• Journal of Korean Biological Nursing Science
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.127-137
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this study was to compare the hand disinfection effect of waterless alcohol gel hand washing agent with that of soap and water, 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, and 10% povidone-iodine. Hands of fourty subjects were artificially contaminated with Acinetobacter baumannii $5m{\ell}$ and randomly distributed to each hand washing methods. Samples were collected from gloved hand by glove juice sampling procedure. Mean log reduction after hand washing were compared with baseline values. Number of microorganisms were converted to log and tested by ANOVA in SPSSWIN 10.0. Mean log reduction of soap and water, alcohol gel, 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, 10% povidone-iodine were $2.76{\pm}0.62$, $2.97{\pm}0.56$, $4.66{\pm}1.70$, $4.60{\pm}0.91$, respectively. The bactericidal effect of alcohol gel was similar to that of soap and water, but the effect was much less than chlorhexidine gluconate and povidone-iodine(p<0.001). In terms of microorganism reduction, the efficacy of waterless alcohol gel was almost the same as soap and water hand washing. Further evaluation of the bactericidal effect of waterless alcohol gel is needed because waterless alcohol gel is simple, convenient, and non-irritating hand washing agent and also very effective in busy hospital environment.

• Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.55-65
• /
• 2009

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the 1% chlorhexidine gluconate/61% ethanol (CHG/ethanol), 45% ethanol/18% 1-propanol (ethanol/propanol) and 7.5% povidone-iodine (PVI) scrub with brush to evaluate their antimicrobial effect. Method: Utilizing repeated measures design, 9 nurses participated in the study. Glove juice sampling procedure was used to evaluate microbial hand counts before the surgical hand antisepsis, one minute after hand wash, and after the surgery. Results: Waterless rub using CHG and ethanol combination resulted in a 3.94 log reduction at 1 min and 2.78 log reduction at 3 hrs. Ethanol/propanol resulted in a 2.42 at 1 min and 2.22 at 3 hrs. The traditional scrub using PVI with brush resulted in a 0.94 at 1 min and 0.95 at 3 hrs (p=.003) and 3 hrs (p=.026) after the surgical hand antisepsis. Repeated measures ANOVA results showed that there was a statistically significant difference among group (p=.002). Duncan post hoc test result showed that the PVI was less effective (p<.05) in sterilizing microbials on hands than CHG/ethanol or ethanol/propanol. Conclusion: Both of the two alcohol-based antiseptic rubs are acceptable alternatives to the PVI with brush for surgical hand antisepsis.