Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control and BioMed Central.

This article is part of the supplement: Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control: Abstracts from the 2nd International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control (ICPIC 2013)

Open Access Open Badges Poster presentation

P106: Towards a new methodology in hygienic handrub testing

M Wilkinson1, DR Macinga23*, C Bradley1, J Arbogast3, B Okeke3, F Brill4 and A Fraise1

  • * Corresponding author: DR Macinga

Author Affiliations

1 University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK

2 Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA

3 GOJO Industries, Inc., Akron, OH, USA

4 Dr. Brill + Partner GmbH, Hamburg, Germany

For all author emails, please log on.

Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control 2013, 2(Suppl 1):P106  doi:10.1186/2047-2994-2-S1-P106

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:

Published:20 June 2013

© 2013 Wilkinson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Internationally-recognized standards for evaluating alcohol based hand rubs (ABHR) differ significantly in methodology and success criteria. Hand hygiene authorities including the WHO and U.S. CDC have recognized inherent weaknesses with the current methods and have highlighted the need for improved in vivo efficacy methods, which reflect the use conditions and experience of healthcare practitioners.


Variables within the European Standard EN1500 (Hygienic Handrub) method and ASTM standard E2755-10 method, including methods of hand contamination and modes of recovery, were tested on their ability to provide a consistent, robust method for testing ABHR.


The EN1500 method of contamination did not allow for hands to be sufficiently dry to adequately test smaller volumes of ABHR, typical of healthcare practitioner use. Whilst the ASTM E2755 method did allow for the hands to be sufficiently dry, the ‘glove-juice’ sampling technique of recovery was more cumbersome and led to a higher limit of detection, and thus potentially poor discrimination between products (2 x 3ml of 60% v/v propan-2-ol gave a mean log10 RF of 3.65; standard deviation 0.472). A hybrid method consisting of the ASTM E2755 method of contamination with an EN1500 method of recovery resulted in baseline recoveries of Escherichia coli K12 that were relatively low (mean log10 precount of 5.57; standard deviation 0.615). A hybrid method comprising the contamination of fingerpads with small volumes of microbial broth, coupled with the EN1500 method of recovery, appeared to yield a robust method that allowed dry hands to be tested with ABHR, with a low limit of detection (2 x 3ml of 60% v/v propan-2-ol gave a mean log10 RF of 5.62; standard deviation 1.108).


Whilst further work is needed, it appears that a method involving the contamination of fingerpads, followed by the EN1500 method of recovery, may be a suitable candidate for inclusion in a single, globally-recognized in vivo efficacy standard, which would be more predictive of ABHR performance under clinical use conditions.

Disclosure of interest

None declared