Food Protection Trends - August 2008 - (Page 571)

TABLE 2. Representative sampling of data of bacteria transferred between several surfaces, with or without protective measures (19, 34, 35, 84) Pathogen E. aerogenes E. aerogenes E. aerogenes E. aerogenes E. aerogenes E. aerogenes E. coli E. coli E. aerogenes E. aerogenes E. aerogenes E. aerogenes E. aerogenes E. aerogenes E. aerogenes a Protection None Polyethylene gloves Polyethylene gloves Polyethylene gloves Polyethylene gloves None Gloves (after 3 h) Gloves (after 3 h, change every hour) None Washing None None None None None Sourcea Chicken (8.3) Hands (6.8) Chicken (8.3) Hands (4.2) Chicken (8.3) Hands (3.7) Beef (5) Beef (5) Chicken (8.4) Hands (6.6) Hands (3.9) Hands (6.6) Water tap (4.4) Chicken (6.1) Cutting board (4.9) Targetb Hands (6.8) Salad (3.2) Hands (4.2) Salad (0.9) Hands (4.2) Salad (2.7) Hands (2.2) Hands (2.9) Hands (6.6) Hands (2.6) Salad (2.9) Water tap (2.6) Hands (2.4) Cutting board (4.9) Salad (4.3) average initial inoculum used to infest the source surface expressed between brackets in log CFu; average of bacteria that are transferred to the target surface expressed between brackets in log CFu b removed when the microbial load on the hand surface is high. Hence, mechanical removal is not absolute (19, 47). Several publications have reported on the efficacy of different handwashing techniques. However, the available literature is not unequivocal. A possible explanation for the large variation in the experimental data is that the efficacy of washing hands depends on several factors contributing to a good result. The total reduction of microorganisms on hands depends on various factors, such as the initial contamination, the handwashing protocol, the type of soap and the drying procedure (84, 85). Antibacterial soap. Regular soap has little or no antimicrobial activity; therefore, antimicrobial components are often added. In addition to physically removing microorganisms by friction and dilution, antibacterial soaps may also reduce the level of microorganisms by killing them. Several reports indicate that the use of such antibacterial soaps is more effective than use of regular soap, and these studies therefore strongly recommended the use of antibacterial soaps, especially when hands are not sufficiently rubbed (56, 85). However, the benefit of antibacterial soaps over regular soaps is debated; microorganisms vary in their susceptibility, and some microorganisms are even insensitive to antimicrobial chemicals added to soap. Therefore, addition of antibacterial components to soap may be inadequate and does not guarantee a safe level of antibacterial activity. Several publications state that plain soap is as effective as antibacterial soap when used properly and frequently (reviewed in 2). To these authors, antibacterial soap has no additional advantage. Furthermore, some authors postulate that, over time, microorganisms might develop resistance to the antibacterial components used in antibacterial soaps (47, 111). Triclosan and chlorhexidine are antimicrobial components that are frequently added to soap. Triclosan is a phenolic compound, 5-chloro-2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) phenol, that is usually added in concentrations of 0.1–0.4% (2). Triclosan shows antimicrobial activity against a broad range of microorganisms. It has some antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral activities but little activity against some Gram-negative bacilli (9, 106). A recent literature review indicated that antibacterial soaps with 0.1–0.4% triclosan have no significant advantage over plain soap regarding removal of microorganisms or reduction of illnesses. However, in most studies in which soaps with triclosan concentrations of 1% or more were used, a significant increase in antimicrobial efficacy was observed (2). Chlorhexidine, a cationic diguanide, exists in several forms. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is mostly used in concentrations of 0.5%–1% in aqueous AUGUST 2008 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 571

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - August 2008

Food Protection Trends - August 2008 Contents Sustaining Members Lone Star Perspective from Your President Commentary from the Executive Director Hand Hygiene in the Food Industry: Resolving an Enigma? Food Safety Awareness: Concerns, Practices, and Openness to Change of College Students with Health and Non-Health Majors Highlights from the Brazil International Food Safety Conference Audiovisual Library Listing Audiovisual Library Order Form New Members Updates News Industry Products Coming Events Advertising Index Journal of Food Protection� Table of Contents Booklet Order Form Membership Application

Food Protection Trends - August 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.