Evaluating the Antimicrobial Properties of Commercial Hand Sanitizers.
Evaluating the Antimicrobial Properties of Commercial Hand Sanitizers.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1128/msphere.00062-21
复制
发表时间：
2021-03-03
期刊：
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Dunman PM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chojnacki M;Dobrotka C;Osborn R;Johnson W;Young M;Meyer B;Laskey E;Wozniak RAF;Dewhurst S;Dunman PM
洗手液已经被开发为在没有肥皂和水的情况下净化个人手部的细菌病原体的方便手段。然而，据我们所知，没有研究比较了大量洗手液的抗菌效果。使用生长抑制区和杀灭曲线测定，我们评估了46种市售洗手液的性能，这些洗手液来自全国连锁大卖场、加油站、药店和精品店，用于对典型的革兰氏阳性（金黄色葡萄球菌）和革兰氏阴性（大肠杆菌）细菌病原体的抗菌活性。结果显示，许多消毒剂的疗效评价的实质性变化。按照世界卫生组织推荐成分（80%乙醇或75%异丙醇）或包括苯扎氯铵作为活性主要成分的制剂显示出优异的抗菌活性，而其他制剂在所进行的试验中显示出中等或较差的活性。结果还表明，E.与S相比，大肠杆菌通常对大多数消毒剂更敏感。金黄色葡萄球菌，并且无论评估的微生物如何，洗手液抗菌功效都存在显著的菌株间变异性。此外，针对严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2（SARS-CoV-2）的洗手液子集的测试显示抗菌和抗病毒性能之间没有直接相关性，所有乙醇制剂的性能都一样好，并且与含苯扎氯铵的洗手液相比，显示出更好的活性。综上所述，这些结果表明，市售洗手液的抗微生物性能可能存在很大差异，特别是对细菌病原体，需要评估正在开发的洗手液的功效。重要性为应对2019冠状病毒病（COVID-19）大流行，手部卫生在减轻SARS-CoV-2传播和感染的努力中发挥了重要作用，这导致为满足公众需求而生产的洗手液数量和类型急剧增加。据我们所知，没有研究评估或比较根据COVID-19紧急授权生产的洗手液的抗菌性能。对46种从全国连锁实体店购买的市售洗手液进行的测试显示，它们对两种直接引起卫生保健关注的细菌病原体S. aureus和E.杆菌对一部分洗手液的扩展测试显示，单个消毒液的抗菌性能与其对SARS-CoV-2的活性之间没有直接相关性。这些结果表明，随着大流行的消退，将需要验证生产的消毒剂的抗菌功效。
Hand sanitizers have been developed as a convenient means to decontaminate an individual’s hands of bacterial pathogens in situations in which soap and water are not available. Yet to our knowledge, no study has compared the antibacterial efficacy of a large collection of hand sanitizers. Using zone of growth inhibition and kill curve assays, we assessed the performance of 46 commercially available hand sanitizers that were obtained from national chain big-box stores, gasoline stations, pharmacies, and boutiques for antibacterial activity toward prototypical Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli) bacterial pathogens. Results revealed substantial variability in the efficacy of many sanitizers evaluated. Formulations following World Health Organization-recommended ingredients (80% ethanol or 75% isopropyl alcohol) or those including benzalkonium chloride as the active principal ingredient displayed excellent antibacterial activity, whereas others exhibited modest or poor activity in the assays performed. Results also revealed that E. coli was generally more susceptible to most sanitizers in comparison to S. aureus and that there was significant strain-to-strain variability in hand sanitizer antimicrobial efficacy regardless of the organism evaluated. Further, tests of a subset of hand sanitizers toward severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) revealed no direct correlation between antibacterial and antiviral performance, with all ethyl alcohol formulations performing equally well and displaying improved activity in comparison to benzalkonium chloride-containing sanitizer. Taken together, these results indicate that there is likely to be substantial variability in the antimicrobial performance of commercially available hand sanitizers, particularly toward bacterial pathogens, and a need to evaluate the efficacy of sanitizers under development. IMPORTANCE In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hand hygiene has taken on a prominent role in efforts to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission and infection, which has led to a radical increase in the number and types of hand sanitizers manufactured to meet public demand. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated or compared the antimicrobial performance of hand sanitizers that are being produced under COVID-19 emergency authorization. Tests of 46 commercially available hand sanitizers purchased from national chain brick-and-mortar stores revealed considerable variability in their antibacterial performance toward two bacterial pathogens of immediate health care concern, S. aureus and E. coli. Expanded testing of a subset of hand sanitizers revealed no direct correlation between antibacterial performance of individual sanitizers and their activity toward SARS-CoV-2. These results indicate that as the pandemic subsides, there will be a need to validate the antimicrobial efficacy of sanitizers being produced.