Skin- and Eco-Friendly Hand Sanitizer: A Novel Composition of Natural Extracts to Prevent the Spread of Respiratory Viruses

Respiratory diseases caused by viruses are a serious global health threat. Although the use of hand sanitizers containing alcohol and synthetic antiseptic agents is recognized as an effective, simple, and low-cost measure to combat viral transmission, they can harm human health and the environment. Thus, this work aimed to study the efficacy of combining Camellia sinensis and Chamomilla recutita extracts in a skin- and eco-friendly leave-on hand sanitizer to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses. An oil-in-water emulsion containing C. recutita oily extract (5.0%), C. recutita glycolic extract (0.2%) and C. sinensis glycolic extract (5.0%) showed virucidal activity against HAdV-2 (respiratory virus) and two surrogate viruses of SARS-CoV-2 (HSV-1 and MVH-3), showing great potential to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses. These natural extracts combined are also promising to combat a broad spectrum of other viruses, in the form of antiseptic mouthwashes or throat sprays, surface disinfectants, and veterinary products, among others. Complementally, the developed hand sanitizer demonstrated efficacy against bacteria and fungus.

A comparative study on the effect of alcohol-based hand sanitizers in spray and gel formulation on the skin: A prospective, randomised, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Many formulations of Alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs), such as liquid, gel, and spray have been developed and used for preventing infections. This study aimed to compare skin irritation from using ABHRs in gel and spray formulations.

METHOD

This was a prospective, randomised, crossover trial conducted to investigate the effect of skin irritation caused by ABHRs in gel compared to spray formulation after 21 days of using each formulation. Clinical outcomes were assessed using subjective Larson's skin assessment score and Frosch and Kligman observer skin assessment score, as well as bioengineering measures: transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and skin capacitance on days 3, 7, 14, and 21.

RESULTS

Among 38 participants, both formulations showed no significant change in clinical scores and skin capacitance during the study. However, TEWL increased significantly from baseline on day 3 (p = 0.029) for the spray formulation and on day 21 (p = 0.019) for the gel formulation, with no statistically significant difference between the formulations (p = 0.46).

CONCLUSION

Our research supports the safety of gel and spray ABHRs for regular use, with the only potential issue being mild skin irritation. For those with sensitive skin, the gel formulation is preferable.

Determination and Quantification of Acetaldehyde, Acetone, and Methanol in Hand Sanitizers Using Headspace GC/MS: Effect of Storage Time and Temperature

Accurate determination of the concentration of alcohols and their metabolites is important in forensics and in several life science areas. A new headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method has been developed to quantify alcohols and their oxidative products using isotope-labeled internal standards. The limit of detection (LOD) of the analytes in the developed method was 0.211 µg/mL for methanol, 0.158 µg/mL for ethanol, 0.157 µg/mL for isopropanol, 0.010 µg/mL for n-propanol, 0.157 µg/mL for acetone, and 0.209 µg/mL for acetaldehyde. The precision and accuracy of the method were evaluated, and the relative standard deviation percentages were found to be less than 3%. This work demonstrates the application of this method, specifically in quantifying the concentration of oxidative products of alcohol and other minor alcohols found in hand sanitizers, which have become an essential household item since the COVID-19 pandemic. Apart from the major components, the minor alcohols found in hand sanitizers include methanol, isopropanol, and n-propanol. The concentration range of these minor alcohols found in ethanol-based hand sanitizer samples was as follows: methanol, 0.000921-0.0151 mg/mL; isopropanol, 0.454-13.8 mg/mL; and n-propanol, 0.00474-0.152 mg/mL. In ethanol-based hand sanitizers, a significant amount of acetaldehyde (0.00623-0.231 mg/mL) was observed as an oxidation product, while in the isopropanol-based hand sanitizer, acetone (0.697 mg/mL) was observed as an oxidation product. The concentration of acetaldehyde in ethanol-based hand sanitizers significantly increased with storage time and temperature, whereas no such increase in acetone concentration was observed in isopropanol-based hand sanitizers with storage time and temperature. In two of the selected hand sanitizers, the acetaldehyde levels increased by almost 200% within a week when stored at room temperature. Additionally, exposing the hand sanitizers to a temperature of 45 °C for 24 h resulted in a 100% increase in acetaldehyde concentration. On the contrary, the acetone level remained constant upon the change in storage time and temperature.

Prevalence of COVID-19 Mitigation Behaviors in US Adults (August-December 2020): Nationwide Household Probability Survey

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 mitigation behaviors, such as wearing masks, maintaining social distancing, and practicing hand hygiene, have been and will remain vital to slowing the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe the period prevalence of consistent mask-wearing, social distancing, and hand hygiene practices during the peak of COVID-19 incidence (August-December 2020) and just before COVID-19 vaccine availability, overall and in demographic subgroups.

METHODS

We used baseline survey data from a nationwide household probability sample to generate weighted estimates of mitigation behaviors: wearing masks, maintaining social distancing, and practicing hand hygiene. Weighted logistic regression explored differences in mitigation behaviors by demographics. Latent class analysis (LCA) identified patterns in mitigation behaviors.

RESULTS

Among 4654 participants, most (n=2727, 58.6%) were female, were non-Hispanic White (n=3063, 65.8%), were aged 55 years or older (n=2099, 45.1%), lived in the South (n=2275, 48.9%), lived in metropolitan areas (n=4186, 89.9%), had at least a bachelor's degree (n=2547, 54.7%), had an income of US $50,000-$99,000 (n=1445, 31%), and were privately insured (n=2734, 58.7%). The period prevalence of consistent mask wearing was 71.1% (sample-weighted 95% CI 68.8-73.3); consistent social distancing, 42.9% (95% CI 40.5-45.3); frequent handwashing, 55.0% (95% CI 52.3-57.7); and frequent hand sanitizing, 21.5% (95% CI 19.4-23.8). Mitigation behaviors were more prevalent among women, older persons, Black or Hispanic persons, those who were not college graduates, and service-oriented workers. LCA identified an optimal-mitigation class that consistently practiced all behaviors (n=2656, 67% of US adults), a low-mitigation class that inconsistently practiced all behaviors (n=771, 20.6%), and a class that had optimal masking and social distancing but a high frequency of hand hygiene (n=463, 12.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high prevalence of COVID-19 mitigation behaviors, there were likely millions who did not consistently practice these behaviors during the time of the highest COVID-19 incidence. In future infectious disease outbreak responses, public health authorities should also consider addressing disparities in mitigation practices through more targeted prevention messaging.

Efficacy of a New Alcohol-Free Organic Acid-Based Hand Sanitizer against Foodborne Pathogens

In light of the global health crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous experts have deemed the utilization of hand sanitizers imperative as a precautionary measure against the virus. Consequently, the demand for hand sanitizers has experienced a substantial surge. Since the beginning of 2020, the utilization of alcohol-free hand sanitizers has been increasingly favored due to the potential risks associated with alcohol poisoning, flammability, as well as the adverse effects on skin lipid dissolution, dehydration, and sebum reduction, which can lead to severe cases of eczema and norovirus infections. In this study, we developed an aqueous hand sanitizer that does not contain alcohol. The sanitizer consists of naturally occurring, food-grade organic acids, including lactic, citric, and azelaic acids. Additionally, food-grade ammonium sulfate and a small amount of povidone-iodine (PVPI) were included in the formulation to create a synergistic and potent antibacterial effect. The effectiveness of the hand sanitizer was evaluated against four common foodborne pathogens, namely Clostridium botulinum, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus, via in vitro testing. The organic acids exhibited a synergistic inhibitory function, resulting in a 3-log reduction in CFU/mL. Furthermore, the presence of povidone-iodine and ammonium sulfate enhanced their antibacterial effect, leading to a 4-log reduction in CFU/mL. The hand sanitizer solution remained stable even after 60 days of storage. During this period, the detection of additional triiodide (I3-) ions occurred, which have the ability to release broad-spectrum molecular iodine upon penetrating the cell walls. This alcohol-free hand sanitizer may offer extended protection and is anticipated to be gentle on the skin. This is attributed to the presence of citric and lactic acids, which possess cosmetic properties that soften and smoothen the skin, along with antioxidant properties.

Assessing Hand Sanitizer Usage in Japanese Elderly Day Care Centers: An Observational and Interventional Study

Purpose Hand hygiene is a vital preventive measure against the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Though older people are at high risk of infection of COVID-19, there is still a lack of verification of hand sanitization and effective interventions to promote its implementation for older people. This study aimed to validate what kind of intervention can effectively promote hand hygiene among elderly individuals in Japanese day care centers, based on the hypothesis that a particular nudge will significantly promote hand hygiene. Methods We designed two types of interventions that have aspects of the nudge concept based on WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care. The study was conducted with one-week observation and intervention periods excluding weekends, starting on February 11, 2023. Three groups were defined as follows: control (installation of hand sanitizer dispenser with a basic sign), reminder (additional visual cues using yellow curing tape), and institutional safety (sign appealing to protecting institutional safety by using hand sanitizer). Daily hand sanitizer usage was measured, and statistical analysis was performed using a one-way ANOVA for the number of uses before and after intervention. Results During the observation period, the average number of hand sanitizer pushes per person remained at 0.39 across all facilities. During the intervention period, control, reminder, and institutional safety groups showed increases of 1.13-fold, 1.31-fold, and 1.16-fold, respectively, revealing no significant difference. Conclusions Though these nudges were implemented according to WHO guidelines and the previous study, the older users of day care centers seemed not to react to these nudges significantly. The results underscore the need for tailored interventions to improve hand hygiene among the elderly in day care settings, contributing to the overall goal of preventing infectious diseases.

Outcomes of pediatric ingestions of alcohol-based hand sanitizers during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

In July 2020, an outbreak of methanol-contaminated hand sanitizers in the United States prompted our regional poison center to implement a more conservative triage guideline for hand sanitizer exposures. All pediatric hand sanitizer ingestions of more than a "taste" were referred to a healthcare facility for assessment. We then evaluated the effect of this change on identifying patients with methanol poisoning.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective review of pediatric (<19 years) hand sanitizer ingestions reported to our poison center from May 1, 2020 through January 28, 2022. Methanol and ethanol concentrations were collected if available.

RESULTS

During the study period, we received 801 calls regarding hand sanitizer exposure, of which 140 children were referred to a healthcare facility for hand sanitizer ingestions. Of those, 88 (63%) had methanol and/or ethanol concentrations measured. No child had a detectable methanol concentration, 78 had ethanol testing, and 12 had a detectable ethanol concentration.

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample, no patient tested had a detectable methanol concentration. Children who consumed enough to have a detectable ethanol concentration were symptomatic or had an intentional ingestion. Asymptomatic children with unintentional ingestion of hand sanitizer were at low risk for methanol toxicity.

Dermatological impact of hand hygiene practices during COVID-19: A cross-sectional web-based survey among doctors in a tertiary care hospital in Eastern India

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to persist throughout the world with intermittent exacerbation. The changing trend of hand hygiene practices during this pandemic has led to new onset or aggravation of pre-existing hand eczema, especially among doctors. There is a paucity of studies regarding skin changes seen with changing hand hygiene practices in the Indian subcontinent.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the frequency of various cutaneous manifestations and associated factors with hand hygiene practices in doctors during COVID-19 via a web-based online questionnaire survey.

METHODS

It was a cross-sectional web-based survey conducted at a tertiary care teaching institute from July 2021 to September 2021. Those doctors (faculty, residents, and interns) of the hospital completing the questionnaire with electronic informed consent were included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 143 doctors completed the survey. The most common symptoms were dryness in 60 (42%) and itching in 25 (17.5%) doctors. The most common skin changes were scaling in 30 (21%) and redness in 16 (11.2%) doctors. There was a significant association between skin changes and frequency of hand washing and hand sanitizer use (p value < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of hand changes and symptoms was 77% in doctors in our study. The most commonly seen hand changes were scaling followed by redness and symptoms observed were dryness and itching.

Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Hand Sanitizer Products Marketed to Children Available during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Hand sanitizer use in the United States (U.S.) increased after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released temporary manufacturer guidance, changing impurity level limits for alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHSs). Since the guidance took effect, the FDA has recommended against using these hand sanitizers due to concerns over safety, efficacy, and/or risk of incidental ingestion. To address current gaps in exposure characterization, this study describes a survey of ABHSs marketed to children available in the U.S., as defined by several inclusion criteria. A subset of ABHSs (n = 31) were evaluated for ethanol and organic impurities using a modified FDA method. Products with detectable impurity levels were compared to the FDA's established interim limits. Seven children's products had impurity levels exceeding the FDA's recommended interim limits, including benzene (up to 9.14 ppm), acetaldehyde (up to 134.12 ppm), and acetal (up to 75.60 ppm). The total measured alcohol content ranged from 52% to 98% in all hand sanitizers tested, ranging from 39% below, and up to 31% above, the labeled concentration. Future studies should confirm impurity contamination sources. A risk assessment could determine whether dermal application or incidental ingestion of impurity-containing hand sanitizers pose any consumer risk.

Indirect effects of Covid-19 on water quality

The provision of safe water and functioning waste management play key roles in preventing and combatting disease outbreaks such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Good water quality is needed for effective hygiene measures like washing hands as well as for lowering pathogen transmission. Almost all over the world, especially in developing countries, water is vulnerable and at high risk and surging insecurity with time. Effective water management, sanitation, and hygiene help to protect lives during the global COVID-19 pandemic. While sanitation and hygiene also disturb the quality and increase water consumption per capita to 40% comparatively and wastewater production in many developing countries. This rapid increase in water consumption puts direct pressure on water reservoirs and inadequate management of wastewater is also a serious threat to waterways, nowadays. Similarly, the quality of water bodies is significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, but the risk of transmission of COVID-19 through sewerage systems is recorded as low. Hence, the current review paper aims to highlight the main concerns directly linked with the frequent usage of detergents/soaps and alcohol-based hand sanitizers on water quality and the post-pandemic handwashing habits to overcome the COVID-19 spread also threatening the water reserve reservoirs via water high consumption along with more wastewater production with less water reuse efficiency and collectively the pressure on drinking water facilities. This review also focuses on the indirect influence of COVID-19 on water quality through technical interventions among COVID-19, water pollution; soaps/detergents, and hand sanitizer and the complete water management plan for water security and safety from policymakers to end users after the viral revolution briefly.

Analysis of Consumer Exposure Cases for Alcohol-Based Disinfectant and Hand Sanitizer Use against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

The development and distribution of vaccines and treatments as well as the use of disinfectants and hand sanitizers to cope with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection has increased rapidly. As the use of disinfectants and hand sanitizers increased, the number of unintended exposures to these substances also increased. A total of 8016 cases of toxic exposure to disinfectants and hand sanitizers were reported to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) from 1 January 2017 to 30 May 2021. The cases have been characterized by substance, sex, patient age, exposure reason and site, treatments received, and outcomes. The number of exposures correlates closely to the rise of COVID-19 cases, rising significantly in March 2020. About half of the total cases involved children less than 10 years old and 97% of those exposures per year were unintentional. In addition, the most common exposure site was the patient's own residence. Over-exposure to disinfectants and hand sanitizers can cause symptoms such as burning and irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, coughing, chest tightness, headache, choking, and, in severe cases, death.

Hand Sanitizer Intoxication in the Emergency Department

Hand hygiene has always been an area of emphasis within the hospital setting, never more so than during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The consumption of alcohol-containing hand sanitizer products, whether intentional or accidental, often garners attention, particularly since these products may contain methanol. This report describes a case of surreptitious theft and intentional ingestion of the emergency department's (ED) ethanol-based hand sanitizer by a patient who presented to the ED clinically intoxicated with a high ethanol level. When the patient remained clinically intoxicated for more than 18 hours and had a rising serum ethanol level in the ED, clinicians searched his belongings and found several purloined bottles of the ED's hand sanitizer. When confronted, the patient admitted to ingesting hand sanitizer during his ED stay. This case highlights the need for clinicians to be suspicious of intentional ingestion of ethanol-containing products for at-risk patients. Additionally, it demonstrates that measures and protocols should be put in place that minimize the ability for the inappropriate use of these widely accessible products within the hospital.

Gut microbiome and resistome changes during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with pre-pandemic travel-related changes

COVID-19-associated measures had a greater impact on gut microbiota, ARGs, and BRGs than did pre-pandemic international travel. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Actinobacteria richness decreased while genes conferring resistance to beta-lactam, polystyrene and phthalate increased. Such alterations may affect both colonisation resistance and acquisition and spread of antimicrobial resistance in future travels.

Amuchina Gel Xgerm hand rub in vitro virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2

Aim: Ethanol is highly effective at inactivating enveloped viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study is to evaluate the virucidal activity of Amuchina Gel Xgerm (74% ethanol) against SARS-CoV-2, according to the European Standard EN14476:2013+A2:2019. Materials & methods: Virucidal activity of the study product was evaluated against SARS-CoV-2 strain USAWA1/2020 in suspension, in the presence of 0.3 g/l of bovine serum albumin. Results: The log₁₀ reduction of SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of bovine serum albumin was ≥4.11 ± 0.12 after 30 s of exposure to the study product (80% dilution). Cytotoxicity was observed in the 10⁰ dilution, affecting the detection limit by 1 log₁₀. Conclusion: Virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2 supports the effectiveness of this alcohol-based formulation as a prevention measure for COVID-19 illness.

Canadian policy changes for alcohol-based hand rubs during the COVID-19 pandemic and unintended risks

The COVID-19 pandemic led to major changes in public policies to address supply chain disruption and escalated the price of consumer disinfectant products. To address market demands on alcohol-based hand rubs and disinfectants, Health Canada implemented major changes to the regulations regarding composition, handling, transportation, and packaging to insure product availability. Furthermore, accelerated licensing of ingredients and packaging did not meet standard medical quality guidelines yet were authorized for manufacturing and packaging of alcohol-based hand rubs and disinfectants. The accountability associated with these policy changes were reactive, including industry self-reporting, consumer reporting, and Health Canada advisories and recalls that were responsive to products after they were available in the market. Nonetheless, Canadian public health policy increased hand sanitizers availability. However, some of the interim policies have raised major public health concerns associated with ethanol quality, packaging, and labeling, and enforcement of regulations. In this paper, we review the changes in the Canadian regulations amid the current pandemic and we evaluate the unintended health risks that might arise from these changes.

Formulation and Evaluation of Alcohol-Free Hand Sanitizer Gels to Prevent the Spread of Infections during Pandemics

Hand hygiene is an essential factor to prevent or minimize the spread of infections. The ability to prepare an alcohol-free hand sanitizer (AFHS) with antimicrobial properties is crucial, especially during pandemics, when there are high demands and a low supply chain for ethanol and isopropanol. The objective of this study was to prepare AFHS gels based on natural materials that contain essential oils (EOs) that would be effective against a broad spectrum of pathogens. The results showed that the organoleptic characteristics of all prepared hand sanitizer gels were considered acceptable. The pH of the formulations was slightly acidic (circa 3.9) owing to the presence of aloe vera in large proportions (90% v/v), which is known for its acidity. The spreadability for all tested formulations was in the acceptable range. The antimicrobial effectiveness test demonstrated that the prepared hand sanitizer gels had antimicrobial activities against different gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria and Candida albicans yeast. The highest antibacterial effect was observed with tea tree oil hand sanitizers, which lack activity against the yeast, while clove oil hand sanitizers showed effectiveness against all microorganisms, including Candida albicans. The lavender hand sanitizer exhibited the least antimicrobial efficiency. The acceptability study on 20 human volunteers showed that the hand sanitizer gel containing 1.25% (v/v) clove oil did not produce any signs of skin irritation. This study suggested that the prepared natural hand sanitizer gel with 1.25% (v/v) clove oil can be a potential alternative to commonly used alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS).

Analyses of Commercially Available Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs Formulated with Compliant and Non-Compliant Ethanol

The COVID-19 pandemic led to panic-buying of alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs). In response, governmental agencies (e.g., Health Canada) permitted the sale of ABHRs formulated with "technical-grade" ethanol to alleviate the growing demand. Technical-grade ethanol contains elevated concentrations of impurities (e.g., acetaldehyde, etc.), which may exhibit dose-dependent toxicity. In this study, a rapid solvent extraction was employed to analyze gelled ABHRs via gas chromatography with flame ionization detection. In total, 26 liquid and 16 gelled ABHRs were analyzed for nine common impurities to determine compliance with Health Canada interim guidelines. Of 42 samples analyzed, 11 ABHRs appear to be non-compliant with interim Health Canada guidelines. Non-compliant ABHRs exhibited elevated concentrations of acetaldehyde, with a maximal concentration observed of 251 ± 10 µL L-1; 3.3× higher than currently permitted. Nonetheless, frequent testing of ABHRs should be routinely conducted to reduce the risk of consumer exposure to non-compliant ABHRs.

Evaluating the Antimicrobial Properties of Commercial Hand Sanitizers

Hand sanitizers have been developed as a convenient means to decontaminate an individual’s hands of bacterial pathogens in situations in which soap and water are not available. Yet to our knowledge, no study has compared the antibacterial efficacy of a large collection of hand sanitizers. Using zone of growth inhibition and kill curve assays, we assessed the performance of 46 commercially available hand sanitizers that were obtained from national chain big-box stores, gasoline stations, pharmacies, and boutiques for antibacterial activity toward prototypical Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli) bacterial pathogens. Results revealed substantial variability in the efficacy of many sanitizers evaluated. Formulations following World Health Organization-recommended ingredients (80% ethanol or 75% isopropyl alcohol) or those including benzalkonium chloride as the active principal ingredient displayed excellent antibacterial activity, whereas others exhibited modest or poor activity in the assays performed. Results also revealed that E. coli was generally more susceptible to most sanitizers in comparison to S. aureus and that there was significant strain-to-strain variability in hand sanitizer antimicrobial efficacy regardless of the organism evaluated. Further, tests of a subset of hand sanitizers toward severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) revealed no direct correlation between antibacterial and antiviral performance, with all ethyl alcohol formulations performing equally well and displaying improved activity in comparison to benzalkonium chloride-containing sanitizer. Taken together, these results indicate that there is likely to be substantial variability in the antimicrobial performance of commercially available hand sanitizers, particularly toward bacterial pathogens, and a need to evaluate the efficacy of sanitizers under development.

IMPORTANCE In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hand hygiene has taken on a prominent role in efforts to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission and infection, which has led to a radical increase in the number and types of hand sanitizers manufactured to meet public demand. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated or compared the antimicrobial performance of hand sanitizers that are being produced under COVID-19 emergency authorization. Tests of 46 commercially available hand sanitizers purchased from national chain brick-and-mortar stores revealed considerable variability in their antibacterial performance toward two bacterial pathogens of immediate health care concern, S. aureus and E. coli. Expanded testing of a subset of hand sanitizers revealed no direct correlation between antibacterial performance of individual sanitizers and their activity toward SARS-CoV-2. These results indicate that as the pandemic subsides, there will be a need to validate the antimicrobial efficacy of sanitizers being produced.

Hand Sanitizer in a Pandemic: Wrong Formulations in the Wrong Hands

Background

Households are increasingly stockpiling and producing hand sanitizer amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which can pose an increased risk for unintentional toxicity among children. Despite guidelines for hand sanitizer production published by the World Health Organization, many turn to streaming media for instruction.

Objective

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate hand sanitizer formulations and safety precautions discussed in popular do-it-yourself (DIY) YouTube videos, and to assess the frequency of calls to poison control centers for pediatric hand sanitizer exposure before and after the arrival of COVID-19 in the United States.

Methods

The first 100 videos on YouTube with the most views using the search term “DIY hand sanitizer” were evaluated for accuracy compared with the World Health Organization local hand sanitizer production guidelines. The incidence of pediatric hand sanitizer exposure reported to participating U.S. poison control centers from January 2018 through May 2020 was reviewed from the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System. The average number of calls between January 2020 and May 2020 was compared, and the average number of calls in March 2020 was compared with March 2019 and March 2018.

Results

Of the YouTube videos that met inclusion criteria, 27% discussed the use of at least 96% ethanol or 99.8% isopropyl alcohol, 4.1% incorporated 3% hydrogen peroxide, 82% used glycerol or an alternative humectant, and 4.1% specified the need for distilled or previously boiled water. Most of the videos failed to describe labeling storage containers, 69% of videos encouraged the use of oils or perfumes to enhance hand sanitizer scent, and 2% of videos promoted the use of coloring agents to be more attractive for use among children specifically. There was a significantly increased average number of daily calls to poison control centers regarding unsafe pediatric hand sanitizer exposure since the first confirmed COVID-19 patient in the United States. There was a significantly increased average number of daily calls in March 2020 compared with the previous 2 years.

Conclusions

YouTube may not be an accurate source for effective hand sanitizer concoction. Health care providers and parents should be aware of the increased surge in hand sanitizer exposure among children and should take proper precautionary measures.

Overcoming the Regulatory Hurdles for the Production of Hand Sanitizer for Public Health Protection: The UK and US Academic Perspective

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an acute shortage of hand sanitizer, which is crucial to keeping people safe and to preventing the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, universities across the world have used their expertise to help to meet urgent demand from public bodies and the emergency services for supplies of safe and effective sanitizer. We explore here the experience of the University of Bristol, UK, in negotiating the regulatory demands and logistical challenges facing its own sanitizer production efforts. We also reflect on the different regulatory situation for US colleagues pursuing similar activities, and we share our advice for other universities wishing to follow a similar path.

Handwashing in averting infectious diseases: Relevance to COVID-19

After officially declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), drastic measures to restrict human movements to contain the COVID-19 infection are employed by most of the countries. Maintaining high personal hygiene by frequent handwashing and be vigilant of clinical signs are widely recommended to reduce the disease burden. The national and international health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO, have provided guidelines for prevention and treatment suggestions. Here, in this brief article, based on available clinical information, the author discusses why handwashing could be protective of COVID-19 infections. Although a detailed and in-depth discussion of various preventive and protective measures is beyond the scope of this article, this review will focus on the utility of frequent handwashing in minimizing the risk of spreading COVID-19 infection.

Formulation and efficacy evaluation of the safe and efficient moisturizing snow mushroom hand sanitizer

OBJECTIVES

Snow fungus or snow mushroom or white jelly mushroom (Tremella fuciformis), the edible mushroom, was formulated into hand sanitizer in form of moisturizing alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) gel.

METHODS

The stable base ABHRs were developed. The preferred bases were incorporated with various concentrations of snow mushroom extract. The stable and preferred snow mushroom ABHR was moisturizing and sanitizing efficacies evaluated in 20 human volunteers in comparison with its placebo.

RESULTS

The stable hand sanitizer gel bases containing 66.5% of ethanol and 0.3% of triclosan were developed and incorporated with the extract of snow mushroom polysaccharide. Of which, the preparations containing 10% of snow mushroom and 0.3% of gelling agent gained the highest preferences as assessed in 20 Thai volunteers. The snow mushroom hand sanitizer was proved to be none irritated in the same group of the volunteers as was the placebo. The snow mushroom gel significantly (P < .05) moist the skin better than the placebo at all time of the interval assessment until the end of the study at 180 minutes. The hand sanitizers were confirmed on their anti-septic, at which the efficacies of the active and placebo ABHR were comparable (P = .90).

CONCLUSIONS

Snow mushroom ABHR gel with its confirmed moisturizing and sanitizing efficacies is presented. It is meetings with the recommendation on hand hygienic improvement to combat the infections of diseases spreading. The preparation can be frequency applied with its proved skin hydrating efficacy co-contributes in a good condition of hand hygiene.

Inactivation of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 by WHO-Recommended Hand Rub Formulations and Alcohols

Infection control instructions call for use of alcohol-based hand rub solutions to inactivate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We determined the virucidal activity of World Health Organization-recommended hand rub formulations, at full strength and multiple dilutions, and of the active ingredients. All disinfectants demonstrated efficient virus inactivation.

Inactivation of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 by WHO-Recommended Hand Rub Formulations and Alcohols

Infection control instructions call for use of alcohol-based hand rub solutions to inactivate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We determined the virucidal activity of World Health Organization-recommended hand rub formulations, at full strength and multiple dilutions, and of the active ingredients. All disinfectants demonstrated efficient virus inactivation.

Evaluation of World Health Organization-Recommended Hand Hygiene Formulations

As a result of the coronavirus disease pandemic, commercial hand hygiene products have become scarce and World Health Organization (WHO) alcohol-based hand rub formulations containing ethanol or isopropanol are being produced for hospitals worldwide. Neither WHO formulation meets European Norm 12791, the basis for approval as a surgical hand preparation, nor satisfies European Norm 1500, the basis for approval as a hygienic hand rub. We evaluated the efficacy of modified formulations with alcohol concentrations in mass instead of volume percentage and glycerol concentrations of 0.5% instead of 1.45%. Both modified formulations met standard requirements for a 3-minute surgical hand preparation, the usual duration of surgical hand treatment in most hospitals in Europe. Contrary to the originally proposed WHO hand rub formulations, both modified formulations are appropriate for surgical hand preparation after 3 minutes when alcohol concentrations of 80% wt/wt ethanol or 75% wt/wt isopropanol along with reduced glycerol concentration (0.5%) are used.

Hand Sanitizers: A Review on Formulation Aspects, Adverse Effects, and Regulations

Hand hygiene is of utmost importance as it may be contaminated easily from direct contact with airborne microorganism droplets from coughs and sneezes. Particularly in situations like pandemic outbreak, it is crucial to interrupt the transmission chain of the virus by the practice of proper hand sanitization. It can be achieved with contact isolation and strict infection control tool like maintaining good hand hygiene in hospital settings and in public. The success of the hand sanitization solely depends on the use of effective hand disinfecting agents formulated in various types and forms such as antimicrobial soaps, water-based or alcohol-based hand sanitizer, with the latter being widely used in hospital settings. To date, most of the effective hand sanitizer products are alcohol-based formulations containing 62%-95% of alcohol as it can denature the proteins of microbes and the ability to inactivate viruses. This systematic review correlated with the data available in Pubmed, and it will investigate the range of available hand sanitizers and their effectiveness as well as the formulation aspects, adverse effects, and recommendations to enhance the formulation efficiency and safety. Further, this article highlights the efficacy of alcohol-based hand sanitizer against the coronavirus.

Intentional ingestion of hand sanitizer in an adult psychiatric unit

Intentional ingestion of ethanol- or isopropanol-based hand sanitizer has been reported in the literature in a variety of settings within the health care system. Specifically in psychiatric units, case reports have only described ingestion of ethanol-based products. This report describes a case of intentional ingestion of isopropanol-based hand sanitizer by a patient while hospitalized on a psychiatric unit. The patient developed acute respiratory failure, acute kidney injury, and metabolic encephalopathy and was treated for 3 days in the intensive care unit before returning to the psychiatric unit. This case highlights the process of identifying suspected ingestion while hospitalized. In any patient who has a sudden change in level of consciousness, clinicians should consider the potential for ingestion of ethanol- or isopropanol-based hand sanitizer. Facilities should be aware of how accessible hand sanitizer is, particularly in areas with patients who have a history of substance dependence.

Efficacy of an Ethanol-Based Hand Sanitizer for the Disinfection of Blood Pressure Cuffs

Blood pressure cuffs (BP cuffs) have been implicated in some nosocomial outbreaks. We compared the efficacy of an ethanol-based hand sanitizer (EBHS) with a detergent/disinfectant for the disinfection of BP cuffs. The inner sides of 30 BP cuffs were sampled for bacterial culture. Then, the same area was divided into halves. One half was disinfected by a detergent/disinfectant and the other was disinfected by an EBHS. The bacterial count decreased significantly with both disinfectants (p < 0.0001 compared with before disinfection). The bacterial count decrease seemed greater with the EBHS compared with the detergent/disinfectant, but the difference was not significant. Therefore, within the limits of a single application, the EBHS was an efficacious means of BP cuff disinfection. However, the repeated exposure to emollients contained in EBHS may require further studies before validating these results.

Effectiveness of hand hygiene practices in preventing influenza virus infection in the community setting: A systematic review

Background

Hand hygiene is known to be an effective infection prevention and control measure in health care settings. However, the effectiveness of hand hygiene practices in preventing influenza infection and transmission in the community setting is not clear.

Objective

To identify, review and synthesize available evidence on the effectiveness of hand hygiene in preventing laboratory-confirmed or possible influenza infection and transmission in the community setting.

Methods

A systematic review protocol was established prior to conducting the review. Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library) were searched to identify relevant studies. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full-texts of studies retrieved from the database searches for potential eligibility. Data extraction and quality assessment of included studies were performed by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Included studies were synthesized and analyzed narratively.

Results

A total of 16 studies were included for review. Studies were of low methodological quality and there was high variability in study design, setting, context and outcome measures. Nine studies evaluated the effectiveness of hand hygiene interventions or practices in preventing laboratory-confirmed or possible influenza infection in the community setting; six studies showed a significant difference, three studies did not. Seven studies assessed the effectiveness of hand hygiene practices in preventing laboratory-confirmed or possible influenza transmission in the community setting; two studies found a significant difference and five studies did not.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of hand hygiene against influenza virus infection and transmission in the community setting is difficult to determine based on the available evidence. In light of its proven effectiveness in other settings, there is no compelling evidence to stop using good hand hygiene practice to reduce the risk of influenza infection and transmission in the community setting.

Electrostatic hazards of charging of bedclothes and ignition in medical facilities

We investigated the charge generated on bedclothes (cotton and polyester) during bedding exchange with different humidities and the ignitability of an alcohol-based hand sanitizer (72.3 mass% ethanol) due to static spark with different temperatures to identify the hazards of electrostatic shocks and ignitions occurring previously in medical facilities. The results indicated that charging of the polyester bedclothes may induce a human body potential of over about 10 kV, resulting in shocks even at a relative humidity of 50%, and a human body potential of higher than about 8 kV can cause a risk for the ignition of the hand sanitizer. The grounding of human bodies via footwear and flooring, therefore, is essential to avoid such hazards (or to reduce such risks).

The Effect of Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer Vapors on Evidential Breath Alcohol Test Results

This study was undertaken to determine if the application of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHSs) to the hands of a breath test operator will affect the results obtained on evidential breath alcohol instruments (EBTs). This study obtained breath samples on three different EBTs immediately after application of either gel or foam ABHS to the operator's hands. A small, but significant, number of initial analyses (13 of 130, 10%) resulted in positive breath alcohol concentrations, while 41 samples (31.5%) resulted in a status code. These status codes were caused by ethanol vapors either in the room air or their inhalation by the subject, thereby causing a mouth alcohol effect. Replicate subject samples did not yield any consecutive positive numeric results. As ABHS application can cause a transitory mouth alcohol effect via inhalation of ABHS vapors, EBT operators should forego the use of ABHS in the 15 min preceding subject testing.

Strategies to Prevent Acute Diarrhea and Upper Respiratory Tract Infection among Disaster Relief Workers

Background

Sickness among field relief workers prompted us to develop strategies for preventing manpower loss. Most studies have focused on the preparedness and safety of medical responders in the prepared phase, but those parameters are lacking in the response phase. This study attempted to identify effective ways to prevent medical team members from acquiring acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection (URI) based on our field reports. This was a retrospective cohort study. The 56 team members were from eight missions in total, including medial disaster relief and international humanitarian assistance, deployed between June 2007 and February 2010. The demographics of the participating members and their actions were examined for association with acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection episodes using a mixed-effect logistic regression model. One member (7.0%) with acute diarrhea and 11 (26.1%) members without acute diarrhea took doxycycline. The relationship between doxycycline and acute diarrhea episodes was not statistically signifi cant. However, while 6 of 14 team members (42.9%) with acute diarrhea used hand sanitizer, 35 of 42 team members (83.3%) without diarrhea used hand sanitizer. Only hand sanitizer use was statistically related to the prevention of acute diarrhea and URI (p value = 0.021, 0.032). Hand sanitizer is suggested to protect medical teams from acute diarrhea and URI in such challenging environments. Chemoprophylaxis for malaria remains dependent on the area of deployment.

Methods

Sickness among field relief workers prompted us to develop strategies for preventing manpower loss. Most studies have focused on the preparedness and safety of medical responders in the prepared phase, but those parameters are lacking in the response phase. This study attempted to identify effective ways to prevent medical team members from acquiring acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection (URI) based on our field reports. This was a retrospective cohort study. The 56 team members were from eight missions in total, including medial disaster relief and international humanitarian assistance, deployed between June 2007 and February 2010. The demographics of the participating members and their actions were examined for association with acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection episodes using a mixed-effect logistic regression model. One member (7.0%) with acute diarrhea and 11 (26.1%) members without acute diarrhea took doxycycline. The relationship between doxycycline and acute diarrhea episodes was not statistically signifi cant. However, while 6 of 14 team members (42.9%) with acute diarrhea used hand sanitizer, 35 of 42 team members (83.3%) without diarrhea used hand sanitizer. Only hand sanitizer use was statistically related to the prevention of acute diarrhea and URI (p value = 0.021, 0.032). Hand sanitizer is suggested to protect medical teams from acute diarrhea and URI in such challenging environments. Chemoprophylaxis for malaria remains dependent on the area of deployment.

Results

Sickness among field relief workers prompted us to develop strategies for preventing manpower loss. Most studies have focused on the preparedness and safety of medical responders in the prepared phase, but those parameters are lacking in the response phase. This study attempted to identify effective ways to prevent medical team members from acquiring acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection (URI) based on our field reports. This was a retrospective cohort study. The 56 team members were from eight missions in total, including medial disaster relief and international humanitarian assistance, deployed between June 2007 and February 2010. The demographics of the participating members and their actions were examined for association with acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection episodes using a mixed-effect logistic regression model. One member (7.0%) with acute diarrhea and 11 (26.1%) members without acute diarrhea took doxycycline. The relationship between doxycycline and acute diarrhea episodes was not statistically signifi cant. However, while 6 of 14 team members (42.9%) with acute diarrhea used hand sanitizer, 35 of 42 team members (83.3%) without diarrhea used hand sanitizer. Only hand sanitizer use was statistically related to the prevention of acute diarrhea and URI (p value = 0.021, 0.032). Hand sanitizer is suggested to protect medical teams from acute diarrhea and URI in such challenging environments. Chemoprophylaxis for malaria remains dependent on the area of deployment.

Conclusion

Sickness among field relief workers prompted us to develop strategies for preventing manpower loss. Most studies have focused on the preparedness and safety of medical responders in the prepared phase, but those parameters are lacking in the response phase. This study attempted to identify effective ways to prevent medical team members from acquiring acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection (URI) based on our field reports. This was a retrospective cohort study. The 56 team members were from eight missions in total, including medial disaster relief and international humanitarian assistance, deployed between June 2007 and February 2010. The demographics of the participating members and their actions were examined for association with acute diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection episodes using a mixed-effect logistic regression model. One member (7.0%) with acute diarrhea and 11 (26.1%) members without acute diarrhea took doxycycline. The relationship between doxycycline and acute diarrhea episodes was not statistically signifi cant. However, while 6 of 14 team members (42.9%) with acute diarrhea used hand sanitizer, 35 of 42 team members (83.3%) without diarrhea used hand sanitizer. Only hand sanitizer use was statistically related to the prevention of acute diarrhea and URI (p value = 0.021, 0.032). Hand sanitizer is suggested to protect medical teams from acute diarrhea and URI in such challenging environments. Chemoprophylaxis for malaria remains dependent on the area of deployment.

An Assessment of Diarrhea Among Long-Distance Backpackers in the Sierra Nevada

INTRODUCTION

Diarrhea is a common problem among long-distance backpackers, ranging in overall incidence from 11-56% as reported by previous studies on the Appalachian Trail and Long Trail. Differences in age, sex, and regularity of standard backcountry hygiene recommendations and practices have been shown to significantly affect the incidence of diarrhea. No study to date has investigated these trends among long-distance backpackers on the John Muir Trail (JMT) in the Sierra Nevada mountain range of California.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of online survey data gathered from long-distance backpackers who attempted a JMT trek in 2014. Data were assessed for the significance of variables that might contribute to the incidence and severity of on-trail diarrhea.

RESULTS

Of 737 valid responders, 16.4% reported experiencing diarrhea (82% with minimal/mild severity; 18% with significant severity). Regular hand sanitizer use was significantly correlated with more severe diarrhea (P < .05), but had no effect on incidence. Regular hand sanitizer users followed all other recommended hygiene practices as frequently as or better than those not using hand sanitizer regularly. Of all backpackers, 88% filtered or treated their drinking water regularly, with 18% of those reporting diarrhea of any severity.

CONCLUSIONS

JMT backpackers have a comparatively lower incidence of diarrhea than backpackers on other major long-distance backpacking routes in the United States. Most JMT backpackers follow standard backcountry hygiene recommendations, including regular filtration or treatment of drinking water. No statistical significance was found between the incidence of diarrhea and compliance with standard hygiene recommendations. Regular hand sanitizer use was significantly correlated with more severe diarrhea but was not associated with incidence. There was no significant difference in compliance with standard backcountry hygiene practices between regular and infrequent hand sanitizer users.

Hand Hygiene Program Decreases School Absenteeism Due to Upper Respiratory Infections

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effectiveness of a handwashing program using hand sanitizer to prevent school absenteeism due to upper respiratory infections (URIs).

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled, and open study on a sample of 1341 children 4-12 years old, attending 5 state schools in Almería (Spain), with an 8-month follow-up. The experimental group (EG) washed their hands with soap and water, together with using hand sanitizer, and the control group followed their usual handwashing procedures. Absenteeism rates due to URIs were compared between the 2 groups through a multivariate Poisson regression analysis. The percent of days missed in both groups were compared with a z test.

RESULTS

Overall, 1271 cases of school absenteeism due to URIs were registered. Schoolchildren from the EG had a 38% lower risk of absenteeism due to URIs, incidence rate ratio: 0.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.70, and a decrease in absenteeism of 0.45 episodes/child/academic year, p < .001. Pupils missed 2734 school days due to URIs and the percentage of days absent was significantly lower in the EG, p < .001.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of hand sanitizer plus handwashing with soap accompanied by educational support is an effective measure to reduce absenteeism due to URIs.

Mineral- and vitamin-enhanced micronutrient powder reduces stunting in full-term low-birth-weight infants receiving nutrition, health, and hygiene education: a 2 × 2 factorial, cluster-randomized trial in Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

The causes of stunting are complex but likely include prenatal effects, inadequate postnatal nutrient intake, and recurrent infections. Low-birth-weight (LBW) infants are at high risk of stunting. More than 25% of live births in low- and middle-income countries are at full term with low birth weight (FT-LBW). Evidence on the efficacy of specific interventions to enhance growth in this vulnerable group remains scant.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the independent and combined effects of a directed use of a water-based hand sanitizer (HS) and a mineral- and vitamin-enhanced micronutrient powder (MNP) (22 minerals and vitamins) to prevent infections and improve nutrient intake to reduce stunting in FT-LBW infants.

DESIGN

The study was a prospective 2 × 2 factorial, cluster-randomized trial in 467 FT-LBW infants during 2 periods: from 0 to 5 mo postpartum (0-180 d postpartum) and from 6 to 12 mo postpartum (181-360 d postpartum) with the use of 48 clusters. All groups received the same general nutrition, health, and hygiene education (NHHE) at enrollment and throughout the 12 mo. Group assignments initially included the following 2 groups: no HS (control) group or HS from 0 to 5 mo postpartum. These assignments were followed by further divisions into the following 4 groups from 6 to 12 mo postpartum: 1) no HS and no MNP (control), 2) HS only, 3) MNP only, and 4) HS and MNP.

RESULTS

When delivered in combination with NHHE, the use of an HS showed no additional benefit in reducing indicators of infection in the first or second half of infancy or the likelihood of stunting at 12 mo postpartum. FT-LBW infants who received the MNP (with or without the HS) were significantly less likely to be stunted at 12 mo than were controls (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.84; P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a mineral- and vitamin-enhanced MNP significantly reduced stunting in FT-LBW infants in this high-risk setting. The use of a water-based HS did not have an additive effect. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01455636.

[Study of bacterial flora contaminating mobile phones before and after disinfection: comparison between nursing professionals of the Military Hospital Mohammed V in Rabat and controls]

Introduction

L'objectif de notre travail était évaluer la contamination microbienne des téléphones mobiles utilisés par les personnels soignants des différents services de l'hôpital militaire d'instructions Mohammed V de Rabat et la comparer à celui d'une population témoin et aussi démontrer l'efficacité des solutions hydroalcoolique dans la désinfection de ces téléphones mobiles.

Méthodes

Il s'agit d'une étude descriptive transversale réalisée sur une période de 9 mois entre septembre 2010 et juin 2011, dans le service de bactériologie de l'hôpital militaire d'Instruction Mohammed V.

Résultats

L’étude bactériologique a été faite sur 240 téléphones mobiles dont 50% provenaient de personnels de sante. Le taux de contamination bactérienne de tous les téléphones mobiles était de 100%. Les cultures des bactéries isolées au niveau des téléphones mobiles du personnel médical étaient plus polymorphes que celles de la population témoin (p=0,028). Parmi 437 bactéries isolées: 223(51%) provenaient de téléphones de personnels de santé et 214(49%) de téléphones de la population témoin avec une différence qui n’était pas statistiquement significative(p>0,05) sauf pour les isolats de Staphylocoque à coagulase négative et Staphylococcus aureus. Les bactéries isolées étaient représentées par: Staphylocoque à coagulase (57,7%), Staphylococcus aureus (18,1%), Corynebacterium sp (18,8%), Bacillus sp (2,3%) et autres (2,2%). La différence entre la prévalence des bactéries isolées selon les services et les fonctions des personnels de santé n’était pas statistiquement significative (p>0,05). La désinfection des téléphones portables par la solution hydroalcoolique a réduit à 99,5% le nombre des colonies.

Conclusion

Ce travail montre que les téléphones portables pourraient jouer un rôle dans la transmission des infections nosocomiales et communautaires. Dans le cadre de prévention de ces risques, il faut sensibiliser les utilisateurs des téléphones mobiles l'importance du lavage des mains et l'utilisation des solutions hydro alcoolique pour désinfecter aussi bien les téléphones portables que les mains.

Death caused by ingestion of an ethanol-based hand sanitizer

BACKGROUND

The use of hand sanitizer is effective in preventing the transmission of disease. Many hand sanitizers are alcohol-based, and significant intoxications have occurred, often in health care facilities, including the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVES

We present this case to highlight potential toxicity after the ingestion of an ethanol-based hand sanitizer.

CASE REPORT

A 36-year-old man presented to the ED with ethanol intoxication. Ethanol breath analysis was measured at 278 mg/dL. After 4 h, the patient was less intoxicated and left the ED. Thirty minutes later, he was found apneic and pulseless in the ED waiting room bathroom after having ingested an ethanol-based hand sanitizer. Soon after a brief resuscitation, his serum ethanol was 526 mg/dL. He never regained consciousness and died 7 days later. No other cause of death was found.

CONCLUSION

The case highlights the potential for significant toxicity after the ingestion of a product found throughout health care facilities. Balancing the benefit of hand sanitizers for preventing disease transmission and their potential misuse remains a challenge.

An unusual cause of cardiac arrest in a hospitalized patient

We present an unusual case of 24 year old male who was hospitalized for dental procedure and developed cardiac arrest 2 days after the procedure. The patient presented with swelling of buccal cavity for which a biopsy was taken. Two days after the procedure, apparently normal patient suddenly presented at mid night with VT and VF, which were intractable requiring multiple DC shocks. During this period arterial blood gas analysis revealed severe acidosis. The circumstances led us to suspect poisoning as one of the cause for his medical condition. We looked for commonly available toxins. One of the commonly available toxins is hand sanitizer which contains Isopropyl alcohol, glycerin and perfume. Due to prolonged cardiac arrest and intractable arrhythmia patient had sustained hypoxic brain injury. Patient remained hemodynamically stable for next 9 days although his CNS status did not improve. Patient succumbed to sepsis on 9^th day. Healthcare professionals should be aware of such possibilities and treat the patients at the earliest and put a check on the easy availability of IPA based hand sanitizers.

Can a school-based hand hygiene program reduce asthma exacerbations among elementary school children?

BACKGROUND

Viral upper respiratory tract infections have been implicated as a major cause of asthma exacerbations among school-aged children. Regular hand washing is the most effective method to prevent the spread of viral respiratory tract infections, but effective hand-washing practices are difficult to establish in schools.

OBJECTIVES

This randomized controlled trial evaluated whether a standardized regimen of hand washing plus alcohol-based hand sanitizer could reduce asthma exacerbations more than schools' usual hand hygiene practices.

METHODS

This was a 2-year, community-based, randomized controlled crossover trial. Schools were randomized to usual care and then intervention (sequence 1) or intervention and then usual care (sequence 2). Intervention schools were provided with alcohol-based hand sanitizer, hand soap, and hand hygiene education. The primary outcome was the proportion of students experiencing an asthma exacerbation each month. Generalized estimating equations were used to model the difference in the marginal rate of exacerbations between sequences while controlling for individual demographic factors and the correlation within each student and between students within each school.

RESULTS

Five hundred twenty-seven students with asthma were enrolled among 31 schools. The hand hygiene intervention did not reduce the number of asthma exacerbations compared with the schools' usual hand hygiene practices (P = .132). There was a strong temporal trend because both sequences experienced fewer exacerbations during year 2 compared with year 1 (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the intervention was not found to be effective, the results were confounded by the H1N1 influenza pandemic that resulted in substantially increased hand hygiene behaviors and resources in usual-care schools. Therefore these results should be viewed cautiously.

Reduction in the incidence of influenza A but not influenza B associated with use of hand sanitizer and cough hygiene in schools: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laboratory-based evidence is lacking regarding the efficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as alcohol-based hand sanitizer and respiratory hygiene to reduce the spread of influenza.

METHODS

The Pittsburgh Influenza Prevention Project was a cluster-randomized trial conducted in 10 elementary schools in Pittsburgh, PA, during the 2007 to 2008 influenza season. Children in 5 intervention schools received training in hand and respiratory hygiene, and were provided and encouraged to use hand sanitizer regularly. Children in 5 schools acted as controls. Children with influenza-like illness were tested for influenza A and B by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

A total of 3360 children participated in this study. Using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, 54 cases of influenza A and 50 cases of influenza B were detected. We found no significant effect of the intervention on the primary study outcome of all laboratory-confirmed influenza cases (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54, 1.23). However, we did find statistically significant differences in protocol-specified ancillary outcomes. Children in intervention schools had significantly fewer laboratory-confirmed influenza A infections than children in control schools, with an adjusted IRR of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.87). Total absent episodes were also significantly lower among the intervention group than among the control group; adjusted IRR 0.74 (95% CI: 0.56, 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

NPIs (respiratory hygiene education and the regular use of hand sanitizer) did not reduce total laboratory-confirmed influenza. However, the interventions did reduce school total absence episodes by 26% and laboratory-confirmed influenza A infections by 52%. Our results suggest that NPIs can be an important adjunct to influenza vaccination programs to reduce the number of influenza A infections among children.

The effect of an instant hand sanitizer on blood glucose monitoring results

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes mellitus are instructed to clean their skin prior to self-monitoring of blood glucose to remove any dirt or food residue that might affect the reading. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers have become popular when soap and water are not available. The aim of this study was to determine whether a hand sanitizer is compatible with glucose meter testing and effective for the removal of exogenous glucose.

METHODS

We enrolled 34 nonfasting subjects [14 male/20 female, mean ages 45 (standard deviation, 9.4)] years, 2 with diagnosed diabetes/32 without known diabetes]. Laboratory personnel prepared four separate fingers on one hand of each subject by (1) cleaning the second finger with soap and water and towel drying (i.e., control finger), (2) cleaning the third finger with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer, (3) coating the fourth finger with cola and allowing it to air dry, and (4) coating the fifth finger with cola and then cleaning it with the instant hand sanitizer after the cola had dried. Finger sticks were performed on each prepared finger and blood glucose was measured. Several in vitro studies were also performed to investigate the effectiveness of the hand sanitizer for removal of exogenous glucose.z

RESULTS

Mean blood glucose values from fingers cleaned with instant hand sanitizer did not differ significantly from the control finger (p = .07 and .08, respectively) and resulted in 100% accurate results. Blood glucose data from the fourth (cola-coated) finger were substantially higher on average compared with the other finger conditions, but glucose data from the fifth finger (cola-coated then cleaned with hand sanitizer) was similar to the control finger. The data from in vitro experiments showed that the hand sanitizer did not adversely affect glucose meter results, but when an exogenous glucose interference was present, the effectiveness of the hand sanitizer on glucose bias (range: 6% to 212%) depended on the surface area and degree of dilution.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, use of an instant hand sanitizer was compatible with the results of a blood glucose monitor and did not affect finger stick blood glucose results. However, depending on surface area, hand sanitizers may not be adequate for cleaning the skin prior to glucose meter testing.