Talk:Hand sanitizer

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

i added a bit about how i use hand sanitizer gel because i believe it's informative and educational and may inspire some to learn a new form af art using flammable mediums. i won't be offended if someone wants to delete this but i may work on creating a separate article. and yes i'm drunk. Amirman 07:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kills cold virus?

I'm not aware of any research suggesting alcohol hand sanitizers reduce rates of cold transmission or inactivate cold viruses. In fact I have read studies showing that alcohol hand sanitizers are quite ineffective at inactivating cold viruses. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I think this bit of the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.111.236.2 (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC) In the united states it is illegal to make antiviral claims about a hand sanitizer[reply]

The FDA does not approve hand sanitizer products that make a claim to kill cold viruses. In particular, this became a hot issue for the agency in the 2009 swine flu scare. There are many related articles on the fda's webpage, see http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm187728.htm as one example. Tlow03 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I do think so though Tobi davies (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha funny article ending

finally some comedy on wikipedia.


There are rumors that use of the gel over a period of time will cause the gel to lose its effect as bacteria becomes resistant. This, however, is only a rumor. The alcohol content is too great for bacteria and microorganisms to become resistant in less than about 15 to 20 years.

Contradicts itself Villainone 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There are rumors that use of the gel over a period of time will cause the gel to lose its effect as bacteria becomes resistant. This, however, is only a rumor. The alcohol content is too great for bacteria and microorganisms to become resistant in less than about 15 to 20 years.

This quote is equivilant to saying that bacteria might become immune to boiling--it just won't happen. Alcohol creates an osmotic effect and causes bacteria to lose a good amount of the water inside of them, thus killing them. 74.129.238.240 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

????? 

Tobi davies (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol rubs

I've redirected here the advertisement-masquerading-as-an-article Alcohol rubs. However, it might still be worth saying a word about that if anyone cares. Pascal.Tesson 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pascal Tesson:

We are very disappointed in the deletion of the article on alcohol rubs from Wikipedia. We did not write the alcohol rubs article as an “advertisement-masquerading-as-an-article”. The only “advertisement” was a picture of Germ Out. The alcohol gel article has a picture of Purell so we assumed the inclusion of a picture of Germ Out was permissible. We wrote the alcohol rubs article using the same format as the alcohol gel article. We assumed the articles in Wikipedia are intended to inform. Which one of the following articles has the most information?

An alcohol gel, also known as a hand sanitizer, is a gel used by people as an alternative to hand washing with soap and water. Isopropanol and/or ethanol are the most commonly used alcohols. When hands are not visibly dirty, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers alcohol hand sanitizers as an acceptable alternative to soap and water for hand hygiene.[1]

Alcohol concentration must be above 60% for alcohol gel to be effective in killing microbes. Researchers at East Tennessee State University recently found that products with alcohol concentrations as low as 40% are available in American stores.

OR

Alcohol rubs, also known as hand sanitizers or healthcare personnel hand washes, are gel, foam, or liquid solutions used by people and healthcare professionals as a supplement or alternative to hand washing with soap and water. The germ killer in alcohol rubs may be isopropanol, ethanol, or (in Europe) propanol. If hands are not dirty or soiled, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends alcohol rubs as an acceptable alternative to hand washing with soap and water to kill germs on your hands. The optimum alcohol concentration to kill germs is 70 to 95 %. Alcohol gels containing 62% alcohol are less effective germ killers than alcohol rubs containing at least 70% alcohol. Alcohol rubs containing two different germ killers (i.e. alcohol and benzalkonium chloride) are twice as effective as alcohol rubs containing only alcohol alone. Alcohol rubs must contain a good moisturizer to keep your hands from drying out. Alcohol rubs kill many different kinds of bacteria, including antibiotic resistant bacteria and TB bacteria. Alcohol rubs inactivate (kill) many different kinds of viruses, including the flu virus and the common cold virus. Alcohol rubs also kill fungus.

Sources

1. http: www.learnwell.org//handhygiene.htm 2. Jones R.D. Bacterial resistance and topical antimicrobial wash products. Am. J. Infect. 1999 Aug: 27(4):351-63. 3. Barry A.L., Fuchs, P.C., Brown, S.D. Lack of Effect of Antibiotic Resistance on Susceptibility of Microorganisms to Chlorhexidine gluconate and Povidone iodine. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Inf. Dis. 1999, 18: 920-921. 4. Hibbard, J.S. Analyses Comparing the Antimicrobial Activity and Safety of Current Antiseptic Agents. J. Infusion Nursing, 2005, 28: No. 3 194-207. 5. Pietsch, H. Hand Antiseptics: Rubs Versus Scrubs, Alcoholic Solutions Versus Alcoholic Gels. J. Hospital Infection 2001, (200) 48: Suppl A, S33-S36. 6. Kramer, A., Rudolpf, P., Kamph, G., and Pittet, D, Limited Efficacy of Alcohol-based Hand Gels. The Lancet, 2002, 359: April 27 1489-1490.

Please read the references given in both articles to verify the information given in both articles. If you do not like the picture of Germ Out in the alcohol rubs article, remove it. But in all fairness you should also remove the picture of Purell in the alcohol gel article.

Please reconsider your decision to delete the alcohol rubs article. It contains excellent information and outstanding references. If you do not want to redirect hand sanitizer to alcohol rub please consider redirecting hand sanitizer to neither or both alcohol rubs and alcohol gel.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

John S. Hibbard Ph.D., Consultant in Microbiology and Clinical Research, www.jacompaniesllc.com

  • The alcohol rubs article was written to include all alcohol containing hand sanitizers, gels, foams and liquids. That is why the plural was used. If the alcohol rubs article is "undeleted" it could be change to singular if appropriate.

John S. Hibbard, Ph.D., Consultant in Microbiology and Clinical Research, www.jacompaniesllc.com

  • I believe the statements concerning the efficacy of alcohol rubs are a little misleading. While it is true that alcohol rubs are not effective against the bacterial endospores of Clostridium difficile and Bacillus anthracis alcohol rubs will kill the vegetative form (mutiplying form) of both bacteria. However, it is true that the endospore form of the Anthrax bacillus was used in the terrorist attacks and alcohol rub wil not be effective against this form of Anthrax. All bacterial endospores are very resistant to most antiseptics and antibiotics. It takes a germacide or steam heat under pressure to kill a bacterial endospore.
  • Please consider using as many of the references in original alcohol rubs article as possible in your new alcohol rub article. Particularly the www.learnwell.org//handhygiene.htm reference. It is an excellent reference from the CDC on hand hygiene.

John S. Hibbard, Ph.D., Consultant in Microbiology and Clinical Research, www.jacompaniesllc.com

References

  1. ^ "Hand Hygiene FAQ". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 2007-02-01.

Contradiction

Article now has: "Alcohol gels containing 62 v/v % alcohol are less effective germ killers than alcohol rubs containing at least 70 wt/wt % alcohol."

Yet the reference cited has: "Alcohol solutions containing 60%--95% alcohol are most effective, and higher concentrations are less potent because proteins are not denatured easily in the absence of water."

I don't see that the reference supports the assertion in the article. — Zaui (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Contridiction

It is a well known fact that the optimum concentration for alcohol efficacy is 70 to 80 %. The higher the concentration of alcohol the greater the effectiveness (up to approximately 95%). The problem with higher concentrations of alcohol is the drying effect on skin. It is a delicate balance between higher alcohol concentrations and the drying effect on skin. Basic microbiology textbooks state the optimum concentration for alcohol efficacy is around 70%. You may have misunderstood the statement in the reference. Higher concentrations of alcohol above 95% are less potent because proteins are not denatured easily in the absence of water. The problem with using 62 % alcohol is dilution. If a 62% concentration of alcohol is used, any small dilution might result in a loss of effectiveness. There is very little margin for error. There are two references that deal with the effectiveness of alcohol gels. They were in my original article. They are:

5. Pietsch, H. Hand Antiseptics: Rubs Versus Scrubs, Alcoholic Solutions Versus Alcoholic Gels. J. Hospital Infection 2001, (200) 48: Suppl A, S33-S36.

6. Kramer, A., Rudolpf, P., Kamph, G., and Pittet, D, Limited Efficacy of Alcohol-based Hand Gels. The Lancet, 2002, 359: April 27 1489-1490.

If you want us to add these references to the article, we will be happy to do it. Thank you for your quick review. We appreciate your help in making alcohol rub an excellent article.JSHibbard (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2007

Yep, I mistook "higher concentrations" to mean higher concentrations within the stated range. — Zaui (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New References

We have taken the liberty of adding the two references above back into the article. They are very important. Please review the references. Thank you. JSHibbard (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2007

New Sentence

Please note that I have added the following sentence and reference to this article. "Hand sanitizers containing alcohol are more effective germ killers than soaps or antimicrobial soaps and alcohol rubs do not dry out hands as much as soaps.[1]"

--JSHibbard 16:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is "better": Ethyl v.s. Isopropyl

Is there any evidence of either the former or latter being better for hand sanitizing? I'd like to know which to look out for, or if I should care at all. It seems that Ethyl is the least expensive to make...

Another question is which is preferred when it comes to use for cleaning electronics (not which hand-sanitizer, but rather which alcohol type). Thanks. 207.12.38.25 10:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reference given in the article on alcohol rubs, the order for alcohol effectiveness is propanol is better than isopropanol which is better than ethanol. I do not know which alcohol is better for cleaning electronics--JSHibbard 16:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Alcohol Gel Picture

I have removed the alcohol gel picture. If we have a picture of an alcohol gel, then we must also have pictures of alcohol foams and alcohol liquids since they are all alcohol rubs.--JSHibbard 00:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-instated the picture. We do not have to have the other forms. One picture is better than none at all.
Seraphim Whipp 15:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the alcohol gel picture again. If we have a picture of an alcohol gel, then we must also have pictures of alcohol foams and alcohol liquids since they are all alcohol rubs. By having one picture of an alcohol gel you are implying an alcohol gel is better than other formulas of alcohol rubs which is not true (see references in the alcohol rub article). Either have pictures of all rubs or no pictures at all. In addition, showing a picture of your alcohol gel is advertising which is not allowed on Wikipedia.--JSHibbard 23:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I have put it back in. You are being ridiculous. If Wikipedia was run on the principles you are advocating nothing would ever get added, because it doesn't yet include everything. No-one is implying anything, because Wikipedia is not a product comparison site. If you think other pictures of other types are required then why don't you contribute them? And it isn't advertising. I've looked at the picture carefully and I can't see any obvious brand name. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to JSHibbard which I oringinally made at my talk page) That is simply not true. When I took that photograph I made absolutely sure that no logo can be seen, only the formula inside the bottle. Also having one picture of alcohol does not imply anything. It just means that at wikipedia we only have one picture available. If we had a picture of a double choclate muffin on the muffin page but not a blueberry muffin, does that imply, we at wikipedia believe that double chocolate muffins are the best? No, of course not. It is your opinion that we should have other pictures.
I had wrote :"As a compromise, the caption beneath the picture can be changed to say "One type of alcohol rub". I feel this is a suitable compromise. What do you think?", but since consensus sways for keeping the picture as it is then I'm not sure whether or not that compromise is needed. I'll leave it open; I don't mind either way :).
Seraphim Whipp 20:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I have removed it again. Who is paying you to keep adding the image? Is this a hobby? The logo is not the problem. You do not need a logo to recognize your bottle of alcohol gel. That is advertising. The article is a generic description of ALL alcohol rubs not one alcohol gel product. Please do not add the image back to this article or we will need to resolve the dispute in arbitration. Thank you.--JSHibbard 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your incivil comments to yourself. I care not whether there are labels on the bottle or not; it was purely to confirm it was a bottle of alcohol gel. I took the picture on a rainy day to improve the article, since I had a bottle lying around. I have taken a new photograph that has no labels on. If you choose to remove it, then we shall need arbritration. I'm not sure I could remain civil in a further conversation.
Seraphim Whipp 09:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you aware of wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline? I'd say that it is not in this article's best interst if you continue to edit it.
Seraphim Whipp 22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indent)For your information the alcohol rub article was edited by someone else, therefore there was no conflict of interest. Please read the Talk Alcohol Rub page closely. I believe it is in Wikipedia's best interest that I continue to edit this article since I am very qualified to do so. What are your qualifications for editing the article on alcohol gels? Please explain why you keep adding an image of alcohol gels. If you want to add an image of alcohol gel, add images of alcohol foams and liquids too. Then everyone will be happy. By all means let's take this to arbitration. I am very tired of your insistance that only a picture of alcohol gel appears in an article on alcohol rubs, which includes alcohol foams and alcohol liquids. Are you not aware of the other formulations of alcohol rubs?--75.211.98.246 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)--JSHibbard 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I believe it not to be in this article's interests that you continue to edit it, is that the possibility for neutral editing on your part, is not possible. It is due to your COI that you are insisting other formulations must be shown.
Please note that your career is of no relevance to wikipedia. This is the encylopedia that anyone can edit. Elitist attitudes are not conducive to a collaborative environment. Also please note that I will not continue to tolerate your rudeness; I am a volunteer at wikipedia, just as you are.
I have only one bottle of alcohol gel to photograph, as that is what I use. At wikipedia any good faith contribution is welcome, and that is what my contribution is. Consensus has gone against your opinion that other alcohol formulations must be shown. The caption I used fully illustrated that I am aware that other formulations exist, and to the audience that other formulations exist. It is perfectly acceptable.
I welcome any action you take to resolving this issue.
Seraphim Whipp 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Career is relevent. Please note Wikipedia rules. According to Wikipedia guidelines, credentials do earn rights. Wikipedia guidlines state that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." The rule is not elitist. To what consensus are you refering. You must take the action since you insist on adding the image.--JSHibbard 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Career has no relevance in whether your opinion is better than mine. You believe your opinion holds more weight than mine, because of your career; that is elitism. The guideline you quoted is not relevant here. The consensus I am referring to would be Escape Orbit and myself.
Seraphim Whipp 09:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. If you want to take action, then you should be the one to set it up. Thank-you.
Seraphim Whipp 09:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indent) FWIW, I don't see a problem with including a photo of one of the materials discussed, even if we don't have photos of the others. I know of no policy stating otherwise. Also, badgering another user about their qualifications is bad form. Anyone can edit. Finally, the RFC tag is probably wrong - this isn't a science or math question - it's a content question. — Zaui (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, Zaui I wonder who is badgering whom? I assume that it would be OK if I add images of alcohol liquids and alcohol foams since these are the only bottles I have available and this would satisfy everyone.--JSHibbard 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been neutral throughout this discussion, using the best of my judgement to determine what works best in the inteests of this article. Your pestering about my qualifications is irregular and unnecessary. I quote: "I continue to edit this article since I am very qualified to do so. What are your qualifications for editing the article on alcohol gels?". I believe it would be this sort of statement that Zaui is referring to.
I am very grateful that another neutral editor has stepped into this. Consensus of 3 to 1 has made this issue very simple. Of course it would have been very simple from the start if you had only taken my opinion and Escape Orbit's into account. I believe Escape Orbit offered the solution very early on: "If you think other pictures of other types are required then why don't you contribute them?". I'm am glad this issue is resolved; if further issues arise then hopefully they can be resolved in a more straightforward way. I look forward to seeing this article with a bit more colour.
Seraphim Whipp 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please visit my web page for my qualifications in editing the alcohol article. I believe you will find my qualifications adequate. I will be adding images of alcohol liquids and foams to the article in the near future.--JSHibbard 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed rediculous phrase

I have removed the ridiculous phrase " I LIKE CHEESE CRACKERS OJ DID IT ". It was completely inappropriate and out of place.--JSHibbard 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disguised Advertising

I have removed the paragraph below from the alcohol rub article for the following reasons:

1) The paragraph is a disguised advertisement. Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. (see above)
2) The product is mislabeled in the US. The maximum concentration for benzalkonium chloride in a sanitizer is 200 ppm. (CFR178:10:10)
3) Alcohol rubs with moisturizers do not dry hands with repeated use. (see references in article)

More recently, and in connection with side effects of alcohol-based products--specifically dry/irritated hands after prolonged or ongoing use, alternatives to alcohol-based products have been introduced to the marketplace. One product manufactured in Canada and distributed worldwide is So[1]popular...its active ingredient is benzalkonium chloride, FDA-approved and proven to have the same germ-killing efficacy as alcohol-based products. Unlike alcohol-based products, this is hypoallergenic and used as an antiseptic.--JSHibbard 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The implication to your "won't display because its a disguised advertisement" implies that when anyone references a product in the course of illustrating alternative products, that makes it 'disguised advertising..'.....Its disguised advertising only if someone is getting paid to promote a product when discussing a topic on this platform. You clearly aren't qualified to edit...when you say the product is mislabeled in the US...maximum concentration for benzalkonium chloride in a sanitizer is 200ppm... I actually reviewed the product specifications, as its the ONLY hand sanitizer on wal-mart.com and i confirmed with the FDA... This product is .13 concentration, the allowable maximum for OTC hand sanitizers... And actually, the FDA has a a different registration category for products that have higher concentration...and there are several with .24 concentration of benzalkonium chloride that are used within the health care arenas... and anyone that has told you that adding a moisturizer to alcohol will mitigate the after-effects of dry/irritated skin has absolutely no idea what they are talking about...sounds like you're drinking the stuff before you edit...ask any nurse in any hospital to show you their hands...or simply ask them why they have dry/irritated hands...they'll explain that its a direct result of the hand sanitizer products (the alcohol-based rubs/gels).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlcgroup (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC) stick to your real job, as your knowledge of this topic doesn't qualify you to be an editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlcgroup (talk • contribs) 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Incomplete Information

I have removed the sentence below because this list of inactive ingredients in alcohol rubs is incomplete. If we are going to list the inactive ingredients in alcohol rubs, then we need to expand the list. The inactive ingredients in hand sanitizers are not important except for the use of moisturizers or emollients. The rest are simply to change the physical characteristics of alcohol rubs from a liquid to a gel or foam.

"Inactive ingredients typically include a thickening agent such as Carbomer (a trade name for polyacrylic acid), and humectants such as glycerin and propylene glycol."JSHibbard (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information should not be removed because it is incomplete. This has already been explained to you in regards to your insistence on either having a picture of every form of alcohol rub or none. Benea (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of CVS Hand Sanitizer

I have removed the image of CVS Hand Sanitizer. This is blatant advertising and is not allowed by Wikipedia.JSHibbard (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single WP policy that I am aware of that prohibits the use of such an image in the article for demonstration purposes. If you believe it is not allowed on WP, it is your burden to cite the exact policy which disallows it. Failing to do so, your edit will be justifiably reverted. --AB (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as advertising. It's just a photo of a typical alcohol rub. What's the harm? — Zaui (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the extensive discussion above there is a WP rule against advertising. Or maybe there is a rule against advertising for just some individuals and/or products. I have added a photo of a typical liquid alcohol rub and a typical foam alcohol rub to the article. I assume this is OK with everyone? I also have no problem with the image of the CVS alcohol gel being prominently displayed (the lead image?) at the top of the article and the liquid and foam alcohol rubs being "stuck" in the gallery where no one will see them. I am assuming no one will object to the removal of the CVS alcohol gel image from the gallery so there is no redundancy? However to be fair, and we must be fair, the Image at the top of the article (the lead image?) should be rotated so that each alcohol rub has it's day? week? month? "moment in the spotlight". I believe this would be the only "fair" thing to do. What is the consensus? I will be more than happy to make certain all of the alcohol rubs get their "moment in the spotlight"JSHibbard (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the image of a liquid alcohol rub. I really appreciate it. I also think the insertion of the colorless alcohol gel image is very funny. You have great sense of humor. I hope you don't mind. I added the liquid alcohol rub image back into the gallery. Have a great day. Your friend.JSHibbard (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

I suggest a compromise before this gets out of hand. JSHibbard's picture can stay in the image gallery. I think we can bend the rule that wikipedia is not a collection of images this once since the user feels so strongly about it. However stating that "According to the extensive discussion above there is a WP rule against advertising." is not proof of this rule, JSHibbard has been the only one repeatedly demanding observance of this guideline without actually seeming to be aware of what it actually states. Several other users and I seem to agree that the current image is currently the best one illustrating an alcohol rub. There is no precedent for rotating images around for the sake of 'fairness' because one is in one user's opinion is perceived to be 'advertising', and the image will stay as the lead until consensus decides that another image is the best one to illustrate the subject of the article. There is no particular issue about removing the repeating image in the image gallery. Images in the image gallery are not stuck there so that 'no one will see them', the intention is exactly the opposite. To be honest I really can't understand JSHibbard's determination to edit this article so that it conforms to what he wants, only grudgingly giving ground when opposed by consensus. I would remind him to consider WP:OWN -Benea (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely concur with the point about WP:OWN. I think this article would be better improved by images that actually show what the subject is about i.e. an image of actual alcohol gel, not an image of the bottle that alcohol gel comes in. Take soap as an example; the images show soap, not the packaging soap comes in. A reader is going to want to know what visual difference there is between different alcohol rubs and that can't be well illustrated with a picture of a bottle. Alcohol rubs could be better illustrated with an image of someone using it on their hands. Seraphim♥ Whipp 01:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JSHibbard, as I understand, the ideal lead image for any article should be one which is best and sufficiently representative of the article. There is typically one and only one such image. Weight should also be given to the freedom delivered by the license of the image, with public domain being the most free and least restrictive license possible. For this article, I believe the CVS image is ideal, as explained above by Seraphim. Moreover, as stated by Benea, there is no precedent for rotating images – unless the images are all first class, highly representative, and equally free. --AB (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also much prefer the CVS image over any that are currently in the article. Seraphim♥ Whipp 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely concur with Seraphim Whipp that the article would be better improved by images that actually show the application of an alcohol rub on the hands. I will work on it and get back to everyone. Hey, by the way, what happened to the image of an alcohol foam in the gallery? Have a great day.JSHibbard (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Inactive Ingredient Information Again

I have removed the following sentence from the article again. "Inactive ingredients typically include a thickening agent such as Carbomer (a trade name for polyacrylic acid), and humectants such as glycerin and propylene glycol". I did not remove the sentence just because it was incomplete. Please reread the first reason for removal again. The inactive ingredients in alcohol rubs are not relevant except for moisturizers and or emollients. They serve an important function. Moisturizers and emollients keep alcohol from drying out hands. The rest of the inactive ingredients are unnecessary and in some case are potentially harmful (ie. propylene glycol). They change the physical characteristics of the alcohol rub from a liquid to a foam or a gel. What about the dozens of other inactive ingredients? Shall we list those too? What about the dozens of fragrances? I don't believe they should be listed and I do not believe other inactive ingredients should be listed. It contributes absolute nothing but confusion to the article.JSHibbard (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harm in this either. It's just a list of what people could find if they read the label of a typical alcohol rub. We could expand it to mention fragrances or any other class of material that may be found in these products - whether they serve an "important function" or not. And why would propylene glycol be potentially harmful? — Zaui (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also don’t see the harm in listing what is on the labels. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the Statement

12,000 children did not have alcohol gel "related alcohol-poisoning directly attributed to hand sanitizer products" 12,000 children "were repoted to have ingested a hand sanitizer product" Listen to the video.JSHibbard (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added latest definition of Hand Sanitizer

The OTC Division at the FDA no longer recognizes "hand sanitizer" as a drug category (class or indiction). They now prefer the use of "hand antiseptic" either with or without removal.JSHibbard (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change Sentence

I believe, in order not to be misleading and in the interests of science and accuracy of the alcohol rubs article, the following sentence should be changed from this:

However, the NIH [3] and the CDC [4] cite studies that find products using only these non-alcohol agents can lead to antibiotic resistant germs like MRSA Staph, whereas the CDC states "No mechanism for resistance to alcohol has been described in bacteria" [5].

To This:

However, one un-collaborated laboratory study has shown benzalkonium chloride may be associated with but not cause antibiotic resistance in MRSA.[3][4] No mechanism for resistance to alcohol has been described in bacteria”[5]

For the following reasons:

I believe the [NIH] and the [CDC] references should be deleted. Reference [3] is not in any way associated with NIH. It is an ASM publication. It is also a very questionable scientific publication to be associated with the alcohol rubs article for the following reasons. 1) There is no significant difference between an MIC of 5 μg/mL and an MIC of 10 μg/mL of Benzalkonium chloride. This is only a two-fold (one dilution) difference and a two-fold dilution difference is not considered significant. 2) Hand Antiseptics (Sanitizers) contain a minimum of 200 μg/mL to maximum of 1300 μg/mL of Benzalkonium chloride. This 20 to 130 times the concentration needed to kill the resistant MRSA found in the paper. 3) The mechanism of action of β-lactamase antibiotics is similar but not identical to Benzalkonium chloride. The resistance to the antibiotics and benzalkonium chloride is probably by association and is not causal. In other words, benzalkonium chloride did not cause the antibiotic resistance but was associated with it. The CDC was not associated with reference [4]. Reference [4] was a non-peer reviewed paper presented at a scientific meeting sponsored by CDC. It was a review paper that contained laboratory scientific data and information that was extrapolated into clinical information. Sometimes the extrapolation of data is accurate and sometimes it is not. The FDA will not extrapolate any laboratory data into human or clinical data.--JSHibbard (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Vicks and Lysol from the Alcohol Rubs Article

Vicks should be deleted from the alcohol rubs article because it does not contain alcohol. Lysol should be deleted from the alcohol rubs article because the active ingredients are not alcohols. Lysol contains ethyl alcohol 1-3% and isopropanol 1-2% but neither alcohol is concentrated enough to kill germs. Lysol is also classified as a disinfectant and not an antiseptic in the US.--JSHibbard (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Method Products and Dettol

Method Products should be deleted from the alcohol rubs article because it does not contain alcohol. The active ingredient(s) in Methods Product is not known. Dettol should be removed from the alcohol rubs article because it does not contain alcohol. The active ingredient in Dettol is PCMX.--JSHibbard (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Sentence

I am removing the following sentence because the reference sited does not support the statement in the sentence. "Hand sanitizers may kill all germs, including good germs too."[10] The reference sited does not say anything about "good" germs. It does not say anything about "good" or "bad" germs.--JSHibbard (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Following Sentence

" Vicks, Lysol, Method Products, and Dettol also produce popular alcohol rubs." All of these products are not classified as "Topical Antiseptics". Therefore they should not be included in this article on Alcohol Rubs, Hand Sanitizers, Hand Antiseptics, or Healthcare Antiseptic Handwashes. Vicks is a mentholated rub. It is not an Alcohol rub. Lysol is a disinfectant. It is not an alcohol rub. Method Products is a cleaning solution. It is not an alcohol rub. Dettol contains PCMX which has not been approved as a Topical Antiseptic and is therefore not an alcohol rub. A product should contain at least 60% alcohol to be classified and called an alcohol rub and or be classified as a Hand Sanitizer, Hand Antiseptic, Healthcare Antiseptic Handwash or alcohol rub in the Tentative Final Monograph for Healthcare Antiseptic Drug Products Proposed Rule 21 CFR Parts 333 and 369, Friday, June 17, 1994.--JSHibbard (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol Gel Causing Burns on Hands

The following web site debunks the urban legend that an alcohol gel caused a fire that seriously burned a persons hands. The hands that were seriously burned were from an electrician who seriously burned his hands repairing a 277 volt fluorescent light. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/purell.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSHibbard (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mechanism for resistance to alcohol has been described in bacteria”.

This is not true. There are plenty of articles which describe contaminated solution (69%) of hand rubs, especially with Pseudomonas, Bacillus etc. Also, alcohols are not capable to kill small viruses (influenza), too. Miroslav Besermenji —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroslavbesermenji (talk • contribs) 09:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Mechanism for resistance

Please reference the publications describing 69% solutions of alcohol contaminated with bacteria (including Pseudomonas). I would also like you to reference the publications that state 70% alcohol will not kill Influenza virus. I would like to read them. Thanks you.JSHibbard (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Dettrol from the Article Again

Dettol should be removed from the alcohol rubs article because it does not contain alcohol as an active ingredient. The active ingredient in Dettol is PCMX. Method Products manufactures a hand sanitizer that contains ethanol. Unfortunately, Method Products does not state the percent ethanol. We will assume the concentration of ethanol is at least 62%. Therefore Method Products hand sanitizer should not be removed fro the alcohol rub article.JSHibbard (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Citation Needed and Added a Reference

Removed "Citation Needed" from effectiveness section and added a reference on the end of the paragraph.JSHibbard (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to the Article

I have made some additions to the article to correct some gross misconceptions and inaccuracies.JSHibbard (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. Creating a dab page at Alcohol rub will fix most of the problems Malinaccier (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol rub → Hand sanitizer — This page should be renamed to Hand_sanitizer and Alcohol_rub should redirect there, not visa-versa. This would allow proponents of alternate sanitizing technologies to make a section each by their favoured germicidal agent and then a discussion after all the agents where the obvious commercial interests which have corrupted this article can discuss the various merits of their technology against one another, hopefully with real citations that work and contain the claimed information rather than the ones I removed yesterday! This would cut down spam, make the article more relevant and accessible and should stop the "Alcohol rub" section of the article being bogged down with (dubious and poorly-sourced) information about why competing technologies are better, and provide information about those competing technologies. As it stands, Alcohol rub should not contain information about other "Hand sanitizers" by virtue of their not being Alcohol rubs. By reversing the names, this problem is solved and the article quality should naturally improve by having a structure incorporating a place for competing technologies. 82.132.136.201 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. If there's a problem, this isn't the way to solve it, it just shifts it elsewhere. Remove the irrelevant information or split it out (if it's useful), and add the necessary references. Wikipedia shouldn't be a commercial forum for hand sanitizer manufacturers anyway. Hippo (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there's major problems with both titles. Several hand sanitizers do not use alcohol ; several alcohol rubs are not hand sanitizers. 76.66.194.17 (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move to "Hand sanitizer" or perhaps "Hand sanitizing rub". Alcohol rub seems to be just one of several ways of referring to a hand sanitizer. Since not all hand sanitizers contain alcohol, the title "Alcohol rub" seems not to properly summarize the article, which seems to refer solely to a hand-specific sanitizer product. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 09:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and furthermore make Alcohol rub a disambiguation page. The term refers also to a "liniment" for horses' legs, supposed to improve circulation and speed recovery after hard work. Possibly the name of this article should be Hand alcohol? Some people call it that. --Una Smith (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The scope of the article may need to be better defined, but the proposed title is better as a more general common term. Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems obvious per WP:COMMONNAME. (see also jafeluv above.)--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per anon, but dab page might be a good idea. Aubergine (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Alcohol rub can refer to:

Products
Cultural references

--Una Smith (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please do not auto-direct the topic of....

Air sanitizer to Air freshener, as the former can disinfecting and the later can not
FYI

--124.78.215.195 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--124.78.215.195 (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.28.119 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A call for the review of commercial air sanitizer products --222.64.28.119 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last line in "Effectiveness" should be moved to a different section.

In the "Effectiveness" section, at the very bottom, someone added the sentence: "Dr Abhishek Mukherjee adds : Now Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer is available in Surat(GUJ),India."

This line is completely out-of-place. It may be interesting information, but it has nothing to do with the topic of Effectiveness. It should be moved elsewhere... perhaps to the introduction, or to the "Uses" section, or to the "Notes" section.

Myki Cassie (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uses section: "in 5:20, the effect wears off"

"Even so, assuming 99.999% germs killed, in 5:20, the effect wears off."

No cite, redundant ("even so" plus "assuming"), unclear (does "5:20" mean five hours and 20 minutes or five minutes and 20 seconds?), at odds with other aspects of this paragraph. 1) Uses "assuming" to refer to a previously cited claim, 2) a product which claims to kill germs when applied isn't claiming to have a duration, so it cannot meaningfully 'wear off.'

I would have edited or added tags, but it seems like this article has a lot of watchers/discussion, so figured I'd just kick something off here. --Thomas B♘talk 09:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Plug For Bactine In "Non-Alcohol" Section

Wanted to ask the opinion of the editors on the last line of the first paragraph of "Non-Alcohol" section. The line reads: "Benzalkonium chloride is the active ingredient in Bactine Antiseptic Spray, the universal antiseptic that has been used on open wounds and childhood scrapes for decades, at an amount higher than that present in the most popular non-alcohol sanitizers."

Is this not seen as a plug for a product? It would seem this is unnecessary to the topic and only promotes a product.

Thoughts?

Robert.georgejr (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove alcohol gel redirect

I am writing this to foreshadow removing the redirect of alcohol gel (currently, it points to alcohol rub which then suggests coming here.)

There are 3 very serious problems with this redirect:

  • Alcohol gels are a very wide range of materials which form a broad topic of interest in physical chemistry. This redirect currently focuses entirely on just one application of just two types of gels. It provides no information at all about gels of alcohols other than ethanol or isopropanol, no information about gelling agents, no information about the physical chemistry of the process. It is as though "Colloid" was a redirect to "Milk".
  • Hand sanitizers are not even alcohol gels at all. They are complex formulated products, which may include alcohol gels as one ingredient. Some are not gels, and some do not even contain alcohol.
  • Until very recently, hand sanitisers were not even the main practical application; alcohol based cooking stoves were (e.g. Sterno.) It is not clear if this is the case now or not; there is certainly more heat without light cast on the subject by hand sanitisers, but I would not be surprised if total production volume was still greater for fuels. Be that as it may, there is a lot of business being done with gelled alcohols that aren't meant to be rubbed on your hands.

I can't write the article; I came here to research the subject, and was disappointed to find absolutely nothing. But a stub which also includes dab links to Sterno and hand sanitizer would be much better than what we have now. -- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hand sanitizer misconceptions

I'm new here. This would be my first edit to wikipedia. Do you guys think it would be alright to add a new section to the hand sanitizer article about common misconceptions about hand sanitizer?

CurtisSV (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but you'd need to make sure everything you write is backed up by scientific references. The site linked there really isn't a good authority to be going to for medical advice ... it's probably true, sure, but it doesn't meet the high standards required of medical articles on Wikipedia unless the claims can be confirmed by actual scientfic studies. See WP:MEDRS. I wouldn't really be able to help with getting more information, I know that they are often hard to get if you're not at a university or library that subscribes. I don't mean to discourage you, though. We definitely appreciate your help. ☮Soap☮ 04:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. 1. I think if we provided weak evidence for a claim that turned out to be true, that would be better than not including any additions to the article because we weren't absolutely certain. People are going to believe these misconceptions unless they read about it somewhere else.
2. He actually does cite some studies. Example:
References: Jones R.D. Bacterial resistance and topical antimicrobial wash products. Am. J. Infect. 1999 Aug: 27(4):351-63. Barry A.L., Fuchs, P.C., Brown, S.D. Lack of Effect of Antibiotic Resistance on Susceptibility of Microorganisms to Chlorhexidine gluconate and Povidone iodine. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Inf. Dis. 1999, 18: 920-921.CurtisSV (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would go ahead and make the edits you're thinking of, and if I or anyone else questions it we'll let you know. ☮Soap☮ 01:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isolation, kiwis, N.Z...drugs and alcohol

Number eight wire pharmacology...n.z created poppy tea...and home bake...and drinking hand gel...resoursefull isolationists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.47.150 (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hand sanitizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hand sanitizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Hand sanitizer: https://naturesquest.com.au/products/hand-sanitiser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.76.103 (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hand sanitizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

other "inactive" ingredients

  • Deionized Water, Isopropyl Alcohol, Glycerin, Carbomer, Triethanolamine, Propylene Glycol, PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Fragrance, Alphatocopherol Acetate (Vitamin E)

This article seems to have a troubled history dating back at least a decade, and is still not in very good shape. It would be more complete and useful if it had a section on typical other "inactive" ingredients, including common examples and potential associated purposes, benefits, issues, concerns etc. -71.174.186.57 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple article issues

This article doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. The lead section is non-descriptive, instead opting to immediately defend the product and give its purported benefits. It's overly-sourced, and reads like an advertisement. The article itself is unnecessarily long and repeats itself using very specific, marketing-like language (for instance, the specification that hand sanitizer is better tolerated than hand soap is mentioned three times), not to mention the unnecessary infobox detailing synonyms; those should be in the lead section.

The version of the article from 10 January 2017 by Rjwilmsi is a superior article than today's.

184.88.34.98 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For medical content we tend to reference every sentence per WP:MEDRS
For synonyms we tend to only put the main ones in the lead and the rest in the infobox
The fact that hand sanitizer is better tolerated than soap is well referenced
What is in the lead should also be repeated in the body of the article per WP:LEAD
Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to define what the item actually is, see MOS:BEGIN. The basic description of the item and its functions should not be material that's easily challenged, hence the note about the lead being overly-sourced. An opening paragraph with every statement needing a source is a shaky lead that isn't doing its job.
The infobox on the article is completely unnecessary. It contains only one field, and only contains two meaningful synonyms, while the other is UK spelling. This could (and should) be in the lead.
I have no objections to it being well-referenced. I have an issue with it using the exact same language multiple times in the article, which makes it read like a hand sanitizer advertisement. Hence the tag.
It shouldn't be repeated verbatim, a sign of a poor-quality article. As it is, it reads like an article written by a shill.
184.88.34.98 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure have added an overview sentence
There is consensus to source every sentence for medical topics.
The infobox is fine.
The exact same language is also fine.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hand sanitizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hand sanitizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerously out of date

I am too sick to try to edit this beyond a quick alert. It needs a rewrite and should be removed until someone does a proper job. Anyone following the advice implicit in this would be putting themselves and others at risk. The WHO document cited in the footnote itself cites reports from 2004 and 2009–If the reports were published 14 and 9 years ago, the data was even older. WHO was adding sanitizers to the list of essential medicines, for a worldwide audience, where clean water and good cleansers for handwashing may be hard to come by, especially in a crisis. Even a cursory search of the web reveals numerous articles from reliable sources describing the resistance of many viruses—including noroviruses, enteroviruses, adenoviruses and HPV—to hand sanitizers. This is due to the viruses' fundamental structure. The importance of handwashing in removing those viruses is cited repeatedly. The rampage of Norovirus in settings where people are relying on hand sanitizers instead of hand washing has also been documented. 

Merry medievalist (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This citation is 11 years old. Merry medievalist (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A note on triclosan

It has been recognized that triclosan is absorbed through the skin, andCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). has been detected in breast milk. It would be good to note any information about the effect of absorbed triclosan on adults, and the unknown effects of triclosan in breast milk, perhaps with a cautionary note for pregnant and nursing women.

Chemosphere. 2018 Jul;203:467-473. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.186. Epub 2018 Mar 28. Effects of triclosan in breast milk on the infant fecal microbiome.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). 

45.46.35.29 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text

Outside the health care setting, evidence to support the use of hand sanitizer over hand washing is poor. [1][2] "According to the CDC, hand sanitizers are not as effective as soap and water. They don't eliminate all germs or work as well when hands become heavily soiled from activities like eating, physical activity, or camping."[3]

  1. ^ de Witt Huberts, J; Greenland, K; Schmidt, WP; Curtis, V (1 July 2016). "Exploring the potential of antimicrobial hand hygiene products in reducing the infectious burden in low-income countries: An integrative review". American Journal of Infection Control. 44 (7): 764–71. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2016.01.045. PMID 27061254.
  2. ^ Meadows, E; Le Saux, N (1 November 2004). "A systematic review of the effectiveness of antimicrobial rinse-free hand sanitizers for prevention of illness-related absenteeism in elementary school children". BMC Public Health. 4: 50. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-4-50. PMC 534108. PMID 15518593.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  3. ^ "How effective are hand sanitizers?". Blogadillo. 2017-08-09. Retrieved 2020-03-15.

Inventor

This Guardian article claims that the inventor was Lupe Hernandez in 1966. Unfortunately, like so many newspaper articles it doesn't cite its sources. That information, however, could be included here in a single sentence, although ideally there would be a history section. There is no WP article for Hernandez but I'm not sure I'll be able to find sufficient info - will look, however. Lamona (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one more reference that I found, but still just a single sentence: https://books.google.com/books?id=6jiPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA261

Hello, this is my first wiki suggestion. I also think this page should report that "Lupe Hernandez from Bakersfield, California made a discovery that years later would prove to be life saving to people across the globe" [2]. Many women of color are not given credit for their inventions and a single sentence or two could provide insight and representation to this Latina women and give her credit for her invention 46 years later. more articles/sources: https://www.iforher.com/meet-lupe-hernandez-woman-who-invented-hand-sanitizer/ https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/international-womens-day-2017-six-women-thank-flights-wheel-suitcases-inflight-wifi-life-rafts-eye-a7616611.html 69.47.98.193 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

refs

Ethanol Sanitizer

Will a solution of 75% Ethanol kill the Cov19 Virus, I would like a definative answer to this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9D5D:C00:D57C:5913:E9DD:1FB7 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of hand sanitizer

We now know that hand sanitizer was first developed by Lupe Hernandez in 1966, when she realized that alcohol in a gel could sanitize healthcare workers' hands; a history of hand sanitizer is what this article still lacks. MaynardClark (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There do not appear to be any reliable sources for this claim. "The origin of this claim appears to be a 2012 article in The Guardian; all other mentions of Lupe Hernandez came after that article and provide no other information. Facts about Lupe Hernandez are nonexistent: no patent under that name was filed, nor was any hand-sanitizer-related patent under any other name for a decade on either side. Laura Barton, the author of that Guardian article, told me she didn’t recall where that story came from." (emphasis added) US patents are available online in many different searchable databases; if this patent was real it should be easy to find. -- Visviva (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"if used for the necessary 15-30 seconds"

Were does this come from? Can you provide an exact quote from the source?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the default image

I just reverted an edit that changed File:Hand Sanitizer.JPG to File:HandSanitizerGermsBeGoneCanadian.jpg by Despinahernandez and I was wondering if there is any consensus to change the default image on this article? The new could be potentially spam (I am not saying it is) or a copyright violation. Aasim 20:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I work for the factory and took the image myself - Please advise how to upload an image appropriately for this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Despinahernandez (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account in question. We are not here for product placement. North Face already tried that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen peroxide

Per here https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Guide_to_Local_Production.pdf

Is to keep the bottle fro getting contaminated with spores. Not for removing spores from a person's hands.

Moved to body.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This ref does not speak about H2O2 in the setting of handsanitizer.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Health care

We have this sentence:

"Formulations of alcohol-based versions are preferable to hand washing with soap and water in most situations in the healthcare setting."

In 2002, the CDC released an updated hand hygiene guideline and, for the first time, endorsed the use of alcohol-based hand rubs for the majority of clinical interactions, provided that hands are not visibly soiled

Bolon, MK (September 2016). "Hand Hygiene: An Update". Infectious Disease Clinics of North America. 30 (3): 591–607. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2016.04.007. PMID 27515139.

For many reasons, alcohol hand sanitizers are increasingly being used as disinfectants over hand washing with soap and water. Their ease of availability, no need for water or plumbing, and their proven effectiveness in reducing microbial load are just a few.

Hirose, R; Nakaya, T; Naito, Y; Daidoji, T; Bandou, R; Inoue, K; Dohi, O; Yoshida, N; Konishi, H; Itoh, Y (18 September 2019). "Situations Leading to Reduced Effectiveness of Current Hand Hygiene against Infectious Mucus from Influenza Virus-Infected Patients". mSphere. 4 (5). doi:10.1128/mSphere.00474-19. PMC 6751490. PMID 31533996.

Not sure why this was removed? It does not limit this to "because it is faster and, therefor, more likely to be used frequently" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a source that says "Alcohol-based products are more effective for standard handwashing or hand antisepsis by HCWs than soap or antimicrobial soaps... Several recent prospective, randomized trials have demonstrated that alcohol-based hand rubs containing emollients were better tolerated by HCWs than washing hands with nonantimicrobial soaps or antimicrobial soaps." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, I did a perhaps over-bold rewrite. I felt the original article was a bit too aimed at healthcare workers; the majority of people coming here will probably want more general knowledge. I'd also run into a common misconception that soap must be far inferior to hand sanitizer because the latter is high-tech and doctors use it, which ranges all the way into insisting that soap can't kill SARS-CoV-19. I wasn't clear on whether the CDC endorsement was in terms of saying it was "preferable", or just acceptable, and "preferable" seems a bit vague to me. Obviously it is preferred under some circs, and not others. So I tried to add content on why. It seems that suitable hand sanitizers are more effective at maintaining hand antisepsis under most hospital conditions, but that can be broken down into reasons. I'd also like to clearly distinguish the contradictory recommendations by setting. In a community setting, people generally wash their hands only when they have used the toilet, are about to make or eat food, or have visibly soiled their hands. That's why I put the no-grease-no-soil thing in the lede, though the resulting sentence was horribly unwieldy. Maybe we could stick the norovirus etc. in the healthcare-settings bit, since it seems a bit more relevant there, and leave space for the grease/soil info?
On that specific phrase:
  • "Formulations of alcohol-based versions are preferable to hand washing with soap and water in most situations in the healthcare setting." (original you mentioned)
  • "in clinical settings, such as hospitals, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are preferable to hand washing with soap and water in most situations," (after my edits)
  • "In most healthcare setting alcohol-based hand sanitizers are preferable to hand washing with soap and water." (after your edits, tighter)
These seem to me to be rephrasings, but possibly I have missed some significant distinction here. HLHJ (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:HLHJ I think most of your changes were excellent. Agree that discussion of use in the general population should go before use in the healthcare setting (as it was before). Restored one of the reasons why it is preferred in the healthcare setting and that is per the source that it is better tolerated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have "Hand washing with soap and water; however, should be carried out if contamination can be seen, or following the use of the toilet" so not sure we also need a statement about grease as covered under contamination being seen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative spelling

Not everyone is American. Non-American people use the term "hand sanitiser" LeticiaLL (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't imply everyone is but it's unnecessary in the lead as you wrote it and consensus should be reached here before it is re-added. This isn't a guide to phonetics. Praxidicae (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hoffm327 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Hand_sanitizer"