Skin- and Eco-Friendly Hand Sanitizer: A Novel Composition of Natural Extracts to Prevent the Spread of Respiratory Viruses.

Respiratory diseases caused by viruses are a serious global health threat. Although the use of hand sanitizers containing alcohol and synthetic antiseptic agents is recognized as an effective, simple, and low-cost measure to combat viral transmission, they can harm human health and the environment. Thus, this work aimed to study the efficacy of combining Camellia sinensis and Chamomilla recutita extracts in a skin- and eco-friendly leave-on hand sanitizer to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses. An oil-in-water emulsion containing C. recutita oily extract (5.0%), C. recutita glycolic extract (0.2%) and C. sinensis glycolic extract (5.0%) showed virucidal activity against HAdV-2 (respiratory virus) and two surrogate viruses of SARS-CoV-2 (HSV-1 and MVH-3), showing great potential to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses. These natural extracts combined are also promising to combat a broad spectrum of other viruses, in the form of antiseptic mouthwashes or throat sprays, surface disinfectants, and veterinary products, among others. Complementally, the developed hand sanitizer demonstrated efficacy against bacteria and fungus.

Effectiveness of plant-based hand sanitizer incorporating Quercus infectoria gall extract.

AIMS: Quercus infectoria (Qi), a traditional herbal plant with a broad spectrum of activities on multidrug-resistant bacteria, has been developed for hand sanitizer applications. METHODS AND RESULTS: Antimicrobial activity was evaluated using agar-well diffusion and broth microdilution method. Bactericidal activity was determined following the European Standard 1276 antibacterial suspension test. Neutralization assay was performed to assess antirespiratory syncytial virus. Safety, stability, and skin permeation of Qi hand gel was investigated. Qi hand sanitizer gel inhibited microorganisms ranging from 99.9% to 99.999% against Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus, Staph. epidermidis, Staph. pseudintermedius, Staph. saprophyticus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans. A significant reduction in main human dermatophytes including Microsporum canis, M. gypseum, and Talaromyces marneffei of ∼50% was observed (P < .05). Qi hand sanitizer gel inactivated >99% viral particles entering human laryngeal epidermoid carcinoma cells in a dose-dependent manner. Scanning electron micrographs further illustrated that Qi hand sanitizer gel disrupted microbial cell membrane after 1-min contact time resulting in cell death. Qi hand sanitizer gel delivered emollient compounds through simulated human skin layers and showed no cytotoxicity on fibroblast cells. Moreover, Qi hand sanitizer gel demonstrated stability under extreme conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Qi hand sanitizer gel was able to inhibit various microorganisms including bacteria, dermatophytes, and virus.

Evaluating the antimicrobial efficacy of long-lasting hand sanitizers on skin.

BACKGROUND: The microbicidal efficacy of hand sanitizer formulations is usually measured through standardized quantitative suspension tests and fingerpad tests; these cannot evaluate long-lasting formulations or are impractical due to biological risks, high cost, or time required for testing. With increased numbers of long-lasting microbicidal activity claims of commercially available hand sanitizers, alternative testing strategies are required. AIM: To explore the use of a standardized ex-vivo pig skin model to reproducibly measure long-lasting efficacy of an alcohol-free hand sanitizer formulation. METHODS: The microbicidal efficacy of an alcohol-free hand sanitizer was tested against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, and the enveloped virus SARS-CoV-2 with quantitative suspension tests (EN13727 and EN14476) with a contact time of 5 min. The product was then tested over a 6 h period using an ex-vivo pig skin model with a modified version of PAS 2424 to simulate the impact of skin abrasion. FINDINGS: Quantitative suspension tests yielded a >5 log10 reduction for all organisms tested within a 5 min contact time. Pig skin tests showed reduced but consistent efficacy at all time points and indicated no significant impact of abrasion on efficacy. CONCLUSION: The use of the ex-vivo pig skin model provides a potentially viable and convenient model system to test long-lasting hand sanitizer formulations, providing a path for sustainable hand sanitizer formulation claims of activity on skin.

Impact on S. aureus and E. coli Membranes of Treatment with Chlorhexidine and Alcohol Solutions: Insights from Molecular Simulations and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance.

Membranes form the first line of defence of bacteria against potentially harmful molecules in the surrounding environment. Understanding the protective properties of these membranes represents an important step towards development of targeted anti-bacterial agents such as sanitizers. Use of propanol, isopropanol and chlorhexidine can significantly decrease the threat imposed by bacteria in the face of growing anti-bacterial resistance via mechanisms that include membrane disruption. Here we have employed molecular dynamics simulations and nuclear magnetic resonance to explore the impact of chlorhexidine and alcohol on the S. aureus cell membrane, as well as the E. coli inner and outer membranes. We identify how sanitizer components partition into these bacterial membranes, and show that chlorhexidine is instrumental in this process.

Antibacterial assessment of commercially available hand sanitizers in Pakistan by EN-1500.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of hand sanitizers marketed to the general population is essential for infection prevention and control. Main theme of the study was that whether the commercially available hand sanitizers meet the WHO recommended standards in terms of efficacy? Current study aims to investigate the efficacy of ten commercially available hand sanitizers. METHODS: The methodology was based on European Standard EN-1500. Following the artificial contamination of hands, pre and post samples were obtained to determine the log reduction values for each sanitizer. RESULTS: The results showed that out of ten only one sanitizer showed highest log reduction which was comparable to the reference product. Product B was most efficient in sanitization of hands with mean log reduction of 6.00 ± 0.15. The lowest sanitization efficacy was recorded for product F with mean log reduction of 2.40 ± 0.51, however the reference product 2-propanol result in mean log reduction of 6.0 ± 0.00. The products used in this study show a statistical significant results (p value: < 0.01). CONCLUSION: It is concluded that only one product showed active sanitizer efficacy. This study provides an important insight for manufacturing company and authorizing authorities to assess the efficacy of hand sanitizer. Hand sanitization is one approach to stop the spread of diseases carried on by harmful bacteria inhabiting our hands. Apart from the manufacturing strategies, ensuring proper use and quantity of hand sanitizers is very important.

Effect of Long-Term Use of Alcohol-Containing Handwashing Gels on the Biofilm-Forming Capacity of Staphylococcus epidermidis.

The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has promoted the use of hand sanitizers among the general population as recommended by health authorities. Alcohols, which are used in many hand sanitizers, have been shown to promotes the formation of biofilms by certain bacteria and to increase bacterial resistance to disinfection. We investigated the effect of continued use of alcohol-based gel hand sanitizer on biofilm formation by the Staphylococcus epidermidis resident strain isolated from the hands of health science students. Hand microbes were counted before and after handwashing, and the ability to produce biofilms was investigated. We found that 179 (84.8%) strains of S. epidermidis isolated from hands had the ability to form biofilm (biofilm-positive strains) in an alcohol-free culture medium. Furthermore, the presence of alcohol in the culture medium induced biofilm formation in 13 (40.6%) of the biofilm-negative strains and increased biofilm production in 111 (76.6%) strains, which were classified as low-grade biofilm-producing. Based on our findings, there is no clear evidence that the continued use of alcohol-based gels results in the selection of strains with the capacity to form biofilms. However, other disinfectant formulations that are more commonly used in clinical settings, such as alcohol-based hand-rub solutions, should be tested for their long-term effects.

Comparing the antibacterial efficacy and functionality of different commercial alcohol-based sanitizers.

The use of alcohol-based sanitizers has been recommended as an effective alternative to clean hands, especially in the case when hand washing is not doable. This is especially critical with the COVID-19 pandemic, where personal hygiene is an important factor to deter the spread of the virus. This study assesses and evaluates the differences in antibacterial efficacy and functionalities of five different commercial alcohol-based sanitizers with different formulations. All sanitizers were able to provide instant sanitization functionality, effectively killing 5x105 CFU/mL of inoculated bacteria. However, comparing pure alcohol-based sanitizers against alcohol-based sanitizers with a secondary active ingredient demonstrated that the addition of a secondary active ingredient enhanced the effectiveness and functionalities of the sanitizers. Alcohol-based sanitizers with secondary active ingredients demonstrated a more rapid antimicrobial mode of action, eradicating all 106 CFU/mL of bacteria within 15 seconds of contact, in contrast to the 30 min for purely alcohol-based sanitizers. The secondary active ingredient also provided additional anti-biofilm functionality to prevent opportunistic microbes from attaching and proliferating on the treated surface, leading to serious biofilm formation. On top of that, treatment of surfaces with alcohol-based sanitizers with secondary active ingredients also imparted prolonged antimicrobial protection to the surface lasting up to 24 h. On the other hand, purely alcohol-based sanitizers do not seem to possess such quality with the treated surface being vulnerable to microbial contamination within minutes after application. These results highlighted the benefits of adding a secondary active ingredient in sanitizer formulation. However, care needs to be taken to evaluate the type and concentration of antimicrobial agents chosen as the secondary active ingredient.

Potential Application of Luteolin as an Active Antibacterial Composition in the Development of Hand Sanitizer Products.

Antibacterial hand sanitizers could play a prominent role in slowing down the spread and infection of hand bacterial pathogens; luteolin (LUT) is potentially useful as an antibacterial component. Therefore, this study elucidated the antibacterial mechanism of LUT against Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and developed an antibacterial hand sanitizer. The results showed that LUT had excellent antibacterial activity against both E. coli (minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) = 312.5 µg/mL, minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) = 625 µg/mL), and S. aureus (MIC = 312.5 µg/mL, MBC = 625 µg/mL). Furthermore, LUT induced cell dysfunction in E. coli and S. aureus, changed membrane permeability, and promoted the leakage of cellular contents. Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis showed that LUT treatment affected cell structure and disrupted cell membrane integrity. The Fourier transform infrared analysis (FTIR) also confirmed that the LUT acted on the cell membranes of both E. coli and S. aureus. Overall, the application of LUT in hand sanitizer had better inhibition effects. Therefore, this study could provide insight into expanding the application of LUT in the hand sanitizer markets.

Antibacterial Effect and Possible Mechanism of Salicylic Acid Microcapsules against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

Microcapsules serve as a feasible formulation to load phenolic substances such as salicylic acid, a natural and safe antimicrobial agent. However, the antibacterial efficacy of salicylic acid microcapsules (SAMs) remains to be elucidated. Here, salicylic acid/ß-cyclodextrin inclusion microcapsules were subjected to systematic antibacterial assays and preliminary antibacterial mechanism tests using Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus as target organisms. It was found that the core-shell rhomboid-shaped SAMs had a smooth surface. SAMs exhibited a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and a minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of 4 mg/mL against both bacteria. In the growth inhibition assay, 1/4 × MIC, 1/2 × MIC, and 1 × MIC of SAMs effectively retarded bacterial growth, and this effect was more prominent with the rise in the level of SAMs. Practically, SAMs possessed a rapid bactericidal effect at the 1 × MIC level with a reduction of more than 99.9% bacterial population within 10 min. A pronounced sterilization activity against E. coli and S. aureus was also observed when SAMs were embedded into hand sanitizers as antimicrobial agents. Moreover, exposure of both bacteria to SAMs resulted in the leakage of intracellular alkaline phosphatases and macromolecular substances (nucleic acids and proteins), which indicated the disruption of bacterial cell walls and cell membranes. In conclusion, SAMs were able to inactivate E. coli and S. aureus both in vitro and in situ, highlighting the promising utilization of this formulation for antimicrobial purposes in the area of food safety and public health.

Evaluation of quality and antimicrobial efficacy of locally manufactured alcohol-based hand sanitizers marketed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been rapidly spreading across the globe since the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the disease outbreak as a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. Hand hygiene, via either regular handwashing with soap and water or using hand sanitizers, is among the various measures that need to be followed to control the outbreak of the disease. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) are the "gold standard" for hand disinfection because of their broad antimicrobial spectrum of activity, easy availability, better safety profile, and general acceptability to users. This study aimed at evaluating the physicochemical quality and antimicrobial efficacy of the locally manufactured ABHS marketed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was used to collect ABHS from Addis Ababa marketplaces. A total of 25 sample products were randomly selected from different categories of hand sanitizer manufacturers. The physicochemical evaluation of the products was carried out as per the United States Pharmacopoeia and WHO standards. Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp., and Shigella spp clinical isolates were used for the antimicrobial efficacy test. RESULTS: The Fourier Transform Infrared result confirmed that all the test products met the identification test for ethanol. The majority (68%) of ABHS complied with the test for ethanol content (75-85% v/v). However, only 3 products fulfilled the hydrogen peroxide content (0.112-0.137% v/v). LPC307 showed the maximum zone of inhibition of 12 mm against Escherichia coli whereas MPC204 exhibited only 3 mm. LPC101 was found to be more sensitive to Shigella and Klebsiella Spp with minimum inhibitory concentration values of 20% and 10%, respectively. The sample product LPC101 showed a minimum bactericidal concentration of 20% against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella spp. CONCLUSION: One-third of the tested ABHS did not comply with the WHO ethanol content limit and the majority of the products failed to meet the label claim for hydrogen peroxide content. Besides, nearly all products proved that they have activity against all the tested pathogenic microorganisms at a minimum concentration from 10 to 80%; though, they did not show 99.9% bacteriostatic or bactericidal activities as claimed. The study findings suggested regular monitoring of the quality of marketed ABHS considering the current wide use of these products.

Assessment of Anti-Bacterial Effectiveness of Hand Sanitizers Commonly Used in South Africa.

Hand sanitizers are used as an alternative to hand washing to reduce the number of viable microorganisms when soap and water are not readily available. This study aimed to investigate the anti-bacterial effectiveness of commercially available hand sanitizers and those commonly used in healthcare and community settings. A mapping exercise was done to select and procure different hand sanitizers (n = 18) from retailers. Five microorganisms implicated in hospital-acquired infections were selected and tested against each hand sanitizer: Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. Twenty-one volunteers were recruited to do a handprint before and after applying the hand sanitizer. Only four out of eighteen hand sanitizers (22%) were effective against all tested bacterial species, and an equal number (22%) were completely ineffective. Seven hand sanitizers with a label claim of 99.99% were only effective against E. coli. Only five hand sanitizers (27%) effectively reduced bacteria on participants' hands. This study showed that only a fifth of hand sanitizers were effective against selected microorganisms. The findings raise a concern about the effectiveness of hand sanitizers and their role in infection, prevention, and control if not well regulated.

Prevalence of alcohol-tolerant and antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens on public hand sanitizer dispensers.

BACKGROUND: Since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol-based hand sanitizer dispensers (HSDs) have been installed in most public and clinical settings for hygiene purposes and convenient application. AIM: To determine whether sanitizer-tolerant bacterial pathogens can colonize HSDs, spreading diseases and antibiotic resistance. METHODS: Sampling was conducted from operational automatic HSDs, specifically the dispensing nozzle in direct contact with sanitizer. Culture-dependent cultivation of bacteria and MALDI-TOF were employed to assess microbiological contamination. Bacterial isolates were selected for rapid killing and biofilm eradication assays with alcohol treatment. Antibiotic minimum inhibitory concentration assays were performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Virulence potential of bacterial isolates was evaluated in the Caenorhadbitis elegans infection model. FINDINGS: Nearly 50% of HSDs from 52 locations, including clinical settings, food industry, and public spaces, contain microbial contamination at 103-106 bacteria/mL. Bacterial identification revealed Bacillus cereus as the most frequent pathogen (29%), while Enterobacter cloacae was the only Gram-negative bacterial pathogen (2%). Selecting B. cereus and E. cloacae isolates for further evaluation, these isolates and associated biofilms were found to be tolerant to alcohol with survival up to 70%. They possessed resistance to various antibiotic classes, with higher virulence than laboratory strains in the C. elegans infection model. CONCLUSION: HSDs serve as potential breeding grounds for dissemination of pathogens and antibiotic resistance across unaware users. Proper HSD maintenance will ensure protection of public health and sustainable use of sanitizing alcohols, to prevent emergence of alcohol-resistant pathogens.

Assessment of disinfectant efficacy in reducing microbial growth.

The incidence of hospital- and community-acquired infections has been dramatically increased worldwide. Accordingly, hands hygiene and the use of disinfectants have been increased leading to the expansion in hand sanitizers production to meet public demand. This study was conducted to assess the efficiency of common disinfectants in the market of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in inhibiting the microbial growth during the time of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Five bacterial strains of commonly hospital-acquired infections (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Salmonella enteritidis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Enterococcus faecalis) (ATCC reference strains and clinical isolates) were examined for their susceptibility against 18 disinfectants collected from the Saudi market. The tested 18 disinfectants were broadly clustered into different groups based on their active chemical composition as following: 12 products contained alcohol, 2 products had chlorhexidine, 3 products contained mixed concentration of alcohol/chlorhexidine and 1 product had a mixture of chlorhexidine/Hexamidine/Chlorocresol. By measuring the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), our results revealed that all the 18 disinfectants have reduced the microbial growth of all the tested strains. Generally, the MICs and the MBCs for the clinical strains are higher than those of the reference strains. Taken together, our findings showed that all tested products have high disinfectants' killing rate against microbes of different origins, which suggest the high quality of these disinfectants and the good surveillance practice by the local authorities in Saudi Arabia.

Low efficacy of three non-alcohol-based hand disinfectants utilizing silver polymer, lactic acid and benzalkonium chloride on inactivation of bacteria on the fingertips of healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Recently, new non-alcohol-based hand disinfection formulae have come to the market. Although they have passed the EN1500 test, data on their clinical efficacy compared with alcohol-based hand rubs are scarce, mainly covering benzalkonium chloride (BAC). AIM: To test the efficacy of silver-polymer-based, lactic-acid-based and BAC-based hand disinfectant foams and an alcohol-based hand rub gel to reduce bacterial counts on the fingertips of healthcare workers working on hospital wards. METHODS: Each of the 84 participants tested one of the four products during their morning shift on a hospital ward using the 'fingertips on Petri dish' method before and after rubbing their hands with the product. After incubation, two independent readers assessed bacterial counts on the culture plates. FINDINGS: The alcohol-based hand rub efficiently reduced bacteria on testers' fingertips in the test situation, whereas the lactic-acid- and BAC-based disinfectants did not have any detectable efficacy. The silver-polymer-based formula had some effect but requires further study. CONCLUSION: Non-alcohol-based hand rubs require careful consideration and further study before they can be accepted for clinical use.

Assessment of ethanol exposure from hand sanitizer use and potential for developmental toxicity in nursing infants.

Ingestion of ethanol during pregnancy is known to have detrimental effects on the fetus. Although the potential developmental effects of maternal ethanol intake during lactation are less well characterized, public health guidelines recommend avoidance of alcohol or, if alcohol is consumed, to allow for 1-2 h to pass before nursing. A proposal to classify ethanol as potentially harmful to breast-fed children warrants an investigation of the potential adverse neurodevelopmental effects of low-dose ethanol exposure during lactation. There currently are no studies that have examined neurodevelopmental outcomes from lactational exposure to ethanol from the use of topical products that contain ethanol, such as alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS). Furthermore, the epidemiological literature of lactational ethanol exposures from maternal alcohol consumption is limited in design, provides equivocal evidence of neurological effects in infants, and is insufficient to characterize a dose-response relationship for developmental effects. Toxicological studies that observed neurodevelopmental effects in pups from ethanol via lactation did so at exceedingly high doses that also caused maternal toxicity. In this investigation, blood ethanol concentrations (BECs) of breastfeeding women following typical-to-intense ABHS use were computationally predicted and compared to health benchmarks to quantify the risk for developmental outcomes. Margins of 2.2 to 1000 exist between BECs associated with ABHS use compared to BECs associated with neurotoxicity adverse effect levels in the toxicology literature or oral ethanol intake per public health guidelines. Neurodevelopmental effects are not likely to occur in infants due to ABHS use by breastfeeding women, even when ABHSs are used at intense frequencies.

Skin barrier response to active chlorine hand disinfectant-An experimental study comparing skin barrier response to active chlorine hand disinfectant and alcohol-based hand rub on healthy skin and eczematous skin.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) is widely used for hand disinfection in the health care sector. ABHR is, however, known to cause discomfort when applied on damaged skin emphasizing the unmet need for alternative and better tolerated types of disinfectants. Active chlorine hand disinfectants (ACHDs) are potential new candidates; however, the effect on the skin barrier function compared to ABHR remains to be assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In Study A, the forearm skin of healthy adults was repeatedly exposed to ACHD and ABHR. Skin barrier function was assessed by measurement of transepidermal water loss, electrical conductance, pH, and erythema at baseline and at follow-up after 2 days, and subjective discomfort was likewise assessed. Study B was performed in the same way; however, in order to induce an experimental irritant contact dermatitis, sodium lauryl sulfate patch tests were applied to forearms before exposure to ACHD and ABHR. RESULTS: In both studies, the skin barrier function was unaffected after repetitive exposure to ACHD and ABHR, and with no significant differences between the products. Subjective discomfort was reported as sporadic or very mild in relation to both products. CONCLUSION: Our results illustrate that use of ACHD does not affect the skin barrier function negatively, neither in intact skin nor in skin with experimentally induced contact dermatitis. Future studies should include real-life evaluation of skin barrier function and subjective discomfort following ACHD use in individuals with and without hand eczema.

Raising awareness about the unintended consequences of hand sanitiser in children.

The use of hand sanitisers is common practice to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the safety thereof requires consideration as this may be hazardous in children. Recent studies have shown that the misuse and increased unsupervised availability of alcohol-based hand sanitisers may result in adverse events in children such as skin irritation, dryness, cracking and peeling. Unintentional or intentional ingestion of hand sanitisers in children under the age of 12 years may occur because of the colour, smell and flavour added to it. Consumption of alcohol in children may result in hypoglycaemia, apnoea and acidosis. This allows the invasion of other bacterial and viral infections. Children may also rub their eyes with sanitised hands and cause ocular injury. Therefore, the use of hand sanitisers in general needs to be revised in both children and adults. Other interventions on lowering the risk of adverse events because of misuse of hand sanitiser should be practised more often. These include promoting washing of hands over sanitisers where possible, training children on how to use hand sanitisers and creating awareness of the dangers if ingested or in contact with the eyes.

Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by Ozonated Glycerol.

We evaluated the SARS-CoV-2-inactivation activity of ozonated glycerol (OG). When a viral solution with 1% fetal bovine serum (FBS) was mixed with test solutions at a ratio of 1:19 and incubated for 20 s, OG with ozone concentrations of over 1000 ppm inactivated ≥ 94.38% of the virus. Extension of the reaction time to 1 h led to the inactivation of ≥ 99.82% of the virus (the viral titer was below the detection limit). Extension to 24 h resulted in concentrations over 200 ppm OG inactivating ≥ 99.87% of the virus (the viral titers were below the detection limit). Next, viral solutions with 1, 20, and 40% FBS were mixed with test solutions at a ratio of 1:19 and incubated for 5 min. Whereas the virucidal activity of 500 ppm OG was very limited in the presence of 1% FBS (79.47% inactivation), it increased in the presence of 20 and 40% FBS (95.13 and 97.95% inactivation, respectively; the viral titers were not below the detection limit). Meanwhile, over 1000 ppm OG inactivated ≥ 99.44% of the virus regardless of the FBS concentration (the viral titers were below the detection limit). Extension of the reaction time to 1 h led to 500 ppm OG inactivating ≥ 99.91 and ≥ 99.95% of the virus with 20 and 40% FBS, respectively (the viral titers were below the detection limit). These results suggested that OG might be useful as a virucidal agent against SARS-CoV-2.

Amuchina Gel Xgerm hand rub in vitro virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2.

Aim: Ethanol is highly effective at inactivating enveloped viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study is to evaluate the virucidal activity of Amuchina Gel Xgerm (74% ethanol) against SARS-CoV-2, according to the European Standard EN14476:2013+A2:2019. Materials & methods: Virucidal activity of the study product was evaluated against SARS-CoV-2 strain USAWA1/2020 in suspension, in the presence of 0.3 g/l of bovine serum albumin. Results: The log10 reduction of SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of bovine serum albumin was ≥4.11 ± 0.12 after 30 s of exposure to the study product (80% dilution). Cytotoxicity was observed in the 100 dilution, affecting the detection limit by 1 log10. Conclusion: Virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2 supports the effectiveness of this alcohol-based formulation as a prevention measure for COVID-19 illness.

Lay abstract The virus responsible of COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, can be inactivated by ethanol. This study evaluates the ability of an alcohol-based hand sanitizer (Amuchina Gel Xgerm, 74% ethanol) to kill SARS-CoV-2, according to the European Standard guidelines. Amuchina Gel Xgerm completely inactivates the virus after 30 s of exposure. This result supports the effectiveness of this alcohol-based formulation as a prevention measure for COVID-19.