Ability of Hand Hygiene Interventions Using Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers and Soap To Reduce Microbial Load on Farmworker Hands Soiled during Harvest
- PMID: 26555526
- DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-102
Ability of Hand Hygiene Interventions Using Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizers and Soap To Reduce Microbial Load on Farmworker Hands Soiled during Harvest
Abstract
Effective hand hygiene is essential to prevent the spread of pathogens on produce farms and reduce foodborne illness. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act Proposed Rule for Produce Safety recommends the use of soap and running water for hand hygiene of produce handlers. The use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) may be an effective alternative hygiene intervention where access to water is limited. There are no published data on the efficacy of either soap or ABHS-based interventions to reduce microbial contamination in agricultural settings. The goal of this study was to assess the ability of two soap-based (traditional or pumice) and two ABHS-based (label-use or two-step) hygiene interventions to reduce microbes (coliforms, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus spp.) and soil (absorbance of hand rinsate at 600 nm [A600]) on farmworker hands after harvesting produce, compared with the results for a no-hand-hygiene control. With no hand hygiene, farmworker hands were soiled (median A600, 0.48) and had high concentrations of coliforms (geometric mean, 3.4 log CFU per hand) and Enterococcus spp. (geometric mean, 5.3 log CFU per hand) after 1 to 2 h of harvesting tomatoes. Differences in microbial loads in comparison to the loads in the control group varied by indicator organism and hygiene intervention (0 to 2.3 log CFU per hand). All interventions yielded lower concentrations of Enterococcus spp. and E. coli (P < 0.05), but not of coliforms, than were found in the control group. The two-step ABHS intervention led to significantly lower concentrations of coliforms and Enterococcus spp. than the pumice soap and label-use ABHS interventions (P < 0.05) and was the only intervention to yield significantly fewer samples with E. coli than were found in the control group (P < 0.05). All interventions removed soil from hands (P < 0.05), soap-based interventions more so than ABHS-based interventions (P < 0.05). ABHS-based interventions were equally as effective as hand washing with soap at reducing indicator organisms on farmworker hands. Based on these results, ABHS is an efficacious hand hygiene solution for produce handlers, even on soiled hands.
Similar articles
-
Both Handwashing and an Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer Intervention Reduce Soil and Microbial Contamination on Farmworker Hands during Harvest, but Produce Type Matters.Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020 Sep 1;86(18):e00780-20. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00780-20. Print 2020 Sep 1. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020. PMID: 32680869 Free PMC article.
-
Removal of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis after Hand Washing with Antimicrobial and Nonantimicrobial Soap and Persistence of These Bacteria in Rinsates.J Food Prot. 2017 Oct;80(10):1670-1675. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-17-088. J Food Prot. 2017. PMID: 28876132
-
SaniTwice: a novel approach to hand hygiene for reducing bacterial contamination on hands when soap and water are unavailable.J Food Prot. 2010 Dec;73(12):2296-300. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-73.12.2296. J Food Prot. 2010. PMID: 21219752
-
Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 10. Alcohol-based antiseptics for hand disinfection and a comparison of their effectiveness with soaps.J Food Prot. 2010 Nov;73(11):2128-40. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-73.11.2128. J Food Prot. 2010. PMID: 21219730 Review.
-
Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 9. Washing and drying of hands to reduce microbial contamination.J Food Prot. 2010 Oct;73(10):1937-55. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-73.10.1937. J Food Prot. 2010. PMID: 21067683 Review.
Cited by
-
Anti-microbial efficacy of a scientifically developed and standardized herbal-alcohol sanitizer.Arch Microbiol. 2024 Jan 25;206(2):77. doi: 10.1007/s00203-023-03805-4. Arch Microbiol. 2024. PMID: 38270599
-
Evaluation of Risk of Zoonotic Pathogen Transmission in a University-Based Animal Assisted Intervention (AAI) Program.Front Vet Sci. 2019 Jun 4;6:167. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00167. eCollection 2019. Front Vet Sci. 2019. PMID: 31214606 Free PMC article.
-
Contamination of Fresh Produce by Microbial Indicators on Farms and in Packing Facilities: Elucidation of Environmental Routes.Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017 May 17;83(11):e02984-16. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02984-16. Print 2017 Jun 1. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017. PMID: 28363965 Free PMC article.
-
A two-component intervention to improve hand hygiene practices and promote alcohol-based hand rub use among people who inject drugs: a mixed-methods evaluation.BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Feb 25;21(1):211. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-05895-1. BMC Infect Dis. 2021. PMID: 33632143 Free PMC article.
-
Handwashing and Ebola virus disease outbreaks: A randomized comparison of soap, hand sanitizer, and 0.05% chlorine solutions on the inactivation and removal of model organisms Phi6 and E. coli from hands and persistence in rinse water.PLoS One. 2017 Feb 23;12(2):e0172734. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172734. eCollection 2017. PLoS One. 2017. PMID: 28231311 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous