Both Handwashing and an Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer Intervention Reduce Soil and Microbial Contamination on Farmworker Hands during Harvest, but Produce Type Matters

Hand hygiene product use by food employees in casual dining and quick-service restaurants

Hand hygiene product usage characteristics by food employees when hand sanitizers are made available are not well understood. To investigate hand hygiene product usage in casual dining and quick-service restaurants, we placed automated monitoring soap and sanitizer dispensers side-by-side at handwash sinks used by food employees in seven restaurants. Dispenses were monitored, and multiple dispenses that occurred within 60 s of each other were considered a single hand hygiene event. This resulted in 186,998 events during the study (149,779 soap only, 21 985 sanitizer only, and 15,234 regimen [defined as soap followed by sanitizer at the same sink within 60 s]) over 15,447 days of use. Soap was the most frequently used hand hygiene method by food employees in both restaurant types. Regimen use, despite being the preferred hand hygiene method by both restaurant chains, was the least used hand hygiene method. When pooled over restaurant types, the median daily usage for soap was statistically significantly highest of all methods at 23.5 dispenses per sink per day (p < 0.0001), the sanitizer median daily usage was 4.27 dispenses per sink per day, and regimen use was statistically significantly lowest of all methods at 4.02 dispenses per sink per day (p < 0.0001). When hand hygiene event types were pooled, casual dining restaurants had similar median hand hygiene event rates (11.4 dispenses per sink per day) compared to quick-service restaurants (11.9 dispenses per sink per day; p = 0.890). The number of events by sink location varied, with sinks located at a warewash station having the highest number of events (19.3 dispenses per sink per day; p < 0.0001), while sinks located by a ready-to-eat food preparation area had the lowest number of events (6.8 dispenses per sink per day; p < 0.0001). These data provide robust baseline benchmarks for future hand hygiene intervention studies in these settings.

Assessment of hand hygiene strategies on skin barrier function during COVID-19 pandemic: a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 has increased the frequency of hand washing. There is scarce evidence regarding the impact of different hand hygiene procedures on skin barrier function in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact on skin barrier function of different hand hygiene measures in health care workers in daily practice.

METHODS

A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted. Participants were randomized to sanitize their hands with water and soap, alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) or disinfectant wipes during their 8-hour work-shift. Epidermal barrier functional parameters, like transepidermal water loss (TEWL), and the microbial load were assessed before and immediately after the workday. Tolerance and acceptability of each product were recorded after work.

RESULTS

Sixty-two participants were included and 20, 21 and 21 were randomized respectively to use water and soap, ABHS and disinfectant wipes. After the 8-hour shift, TEWL increase was higher with disinfectant wipes than with soaps or ABHS (+5.45vs + 3.87vs-1.46 g·h^-1 ·m^-2 respectively, P = .023). Bacteria and fungi colony-forming unit (CFU) count reduction was lower for water and soap group than for ABHS and disinfectant wipes. Disinfectant wipes were considered more difficult to use (P = .013) compared to water and soap and ABHS.

CONCLUSION

Daily hand hygiene with ABHS showed the lowest rates of skin barrier disruption and the highest reduction of CFU. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.