The fingerpad protocol to assess hygienic hand antiseptics against viruses

Sattar, Syed A.; Ansari, S. A.

doi:10.1016/s0166-0934(02)00025-3

Cited by 43 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two experiments were designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the candidate hand hygiene agents against NV on finger pads. The first experimental protocol followed the method of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM; E 1838-02) for determining the efficacy of the antibacterial liquid soap and the ethanol-based hand sanitizer against NV using the finger pads of adult volunteers (28). All finger pads on both hands were inoculated with approximately 5.6 ϫ 10 6 NV genomic copies per finger pad.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Liquid Soap and Hand Sanitizer against Norwalk Virus on Contaminated Hands

Liu

Yuen

Hsiao

et al. 2010

Appl Environ Microbiol

158

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disinfection is an essential measure for interrupting human norovirus (HuNoV) transmission, but it is difficult to evaluate the efficacy of disinfectants due to the absence of a practicable cell culture system for these viruses. The purpose of this study was to screen sodium hypochlorite and ethanol for efficacy against Norwalk virus (NV) and expand the studies to evaluate the efficacy of antibacterial liquid soap and alcohol-based hand sanitizer for the inactivation of NV on human finger pads. Samples were tested by real-time reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) both with and without a prior RNase treatment. In suspension assay, sodium hypochlorite concentrations of >160 ppm effectively eliminated RT-qPCR detection signal, while ethanol, regardless of concentration, was relatively ineffective, giving at most a 0.5 log 10 reduction in genomic copies of NV cDNA. Using the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard finger pad method and a modification thereof (with rubbing), we observed the greatest reduction in genomic copies of NV cDNA with the antibacterial liquid soap treatment (0.67 to 1.20 log 10 reduction) and water rinse only (0.58 to 1.58 log 10 reduction). The alcohol-based hand sanitizer was relatively ineffective, reducing the genomic copies of NV cDNA by only 0.14 to 0.34 log 10 compared to baseline. Although the concentrations of genomic copies of NV cDNA were consistently lower on finger pad eluates pretreated with RNase compared to those without prior RNase treatment, these differences were not statistically significant. Despite the promise of alcohol-based sanitizers for the control of pathogen transmission, they may be relatively ineffective against the HuNoV, reinforcing the need to develop and evaluate new products against this important group of viruses.Human noroviruses (HuNoV) are the leading cause of acute nonbacterial gastroenteritis (11, 21). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that approximately 23 million people suffer from HuNoV gastroenteritis each year. Indeed, 81% of outbreaks of nonbacterial gastroenteritis are caused by this agent (7,8). These viruses may contaminate food, water, hands, and inanimate surfaces and are readily transmitted by contact with contaminated objects, by consumption of fecally contaminated food or water, or between people. In particular, hands are thought to be a principal vehicle for HuNoV transmission. Although many different hand hygiene agents are available, these generally do not have specific virucidal claims against the HuNoV. Two widely used types of hand hygiene products are antibacterial liquid soaps and alcohol-based hand sanitizers.Little is known about the effectiveness of hand hygiene agents in reducing HuNoV on contaminated hands. One reason for this is that the HuNoV cannot be routinely cultured in vitro, a factor that complicates evaluation of the efficacy of disinfection strategies. As an alternative, investigators have used cultivable surrogates such as feline calicivirus (FCV) and murin...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Liquid Soap and Hand Sanitizer against Norwalk Virus on Contaminated Hands

Liu

Yuen

Hsiao

et al. 2010

Appl Environ Microbiol

158

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fingerpad assay used in this study was based on ASTM standard E-1838-02, which has been described in detail previously (2,32,33). Prior to the initiation of the study, we obtained formal approval from the Ottawa Hospital Research Ethics Board.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two types of soil loads, as permitted by ASTM standard E-1838-02 (2), were 5% bovine serum (final concentration) and a mixture of three components (tryptone, bovine serum albumin, and bovine mucin), with a total protein content roughly equal to that in 5% bovine serum (33).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improved Inactivation of Nonenveloped Enteric Viruses and Their Surrogates by a Novel Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer

Macinga

Sattar

Jaykus

et al. 2008

Appl Environ Microbiol

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Norovirus is the leading cause of food-related illness in the United States, and contamination of ready-to-eat items by food handlers poses a high risk for disease. This study reports the in vitro (suspension test) and in vivo (fingerpad protocol) assessments of a new ethanol-based hand sanitizer containing a synergistic blend of polyquaternium polymer and organic acid, which is active against viruses of public health importance, including norovirus. When tested in suspension, the test product reduced the infectivity of the nonenveloped viruses human rotavirus (HRV), poliovirus type 1 (PV-1), and the human norovirus (HNV) surrogates feline calicivirus (FCV) F-9 and murine norovirus type 1 (MNV-1) by greater than 3 log 10 after a 30-s exposure. In contrast, a benchmark alcohol-based hand sanitizer reduced only HRV by greater than 3 log 10 and none of the additional viruses by greater than 1.2 log 10 after the same exposure. In fingerpad experiments, the test product produced a 2.48 log 10 reduction of MNV-1 after a 30-s exposure, whereas a 75% ethanol control produced a 0.91 log 10 reduction. Additionally, the test product reduced the infectivity titers of adenovirus type 5 (ADV-5) and HRV by >3.16 log 10 and >4.32 log 10 , respectively, by the fingerpad assay within 15 s; and PV-1 was reduced by 2.98 log 10 in 30 s by the same method. Based on these results, we conclude that this new ethanol-based hand sanitizer is a promising option for reducing the transmission of enteric viruses, including norovirus, by food handlers and care providers.Proper and frequent hand hygiene is crucial for infection control (10,25). Whereas hand washing with soap and water remains common and relevant, influential organizations such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) now recommend alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) for hand hygiene when hands are not visibly soiled (10,42). Among the advantages of ABHS over traditional soap-and-water washing are (i) a faster microbial kill, (ii) a greater reduction in microbial load, (iii) a broader spectrum of microbicidal activity, (iv) relative ease of use and time savings, (v) better skin tolerance in spite of frequent use, (vi) convenience and freedom from dependence on sinks and running water, and (vii) water conservation (7-10, 38, 42). These factors, together with evidence for higher levels of compliance with hand hygiene and reduced rates of certain types of hospital-associated infections, have promoted wide acceptance of ABHS in health care and moderate acceptance in food industries (7,10,19,37).While improving compliance with hand hygiene in the food service and food processing industries remains a challenge, the presence of nonenveloped viruses, which are more difficult to inactivate by commonly used hand sanitizers, adds another layer of concern. Statistics from the Foodborne-Disease Outbreak Surveillance System (1998 to 2002) indicate that viral pathogens (predominantly norovirus) accounted for 33% of outbreaks and 41%...

show abstract

“…An in vitro assay (modified from a previously described method [18]) was used to measure the antiviral activity of various compounds. Twenty microliters of each compound was applied to 1 cm 2 of a skin collagen substrate (Vitro-Skin; IMS Inc., Milford, Conn.) and allowed to dry.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The antiviral activities of various hand cleansers were assessed by a published standardized method (18), with minor modifications. Subjects initially washed their hands and volar forearms with a nonmedicated soap and then rinsed and dried them.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Organic Acids in Hand Cleansers for Prevention of Rhinovirus Infections

Turner

Biedermann

Morgan

et al. 2004

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Direct hand-to-hand contact is an important mechanism of transmission of rhinovirus infection. The rhinoviruses are inactivated at a low pH. A survey of organic acids in vitro revealed that these compounds have antirhinoviral activity that persists for at least 3 h after application to the skin. In additional studies of salicylic acid (SA) and pyroglutamic acid (PGA), the hands of volunteers were contaminated with rhinovirus at defined times after application of the acid, and then volunteers attempted to inoculate the nasal mucosa with one hand and quantitative viral cultures were done on the other hand. In one study, 3.5% SA or 1% SA with 3.5% PGA was compared with controls 15 min after application to assess the efficacy of the inactivation of virus and prevention of infection. Virus was recovered from the hands of 28 out of 31 (90%) of the volunteers in the control group compared to 4 out of 27 (15%) and 0 out of 27 in the groups administered 3.5 and 1% SA, respectively (P < 0.05). Rhinovirus infection occurred in 10 out of 31 (32%) of the controls and 2 out of 27 (7%) of volunteers in both treatment groups (P < 0.05 compared with control). In a second study, the efficacy of 4% PGA was evaluated 15 min, 1 h, and 3 h after application. Significantly fewer volunteers had positive hand cultures at all time points compared with the control group, but the proportion that developed rhinovirus infection was not significantly reduced. These results suggest the feasibility of the prevention of rhinovirus transmission by hand treatments that are virucidal on contact and have activity that persists after application.

show abstract

The fingerpad protocol to assess hygienic hand antiseptics against viruses

Cited by 43 publications

References 11 publications

Effectiveness of Liquid Soap and Hand Sanitizer against Norwalk Virus on Contaminated Hands

Effectiveness of Liquid Soap and Hand Sanitizer against Norwalk Virus on Contaminated Hands

Improved Inactivation of Nonenveloped Enteric Viruses and Their Surrogates by a Novel Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer

Efficacy of Organic Acids in Hand Cleansers for Prevention of Rhinovirus Infections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About