Comparing the antibacterial efficacy and functionality of different commercial alcohol-based sanitizers.

The use of alcohol-based sanitizers has been recommended as an effective alternative to clean hands, especially in the case when hand washing is not doable. This is especially critical with the COVID-19 pandemic, where personal hygiene is an important factor to deter the spread of the virus. This study assesses and evaluates the differences in antibacterial efficacy and functionalities of five different commercial alcohol-based sanitizers with different formulations. All sanitizers were able to provide instant sanitization functionality, effectively killing 5x105 CFU/mL of inoculated bacteria. However, comparing pure alcohol-based sanitizers against alcohol-based sanitizers with a secondary active ingredient demonstrated that the addition of a secondary active ingredient enhanced the effectiveness and functionalities of the sanitizers. Alcohol-based sanitizers with secondary active ingredients demonstrated a more rapid antimicrobial mode of action, eradicating all 106 CFU/mL of bacteria within 15 seconds of contact, in contrast to the 30 min for purely alcohol-based sanitizers. The secondary active ingredient also provided additional anti-biofilm functionality to prevent opportunistic microbes from attaching and proliferating on the treated surface, leading to serious biofilm formation. On top of that, treatment of surfaces with alcohol-based sanitizers with secondary active ingredients also imparted prolonged antimicrobial protection to the surface lasting up to 24 h. On the other hand, purely alcohol-based sanitizers do not seem to possess such quality with the treated surface being vulnerable to microbial contamination within minutes after application. These results highlighted the benefits of adding a secondary active ingredient in sanitizer formulation. However, care needs to be taken to evaluate the type and concentration of antimicrobial agents chosen as the secondary active ingredient.

Effect of Long-Term Use of Alcohol-Containing Handwashing Gels on the Biofilm-Forming Capacity of Staphylococcus epidermidis.

The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has promoted the use of hand sanitizers among the general population as recommended by health authorities. Alcohols, which are used in many hand sanitizers, have been shown to promotes the formation of biofilms by certain bacteria and to increase bacterial resistance to disinfection. We investigated the effect of continued use of alcohol-based gel hand sanitizer on biofilm formation by the Staphylococcus epidermidis resident strain isolated from the hands of health science students. Hand microbes were counted before and after handwashing, and the ability to produce biofilms was investigated. We found that 179 (84.8%) strains of S. epidermidis isolated from hands had the ability to form biofilm (biofilm-positive strains) in an alcohol-free culture medium. Furthermore, the presence of alcohol in the culture medium induced biofilm formation in 13 (40.6%) of the biofilm-negative strains and increased biofilm production in 111 (76.6%) strains, which were classified as low-grade biofilm-producing. Based on our findings, there is no clear evidence that the continued use of alcohol-based gels results in the selection of strains with the capacity to form biofilms. However, other disinfectant formulations that are more commonly used in clinical settings, such as alcohol-based hand-rub solutions, should be tested for their long-term effects.

Evaluation of quality and antimicrobial efficacy of locally manufactured alcohol-based hand sanitizers marketed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been rapidly spreading across the globe since the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the disease outbreak as a global pandemic on March 11, 2020. Hand hygiene, via either regular handwashing with soap and water or using hand sanitizers, is among the various measures that need to be followed to control the outbreak of the disease. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) are the "gold standard" for hand disinfection because of their broad antimicrobial spectrum of activity, easy availability, better safety profile, and general acceptability to users. This study aimed at evaluating the physicochemical quality and antimicrobial efficacy of the locally manufactured ABHS marketed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was used to collect ABHS from Addis Ababa marketplaces. A total of 25 sample products were randomly selected from different categories of hand sanitizer manufacturers. The physicochemical evaluation of the products was carried out as per the United States Pharmacopoeia and WHO standards. Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp., and Shigella spp clinical isolates were used for the antimicrobial efficacy test. RESULTS: The Fourier Transform Infrared result confirmed that all the test products met the identification test for ethanol. The majority (68%) of ABHS complied with the test for ethanol content (75-85% v/v). However, only 3 products fulfilled the hydrogen peroxide content (0.112-0.137% v/v). LPC307 showed the maximum zone of inhibition of 12 mm against Escherichia coli whereas MPC204 exhibited only 3 mm. LPC101 was found to be more sensitive to Shigella and Klebsiella Spp with minimum inhibitory concentration values of 20% and 10%, respectively. The sample product LPC101 showed a minimum bactericidal concentration of 20% against Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella spp. CONCLUSION: One-third of the tested ABHS did not comply with the WHO ethanol content limit and the majority of the products failed to meet the label claim for hydrogen peroxide content. Besides, nearly all products proved that they have activity against all the tested pathogenic microorganisms at a minimum concentration from 10 to 80%; though, they did not show 99.9% bacteriostatic or bactericidal activities as claimed. The study findings suggested regular monitoring of the quality of marketed ABHS considering the current wide use of these products.

Assessment of Anti-Bacterial Effectiveness of Hand Sanitizers Commonly Used in South Africa.

Hand sanitizers are used as an alternative to hand washing to reduce the number of viable microorganisms when soap and water are not readily available. This study aimed to investigate the anti-bacterial effectiveness of commercially available hand sanitizers and those commonly used in healthcare and community settings. A mapping exercise was done to select and procure different hand sanitizers (n = 18) from retailers. Five microorganisms implicated in hospital-acquired infections were selected and tested against each hand sanitizer: Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. Twenty-one volunteers were recruited to do a handprint before and after applying the hand sanitizer. Only four out of eighteen hand sanitizers (22%) were effective against all tested bacterial species, and an equal number (22%) were completely ineffective. Seven hand sanitizers with a label claim of 99.99% were only effective against E. coli. Only five hand sanitizers (27%) effectively reduced bacteria on participants' hands. This study showed that only a fifth of hand sanitizers were effective against selected microorganisms. The findings raise a concern about the effectiveness of hand sanitizers and their role in infection, prevention, and control if not well regulated.

Assessment of disinfectant efficacy in reducing microbial growth.

The incidence of hospital- and community-acquired infections has been dramatically increased worldwide. Accordingly, hands hygiene and the use of disinfectants have been increased leading to the expansion in hand sanitizers production to meet public demand. This study was conducted to assess the efficiency of common disinfectants in the market of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in inhibiting the microbial growth during the time of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Five bacterial strains of commonly hospital-acquired infections (Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Salmonella enteritidis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Enterococcus faecalis) (ATCC reference strains and clinical isolates) were examined for their susceptibility against 18 disinfectants collected from the Saudi market. The tested 18 disinfectants were broadly clustered into different groups based on their active chemical composition as following: 12 products contained alcohol, 2 products had chlorhexidine, 3 products contained mixed concentration of alcohol/chlorhexidine and 1 product had a mixture of chlorhexidine/Hexamidine/Chlorocresol. By measuring the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), our results revealed that all the 18 disinfectants have reduced the microbial growth of all the tested strains. Generally, the MICs and the MBCs for the clinical strains are higher than those of the reference strains. Taken together, our findings showed that all tested products have high disinfectants' killing rate against microbes of different origins, which suggest the high quality of these disinfectants and the good surveillance practice by the local authorities in Saudi Arabia.

Prevalence of alcohol-tolerant and antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens on public hand sanitizer dispensers.

BACKGROUND: Since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol-based hand sanitizer dispensers (HSDs) have been installed in most public and clinical settings for hygiene purposes and convenient application. AIM: To determine whether sanitizer-tolerant bacterial pathogens can colonize HSDs, spreading diseases and antibiotic resistance. METHODS: Sampling was conducted from operational automatic HSDs, specifically the dispensing nozzle in direct contact with sanitizer. Culture-dependent cultivation of bacteria and MALDI-TOF were employed to assess microbiological contamination. Bacterial isolates were selected for rapid killing and biofilm eradication assays with alcohol treatment. Antibiotic minimum inhibitory concentration assays were performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. Virulence potential of bacterial isolates was evaluated in the Caenorhadbitis elegans infection model. FINDINGS: Nearly 50% of HSDs from 52 locations, including clinical settings, food industry, and public spaces, contain microbial contamination at 103-106 bacteria/mL. Bacterial identification revealed Bacillus cereus as the most frequent pathogen (29%), while Enterobacter cloacae was the only Gram-negative bacterial pathogen (2%). Selecting B. cereus and E. cloacae isolates for further evaluation, these isolates and associated biofilms were found to be tolerant to alcohol with survival up to 70%. They possessed resistance to various antibiotic classes, with higher virulence than laboratory strains in the C. elegans infection model. CONCLUSION: HSDs serve as potential breeding grounds for dissemination of pathogens and antibiotic resistance across unaware users. Proper HSD maintenance will ensure protection of public health and sustainable use of sanitizing alcohols, to prevent emergence of alcohol-resistant pathogens.

Raising awareness about the unintended consequences of hand sanitiser in children.

The use of hand sanitisers is common practice to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the safety thereof requires consideration as this may be hazardous in children. Recent studies have shown that the misuse and increased unsupervised availability of alcohol-based hand sanitisers may result in adverse events in children such as skin irritation, dryness, cracking and peeling. Unintentional or intentional ingestion of hand sanitisers in children under the age of 12 years may occur because of the colour, smell and flavour added to it. Consumption of alcohol in children may result in hypoglycaemia, apnoea and acidosis. This allows the invasion of other bacterial and viral infections. Children may also rub their eyes with sanitised hands and cause ocular injury. Therefore, the use of hand sanitisers in general needs to be revised in both children and adults. Other interventions on lowering the risk of adverse events because of misuse of hand sanitiser should be practised more often. These include promoting washing of hands over sanitisers where possible, training children on how to use hand sanitisers and creating awareness of the dangers if ingested or in contact with the eyes.

Amuchina Gel Xgerm hand rub in vitro virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2.

Aim: Ethanol is highly effective at inactivating enveloped viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study is to evaluate the virucidal activity of Amuchina Gel Xgerm (74% ethanol) against SARS-CoV-2, according to the European Standard EN14476:2013+A2:2019. Materials & methods: Virucidal activity of the study product was evaluated against SARS-CoV-2 strain USAWA1/2020 in suspension, in the presence of 0.3 g/l of bovine serum albumin. Results: The log10 reduction of SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of bovine serum albumin was ≥4.11 ± 0.12 after 30 s of exposure to the study product (80% dilution). Cytotoxicity was observed in the 100 dilution, affecting the detection limit by 1 log10. Conclusion: Virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2 supports the effectiveness of this alcohol-based formulation as a prevention measure for COVID-19 illness.

Lay abstract The virus responsible of COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, can be inactivated by ethanol. This study evaluates the ability of an alcohol-based hand sanitizer (Amuchina Gel Xgerm, 74% ethanol) to kill SARS-CoV-2, according to the European Standard guidelines. Amuchina Gel Xgerm completely inactivates the virus after 30 s of exposure. This result supports the effectiveness of this alcohol-based formulation as a prevention measure for COVID-19.

Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by Ozonated Glycerol.

We evaluated the SARS-CoV-2-inactivation activity of ozonated glycerol (OG). When a viral solution with 1% fetal bovine serum (FBS) was mixed with test solutions at a ratio of 1:19 and incubated for 20 s, OG with ozone concentrations of over 1000 ppm inactivated ≥ 94.38% of the virus. Extension of the reaction time to 1 h led to the inactivation of ≥ 99.82% of the virus (the viral titer was below the detection limit). Extension to 24 h resulted in concentrations over 200 ppm OG inactivating ≥ 99.87% of the virus (the viral titers were below the detection limit). Next, viral solutions with 1, 20, and 40% FBS were mixed with test solutions at a ratio of 1:19 and incubated for 5 min. Whereas the virucidal activity of 500 ppm OG was very limited in the presence of 1% FBS (79.47% inactivation), it increased in the presence of 20 and 40% FBS (95.13 and 97.95% inactivation, respectively; the viral titers were not below the detection limit). Meanwhile, over 1000 ppm OG inactivated ≥ 99.44% of the virus regardless of the FBS concentration (the viral titers were below the detection limit). Extension of the reaction time to 1 h led to 500 ppm OG inactivating ≥ 99.91 and ≥ 99.95% of the virus with 20 and 40% FBS, respectively (the viral titers were below the detection limit). These results suggested that OG might be useful as a virucidal agent against SARS-CoV-2.

Evaluating the Antimicrobial Properties of Commercial Hand Sanitizers.

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.

Antiviral efficacy of personal care formulations against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.

BACKGROUND: Non-therapeutic interventions such as practicing good hand hygiene continue to be the mainstay of protection from SARS-CoV-2 and other emerging respiratory viruses. METHODS: We have evaluated a range of commercially available personal care products including soaps, handwash liquids and alcohol-based hand sanitizers for antiviral efficacy against a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2 using internationally accepted standardized protocols at user-relevant contact time-points and product dilutions. RESULTS: All the tested products resulted in 3 to 4 log reduction of SARS-CoV-2 titer. CONCLUSION: Our data re-affirms recommendations by global public health authorities that proper hand hygiene can reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load significantly which should likely limit spread of the contagion.

Alcohol-free hand sanitizer and other quaternary ammonium disinfectants quickly and effectively inactivate SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is the virus responsible for the current global pandemic, COVID-19. Because this virus is novel, little is known about its sensitivity to disinfection. METHODS: We performed suspension tests against SARS-CoV-2 using three commercially available quaternary ammonium compound (Quat) disinfectants and one laboratory-made 0.2% benzalkonium chloride solution. FINDINGS: Three of the four formulations completely inactivated the virus within 15 s of contact, even in the presence of a soil load or when diluted in hard water. CONCLUSION: Quats rapidly inactivate SARS-CoV-2, making them potentially useful for controlling SARS-CoV-2 spread in hospitals and the community.

Analysis of Commercial Hand Sanitisers amid CoViD-19: Are We Getting the Products that We Need?

The CoViD-19 pandemic has caused a sudden spike in demand and production of hand sanitisers. Concerns are rising regarding the quality of such products, as the safeguard of consumers is a priority worldwide. We analyse here the ethanolic content of seven off-the-shelf hand sanitiser gels (two biocides and five cosmetics) from the Italian market, using gas chromatography. The WHO recommends that products containing ethanol should have 60-95% (v/v) alcohol. Four of the tested hand gels have ethanolic contents within the recommended range, while three products (all cosmetics) contain < 60% (v/v), i.e. 52.1% (w/w), ethanol. The product with the lowest alcoholic content has 37.1% w/w ethanol. Toxic methanol is not found in any of the hand sanitisers. We show, in addition, that products with the highest ethanolic content have generally greater antibacterial activity. In conclusion, all tested products are complying with the EU regulations, as the three "substandard" products are classified as cosmetics, whose purpose is cleaning and not disinfecting. Nevertheless, if such hand cleaners were inappropriately used as hand disinfectants, they might be ineffective. Thus, consumer safety relays on awareness and ability to distinguish between biocidal and cosmetics hand gels. The obtained results might sensitise the scientific community, health agencies and ultimately consumers towards the risks of using hand sanitisers of substandard alcoholic concentration. If the wrong product is chosen by consumers, public health can be compromised by the inappropriate use of "low-dosed" cosmetic gels as disinfectants, particularly during the period of the CoViD-19 pandemic.

Alcohol-based hand sanitisers as first line of defence against SARS-CoV-2: a review of biology, chemistry and formulations.

The pandemic due to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged as a serious global public health issue. Since the start of the outbreak, the importance of hand-hygiene and respiratory protection to prevent the spread of the virus has been the prime focus for infection control. Health regulatory organisations have produced guidelines for the formulation of hand sanitisers to the manufacturing industries. This review summarises the studies on alcohol-based hand sanitisers and their disinfectant activity against SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses. The literature shows that the type and concentration of alcohol, formulation and nature of product, presence of excipients, applied volume, contact time and viral contamination load are critical factors that determine the effectiveness of hand sanitisers.

Synergistic effects of anionic surfactants on coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) virucidal efficiency of sanitizing fluids to fight COVID-19.

Our surrounding environment, especially often-touched contaminated surfaces, plays an important role in the transmission of pathogens in society. The shortage of effective sanitizing fluids, however, became a global challenge quickly after the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak in December 2019. In this study, we present the effect of surfactants on coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) virucidal efficiency in sanitizing fluids. Sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS), sodium laureth sulfate (SLS), and two commercial dish soap and liquid hand soap were studied with the goal of evaporation rate reduction in sanitizing liquids to maximize surface contact time. Twelve fluids with different recipes composed of ethanol, isopropanol, SDBS, SLS, glycerin, and water of standardized hardness (WSH) were tested for their evaporation time and virucidal efficiency. Evaporation time increased by 17-63% when surfactant agents were added to the liquid. In addition, surfactant incorporation enhanced the virucidal efficiency between 15 and 27% according to the 4-field test in the EN 16615:2015 European Standard method. Most importantly, however, we found that surfactant addition provides a synergistic effect with alcohols to inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This study provides a simple, yet effective solution to improve the virucidal efficiency of commonly used sanitizers.

Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by commercially available alcohol-based hand sanitizers.

Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are being recommended as an infection prevention measure for COVID-19. Recently published data indicates that ethanol effectively inactivates the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but there is a lack of data for formulated hand sanitizer products currently used in U.S. healthcare and general settings. This study demonstrates a commercially available foam and gel alcohol-based hand sanitizer are effective in inactivating SARS-CoV-2 in suspension.

Effects of hand disinfection with alcohol hand rub, ozonized water, or soap and water: time for reconsideration?

The effect of alcohol hand rub was tested in eradicating Escherichia coli, and compared with hand wash using ozonized tap water or soap and water. Alcohol eradicated all bacteria in 10 out of 35 participants, but with an average (SD) of 2330 (4227) cfu/mL left after disinfection, whereas ozonized water removed all bacteria in 10 out of 55 participants, with an average of only 538 (801) cfu/mL left (P = 0.045). Soap washing was the most effective with total removal of bacteria in six out of 20 participants, with an average of 98 (139) cfu/mL (P = 0.048 and 0.018 versus ozonized water and alcohol, respectively).

Thoughts on What Chemists Can Contribute to Fighting SARS-CoV-2 - A Short Note on Hand Sanitizers, Drug Candidates and Outreach.

The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak causing the respiratory disease COVID-19 has left many chemists in academia without an obvious option to contribute to fighting the pandemic. Some of our recent experiences indicate that there are ways to overcome this dilemma. A three-pronged approach is proposed.