AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aly, R
Right arrow Articles by Maibach, H I
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Aly, R
Right arrow Articles by Maibach, H I
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Aly, R
Right arrow Articles by Maibach, H I

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1979 March; 37(3): 610-613

Comparative study on the antimicrobial effect of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol on the normal flora of hands.

R Aly and H I Maibach

ABSTRACT

A gloved-hand wash method was used to compare the antimicrobial effect of chlorhexidine gluconate alcohol emollient hand wash (HIBISTAT) with that of 70% isopropyl alcohol on the normal flora of the hands (81 subjects) under conditions designed to mimic use by surgeons. Results of the immediate postwash effects on the bacterial counts for all 3 tests days showed that chlorhexidine significantly reduced the normal flora of the hands. When compared with the base line bacterial counts, there was 85, 96, and 98% reduction with chlorhexidine treatment and 84, 93, and 90% reduction with alcohol treatment on days 1,2, and 5, respectively. The difference between chlorhexidine and alcohol treatments was not statistically significant on days 1 and 2, but was significant on day 5 (P less than 0.01). For delayed postwash bacterial counts (for persistent antimicrobial effects), the overall log means were 4.9943 and 5.4684 for chlorhexidine and alcohol treatments, respectively. The difference between the two treatments was significant (P less than 0.01). After the chlorhexidien treatment, there was no significant growth of bacteria over a period of 6 h when compared with the base line bacterial counts.


Appl Environ Microbiol. 1979 March; 37(3): 610-613




This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1979 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.