Efficacy of Organic Acids in Hand Cleansers for Prevention of Rhinovirus Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct hand-to-hand contact is an important mechanism of transmission of rhinovirus infection. The rhinoviruses are inactivated at a low pH. A survey of organic acids in vitro revealed that these compounds have antirhinoviral activity that persists for at least 3 h after application to the skin. In additional studies of salicylic acid (SA) and pyroglutamic acid (PGA), the hands of volunteers were contaminated with rhinovirus at defined times after application of the acid, and then volunteers attempted to inoculate the nasal mucosa with one hand and quantitative viral cultures were done on the other hand. In one study, 3.5% SA or 1% SA with 3.5% PGA was compared with controls 15 min after application to assess the efficacy of the inactivation of virus and prevention of infection. Virus was recovered from the hands of 28 out of 31 (90%) of the volunteers in the control group compared to 4 out of 27 (15%) and 0 out of 27 in the groups administered 3.5 and 1% SA, respectively (P < 0.05). Rhinovirus infection occurred in 10 out of 31 (32%) of the controls and 2 out of 27 (7%) of volunteers in both treatment groups (P < 0.05 compared with control). In a second study, the efficacy of 4% PGA was evaluated 15 min, 1 h, and 3 h after application. Significantly fewer volunteers had positive hand cultures at all time points compared with the control group, but the proportion that developed rhinovirus infection was not significantly reduced. These results suggest the feasibility of the prevention of rhinovirus transmission by hand treatments that are virucidal on contact and have activity that persists after application.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".