Comparing the effectiveness between gel and foam hand sanitizers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Hand sanitizers are commonly used as an alternative to washing hands with warm water and soap. There are a variety of different hand sanitizers including gel and foam and they are known to kill several bacteria. Many factors play a role in the effectiveness of hand sanitizers such as the alcohol concentration and the techniques used to apply hand sanitizers. Alcohol based hand sanitizers must have an alcohol concentration of 60 - 70% to be effective. There is currently no legislation regulating hand sanitizers and there is a lack of research focusing on differences between foam and gel hand sanitizers. This research study investigates effectiveness of gel compared to foam hand sanitizers by evaluating the prevalence of Escherichia coli (E.coli) on pigskins. Methods: To compare the hand sanitizers, microbiological sampling was completed. E.coli was introduced onto 65 pigskins. Five pigskins were used as a baseline to determine the average amount of Colony Forming Units (CFUs) of E.coli present prior to the application of hand sanitizers. One set of the 30 pigskins was applied with gel hand sanitizer, whereas the other 30 was applied with foam hand sanitizer. The pigskins were swabbed with QuickSnap swabs and plated onto 3M Petrifilms. The 65 petrifilms were incubated at 35oC for 48 hours. After incubation, the CFUs of E.coli present on the petrifilm were enumerated. The difference in CFUs was calculated to determine the reduction in E.coli and the overall effectiveness of hand sanitizers. Results: The data was analyzed by using the statistical software, NCSS. Statistical analysis showed that the findings were statistically significant and the null hypothesis (Ho: no difference in CFUs of E.coli between foam versus gel alcohol-based hand sanitizers) was rejected with a power of 0.9997 at p-value of 0.00000. This indicates that there is a difference in the ability to reduce E.coli between gel and foam hand sanitizers and gel sanitizers appeared to be more effective. Conclusion: These results indicate that there was a difference in the effectiveness between foam and gel hand sanitizers in reducing E.coli that was inoculated onto pigskins. However, consumers should be aware that hand sanitizers do not completely eliminate all pathogens. Though gel hand sanitizers are more effective, they should only be used when there are no other methods of keeping hands clean.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».