Skip to main content
The Journal of Hygiene logoLink to The Journal of Hygiene
. 1986 Feb;96(1):27–37. doi: 10.1017/s0022172400062501

Evaluation of procedures for hygienic hand-disinfection: controlled parallel experiments on the Vienna test model.

M L Rotter, W Koller, G Wewalka, H P Werner, G A Ayliffe, J R Babb
PMCID: PMC2129593  PMID: 3950394

Abstract

Controlled parallel experiments were performed on the Vienna test model for the evaluation of procedures for hygienic hand-disinfection in three laboratories (Vienna, Mainz, Birmingham). The degerming activity of four procedures, each taking 1 min, was assessed repeatedly and compared with that of a standard disinfection procedure (ST) using isopropanol 60% (v/v). The mean log reductions (mean log RF) for each procedure were as follows: n-propanol 50% (v/v) 4.85 and 5.14 in Vienna (V) and Mainz (M) respectively, ethanol 70% (v/v) + chlorhexidine-gluconate 0.5% (w/v), 4.01 (V), 3.76 (M) and 4.00 in Birmingham (B). Washing procedures were less effective, mean log RF's of 3.19 (V), 3.49 (M) and 3.04 (B) were obtained with povidone-iodine soap, and 2.91 (V), 3.37 (M) and 3.27 (B) with a liquid phenolic soap. Analysis of variance on the data from Vienna and Mainz revealed significant differences of means not only between procedures ('preparations') but also on repeat testing. To compensate for the influence of variables such as test subjects, laboratory and day, the Vienna test model provides a method of standardization by testing a ST in parallel with the test procedure (P). Standardization of the results was obtained by pair-wise substraction, log RFPi-log RFSTi. Analysis of variance on the resulting values demonstrated that comparability of the results between laboratories and on repeat testing was achieved. The relative variation of the measurements within the laboratories ranged from 0.9 to 4.2%. As assessed by power-analysis, a disinfection procedure will be detected as significantly (P = 0.1) inferior to the standard processes in 95 of 100 experiments if it produces a mean log RF that is at least 0.55-0.65 log units smaller than that of the standard.

Full text

PDF
27

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ayliffe G. A., Babb J. R., Quoraishi A. H. A test for 'hygienic' hand disinfection. J Clin Pathol. 1978 Oct;31(10):923–928. doi: 10.1136/jcp.31.10.923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kundi M., Koller W., Mittermayer H., Rotter M. Zur Erstellung von Anforderungen an Verfahren zur hygienischen Händedesinfektion - eine Analyse. Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B. 1975 Oct;161(2):165–177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Rotter M., Koller W., Kundi M. Eignung dreier Alkohole für eine Standard-Desinfektionsmethode in der Wertbestimmung von Verfahren für die Hygienische Händedesinfektion. Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B. 1977 Aug;164(5-6):428–438. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Rotter M., Mittermayer H., Kundi Michael Untersuchungen zum Modell der künstlich kontaminierten Hand; Vorschlag für eine Prüfmethode. Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B. 1974 Dec;159(5-6):560–581. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Hygiene are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

RESOURCES