Effects of various hand hygiene regimes on removal and/or destruction of Escherichia coli on hands

Efficacy of Removing Bacteria and Organic Dirt from Hands-A Study Based on Bioluminescence Measurements for Evaluation of Hand Hygiene When Cooking

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dirt removal (bacteria and organic matter) of several hand-cleaning procedures. The results from the hand hygiene experiment indicated that washing hands with warm water and soap for 20 s is the most effective method investigated when hands are either dirty or greasy. Even if not proper washing, rinsing under running water for 5 s is a cleaning procedure that may significantly reduce the probability of cross-contamination, as it removes 90% of the hands’ dirt. Although less effective than water and soap, the usage of antibacterial wipes was significantly more effective than wet wipes, indicating that they are a better choice when water and soap are not available. The results of this study enable us to inform consumers about the effectiveness of hand-cleaning procedures applied in their homes when cooking. Moreover, it can make consumers understand why, during the COVID-19 pandemic, authorities recommended washing hands as a preventive measure of infection and using an anti-bacterial hand gel or wiping hands with an antimicrobial wipe if water and soap are not available.

Scientific Evidence Supports the Use of Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers as an Effective Alternative to Hand Washing in Retail Food and Food Service Settings When Heavy Soiling Is Not Present on Hands

ABSTRACT

Suboptimal food worker health and hygiene has been a common contributing factor in foodborne disease outbreaks for many years. Despite clear U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Model Food Code recommendations for hand washing and glove use, food worker compliance with hand washing recommendations has remained poor for >20 years. Food workers' compliance with recommended hand washing guidelines is adversely impacted by a number of barriers, including complaints of time pressure, inadequate number and/or location of hand washing sinks and hand washing supplies, lack of food knowledge and training regarding hand washing, the belief that wearing gloves obviates the need for hand washing, insufficient management commitment, and adverse skin effects caused by frequent hand washing. Although many of the issues related to poor hand washing practices in food service facilities are the same as those in health care settings, a new approach to health care hand hygiene was deemed necessary >15 years ago due to persistently low compliance rates among health care personnel. Evidence-based hand hygiene guidelines for health care settings were published by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2002 and by the World Health Organization in 2009. Despite similar low hand washing compliance rates among retail food establishment workers, no changes in the Food Code guidelines for hand washing have been made since 2001. In direct contrast to health care settings, where frequent use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHSs) in lieu of hand washing has improved hand hygiene compliance rates and reduced infections, the Food Code continues to permit the use of ABHSs only after hands have been washed with soap and water. This article provides clear evidence to support modifying the FDA Model Food Code to allow the use of ABHSs as an acceptable alternative to hand washing in situations where heavy soiling is not present. Emphasis on the importance of hand washing when hands are heavily soiled and appropriate use of gloves is still indicated.

HIGHLIGHTS

Microbial Quality and Safety of Sushi Prepared with Gloved or Bare Hands: Food Handlers' Impact on Retail Food Hygiene and Safety

Food handlers play an important role in retail food hygiene and safety. This study was conducted to better understand the impact of food handlers on the microbiological quality and safety of sushi and ingredients handled by gloved and bare hands. At retail premises, food handlers were asked to prepare a batch of sushi with raw fish followed by a batch of sushi with cooked ingredients. Food (sushi and ready-to-eat ingredients), hand, and glove samples were collected for analysis of overall microorganisms (standard plate counts) and targeted foodborne bacteria: Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes. Results suggested that cross-contamination was more prevalent at premises where bare hands were used to prepare sushi. When bare hands were used, significantly higher standard plate counts were obtained from samples of cooked rice (2.3 to 4.9 log CFU/g) and sushi (2.8 to 6.9 log CFU/g) and the prevalence of S. aureus in samples was higher on food (21.7%, 28 of 129 samples) and hands (30%, 18 of 60 samples) ( P < 0.05). Glove changing in combination with hand washing minimized cross-contamination during sushi preparation as indicated by the lower prevalence of S. aureus (0%, 0 of 28 samples) and total targeted foodborne bacteria (3.6%, 1 of 28 samples) on the gloves of food handlers who changed gloves and washed their hands compared with those handlers who did not don new gloves. Repeated use of dishcloths could be a cause of cross-contamination, and the prevalence of total targeted foodborne bacteria was significantly higher on hands dried with dishcloths (64.7%, 11 of 17 samples) than on hands dried with paper towels (12.5%, 1 of 8 samples) ( P < 0.05). The prevalences of B. cereus, L. monocytogenes, and Salmonella in the 356 food samples were 5.1% (18 samples), 0.8% (3 samples), and 0%, respectively. Improvements to hand washing, hand drying, and glove changing practices are needed to lower the occurrence of cross-contamination during sushi preparation.

Quantifying the Effects of Water Temperature, Soap Volume, Lather Time, and Antimicrobial Soap as Variables in the Removal of Escherichia coli ATCC 11229 from Hands

The literature on hand washing, while extensive, often contains conflicting data, and key variables are only superficially studied or not studied at all. Some hand washing recommendations are made without scientific support, and agreement between recommendations is limited. The influence of key variables such as soap volume, lather time, water temperature, and product formulation on hand washing efficacy was investigated in the present study. Baseline conditions were 1 mL of a bland (nonantimicrobial) soap, a 5-s lather time, and 38°C (100°F) water temperature. A nonpathogenic strain of Escherichia coli (ATCC 11229) was the challenge microorganism. Twenty volunteers (10 men and 10 women) participated in the study, and each test condition had 20 replicates. An antimicrobial soap formulation (1% chloroxylenol) was not significantly more effective than the bland soap for removing E. coli under a variety of test conditions. Overall, the mean reduction was 1.94 log CFU (range, 1.83 to 2.10 log CFU) with the antimicrobial soap and 2.22 log CFU (range, 1.91 to 2.54 log CFU) with the bland soap. Overall, lather time significantly influenced efficacy in one scenario, in which a 0.5-log greater reduction was observed after 20 s with bland soap compared with the baseline wash (P = 0.020). Water temperature as high as 38°C (100°F) and as low as 15°C (60°F) did not have a significant effect on the reduction of bacteria during hand washing; however, the energy usage differed between these temperatures. No significant differences were observed in mean log reductions experienced by men and women (both 2.08 log CFU; P = 0.988). A large part of the variability in the data was associated with the behaviors of the volunteers. Understanding what behaviors and human factors most influence hand washing may help researchers find techniques to optimize the effectiveness of hand washing.

Quantifying Bacterial Cross-Contamination Rates between Fresh-Cut Produce and Hands

This study quantifies the cross-contamination rates between fresh-cut produce and hands using a nalidixic acid-resistant nonpathogenic Enterobacter aerogenes and cocktails of rifampin-resistant Salmonella or Escherichia coli O157:H7 strains. Volunteers performed the E. aerogenes experiments (n = 20), and one of the authors performed the Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 experiments multiple times (n =15 and n =10, respectively). Each participant handled 25 g of fresh-cut carrots, celery, or cantaloupe in two different scenarios. In the first scenario, gloved hands were inoculated with 6 log CFU per hand of the bacteria, and in the second scenario, five 25-g pieces of fresh produce were inoculated to a concentration of 6 log CFU/25 g. The glove juice method was used to quantify the bacterial concentration on the gloved hands. About 30% of E. aerogenes on gloved hands was transferred to the carrots and celery, and 18% of E. aerogenes on gloved hands was transferred to the cantaloupe. When carrots or cantaloupe was inoculated with E. aerogenes , 1% was transferred to gloved hands; from inoculated celery, about 0.3% of E. aerogenes was transferred to gloved hands. There was not a significant difference between E. aerogenes and Salmonella cross-contamination rates (P > 0.05). When gloved hands were contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, about 30% was transferred to carrots, about 10% to celery, and about 3% to cantaloupe. When carrots and celery were inoculated with E. coli O157:H7, about 1% was transferred to gloved hands, but from inoculated cantaloupe only about 0.3% was transferred. Direction of transfer (to versus from produce), difference in type of produce, and differences among the bacterial species all had significant effects on the transfer rate. Understanding transfer rates to and from fresh-cut produce will allow for better risk assessment and management of microbial food safety risk related to fresh-cut produce.

Efficacy of Instant Hand Sanitizers against Foodborne Pathogens Compared with Hand Washing with Soap and Water in Food Preparation Settings: A Systematic Review

Hands can be a vector for transmitting pathogenic microorganisms to foodstuffs and drinks, and to the mouths of susceptible hosts. Hand washing is the primary barrier to prevent transmission of enteric pathogens via cross-contamination from infected persons. Conventional hand washing involves the use of water, soap, and friction to remove dirt and microorganisms. The availability of hand sanitizing products for use when water and soap are unavailable has increased in recent years. The aim of this systematic review was to collate scientific information on the efficacy of hand sanitizers compared with washing hands with soap and water for the removal of foodborne pathogens from the hands of food handlers. An extensive literature search was carried out using three electronic databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. Twenty-eight scientific publications were ultimately included in the review. Analysis of this literature revealed various limitations in the scientific information owing to the absence of a standardized protocol for evaluating the efficacy of hand products and variation in experimental conditions. However, despite conflicting results, scientific evidence seems to support the historical skepticism about the use of waterless hand sanitizers in food preparation settings. Water and soap appear to be more effective than waterless products for removal of soil and microorganisms from hands. Alcohol-based products achieve rapid and effective inactivation of various bacteria, but their efficacy is generally lower against nonenveloped viruses. The presence of food debris significantly affects the microbial inactivation rate of hand sanitizers.

Quantifying the effect of hand wash duration, soap use, ground beef debris, and drying methods on the removal of Enterobacter aerogenes on hands

Hand washing is recognized as a crucial step in preventing foodborne disease transmission by mitigating crosscontamination among hands, surfaces, and foods. This research was undertaken to establish the importance of several keys factors (soap, soil, time, and drying method) in reducing microorganisms during hand washing. A nonpathogenic nalidixic acid-resistant Enterobacter aerogenes surrogate for Salmonella was used to assess the efficacy of using soap or no soap for 5 or 20 s on hands with or without ground beef debris and drying with paper towel or air. Each experiment consisted of 20 replicates, each from a different individual with ∼ 6 log CFU/ml E. aerogenes on their hands. A reduction of 1.0 ± 0.4 and 1.7 ± 0.8 log CFU of E. aerogenes was observed for a 5-s wash with no soap and a 20-s wash with soap, respectively. When there was no debris on the hands, there was no significant difference between washing with and without soap for 20 s (P > 0.05). Likewise, there was no significant difference in the reductions achieved when washing without soap, whether or not debris was on the hands (P > 0.05). A significantly greater reduction (P < 0.05) in E. aerogenes (0.5 log CFU greater reduction) was observed with soap when there was ground beef debris on the hands. The greatest difference (1.1 log CFU greater average reduction) in effectiveness occurred when ground beef debris was on the hands and a 20-s wash with water was compared with a 20-s wash with soap. Significantly greater (P < 0.05) reductions were observed with paper towel drying compared with air (0.5 log CFU greater reductions). Used paper towels may contain high bacterial levels (>4.0 log CFU per towel) when hands are highly contaminated. Our results support future quantitative microbial risk assessments needed to effectively manage risks of foodborne illness in which food workers' hands are a primary cause.

Hand hygiene regimens for the reduction of risk in food service environments

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.

SaniTwice: a novel approach to hand hygiene for reducing bacterial contamination on hands when soap and water are unavailable

The risk of inadequate hand hygiene in food handling settings is exacerbated when water is limited or unavailable, thereby making washing with soap and water difficult. The SaniTwice method involves application of excess alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS), hand "washing" for 15 s, and thorough cleaning with paper towels while hands are still wet, followed by a standard application of ABHS. This study investigated the effectiveness of the SaniTwice methodology as an alternative to hand washing for cleaning and removal of microorganisms. On hands moderately soiled with beef broth containing Escherichia coli (ATCC 11229), washing with a nonantimicrobial hand washing product achieved a 2.86 (±0.64)-log reduction in microbial contamination compared with the baseline, whereas the SaniTwice method with 62 % ethanol (EtOH) gel, 62 % EtOH foam, and 70 % EtOH advanced formula gel achieved reductions of 2.64 ± 0.89, 3.64 ± 0.57, and 4.61 ± 0.33 log units, respectively. When hands were heavily soiled from handling raw hamburger containing E. coli, washing with nonantimicrobial hand washing product and antimicrobial hand washing product achieved reductions of 2.65 ± 0.33 and 2.69 ± 0.32 log units, respectively, whereas SaniTwice with 62 % EtOH foam, 70 % EtOH gel, and 70 % EtOH advanced formula gel achieved reductions of 2.87 ± 0.42, 2.99 ± 0.51, and 3.92 ± 0.65 log units, respectively. These results clearly demonstrate that the in vivo antibacterial efficacy of the SaniTwice regimen with various ABHS is equivalent to or exceeds that of the standard hand washing approach as specified in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code. Implementation of the SaniTwice regimen in food handling settings with limited water availability should significantly reduce the risk of foodborne infections resulting from inadequate hand hygiene.

Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 10. Alcohol-based antiseptics for hand disinfection and a comparison of their effectiveness with soaps

Alcohol compounds are increasingly used as a substitute for hand washing in health care environments and some public places because these compounds are easy to use and do not require water or hand drying materials. However, the effectiveness of these compounds depends on how much soil (bioburden) is present on the hands. Workers in health care environments and other public places must wash their hands before using antiseptics and/or wearing gloves. However, alcohol-based antiseptics, also called rubs and sanitizers, can be very effective for rapidly destroying some pathogens by the action of the aqueous alcohol solution without the need for water or drying with towels. Alcohol-based compounds seem to be the most effective treatment against gram-negative bacteria on lightly soiled hands, but antimicrobial soaps are as good or better when hands are more heavily contaminated. Instant sanitizers have no residual effect, unlike some antimicrobial soaps that retain antimicrobial activity after the hygienic action has been completed, e.g., after hand washing. Many alcohol-based hand rubs have antimicrobial agents added to them, but each formulation must be evaluated against the target pathogens in the environment of concern before being considered for use. Wipes also are widely used for quick cleanups of hands, other body parts, and surfaces. These wipes often contain alcohol and/or antimicrobial compounds and are used for personal hygiene where water is limited. However, antiseptics and wipes are not panaceas for every situation and are less effective in the presence of more than a light soil load and against most enteric viruses.