Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Hand Sanitizers, Hygiene and the Flu

The article, "How To Sell Germ Warfare; Can hand sanitizers like Purell really stop people from getting the flu?" on MSN is strongly critical of alcohol-based hand scrubs and their ability to reduce the spread of infectious disease, based on the results of studies performed by a Boston-based research group in 2005 and again in 2008 and at Columbia University. These and other studies showed that such scrubs were not particularly effective at reducing infection rates among various groups of people. Every semester, we perform a hand washing lab that demonstrates how a surgical scrub first removes transient bacteria, then residents of the pores and hair follicles. On several occasions, we have compared the effectiveness of antibacterial soaps and sanitizers against mild soap and have never found one is superior to the other or any significant difference in bacterial colony counts owing to the particular scrub used. This suggests that, with regards to effectiveness and expense, a good old-fashion hand washing with a mild soap is just as good and much cheaper. When I was asked about purchasing alcohol scrub dispensers for our computer labs, based on the concerns arising from the recent outbreak of H1N1 influenza, I said that I viewed this as a waste of time and school money. I was ignored, though the science backs me up. I think that such hand sanitizers are certainly better than no hand cleaning at all and do think that if they are used in conjunction with good standard precautions (washing hands, wearing gloves and changing gloves between patients) in hospitals, health care facilities, laboratories and doctor's offices they certainly have their place. But alcohol and triclosan-based hand scrubs are not a panacea and should not serve as a replacement for a good wash with soap and warm water.
This link kills spam