Authors are requested to submit the manuscripts only through IJAM web portal, submission directly to journal mail ids will not be considered.
IJAM is now a member of Crossref. Articles published from the year 2017 onwards are assigned to DOI. • Articles are invited for the first issue of the year 2022.
Manan Suryavanshi1, Neelam Sachdeva2, Jiten Jaipuria3,Vandana Bhushan2, Kavita Sharma2
1IBDP Grade 12, Shiv Nadar School, Pahari Road, Block E, DLF Phase 1, Sector 26A,Gurugram, Haryana 1220112Department of Microbiology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre,New Delhi-110085, India.3Department of Uro-oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre,New Delhi-110085, India
Ind.J.Applied.Microbiol. 2021 .23(2) : 11-29
The world health organization (WHO) in 2009 in their consensus recommendation onhand hygiene has suggested two formulations of hand sanitizers which are also the basis of maincomponents of most commercial and medical grade hand sanitizers today. We evaluated the in vitroantimicrobial efficacy of ten different hand sanitizers (seven commercial including herbal (sanitizer1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10) and three of medical grade (sanitizers 6, 7 and 8). Method: The efficacy ofhand sanitizers was checked against five ATCC strains: Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcushemolyticus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus faecalis. Experimentwas performed in three parts. The first part was performed in triplicate to see the zone of inhibitionfor each sanitizer. The second part was performed to see the duration of action of each handsanitizer and third part (in triplicates) was performed to see the efficacy of active componentsindividually (alcohol and disinfectant in different dilutions). Results: Sanitizers with ethanol andchlorhexidine as main ingredients (6 and 8) showed zone of inhibition for all tested gram positiveand negative bacteria. Sanitizer 7 (propanol and mecetronium ethyl sulphate as main components)showed zone of inhibition for all tested bacteria except Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Other handsanitizers did not show any zone of inhibition after incubation for 24 hours at 37oC. For second parthand sanitizer 6inhibited growth for all bacteria at all-time points (15, 30, 45 &60 seconds) and Sanitizer 8(ethanol and chlorhexidine as main components) showed growth inhibition only after15seconds. Other hand sanitizers did not show any growth inhibition. For the third part, alldilutions of ethanol and propanol (60%, 70% and 80%) were unable to inhibit growth of any ATCCstrain. Disinfectant 2.5v/v chlorhexidine was able to inhibit all five bacteria.0.2 gm mecetroniumethyl sulphate showed inhibition for all except Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Conclusion: Handsanitizers with alcohol only as their main ingredient were unable to inhibit growth of ATCC strains.Hand sanitizers with both alcohol and disinfectant performed better .These findings preludes forfurther in vivo studies to validate 2009-WHO hand sanitizer preparations and suggestmodifications.
Keywords: Hand Sanitizer, WHO, alcohol, ethanol, chlorhexidine, mecetronium ethyl sulphate
Download this article as