Food Protection Trends - August 2008 - (Page 574)

TABLE 3. Comparison of properties of hand hygiene techniques (47, 118) Soap Regular soap Antibacterial soap chlorhexidine triclosan Ethanol (60–85%) Disi nfectant Isopropanol (60–80%) No 30 s Applicable everywhere Applicable everywhere Not necessary n-propanol (60–80%) Pro perty Removal of debris and dirt Time needed Accessibility Location Drying facility Risks Contamination through Water tap Soap/alcohol Inflammable Development of resistance Effect on skin Skin hydration Skin barrier Skin irritation Allergy Decreased Impaired Likely Uncommon Yes Yes No - Yes 1–2 min Restricted by the presence of sink and water tap At sink and water tap Necessary Yes Yes No Moderate Low None No No Yes None None Decreased Impaired Likely Possible Decreased Impaired Possible Uncommon No change No change Very uncommon Extremely uncommona No change No change Very uncommon None No change No change Very uncommon None a individual cases, possibly caused by impurities Recommended procedure for the use of hand alcohols. The following procedure can be recommended: Take approximately 3 ml of alcohol disinfectant from a dispenser, and cover all surfaces of the hands and rub hands together thoroughly for at least 15 seconds, preferably until the gel is completely vaporized. Soap versus alcohols Each of the different methods of handwashing previously outlined has its own advantages and disadvantages, as summarized in Table 3. The use of hand alcohol has some benefits over washing with water and soap. It takes less time than washing with soap and, in contrast to washing, use of alcohol is not restricted by the absence of a sink or water tap in the working environment. Alcohols show activity against a wide range of microorganisms (Table 4). However, in the case of some viral infections or contamination with bacterial spores, it is better to use hand washing instead of alcohols, because spores and some non-enveloped viruses show little or no sensitivity to alcohols. The cost is higher for the use of alcohol-based hand rubs than for the use of antibacterial soap. The cost of antibacterial soap is 1.7 times higher than regular soap, while the cost of alcoholbased disinfectants is 2 times higher (17). However, when the time needed to carry out the respective procedures properly is taken into account, the use of disinfectants is in fact cheaper because little working time is lost (20). Some resident microorganisms are beneficial for skin health and protect the skin against pathogens. Disinfecting the hands, kills not only transient microflora, but also part of the resident microflora. Washing hands with water and soap removes mainly the transient microflora. When these beneficial microorganisms are killed and/or removed, they can no longer exert their antagonistic effect during the next contact with pathogenic microorganisms. If the hands are heavily soiled or visibly contaminated with dirt, it is strongly recommended that they be washed with water and soap, because alcohol-based sanitizers cannot remove the dirt and 574 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS | AUGUST 2008

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.