I think that those would be Ultramicrobes you are creating, wouldn't they?

I used to boldly say that use of hand sanitizers should be limited to those with known suppressed immune systems, certain medical professionals and those for whom warm water and soap is not available 2 or 3 times a day... that use of these products by everyone else is far more likely to create a problem than solve one.

I still believe this to be true but H1N1 has changed the stridency.

We are inundated with anti-bacterials in everything now. It's almost impossible to buy a liquid soap that's not anti-bacterial. On principle, I oppose the overuse, but in practice, we have a dispenser at every sink in the house.

We first noticed the touchless dispensers on a cruise ship in 2006. The captain was afraid of a Norwalk virus outbreak and reminded passengers and crew several times each day to be sure to use them. Since then, we have found them on every ship located at the entries to all of the dining venues and the gangway on port days. Maybe it's coincidence, but we've never had a Norwalk outbreak on any of these ships.

if you are using an alcohol based sanitizer like Purell you won't be creating a super germ...the only type of sanitizer you would need to worry about are quat based...

We should all remember that hand sanitizers should be used in conjunction with, not as a substitute for, good hygiene.

Yeah I think about this too. My roommate is always talking about how bad hand sanitizer is but....can't avoid it. Sorry Kids

If your sanitizer has less than 60% alcohol in it it will not do the trick

bra1nchild, I agree it can be difficult to find liquid soap that isn't anti-bacterial, but that situation seems to be improving lately. Whole Foods had quite an array of choices last week. Not sure about other grocery stores and big box stores.

When the anti-bacterial soaps were first marketed, I was kind of horrified. I used these all the time while working in a hospital, but I sure didn't want them in my home. For a long time, I didn't buy any liquid soaps, preferring to stick with the bar soap. Then one day, a neighbor boy was over and needed to wash his hands at the kitchen sink. He looked around for the soap dispenser. There was none. I gestured to the bar sitting on the soap dish. Unfortunately, it was a particularly worn out shard of Ivory. You know the kind: eroded, desiccated, streaked with black marks, a sedimentary rock of soap.

The young lad hesitantly picked it up, began to wash, and said, "Miss Laura, was this soap here when you moved in?"

That's when I decided it was time to switch to liquid.

sas, you are misinformed. there are alcohol-free hand sanitizers available that dont pesses all the disadvantages of Purell: non-flammable, non toxic, don't dry out the skin, and oh yeah, they also kill better by a 2-log factor (99.999 insteadof 99.9%)
And to Anonymous: rubbish. How can a product that kills 99.999% of viruses make them resistant? Dead is dead. And quat is so much better and safer than alcohol. Except in a margarita :)

Adrian

If i can find the article from the Duke doctor who is the one who did a great deal of research on the issue I would be happy to send it to you. He probably is a little bit more reliable than you or me

This truly is the only blog I'll ever need.

sas, didn't see a Duke reference but google got me this one:

"But a study published in this month's issue of the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases found that at least one brand of sanitizer found on store shelves, as well as some recipes for homemade versions circulating on Web sites about crafts or directed at parents, contain significantly less than the 60 percent minimum alcohol concentration that health officials deem necessary to kill most harmful bacteria and viruses."

source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/21/health/21cons.html

I still say that warm water, common soap and the friction of washing are adequate for most in most instances.

Adrian,

I sell both alcohol based sanitizers and non-alcohol based sanitizers. First, the CDC recommends alcohol based sanitizers as an option if soap and water are not available. Secondly, here is information regarding resistance to Purell directly from the manufacturer's website.

Does PURELL contribute to antimicrobial resistance?
Answer:

No. Because alcohol evaporates completely, there is no alcohol left behind to promote adaptation. Alcohol has been used in healthcare for over 100 years with no adverse effects. There is no evidence that microorganisms adapt or become resistant to PURELL.

In addition, Purell is as toxic as any soap. If you decide to drink it like any product you are not supposed to ingest, you will get sick way before you get drunk. Here is more info from their site regarding this:

What about reports of ingestion of alcohol-based hand sanitizers?
Answer:
PURELL Instant Hand Sanitizer is safe and effective when used as directed. To discourage misuse by ingestion, PURELL contains ingredients that impart an unpleasant taste, making it undesirable to drink

What is wrong with bar soap and water? I do not understand liquid hand soap or these hand sanitizers they have every 30' at work. I can't help but wonder if the liquid soap and hand sanitizer companies aren't using fear and ignorance to sell unnecessary and expensive product.

There’s actually nothing confusing about the issue when considering that more than 1000 schools throughout the US have prohibited alcohol-based hand sanitizer and are procuring only non-alcohol hand sanitizer products.

We know this because more than 400 of those schools have contacted us unsolicited for our product—after local school officials concluded that
Alcohol hand sanitizers, while they do kill germs, are a pretty counter-intuitive product.
1. Alcohol destroys protective skin cells
2. Alcohol causes skin to become dry/irritated; increasing risk of exposure to easily-transmitted germs/viruses
3. Alcohol has no efficacy if applied to dirty/soiled hands. This is exactly why companies such as Purell advise “wash hands before applying”
4. If one is to wash hands before applying, then why would you put alcohol into a kids hands thereafter??
5. Alcohol loses its germ killing effectiveness within seconds after applying to the skin.
6. Flammable.
7. Potentially toxic.
8. Cannot be applied to skin that may have cuts/abrasions

The vast majority of non-alcohol hand sanitizer products use the exact same active ingredient that can be found in Bactine antiseptic or J&J’s Bandaid brand Foaming Antiseptic. As such, the efficacy of non-alcohol hand sanitizing products with regard to the broad spectrum of pathogens (including H1N1( is well-documented. And when considering that these products:
1. Provide extended persistency
2. Non-drying/non-irritating
3. Antiseptic
4. Non-flammable
5. Non-toxic

It’s otherwise a pretty simple decision to make when deciding what makes sense to put into our kids hands.

Anyone else wonder if Dr Stu knows Dr Laura?

shill: A person paid to endorse a product favorably, while pretending to be impartial; An accomplice at a confidence trick such as during an auction or gambling game; To promote as a fan or customer; To put under cover; to sheal

The more of these tools I see the more inclined I am to go with my instinct in the matter: warm water, ordinary soap, and friction YMMV

At least I took out the link to his Web site. EL :-)

I understand the key to making good old soap and water effective is to scrub for as long as it takes to sing "Happy Birthday."

i think the idea behind using the hand sanitizers is to use them when soap and water isn't present. My grocery store offers touchless dispensers in the meat department which is great for after I have slid the meat into the plastic bag. Posted in your office next to the elevator makes sense to me too...you never know who touched the buttons last and when they last washed up.