1018
Sven Eggerstedt et al Alcohol-based hand rubs must meet the requirements of EN 1500
Sven Eggerstedt PhD, Patricia Fliß PhD, Erika Mönch PhD and Christiane Ostermeyer Bode Chemie GmbH, Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
To the Editor—Kramer et al conducted an interesting study to compare the outcome of different application times (15 seconds and 30 seconds) for hygienic hand disinfection under practical conditions in which they were able to show a significant increase in frequency of hand rub actions when the recommended appli- cation time was reduced from 30 seconds to 15 seconds. Although the authors clearly state that only alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs) that meet the requirements of the EN 1500 in 15 sec- onds are suited to be applied with a shortened application time of 15 seconds under practical working conditions, the published results for the different ABHRs do not demonstrate a sufficient efficacy in 15 seconds according to EN 1500. Methods like EN 1500 (phase 2, step 2) offer a standardized
alcohol content following a modified EN 1500 (1997) method.1 In other words, the test parameters defined in the European Norm were altered in these tests. In addition, an outdated version of the method, which was revised in 2013,2 was applied, and Kramer et al also modified the reference procedure significantly without pro- viding an explanation for this approach. Compared to EN 1500, in their study, the application volume of the refence alcohol 60% v/v 2-propanol was halved from 6 to 3mL, and the application time was reduced from 60 seconds to 30 seconds. Rotter et al,3 who investigated the impact of variations in the
procedure to compare the in vivo efficacy of ABHRs under laboratory conditions, and they function as an important criter- ium in the authorization process of these products independently if they are regulated as medicinal or biocidal products. The EN 1500 procedure specifies how ABHRs must be tested in com- parison to a defined reference procedure (2×30 seconds; 2×3mL 60 % v/v 2-propanol), and it provides statistical requirements that must be fulfilled by the test products. Furthermore, EN 1500 allows the testing of ABHRs only with durations between 30 seconds and 60 seconds. Notably, application times shorter than 30 seconds are not authorized. To obtain meaningful con- clusions out of the test results, it is essential that the tests are conducted exactly the way they are described in EN 1500. Kramer et al1 tested various products covering a broad range of
standard procedure of EN 1500, showed that the shortened duration of the reference procedure (15 seconds or 30 seconds instead of 60 seconds) in combination with half the disinfectant volume (1×3mL instead of 2×3mL) led to a reduction in the bactericidal efficacy of 2-propanol on the hands.3 In their tests, the differences were significant between 30 seconds with 3mL and 60 seconds with 2×3mL as well as between 15 seconds with 3mL and 60 seconds with 2×3 mL. Considering these results, the hurdle to success in one of the most stringent standard testing norms, as it was called by
Author for correspondence: Sven Eggerstedt, Bode Chemie GmbH, Melanchthonstr. 27, 22525 Hamburg, Germany. E-mail:
sven.eggerstedt@
bode-chemie.de
Cite this article: Eggerstedt S, et al. (2018). Alcohol-based hand rubs must meet the
requirements of EN 1500. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2018, 39, 1018. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.129
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.
Kramer et al, was dramatically lower in their ABHRs in vivo tests following EN 1500. In fact, however, their test design did not follow the EN 1500 method. Therefore, Kramer et al’sconclusionthatall tested ABHRs fulfilled EN 1500 in 15 seconds is misleading. Readers should be aware that ABHRs consisting of ethanol in the range of 70% w/w (75%v/v), for example, which were also tested by Kramer et al, did not fulfill the EN 1500 requirement in 30 seconds with 3 mL in other studies.4,5 Therefore, it is highly improbable that those products will be effective in 15 seconds if tested according to the EN 1500 method with an application volume of 3mL. We would also like to address the efficacy findings under
practical working conditions. Kramer et al observed no significant efficacy differences between the groups rubbing hands for 15 seconds and 30 seconds. This finding is not surprising because in both groups nearly the same amount of ABHRs (3.4mL vs 3.3mL) was applied. Furthermore, “there was no difference in duration for hand antisepsis action between both groups,” as Kramer et al state in the discussion section of their publication. In conclusion, we strongly support all efforts to improve
hand hygiene compliance in clinical practice. However, the effi- cacy of ABHRs should be proven according to established test methods (ie, EN 1500) without modifications that lower their requirements.
Financial support. No financial support was provided relevant to this article.
Potential conflicts of interest. All authors are employees of Bode Chemie GmbH.
References 1. EN 1500. Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics. Hygienic hand rub. Test method and requirements (phase 2/step 2). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 1997.
2. EN 1500. Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics. Hygienic hand rub. Test method and requirements (phase 2/step 2). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2013.
3. Rotter ML, Suchomel M, Weinlich M, Kundi M. Impact of shortening the duration of application and the standardized rubbing sequence as well as the reduction of the disinfectant volume used for the hygienic hand rub with 2-propanol (60 % v/v). Hyg Med 2009;34:19–23.
4. Suchomel M, Kundi M, Pittet D, Weinlich M, Rotter ML. Testing of the World Health Organization recommended formulations in their applica- tion as hygienic hand rubs and proposals for increased efficacy. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:328–331.
5. Kampf G, Ostermeyer C, Werner HP, Suchomel M. Efficacy of hand rubs with a low alcohol concentration listed as effective by a national hospital hygiene society in Europe. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2013;2:19–25.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
