National center for infection control professionals, healthcare experts, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and consumers focused on best practices in hand hygiene and hand sanitizer products
With nearly 2 million people dying a year from Healthcare Associated Infections (HAI) and costing up to $50 billion annually, the Joint Commission as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are pressing for higher hand hygiene compliance rates.
A recent study showed that hand-washing and sanitizing in a healthcare setting can be as low as 34 percent.
Complying with Government Requirements
Food-borne illnesses cause 82 million illnesses in the U.S. annually with 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths.
They cost $152 billion annually in direct medical expenses and lost productivity, health experts estimate.
Foodborne illnesses are caused by a host of pathogens. Hand-washing is recognized as one of the simplest, most effective way of reducing the rate of food-borne illnesses.
Because it takes no more than 15 seconds of friction to dissolve, alcohol-free hand sanitizers substantially reduce the bacterial and viral contamination of hands and the transmission of illness-causing microorganisms
With yet another hand hygiene crisis unfolding, this time a whooping cough "epidemic" in California, once again the issue of appropriate hand sanitizers comes to the headlines.
today reports on the continuously-increasing focus on the features/benefits of Non-Alcohol Hand Sanitizers vs. the legacy toxic and flammable alcohol-based products. Click on the title link for the full story!
Proving once again that social media apps such as Twitter, Facebook and other 'channels' can create a well-spring of communication, we clap our hands in honor of UK-based Juliet Robertson, the founder of Creative Star Learning Co., who turned to us for info and suggestions about best hand hygiene strategies and products than can be used by pre-schoolers attending outdoor learning centers and summer day camps where hand washing facilities are not easily accessible or available.
1. Getting 'down and dirty' in the outdoors is, as you eloquently advocate on your website, a good thing for little tikes. It introduces them to the beauty of Mother Nature.
2. A little dirt on the hands is actually a good thing, all things being equal. Not all bacteria is bad, and presuming the environment in which the tikes are exploring isn't adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico, or other areas that have been invaded by pollutants or otherwise infested by pathogens that have been carried by man (or woman), the concerns about what tikes are touching need to be put into proper perspective.
3. Obviously, one needs to be careful about touching certain types of plants/vegetation (poison ivy, poison oak, etc. etc.), but the good news is that certain non-alcohol hand sanitizer products that use benzalkonium chloride (a/k/a/ "BAC") as the active ingredient can prove to be an ideal treatment. In fact, this is the same ingredient found in the better poison ivy/poison oak ointments and lotions. Note: Using alcohol hand sanitizers to wash off oil from poison ivy does not work.
4. For the readers that have been misled into thinking that alcohol gels "clean" the hands, the responsible manufacturers of those toxic and flammable products will advise "wash hands before applying". This is because alcohol does not penetrate dirt, and therefore, has almost zero usefulness on skin that might be soiled with just about anything.
To answer your question i.e. particular products when there's no sink and faucet; many of the alcohol-free hand sanitizers that use BAC are water-based. Many are dispensed in foam format, others in a "spray" format. Regardless, its the water that "cleans" the dirt (or other particles) from the skin, and the antibacterial is what eradicates the bad bacteria. Note: BAC is the common ingredient in many first aid antiseptic products. It won't sting and, unlike alcohol gel, it won't present a risk of infection.
So, there's a 3-in-1 solution that solves the problem that alcohol hand sanitizer gels simply cannot touch. Pun intended.
That said, and as noted in the below white paper that you might find interesting, alcohol hand sanitizers in a camp/outdoor setting are useful to the extent that they can be used to help start the camp fire if you can't locate dry wood or twigs. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are also useful for the counselors that have had a rough day; pour the alcohol gel into a cup, mix in two or three tablespoons of salt, stir gently for a few a minutes and then pour the liquid into your canteen. Bingo! You've just brewed yourself a libation!
Recommended safe, alcohol-free hand sanitizer products? Most of the BAC-based alcohol-free sanitizers are similar in formula. So, educated shoppers should be comparing not only prices, but the ingredients. We like the ones that don't have a fragrance, and don't use any dye or "color" additives; fragrances and dyes can pose allergy-related issues that nobody needs to encounter in the middle of the woods.
Responsible note: too much of anything is not a good idea, regardless of what you hear or read. That includes water! BAC-based products should not be poured into a humidifier, and should not be used to rinse the eyes. Beyond that, most of the products maintain concentration levels that are universally-accepted as being safe for the purposes of apply-on-hands antiseptic or antibacterial.
For carry size bottles, we're told that "Soapopular" is available in the UK and can be purchased online via the company's UK-based distributor. That product is also widely-available in the US and Canada, and US customers can buy online at www.SoapyUSA.com
Another, competitively priced 'brand' that is fragrance-free and dye free is Hy5. For camp operators, this product line includes portable dispensing stands that are low-cost, extremely durable and designed for rugged environments.
If not convenient to be putting a 2 oz or 3 oz bottle in a knapsack or pouch, non-alcohol hand wipes (again, using a quaternary ammonium compound such as BAC) are fine for kids. In fact, most baby wipes are non-alcohol (or they should be!)
For those that don't subscribe to the idea of using any type of hand sanitizers, even an alcohol-free product (which is fine, our perspective is that washing with a good soap and water is always the best approach), we'd caution against washing the hands in a local stream or pond that has not been deemed "safe drinking water".
No need to list all of the potential bad bacteria that can be easily encountered in water that we're not familiar with. Along the same lines, 'wiping the hands" with large leaves that might appear to be a natural paper towel is not necessarily a good idea either.
It seems that the folks at BP are not only confused about how to stop thousands of barrels of oil from gushing into the Gulf, they're equally confused when it comes to providing clean-up workers with proper hand hygiene products.
According to a local company contracted by BP to provide clean-up supplies, "They (BP) sent us an 18-wheeler filled with alcohol hand sanitizer, and those folks didn't know that alcohol gels don't "clean" hands, and in fact, they don't even penetrate dirt.
The executive from the local company continued to say "..The instructions on the alcohol sanitizer bottles say "wash hands before applying", something that makes no sense to us 'country-folk' down here when considering that workers in the field have no way to wash their hands!"
When it was pointed out that alcohol gels actually irritate the skin and as a result, increase the risk of exposure to bacteria, the executive stated, "That's why we told BP that the product they want us to use isn't going to work any better than the things they've tried to cap the well...So now we're replacing that stuff with an alcohol-free hand sanitizer; the water-based products used by the Navy and Coast Guard and clean the dirt off the skin, and kill the bacteria without killing the skin..."
It's enough to make a techie iGag.
Some of the sleek new iPads users play with at city Apple stores are laced with potentially dangerous bacteria or are just plain dirty, a Daily News investigation revealed.
Of four iPads that were swabbed in two stores last month and then tested in a lab, two contained harmful pathogens.
"Eww," said Brittany Smith, 20, of Canarsie, Brooklyn, after hearing the test results outside Apple's flagship store on Fifth Ave. "Now I need somehand sanitizer."
The News used medical swabs to covertly collect samples from two iPads in the midtown store and the Meatpacking District location on 14th St. They were then tested for culturable bacteria by the New Jersey-based EMSL Analytical Inc.
One sample, collected at the 14th St. store, contained Staphylococcus aureus, the most common cause of staph infections, which can lead to an array of ailments, from minor skin infection to meningitis.
"It can easily cause disease," said research analyst Farbo Nekouei, who evaluated the data for ESML. "It's not a good bacteria."
The second swab from that store only contained benign, skin-borne microbes, but in unusually high quantities, pointing to an extremely grimy iPad.
"What most people are expecting is that [the new H1N1 strain] will supplant the older H1N1 viruses that were the previous seasonal strains and become the seasonal H1N1 virus," explained Dr. John J. Treanor, professor of medicine and of microbiology and immunology at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York. "The most likely scenario would be that we would continue to see the descendants of pandemic H1N1 causing seasonal outbreaks of flu, with probably normal timing," he said.
Click on the title link for the full article from Bloomberg Businessweek
As reported throughout the news media, the U.S. House of Representatives will be holding special hearings investigating J&J's recall of more than 40 nonprescription products, and upwards of 1000 complaints about health problems in infants and children given J&J medications.
Johnson & Johnson is the retail market license holder for Purell alcohol-based hand sanitizers. Neither J&J or the FDA would provide comment as to the total of number of complaints filed, or whether the above-noted complaints related to the Purell product.
".."We're concerned coming into winter with the reports from the Northern Hemisphere that the swine flu will almost certainly make its way back down.."
Associated Press - May 18, 2010 1:34 PM ET
FAIRBANKS, Alaska (AP) - Alaska's last confirmed case of swine flu was six weeks ago, but public health officials expect it to return later this year.
Rochester, NY --- One year ago a new strain of flu was spreading and on its way to becoming a worldwide pandemic. H1N1 is sure to return... but local health officials are optimistic that we're all better prepared for it after this past year
MIDLAND health bosses have warned of new swine flu outbreaks as football fever sweeps the nation.Fans heading to the World Cup in South Africa are being advised to avoid the risk of picking up the virus abroad and bringing it back to the UK.
The Independent Monday, 3 May 2010
"..Without doubt, fear of avian flu shaped the world's response to swine flu. Avian flu emerged more than a decade ago in the Far East and in 2004 began its march across the globe, infecting poultry flocks, wild birds and the occasional person as it went. With 495 people infected so far and 292 deaths, its 60 per cent death rate posed a serious threat. Swine flu has – mercifully – proved to be a kitten, not a tiger. Will it turn out to be the weakest pandemic in history? It is too early to say; it could yet return with a vengeance next winter.
The Daily Telegraph Apr 22 2010 Swine flu will be back in the winter: scientists
The pandemic is not over and the H1N1 virus is likely to return in the winter when flu would normally be expected, scientists have said.
"...Many people consider the 2009 “swine flu” epidemic as another over-hyped, sky-is-falling media scare, Dr. Jason Eberhart-Phillips, Kansas State Health Officer, acknowledged.
“That’s unfortunate,” he wrote in an opinion column, “because now is a good time to take stock of what we have learned about H1N1 flu in the past year, and start to prepare for the unpredictable — but inevitable — next chapter in humanity’s ongoing coexistence with this new virus.”
MONTREAL - Paper products maker Cascades is looking for new commercial markets with its antibacterial paper towel aimed at cutting down the amount of bacteria spread by hand contact.
Cascades (TSX: CAS.TO) is launching what it calls an "intelligent" antibacterial paper towel that it says compensates for sloppy hand washing in pubic places and business.
The green-coloured paper towel has an antibacterial ingredient that lasts for 30 minutes after hand drying, the Quebec-based company said Tuesday. Cascades said it has added antibacterial ingredient benzalkonium chloride, used in hand and face washes, to the paper towel. It maintains the ingredient reduces the amount of bacteria left on hands after drying and protects them from "subsequent bacterial contamination."
The product is targeted at the food-processing and restaurant sectors, medical clinics, schools and daycares, it said.
"This innovation responds to a need for improved hand hygiene that is frequently cited by public health experts in recent years," said president and CEO Alain Lemaire.
It's not destined for grocery stores at this time and is only for the Canadian market until the company gets approval to market it in the United States and Europe.
With the focus on hand hygiene continuing to remain a forefront issue, and competition between hand sanitizer makers remaining fierce, interesting to make note of a comment made yesterday in a CDC teleconference call in advance of WHO Summit by Katherine Ellingson, a CDC epidemiologist.
In acknowledging professional HCW's rapidly-growing acceptance of non-alcohol hand sanitizer products, Dr. Ellingson, whose research has been supported courtesy of financial grants provided (ironically?) by GOJO Industries, the largest maker of alcohol hand sanitizer products), Ellingson commented that "alcohol remains the preferred product by staff at CDC" [with a twist of lemon??), and that "some makers of non-alcohol-based products were aggressive in marketing their products as effective against the pandemic flu virus (HIN1).." Ellingson referenced warning letters issued against them by the FDA.
We've seen a variety of independent laboratory tests from a variety of manufacturers that use quaternary ammonium elements as the active ingredient in their products. The majority of those test results are consistent, and otherwise indicate that benzalkonium chloride, and/or related compounds, which are used by the majority of non-alcohol hand sanitizer makers, provide similar, and most often better results when compared to legacy alcohol-based products.
As posted here in the past, and despite the fact that most manufacturers have successfully performed lab tests against individual pathogens, the FDA prohibits makers of hand sanitizer products from making pathogen kill claims within their advertising, a policy confirmed by FDA enforcement staff members. According to the FDA, this policy is not limited to advertising efficacy claims re: HINI, but extends to any particular pathogen.
That said, we certainly appreciate and respect the FDA policies re: advertising. We're also familiar with select manufacturers that had inadvertently over-looked FDA advertising guidelines, were since advised by FDA of those errors, and those manufacturers subsequently made immediate corrections to their advertising.
We only wonder why FDA has proven highly-selective in enforcing those rules (only a handful of makers have been cited in the past year), and why FDA continues to allow many other companies to continue to advertise pathogen-specific efficacy claims and flaunt FDA enforcement staff.
If a company is making unsolicited claims, whether it be in connection with H1N1, Clostridium Difficile (c.diff), MRSA, Hepatitis, or other pathogens, they are in clear violation of FDA enforcement rules; FDA does provide for manufacturers to offer these efficacy studies /claims upon request.
This isn't to suggest the products in question are not effective. In fact, most experts that have researched the topic would argue that BZK-based products are actually the smartest choice, if the only other choice were alcohol. It is to suggest however, that if a particular company is irresponsible in its regulatory compliance, it begets the question as to what other compliance issues they are overlooking.
Regrettably, some companies are being so bold as to not only challenge direct competitors by presenting misleading and wholly-inaccurate product comparison "efficacy data", but at the same time, they're distributing material that is clearly in violation of FDA rules.
A perfect example of a company that we cannot endorse is "SafeHands Inc." which is blatantly violating FDA guidelines, and by doing so, they risk besmirching the integrity of responsible manufacturers within the industry.
Hand Hygiene Council For The Advancement of Alcohol-Free Sanitizers
We're neither red nor blue, but we are passionately committed to furthering the advancement of leading alcohol-free hand sanitizer products within medical, corporate, industrial, educational and home environments.
Companies such as Ecolab, GermX, Gojo, and other major manufacturers of alcohol-based hand sanitizing products will challenge our opinions. After all, these companies represent the incumbent products, encompassing a $200 million a year industry within the US alone.
Industry lobbyists have a reason to try to protect the interests of alcohol-based sanitizer manufacturers: they get paid millions of dollars every year to stifle competing technologies. We're here to help create awareness and represent the interests of all concerned about hand hygiene best practices.
Disclaimer Notice
This blog provides opinions only. Any endorsement of any specific product is purely the unsolicited and unpaid opinion of the author(s). Links displayed on this site are not paid for by any product manufacturer.
