首页> 外文学位 >Comparative Efficacy of Foaming and Non-foaming Handsoap in Reduction of Microorganisms in Handwashing.
【24h】

Comparative Efficacy of Foaming and Non-foaming Handsoap in Reduction of Microorganisms in Handwashing.

机译:起泡和不起泡沫的洗手皂在减少洗手微生物中的比较功效。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Handwashing (HW) is a long established method to prevent disease transmission. Ensuring effectiveness of current HW methods is essential for optimal HW and enhanced disease prevention. The objectives of this research were to 1) conduct a survey of soap type and volume in food service establishments in Washington County, Arkansas; 2) investigate how soap type impacts HW behavior; and 3) determine the difference in microbial reduction between foaming (F) and liquid (L) handsoap. For Objective 1, food service establishments in Washington County, AR were selected based on exclusion criteria and random number generations, and handsoap samples were collected to determine soap type and average volume. For Objective 2, 12 volunteers applied 1.0 g of Glo Germ(TM) (GG) to their hands and washed their hands, and then hands were swabbed in three locations to recover remaining GG. Swabs were eluted and absorbance was measured at OD370nm to quantify remaining GG using a standard curve. For Objective 3, hands of 24 volunteers were inoculated with approximately 108 CFU Escherichia coli C3000 or 108 PFU MS2 bacteriophage. Following completion of a standard HW protocol, microorganisms were recovered using a glove juice method, and culture assays were completed to determine microorganisms remaining. For the Washington County soap survey, the average volume of F and L handsoap was 0.64 +/- 0.21 mL and 1.19 +/- 0.46 mL, respectively. For Objective 2, no significant difference in behavior was determined in terms of GG remaining, HW time in the baseline HW and post GG HW, and baseline handrinsing time and post GG handrinse. Average time for the baseline handwash was (F) 11.17 +/- 3.93 s and (L) 13.83 +/- 7.30 s, and for the post GG handwash was (F) 13.33 +/- 6.22 s and (L) 14.25 +/- 7.70 s. For Objective 3, no significant difference in efficacy of F and L in overall removal of E. coli and MS2 combined occurred (p=0.56). However, F handsoap did remove significantly less MS2 when compared to E. coli (p=0.0008). This research indicates that use of foaming soap in food service may need to be reevaluated for control of foodborne viruses.
机译:洗手(HW)是防止疾病传播的悠久方法。确保当前硬件方法的有效性对于最佳硬件和增强疾病预防至关重要。这项研究的目的是:1)对阿肯色州华盛顿县食品服务场所的肥皂类型和数量进行调查; 2)研究肥皂类型如何影响硬件行为;和3)确定起泡(F)和液体(L)洗手液之间微生物减少的差异。对于目标1,根据排除标准和随机数生成选择了华盛顿州华盛顿县的食品服务场所,并收集了洗手液样品以确定肥皂的类型和平均量。对于目标2,有12名志愿者将1.0 g Glo Germ™(GG)应用于他们的手并洗了手,然后在三个位置擦拭手以恢复剩余的GG。洗脱拭子,并在OD370nm处测量吸光度,以使用标准曲线定量残留的GG。对于目标3,向24名志愿者的手中接种约108 CFU大肠杆菌C3000或108 PFU MS2噬菌体。完成标准的硬件操作规程后,使用手套汁法回收微生物,并完成培养测定以确定残留的微生物。对于华盛顿县肥皂调查,F和L洗手液的平均体积分别为0.64 +/- 0.21 mL和1.19 +/- 0.46 mL。对于目标2,在GG残留量,基线HW和GG HW之后的HW时间以及基线洗手时间和GG手洗后的时间方面,行为没有显着差异。基线洗手的平均时间为(F)11.17 +/- 3.93 s和(L)13.83 +/- 7.30 s,而GG后洗手的平均时间为(F)13.33 +/- 6.22 s和(L)14.25 + / -7.70秒对于目标3,在整体去除大肠杆菌和MS2的过程中,F和L的功效没有显着差异(p = 0.56)。但是,与大肠杆菌相比,F handoap确实去除了更少的MS2(p = 0.0008)。这项研究表明,可能需要重新评估在食品服务中使用泡沫肥皂以控制食源性病毒。

著录项

  • 作者

    Conover, Danielle.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Arkansas.;

  • 授予单位 University of Arkansas.;
  • 学科 Food science.;Health sciences.
  • 学位 M.S.
  • 年度 2016
  • 页码 137 p.
  • 总页数 137
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号