Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Removal, Kill, and Transfer of Bacteria from Hands by Antibacterial or Nonantibacterial Soaps After Handling Raw Poultry.
Sexton, Jonathan D; Picton, Jack L; Herdt, Brandon; Black, Elaine; Reynolds, Kelly A.
Afiliación
  • Sexton JD; The University of Arizona Zuckerman College of Public Health, 1295 N. Martin Ave., Tucson, AZ 85724, USA. Electronic address: sextonj@arizona.edu.
  • Picton JL; The University of Arizona Zuckerman College of Public Health, 1295 N. Martin Ave., Tucson, AZ 85724, USA. Electronic address: jackpicton@arizona.edu.
  • Herdt B; Ecolab Research and Development, 655 Lone Oak Drive, Eagan, MN 55121, USA. Electronic address: brandon.herdt@ecolab.com.
  • Black E; Ecolab Research and Development, 655 Lone Oak Drive, Eagan, MN 55121, USA. Electronic address: elaine.black@ecolab.com.
  • Reynolds KA; The University of Arizona Zuckerman College of Public Health, 1295 N. Martin Ave., Tucson, AZ 85724, USA. Electronic address: reynolds@arizona.edu.
J Food Prot ; 87(6): 100272, 2024 Jun.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38579970
ABSTRACT
Hand hygiene is broadly recognized as a critical intervention in reducing the spread of disease-causing pathogens in both professional and personal uses. In this study, the impact of antibacterial (AB) or nonantibacterial soaps on the removal and postwash transfer of E. coli following the handling of raw poultry was assessed. Baseline bacterial contamination ranged between 107 and 109 CFU per hand. Hands were washed for 30 s in 40°C ± 2°C tap water using 2 mL of AB soap (0.5% and 1.0% Chloroxylenol, 0.5% Benzalkonium Chloride, or 4.0% Chlorhexidine Gluconate), non-AB soap (cosmetic/plain soap), or water. Postwash, water, and non-AB soap had a mean 3.63 and 3.65 Log10 reduction of E. coli on hands. AB treatments had a mean 4.19-4.35 Log10 reduction. Rinse water had mean bacterial counts of 8.62 and 8.88 Log10 CFU/mL for non-AB soap and water and 5.37-6.90 Log10 CFU/mL for AB treatments. Bacterial transfer was assessed by following the test subject's handling of a sterile polymer knife handle for 30 s postwash. E. coli transfer ranged from 263 to 903 CFU/handle for AB soaps and 1572 or 1709 CFU/handle for water and non-AB soap. Differences between AB and non-AB treatments were statistically significant (p < 0.0001) for hands and rinse water. Differences in transfer from hands to knife handle were not statistically significant (p = 0.139). Combined, these data highlight significant differences in the performance of AB soaps relative to non-AB soaps in a food handling environment-specific usage example and provide an unexplored assessment of the bactericidal vs. removal effects of AB vs. non-AB soaps on bacteria removed from the hands. These data reinforce the importance of hand hygiene, provide new details on the differences between AB vs. non-AB soaps, and highlight potential differences to inform food handling environment operators and public health personnel on how these products may impact food safety.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Aves de Corral / Jabones / Recuento de Colonia Microbiana / Escherichia coli / Antibacterianos Límite: Animals / Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Food Prot Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Aves de Corral / Jabones / Recuento de Colonia Microbiana / Escherichia coli / Antibacterianos Límite: Animals / Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Food Prot Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article