• Journal of the Korea Convergence Society
• /
• v.10 no.9
• /
• pp.69-74
• /
• 2019

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.

• Journal of dental hygiene science
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.51-56
• /
• 2022

Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic increased awareness regarding the importance of hand hygiene in infection prevention. Although social distancing and vaccination are the strongest ways to prevent infection, personal hand hygiene is the most basic and easiest way to maintain public health. However, in addition to hand washing using running water, sanitizing tissues, and disinfection products are convenient for hand hygiene, especially outdoors. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the appropriateness of individual hand hygiene methods. In this study, we investigated the degree of hand hygiene offered by various hygiene products and hand drying methods for maintaining hand hygiene. Methods: An LED UV light kit was used for fluorescent observation of hand contamination. Bacteria from the hands were cultured to compare the degree of hand hygiene offered by various hygiene products. Bacteria were cultured in a hand-shaped medium dish to identify areas vulnerable to hand hygiene. Moreover, the degree of hand hygiene was observed according to the drying method using bacterial cultures. Results: We confirmed that hand washing under running water with antibacterial soap, sanitizing with alcohol gel disinfectant, and wiping with antibacterial wet wipes was effective for hand hygiene compared to washing under running water alone. However, for all hygiene products, a large number of bacteria were detected on the fingertips. We verified that natural drying, rather than rubbing, is effective in maintaining hand hygiene. Conclusion: These results suggest that hand hygiene products and drying methods are critical in hand hygiene management. Therefore, these results provide a basis for determining whether an individual's hand hygiene management method is appropriate.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.87-96
• /
• 2020

This study examined the hygiene management of ultrasound probes by examining the cleaning tools for hygiene management of ultrasound probes, the presence or absence of wearing glove as a personal protective equipment, and the awareness of ultrasound probe hygiene. Parts 154 questionnaire about people working in the ultrasound room were surveyed and analyzed. The single gel removal tool of the ultrasound probe was most frequently used with a 48.7% cotton towel, and for double gel removal tools, the first gel removal tool was 42.4% cotton towel and the second gel removal tool was used with 57.6% wet tissue. Antimicrobial wipes were the most commonly used drug and instrument used in ultrasound hygiene management at 58.4%. According to the survey of the presence or absence of wearing glove during ultrasound examination, 46.8% were found to be unworn. When examining the intracavity ultrasound, 30.9% of those who do not wear glove and 61.0% of hygiene awareness of ultrasound probes are 'normal'. According to age, ultrasound probe gel removal tool was not significant difference(p>0.05). According to the working organization and the working department, it was significant difference to wearing gloves during ultrasound examination(p<0.05). Therefore, in order to properly sanitize the ultrasound probe, it is considered that a guideline for hygiene management of the ultrasound probe that fits the situation in Korea is necessary, and it is considered that thorough hygiene management training for inspector is necessary for efficient hygiene management of the ultrasound probe.

• Journal of Food Hygiene and Safety
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.46-54
• /
• 2023

In this study, we examined the residual amounts of formaldehyde in hygiene products to determine the safety of these products in Gyeonggi-do. Formaldehyde is among the harmful substances that may remain within certain hygiene products. On the basis of an analysis of formaldehyde in a total of 222 items (6 disposable paper straws, 9 disposable paper napkins, 21 toilet papers, 13 disposable dishcloths, 16 disposable paper towels, 32 wet wipes for food service restaurants, 25 disposable cotton swabs, and 100 disposable diapers), we detected traces in three wet wipes for food service restaurants (1.87 to 4.45 mg/kg), which is approximately 9% to 22% of the standard level (20 mg/kg). We established that all the hygiene products assessed in the study met the individual standards for formaldehyde, thereby confirming that safe products are being distributed. In the standards and specifications for hygiene products, the formaldehyde test method is regulated for application with respect to three categories based on the type of product. The samples used in this study were of types for which method 1 or method 2 is applied, and the limits of detection, limits of quantification, linearity, and recovery rates were reviewed to verify the validity of each test method. When method 2 was applied, we experienced interference when performing analysis at a wavelength of 412 nm, which was associated with the influence of impurities in some samples of disposable cotton swabs and disposable diapers. Consequently, in these cases, the results were compared after analysis using method 1. By comparing the results obtained using method 2 with those obtained using method 1, the latter of which were unaffected by the interference of impurities, we were able to detect formaldehyde at low concentrations. These findings accordingly highlight the necessity to standardize the formaldehyde test method for future analyses.