100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 9 pages.
Running Head: A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ANTIMICROBIAL1A Contrastive Analysis of Antimicrobial and the Effectiveness of Alcohol-Based Sanitizersand Antibacterial Hand Soaps:Katie S. WalkerBIO 211February 14, 2018
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ANTIMICROBIAL2A Contrastive Analysis of Antimicrobial and the Effectiveness of Alcohol-Based Sanitizers and Antibacterial Hand Soaps:The use of hand sanitizer and antimicrobial hand soap is a key factor in disease prevention. The physical contact between objects, people, and animals is a crucial factor in the transmission and spread of pathogens (Babeluk, et. al., 2014). Both the community outside of healthcare, and the healthcare community acknowledge the importance of hand hygiene, as to prevent the furthering of infectious diseases. Babeluk, et. al. (2014) write that an estimated one million lives are saved each year with the proper hand washing and hand hygiene techniques. This is campaigned worldwide and has varying success. The objective of this research is to compare the efficacy of Clorox, Purell, and Germ-X alcohol based hand sanitizers versus the Dial antibacterial hand soap with the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) recommended hand washing techniques. In everyday life, whether in a hospital or school many people tend to use hand gels instead of actual hand washing. Although the practice using hand sanitizer is more convenient than scrubing hands, at what cost is it to human health? When a people wash their hands they wash away many microbes. Microbes are all over they are a minuteliving organism that can cuase disease and fermentation. Microbes live in and on a person’s body, as well as the very food a person consumes every day. Although helpful in many ways, microbes can become dangerous, such as E. coli 157/H, Clostridium difficile, Salmonella typhi, andEscherichia coli (Babeluk, et al., 2014).These diseases can spread from one host to another without proper hand hygiene (Babeluk, et. al., 2014) and can cause deadly effects to their human hosts. The existence of pathogens that spread by improper hand hygiene is key in many scientists’ research.
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ANTIMICROBIAL3Vardhaman, et. al. (2016) tested the effectiveness of four different hand gels that were alcohol-based by treating contaminated Muellar-Hinton Agar with the sanitizers and observed thezone of inhabitation. The results of the experiment concluded that the hand sanitizer brand Sterillum affected the CFU’s (bacterial colonies) strongly because Sterillum contained 75 percentpropanol. In an experiment tested by Babeluk et. al. (2014), they found that 96% ethanol hand gels were more effective against bacterium on hands from ordinary surfaces. A study conducted by Kramer, et. al. (2002) used ten hand gels that were alcohol-based and four hand soaps and made the conclusion that hand gels were to be a lesser form of hand hygiene. Their variables cobtained 53 percent to 75 percent of alcohol and did not meet the EN 1500 (European Standards). According to the CDC the lowest quantity of alcohol needed to kill microbes is