well-formulated alcohol-based hand rub as part of a wash-sanitize regimen should be considered as a means to reduce risk of infection transmission in food service facilities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Typical ABHR activity against nonenveloped enteric viruses varies depending on the type and concentration of alcohol (5, 6,14,21). Different strains of HNVs may be more resistant to antimicrobial agents than others (24). Several studies have been conducted on newly formulated ABHRs with significantly improved inactivation of nonenveloped vimses (24, 28).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hand Hygiene Regimens for the Reduction of Risk in Food Service Environments

Edmonds¹,

McCormack²,

Zhou³

et al. 2012

Journal of Food Protection

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ethanol was determined to be ineffective against NoV even at concentrations !90% alcohol (53,100). However, hand sanitizers containing ethanol in combination with other compounds could be effective in reducing NoV (51). Hands (finger pads) rinsed for 10 s with water alone reduced NoV levels by up to 1.58 log, which was better than for finger pads washed with antibacterial soap containing 0.5% triclosan or an alcohol-based hand sanitizer (53).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistence and Elimination of Human Norovirus in Food and on Food Contact Surfaces: A Critical Review

Cook

Knight

Richards

2016

Journal of Food Protection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This critical review addresses the persistence of human norovirus (NoV) in water, shellfish, and processed meats; on berries, herbs, vegetables, fruits, and salads; and on food contact surfaces. The review focuses on studies using NoV; information from studies involving only surrogates is not included. It also addresses NoV elimination or inactivation by various chemical, physical, or processing treatments. In most studies, persistence or elimination was determined by detection and quantification of the viral genome, although improved methods for determining infectivity have been proposed. NoV persisted for 60 to 728 days in water, depending on water source. It also persisted on berries, vegetables, and fruit, often showing <1-log reduction within 1 to 2 weeks. NoV was resilient on carpets, Formica, stainless steel, polyvinyl chloride, and ceramic surfaces; during shellfish depuration; and to repeated freeze-thaw cycles. Copper alloy surfaces may inactivate NoV by damaging viral capsids. Disinfection was achieved for some foods or food contact surfaces using chlorine, calcium or sodium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, high hydrostatic pressure, high temperatures, pH values >8.0, freeze-drying, and UV radiation. Ineffective disinfectants included hydrogen peroxide, quaternary ammonium compounds, most ethanol-based disinfectants, and antiseptics at normally used concentrations. Thorough washing of herbs and produce was effective in reducing, but not eliminating, NoV in most products. Washing hands with soap generally reduced NoV by <2 log. Recommendations for future research needs are provided.

show abstract

“…Consequently, we directly compared RT-qPCR and infectivity data from surrogates to hNoV RT-qPCR data for key treatments (excluding studies that reported on surrogates alone or hNoV RT-qPCR data alone). Data were extracted NASBA Nowak et al (2011b) Disinfectants and sanitizers in solution hNoV RT-qPCR data only Liu et al (2010) Liquid soap and hand sanitizers on contaminated hands hNoV RT-qPCR data only Liu et al (2011) Alcohol based hand rubs hNoV RT-qPCR data only Mormann et al (2010) Reduction in RT-qPCR signals following food processing conditions hNoV RT-qPCR data only Ngazoa et al (2008) Attachment to stainless steel and household disinfection hNoV RT-qPCR data only Richards et al (2012) Freezing and thawing and capsid integrity hNoV RT-qPCR data only D' Souza et al (2006) Persistence on stainless steel, ceramic and formica and transfer to lettuce Qualitative RT-PCR Hudson et al (2007) Ozone fog disinfection of surfaces Qualitative RT-PCR Barker et al (2004) Cleaning and decontamination study Qualitative RT-PCR Bertrand et al (2012) Review paper Avoidance of duplication Kitajima et al (2010) Chlorine inactivation in water. hNoV data was limited by the scale of the study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%