DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Bacterial Removal Effectiveness by Different Hand Washing Methods

손세정 방법에 따른 세균 제거 효과 비교에 대한 융복합 연구

  • Chong, Moo-Sang (Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, Cheju Halla University) ;
  • Lee, Jang-Jin (Department of Neurology, Jeju National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jiro (Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, Cheju Halla University)
  • 정무상 (제주한라대학교 임상병리과) ;
  • 이장진 (제주대학교병원 신경과) ;
  • 김지로 (제주한라대학교 임상병리과)
  • Received : 2019.05.30
  • Accepted : 2019.09.20
  • Published : 2019.09.28

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficiency of bacteria removal of three different types of hand washing methods. This study performed a convenient sampling of 30 volunteers in cross-over design. The study divided the 30 volunteers into three random groups. The three groups were asked to use antiseptic soap, alcohol-based hand disinfectant, and disposable wet wipes respectively. The result of the study showed that mean log reduction values after each had washing method were $-0.45({\pm}0.69)$ with antiseptic soap and water, $-1.19({\pm}0.52)$ with alcohol-based hand disinfectant and $-0.75({\pm}0.58)$ with disposable wet wipes. The difference was statistically significant when using alcohol-based hand disinfectant compared to the other two methods (p=0.000). According to this study, alcohol-based hand disinfectant was the most effective product based on bacteria removal for hand washing. Advantages of using alcohol-based hand disinfectant are that it is cost-effective and easy to buy, also eco-friendly. Therefore, to prevent infectious disease, providing alcohol-based hand disinfectant to every corner of the community will be very helpful.

본 연구에 목적은 손세정제, 손소독제, 일회용 위생물티슈를 이용하여 손 위생용품간의 세균 제거 효과를 교차 실험설계를 통해 비교하는 융복합 연구를 진행 하였다. 연구를 위해 30명의 연구참여자를 무작위 배정하여 세 개의 군으로 나누어 총 89개의 샘플에 대한 실험을 진행하였고 세균의 증식능력을 CFU로 측정하였다. 손 위생 전 손 위생용품을 사용하였을 때의 세균 감소값은 손세정제 사용 후에서 $-0.45({\pm}0.69)\;{\log}\;CFU/ml$, 알코올 손 소독제를 이용한 경우 $-1.19({\pm}0.52)\;{\log}\;CFU/ml$, 일회용 물티슈를 이용한 경우 $-0.75({\pm}0.58)\;{\log}\;CFU/ml$로 대조군과 비교하여 실험군에서 낮게 나타났다. 연구결과 손세정제를 사용하였을 때 사용하지 않은 경우보다 세균제거능력이 효과적인 것을 확인할 수 있었으며, 알코올 소독제 사용이 살균효과가 가장 우수한 것으로 나타났다. 그러므로 경제적이고 손쉽게 사용이 가능한 알코올 손소독제를 공공시설에 비치하는 것이 감염병을 예방에 가장 효과적일 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. D. F. Zhang et al. (2013). Relationship between hand washing pratices and infectious diseases in Korean students. J Agric Med Community Health, 40(4), 206-220. DOI: 10.5393/JAMCH.2015.40.4.206
  2. J. S. Park, D. B. Kim & H. G. Min. (2011). Comparison of Desiccation Methods after Hand Washing for Removing Bacteria. Journal of Korean biological nursing science, 13(1), 8-15.
  3. M. A. Han. (2019). Hand Hygiene Practices Among Adults with Diabetes Living in Communities: The 2015 Korea Community Health Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 16(7), 1279. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16071279
  4. V. Curtis & S. Caimcross. (2003). Effect of washing hands with soap on diarrhoea risk in the community: A systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 3(5), 275-281. DOI: 10.1016/s1473-3099(03)00606-6
  5. J. S. Jeong, J. W. Choi, S. H. Lee & Y. S. Kim. (2003). Hand Hygiene Effects Measured by Hand Culture in Intensive Care Unit. Journal of Korean biological nursing science, 5(2), 21-30.
  6. M. S. Chong. (2016). Bacterial Contamination in Disposable Wet Wipes from General Restaurants. Korean J Clin Lab Sci, 48(3), 237-241. DOI: 10.15324/kjcls.2016.48.3.237
  7. World Health Organization. (2009). WHO Guidelines on hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient Safety Challenge Clean Care Is Safer Care. World Health Organization, Geneva. 30-84.
  8. N. A. Gold & U. Avva. (2018). Alcohol Sanitizer. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing
  9. M. Zaragoza, M. Sallés, J. Gomez, J. M. Bayas & A Trilla. (1999). Handwashing with soap or alcoholic solutions? A randomized clinical trial of its effectiveness. Am J Infect Control, 27(3), 258-261. DOI: 10.1053/ic.1999.v27.a97622
  10. G. Kampf. (2008). How effective are hand antiseptics for the postcontamination treatment of hands when used as recommended?. Am J Infect Control, 36(5), 356-360. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2007.07.017
  11. S. H. Kim, J. W. Ryu, N. S. Kim & H. J. Choi. (2006). The risk factors and prognosis of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteremia : focus on nosocomial acquisition. The Korean Journal of Medicine, 71(4), 405-414.
  12. J. H. Lee et al. (2011). Etiology of invasive bacterial infections in immunocompetent children in Korea (1996-2005): a retrospective multicenter study. J Korean Med Sci, 26(2), 174-183. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2011.26.2.174
  13. J. Le et al. (2017). Epidemiology and hospital readmission associated with complications of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in pediatrics over a 25-year period. Epidemiology and Infection. 145(12), 2631-2639. DOI: 10.1017/s0950268817001571
  14. J. S. Shin & S. H. Park. (1986). Survey on bacteriological contamination of restaurants in Seoul area. Korean J Sanitation. 1(1), 41-46.
  15. Korea consumer agency. (2006). Survey of safety for commercial use hygiene products (Paper napkins, wet tissues, wet towels). http://www.kca.go.kr
  16. CIVIC news. (2016). Cetylpyridinium Chloride, which is a consistent of cleaning solution of dead body, is in wet wipes Civic news [Online]. http://www.civicnews.com
  17. H. J. Breidablik, D. E. Lysebo, L. Johannessen, A. Skare, J. R. Andersen, O. T. Kleiven. (2019). Ozonized water as an alternative to alcohol-based hand disinfection. J Hosp Infect. 102(4), 419-424. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2019.01.026.