Hand Sanitizer Frequently Asked Questions

Antibacterial hand sanitizers are marketed to the public as an effective way to "wash one's hands" when traditional soap and water are not available. These "waterless" products are particularly popular with parents of small children. Manufacturers of hand sanitizers claim that the sanitizers kill 99.9 percent of germs. Since you naturally use hand sanitizers to cleanse your hands, the assumption is that 99.9 percent of harmful germs are killed by the sanitizers. Recent research suggests that this is not the case.

How do hand sanitizers work?
Hand sanitizers work by stripping away the outer layer of oil on the skin. This usually prevents bacteria present in the body from coming to the surface of the hand. However, these bacteria that are normally present in the body are generally not the kinds of bacteria that will make us sick. In a review of the research, Barbara Almanza, an associate professor at Purdue University who teaches safe sanitation practices to workers, came to an interesting conclusion. She notes that the research shows that hand sanitizers do not significantly reduce the number of bacteria on the hand and in some cases may potentially increase the amount of bacteria on the hand. So the question arises, how can the manufacturers make the 99.9 percent claim?

How can the manufacturers make the 99.9 percent claim?
The manufacturers of the products test the products on inanimate surfaces hence they are able to derive the claims of 99.9 percent of bacteria killed. If the products were fully tested on hands, there would no doubt be different results. Since there is inherent complexity in the human hand, testing hands would definitely be more difficult. Using surfaces with controlled variables is an easier way to obtain some type of consistency in the results. But as we are all aware, everyday life is not as consistent.

Current recommendations for hand sanitation
Interestingly enough, the Food and Drug Administration, in regards to regulations concerning proper procedures for food services, recommends that hand sanitizers not be used in place of soap and water but only as an adjunct.

Likewise, Almanza recommends that to properly sanitize the hands, soap and water should be used. A hand sanitizer can not and should not take the place of proper cleansing procedures with soap and water.

Alcohol in hand sanitizer poses threat to children

Hand sanitizer is a common product, but studies show young kids are getting buzzed and sometimes drunk from licking too much sanitizer off their hands.

While beer is 5 proof alcohol and vodka 80 proof, ingested hand sanitizer is 120 proof.

Simply using the sanitizer on a child's hand can place a risk that the child will ingest 62 percent ethyl alcohol. Studies show an average 2-year-old can get buzzed off one teaspoon of sanitizer and legally drunk off of two teaspoons.

Smaller children can ingest smaller amounts and have side affects.

Theresa Lobmeyer said her children have been loopy and even clumsy at times, but was unaware of the dangers of hand sanitizers.

"When I do sanitize them, it's right before we eat," she said. "So, they may not be ingesting it by licking it, but they're handling the food their eating, so they're getting a little of it."

Children's Medical Center of Dallas officials said 12,000 kids under six got sick from sanitizer nationwide last year.

"What you do worry about are the more severe symptoms, excessive lethargy, unable to be aroused, stumbling [and] slurred speech," said Dr. Ben Lee, Children's Medical Center of Dallas.

While Lobmeyer said she hasn't seen any signs of that with her children, she said she will be more cautious when it comes to hand sanitizers and her children.

Src: http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/082107kvuesanitizer-bkm.596ef02c.html

Texas Mom Develops New Kid-Safe, Alcohol-Free Hand Sanitizer

The Invisible Armor launches its new kid-safe alcohol-free antibacterial skin sanitizer and protector. Non-toxic, hypoallergenic hand sanitizer provides (4) hours of protection against dangerous germs and bacteria.

There were 11,914 reported cases of children under the age of six who ingested alcohol-based hand sanitizers last year (source: American Association of Poison Control Centers). When Tammy Powell, mother of two and founder/CEO of The Invisible Armor read that, she could hardly believe her eyes. She says, "First, I thanked God that none of those cases resulted in lasting damage or death and second, I gave my team a new project."

This is a cutting edge product, far superior to regular hand sanitizers. One application in the morning and another after lunch is all that's needed to protect children from even the nastiest germs for the whole day, no matter how many times they wash their hands.
After several months of testing and fine-tuning, The Invisible Armor -- maker of a full line of alcohol-free antibacterial products -- is ready to roll out its kid-safe skin sanitizer. The company says that The Invisible Armor for Kids is effective against most germs and bacteria (including Staph, MRSA and more) but unlike other sanitizers, it protects the skin against recontamination for up to 4 hours, even with repeated hand washings.

Ms. Powell, herself a mother of two says, "This is a cutting edge product, far superior to regular hand sanitizers. One application in the morning and another after lunch is all that's needed to protect children from even the nastiest germs for the whole day, no matter how many times they wash their hands." Several local schools have been using The Invisible Armor with terrific results she adds.

"The teachers love it because its moisture-rich formula doesn't dry out the skin. They also like the idea that they only have to apply The Invisible Armor twice a day, unlike alcohol-based products, which only protect for about 30-40 seconds. Parents love it because it provides the protection the kids need but it's also non-toxic and hypoallergenic so there's no need to worry about them should they ingest it."

Right now Tammy says that she is anxiously awaiting the arrival of Left and Right, the company's two new larger-than-life mascots. "We're busy developing a health and wellness educational campaign that will feature Left and Right, our new seven-foot-tall spokespersons for The Invisible Armor for Kids."

The company's products are sold in Kroger stores, HEB, Brookshire Brothers, Meijer Stores, Walgreens and more. Visit the company's website at www.theinvisiblearmor.net.

Cheaper sanitiser more effective: AUA study

The higher price of hand sanitisers does not necessarily mean a higher efficiency level.

This is according to a study conducted by a group of students from the American University of Antigua (AUA), College of Medicine. It is entitled, “Comparison of the Anti-Microbial Effects of Various Hand Sanitizers”.

Group members were Neeja Dave, Amish Doshi, Brittany Davis, Christian Estrada, Vinod Chadalavada, Staphanie Mazloom, Jonathan Bowers, Thinthiri Chit, Jacqueline Choi, and Ravinder Dhiman.

The research was done as a part of the university’s quarterly microbiology class and was presented at the second Student’s Research Day held in July. The group achieved third place in the class competition.

The objective of the research was to find out which sanitiser, generic or branded, was most effective. Three were chosen from a local supermarket: the $3.39 Lucky Super Soft Instant Hand Sanitizer with Aloe Vera, $4.99 President’s Choice Hand Sanitizer with Aloe Vera and $13.95 Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer with Moisture Therapy. The active ingredient in all three products was 62 per cent ethyl alcohol with slight variations in the inactive ingredients.

It was shown that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends that a concentration of 60 to 95 per cent ethanol or isopropanol be used in sanitising products, the higher the concentration, the better the germ-killing effects.

The results showed that the brand with the most anti-microbial effects is the Lucky brand of hand sanitiser, the least expensive.

Lucky was able to kill most of the micro-organisms with 83 per cent effectiveness, while Purell, the most expensive, was only able to kill about 20 per cent. President’s fell into the middle efficiency level.

The group hypothesised that the extra moisture therapy may have dampened the germ killing effects in Purell. They concluded that the sanitisers with the simplest ingredients, that is without fragrance or lotions would be the most effective. The study also showed that while sanitisers kill some micro-organisms they were not able to kill the most prevalent ones that are always living on the surface of the skin such as staphylococcus aureus.

The report said, “Although many hand sanitisers claim that their brand kills 99.9 per cent of germs, studies have proven that none of the hand sanitisers showed such a effect.”

In fact, they said that many of them showed an increase in the number of micro organisms after the application of hand sanitisers.

The data was collected on two consecutive Friday afternoons on the campus. Thirty students were selected at random to participate for which before and after swabs were collected.

(The public is asked to remember that these were the conclusions of student research and would need more extensive study to use the results conclusively as fact.)
src: http://www.antiguasun.com