Hand Sanitizers...Do They Really Work?

http://biology.about.com/od/microbio...sanitizers.htm

Antibacterial hand sanitizers are marketed to the public as an effective way to "wash one's hands" when traditional soap and water are not available. These "waterless" products are particularly popular with parents of small children. Manufacturers of hand sanitizers claim that the sanitizers kill 99.9 percent of germs. Since you naturally use hand sanitizers to cleanse your hands, the assumption is that 99.9 percent of harmful germs are killed by the sanitizers. Recent research suggests that this is not the case.

How do hand sanitizers work?

Hand sanitizers work by stripping away the outer layer of oil on the skin. This usually prevents bacteria present in the body from coming to the surface of the hand. However, these bacteria that are normally present in the body are generally not the kinds of bacteria that will make us sick. In a review of the research, Barbara Almanza, an associate professor at Purdue University who teaches safe sanitation practices to workers, came to an interesting conclusion. She notes that the research shows that hand sanitizers do not significantly reduce the number of bacteria on the hand and in some cases may potentially increase the amount of bacteria on the hand. So the question arises, how can the manufacturers make the 99.9 percent claim?

How can the manufacturers make the 99.9 percent claim?

The manufacturers of the products test the products on inanimate surfaces hence they are able to derive the claims of 99.9 percent of bacteria killed. If the products were fully tested on hands, there would no doubt be different results.
Since there is inherent complexity in the human hand, testing hands would definitely be more difficult. Using surfaces with controlled variables is an easier way to obtain some type of consistency in the results. But as we are all aware, everyday life is not as consistent.

Hand Sanitizers vs. Soap and Water
Interestingly enough, the Food and Drug Administration, in regards to regulations concerning proper procedures for food services, recommends that hand sanitizers not be used in place of soap and water but only as an adjunct.

Likewise, Almanza recommends that to properly sanitize the hands, soap and water should be used. A hand sanitizer can not and should not take the place of proper cleansing procedures with soap and water. What about antibacterial soaps?

Research on the use of antibacterial soaps has shown that plain soaps are just as effective as antibacterial soaps in reducing bacteria related illnesses. In fact, using consumer antibacterial soap products may increase bacterial resistance to antibiotics in some bacteria. These conclusions only apply to consumer antibacterial soaps and not to those used in hospitals or other clinical areas.

Other studies suggest that ultra-clean environments and the persistent use of antibacterial soaps and hand sanitizers may inhibit proper immune system development in children. This is because inflammatory systems require greater exposure to common germs for proper development.

The local pet shop owner and I had a discussion about this a couple of weeks ago. I'm going to have to share this with him. Thanks!

Originally Posted by RustyNuts

The local pet shop owner and I had a discussion about this a couple of weeks ago. I'm going to have to share this with him. Thanks!

Came across this study (or a similar one) when I first started seeing those hand sanitizers popping up on tables at Reptile Shows; it was a great idea, so I thought.

I researched to make sure that it was actually doing the job that I was hoping it was doing....

I never trusted the hand sanitizers at expos anyway, so every time I handle a new snake at an expo I roll up my sleeves beforehand and then immediately head for the bathroom afterward to wash my hands and arms. I don't care how clean someone's table and/or animals are, I don't want to bring anything home with me.

Originally Posted by RustyNuts

I never trusted the hand sanitizers at expos anyway, so every time I handle a new snake at an expo I roll up my sleeves beforehand and then immediately head for the bathroom afterward to wash my hands and arms. I don't care how clean someone's table and/or animals are, I don't want to bring anything home with me.

I just stopped touching animals, because usually an animal that I was interested in, was way too far from the bathroom and my understanding is that pathogenes can hitch rides on clothes anyway.

It progress from not touching..to running in to get supplies, and doing a once around the block sightsee and then out the back door.

I did not use hand sanitizers when working as a nurse, always used soap and water. Many of my nurse peers make a similar choice. Considering what one might find at an expo, I myself would definitely play it safe and use what I personally deem more effective.

The hand sanitizers are fairly effective at their intended purpose...but, just like disinfectants, most people combine unrealistic expectations with incorrect use.
a) the most effective hand sanitizers are over 60% alcohol.
b) effectiveness is greatly reduced with any soiling (just like with cages - clean first, then disinfect)
c) Technique is still important. Most people don't wash effectively (for antimicrobial reduction), and they don't use sanitizers effectively either. The process needs to involve a sufficient amount of sanitizer, and reasonably brisk rubbing of then hands...care needs to be taken to include ALL surfaces, ie between fingers, fingertips, and nails.

I'm sure I can dig up multiple studies that show a reduction of microbes with proper use of hand sanitizers...but it bears pointing out that there will always be the occasional cases that don't show improvement or show increased presence, and that some pathogens aren't likely to be significantly impacted with the small exposure time of "normal" hand cleaning.

Aways willing to learn something new, because research results are:

The manufacturers of the products test the products on inanimate surfaces hence they are able to derive the claims of 99.9 percent of bacteria killed. If the products were fully tested on hands, there would no doubt be different results. so if you can dig up some research results of Hand/skin applications, that would be great.

Originally Posted by hhmoore

The hand sanitizers are fairly effective at their intended purpose...but, just like disinfectants, most people combine unrealistic expectations with incorrect use.
a) the most effective hand sanitizers are over 60% alcohol.
b) effectiveness is greatly reduced with any soiling (just like with cages - clean first, then disinfect)
c) Technique is still important. Most people don't wash effectively (for antimicrobial reduction), and they don't use sanitizers effectively either. The process needs to involve a sufficient amount of sanitizer, and reasonably brisk rubbing of then hands...care needs to be taken to include ALL surfaces, ie between fingers, fingertips, and nails.

I'm sure I can dig up multiple studies that show a reduction of microbes with proper use of hand sanitizers...but it bears pointing out that there will always be the occasional cases that don't show improvement or show increased presence, and that some pathogens aren't likely to be significantly impacted with the small exposure time of "normal" hand cleaning.

Dang..can't edit!

Aways willing to learn something new, because research results are:

The manufacturers of the products test the products on inanimate surfaces hence they are able to derive the claims of 99.9 percent of bacteria killed. If the products were fully tested on hands, there would no doubt be different results.

So if you can dig up some research results of Hand/skin applications, that would be great.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

So if you can dig up some research results of Hand/skin applications, that would be great.

Hand cleaner tests on nonporous surfaces are nothing more than tests of the ingredients....you know me better than that, Deborah .