Sanitaire — Instant Hand Sanitizer for Clean Hands Without Soap & Water

Are Your Coworkers Making You Sick?

A recent study performed by CNN’s research group suggests that up to 80 percent of Americans go to work while they are sick. With more and more hours being spent in the average American job, there is no escaping the germs that are being spread by your ill coworkers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 5 to 20 percent of Americans contract the influenza virus annually. This leads to 200,000 hospitalizations and 36,000 deaths. In addition to influenza, the vast majority of Americans contract the common cold every year, with outbreaks typically occurring in the fall and spring. These numbers show that avoiding contact with these viral germs simply is not possible. So then how can we stay healthy?

A study published in the "British Medical Journal" in November found that hand washing may be more effective than vaccines at preventing the spread of illnesses such as the flu. More importantly the CDC now endorses the use of hand antiseptic’s, such as Sani-Tear Inc’s Sanitaire Instant Hand Sanitizer, as being more effective at killing bacteria than regular hand washing. They promote that keeping hands clean is one of the most important steps we can take to avoid getting sick and spreading germs to others. In Kathy Dix’s article, CDC’s Endorsement of Alcohol Hand Rubs Launches New Era in Hand Hygiene, she spoke with Didier Pittet the co-author of the CDC’s Hand Hygiene Guidelines. In the article Pittet implied “that traditional soap and water hand washing was going the way of the dodo bird. In most situations, conventional hand washing with soap and water will always be relatively inconvenient compared to alcohol based hand rubs.”

Sani-Tear Inc’s Sanitaire Instant Hand Antiseptic has been proven effective against many types of harmful bacteria including the new "Super Bug" Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus or MRSA. Our high alcohol content makes us more than 99.99% effective against these viruses and more. However, as Pittet mentions “Healthcare workers fear developing dry skin from frequent hand rub use. The problem is that if you ask healthcare workers to apply in a similar frequency (compared to soap and water washing) alcohol vs. soap, the skin is killed a lot more by the soap than by the alcohol.” According to Pittet, the public is only 10 to 15 percent compliant with soap and water. With alcohol that number rises to 40 to 80 percent compliant. Sanitaire has developed an effective moisturizer to accompany the high alcohol content. It also contains a specially formulated alcohol, that is commonly used is in the cosmetic industry. With each application the hands are disinfected and moisturize, leaving your hands feeling brand new.

~ CNN.com ~

Hand Sanitizer Alert

To the Editor: Community-based epidemiologic studies have shown beneficial effects of hand sanitizers. Hand sanitizers were effective in reducing gastrointestinal illnesses in households (1), in curbing absentee rates in elementary schools (2), and in reducing illnesses in university dormitories (3). An Internet search retrieved recommendations for hand hygiene from schools, daycare centers, outdoor guides, and animal shelters.

To reduce infections in healthcare settings, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are recommended as a component of hand hygiene (4). For alcohol-based hand sanitizers, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (5) recommends a concentration of 60% to 95% ethanol or isopropanol, the concentration range of greatest germicidal efficacy. While nonhealthcare groups also recommend alcohol-based hand sanitizers, they usually do not specify an appropriate concentration of alcohol.

Some products marketed to the public as antimicrobial hand sanitizers are not effective in reducing bacterial counts on hands. In the course of a classroom demonstration of the comparative efficacy of hospital-grade antimicrobial soap and alcohol-based sanitizers, a product with 40% ethanol as the active ingredient was purchased at a retail discount store. Despite a label claim of reducing "germs and harmful bacteria" by 99.99%, we observed an apparent increase in the concentration of bacteria in handprints impressed on agar plates after cleansing. None of the other hand cleaners showed such an effect.

Subsequently, we conducted more formal handwashing trials to verify the preliminary finding. Our goal was not to test the products by using the FDA tentative final monograph standard (5) but to determine whether a marketed product fails as an antiseptic because of its low alcohol content. To test whether the relatively low concentration of ethanol was the source of treatment failure, we included trials with laboratory-formulated 40% ethanol; we also supplemented the suspect gel with ethanol to a final concentration of 62%. Five hand hygiene treatments were compared: tap water (4 trials), 40% ethanol (5 trials), commercial gels with active ingredients of either 40% or 62% ethanol (9 trials each), and commercial 40% gel supplemented to 62% (5 trials).

At the beginning of each work day, the dominant hand of each volunteer was placed on 150-mm tryptic soy agar plates for 5 s, followed by hand treatment. Each alcohol-based hand treatment involved wetting the hands with 1.5 mL test product followed by vigorously rubbing hands together for 15 s. The tap water treatment differed in that hands were held under running water and vigorously rubbed together for 15 s, followed by air drying. After hands were dry, they were reapplied to a fresh plate for 5 s. Participants were assigned to treatments randomly, but each had to complete each treatment in a week. CFU counts before and after treatment were log transformed to normalize data and compared by using paired tests.

Tap water, 40% ethanol, and 40% ethanol gel yielded no significant reductions in CFU (Table). The 40% gel supplemented with ethanol to a final concentration of 62% reduced the mean CFU by 90%, a level of reduction similar to that of the 62% ethanol gel. Moreover, the 62% gel and the supplemented 40% gel reduced CFU by >50% on all participants. In contrast, only one third of participants showed >50% reductions with 40% gel, one fifth with 40% ethanol, and none with tap water. Differences in pretreatment CFU were not significant (analysis of variance F = 1.81, df = 4, 27, p = 0.16). In addition to failing to decrease CFU, colonies were more evenly distributed on postwash plates after use of 40% gel. The even postwash colony distribution may be caused by dispersion of aggregates of microbes without sufficient killing.

Qualitative colony assessment suggested 40% gel and 40% ethanol were as effective as 62% gel against fungi; in contrast, bacterial CFU tended to show little change or increases. The most prevalent bacteria were staphylococci, including those with characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus.

After conducting experiments, a survey of 6 local retail chains found no substandard products. In the fall of 2005, a more extensive survey of 18 retail chains (supermarkets, drug stores, general retailers, specialty shops) uncovered a substandard product at all 3 stores of 1 deep-discount chain. The marketing profile of deep-discount chains suggests that poorer segments of the population may be more at risk of purchasing inadequate antiseptic gels. Moreover, 40% ethanol products may be stockpiled in homes and offices. An extensive Internet survey identified no additional substandard commercial products. However, the alcohol content of less-common brands was not always available online, and several Internet sites provide recipes for a bubble gum–scented children's hand sanitizer that contains 33% isopropanol as the sole active ingredient. Educational efforts should emphasize that effective sanitizers must be of a sufficient alcohol concentration.

The efficacy experiments reported here reinforce what has been known for >50 years: 40% ethanol is a less effective bacterial antiseptic than 60% ethanol (6). Consumers should be alerted to check the alcohol concentration in hand sanitizers because substandard products may be marketed to the public.

Scott A. Reynolds, Foster Levy and Elaine S. Walker, James H. Quillen Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mountain Home, Tennessee, USA; and East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA




Privacy Policy \| Return Policy		Sani-Tear Inc © All rights reserved.