Efficacy of instant hand sanitizers against foodborne pathogens compared to hand washing with soap and water in food preparation settings: a systematic review

Hands can be a vector for transmitting pathogenic microorganisms to foodstuffs and drinks, and to the mouths of susceptible hosts. Hand washing is the primary barrier to prevent transmission of enteric pathogens via cross contamination from infected persons. Conventional hand washing involves the use of warm water, soap and friction to remove dirt and microorganisms. Over recent years there has been an increasing availability of hand sanitizing products for use when water and soap are unavailable. The aim of this systematic review was to collate scientific information on the efficacy of hand sanitizers compared to hand washing with soap and water for the removal of foodborne pathogens from the hands of food handlers. An extensive literature search was carried out using three electronic databases - Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed. Twenty-eight scientific publications were ultimately included in the review. Analysis of the literature showed various limitations in the scientific information due to the absence of a standardized protocol to evaluate efficacy of hand products, and variation in experimental conditions applied in different studies. Despite the existence of conflicting results, scientific evidence seems to support the historical scepticism about the use of water-less hand sanitizers in food preparation settings. Water and soap appear to achieve greater removal of soil and microorganisms than water-less products from hands. None of the hand sanitizers tested in the literature seemed to achieve complete inactivation or removal of all foodborne pathogens tested, and the presence of food debris significantly affected inactivation rates of hand products.

Characteristics of Corticospinal Projections to the Intrinsic Hand Muscles in Skilled Harpists.

The process of learning to play a musical instrument necessarily alters the functional organisation of the cortical motor areas that are involved in generating the required movements. In the case of the harp, the demands placed on the motor system are quite specific. During performance, all digits with the sole exception of the little finger are used to pluck the strings. With a view to elucidating the impact of having acquired this highly specialized musical skill on the characteristics of corticospinal projections to the intrinsic hand muscles, focal transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to elicit motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in three muscles (of the left hand): abductor pollicis brevis (APB); first dorsal interosseous (FDI); and abductor digiti minimi (ADM) in seven harpists. Seven non-musicians served as controls. With respect to the FDI muscle–which moves the index finger, the harpists exhibited reliably larger MEP amplitudes than those in the control group. In contrast, MEPs evoked in the ADM muscle–which activates the little finger, were smaller in the harpists than in the non-musicians. The locations on the scalp over which magnetic stimulation elicited discriminable responses in ADM also differed between the harpists and the non-musicians. This specific pattern of variation in the excitability of corticospinal projections to these intrinsic hand muscles exhibited by harpists is in accordance with the idiosyncratic functional demands that are imposed in playing this instrument.

Cinematic motion by hand

The general goal of my research is to find out what is questioned whenever an animated film is made by an author who chooses to have maximum control over the device automatisms. I am trying to understand in what ways that specific kind of film relates with Cinema and the History of Art as a whole and, more specifically, how its filmic discourse is built within cinematic codes, workings and machinery. This paper, in particular, aims to establish that each time an author makes a film by suspending both automatic ‘motion’ and image recording functions—that which is often known as “cameraless” film—a process is initiated that simultaneously questions not only Cinema, within both expression and technology, but also the ontological position this same technology occupies in current media.

Multi-scale cortical keypoints for realtime hand tracking and gesture recognition

Human-robot interaction is an interdisciplinary research area which aims at integrating human factors, cognitive psychology and robot technology. The ultimate goal is the development of social robots. These robots are expected to work in human environments, and to understand behavior of persons through gestures and body movements. In this paper we present a biological and realtime framework for detecting and tracking hands. This framework is based on keypoints extracted from cortical V1 end-stopped cells. Detected keypoints and the cells’ responses are used to classify the junction type. By combining annotated keypoints in a hierarchical, multi-scale tree structure, moving and deformable hands can be segregated, their movements can be obtained, and they can be tracked over time. By using hand templates with keypoints at only two scales, a hand’s gestures can be recognized.

Differing methodologies to measure microbe dispersal during hand drying

Background: Having previously investigated the dispersal by different hand drying methods of a chemical indicator, fungi and bacteria on the hands of users, this new study assessed the potential for viral dispersal. Aims/Objectives: To determine differences between hand drying methods in their capacity to disperse viruses on the hands of users to other occupants of public washrooms and into the washroom environment. Method: A harmless virus was used to artificially contaminate the hands of participants prior to using three different hand drying devices (jet air dryer, warm air dryer, paper towel dispenser). Viral dispersal was assessed at different heights and distances from the hand drying devices and also at different times after use by means of an air sampler. Results: The jet air dryer was shown to produce significantly more dispersal of virus than the warm air dryer or paper towels. After use of the jet air dryer, high numbers of virus were detected at a range of heights with maximum numbers between 0.61 and 1.22 metres. Virus was also detected at distances of up to 3 metres from the jet air dryer and in the air for up to 15 minutes after its use. The warm air dryer and paper towel dispenser produced low or zero viral counts at different heights, different distances and times after use. Conclusion: Jet air dryers have a greater potential than other hand drying methods to disperse viruses on the hands and contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment.

A quantitative evaluation of three hand drying methods and the potential for dissemination of virus particles into the environment

The importance of hand hygiene in reducing the spread of pathogens has been long established and this has been highlighted recently in initiatives such as the NHS’s ‘clean your hands’ campaign. However, much of the focus on hand hygiene has concerned effective hand washing; there has been less emphasis on hand drying and its role in hygienic practices. This study aimed to compare three hand drying methods namely paper towels, a warm air dryer and a jet air dryer for their relative ability to disseminate virus particles into the washroom environment during hand drying. A bacteriophage model was used to compare these methods; hands were artificially contaminated with MS2 phage and dried using each device. Both air sampling and contact plates were assessed and a plaque assay was used to quantify virus dissemination. Samples were collected at set times, heights, angles and distances around each device. Both air sampling and contact plate results indicated that the jet air dryer produced significantly more virus dispersal than either paper towels or the warm air dryer in terms of quantity, distance travelled and the time spent circulating in the air around the device and potentially in the washroom environment.

The risk of viral dispersal and aerosolization by different hand-drying methods

Background World Health Organization hand hygiene guidelines state that if electric hand dryers are used, they should not aerosolize pathogens. Previous studies have investigated the dispersal by different hand-drying devices of chemical indicators, fungi and bacteria on the hands. This study assessed the aerosolization and dispersal of virus on the hands to determine any differences between hand-drying devices in their potential to contaminate other occupants of public washrooms and the washroom environment. Methods A suspension of MS2, an Escherichia coli bacteriophage virus, was used to artificially contaminate the hands of participants prior to using three different handdrying devices: jet air dryer, warm air dryer, paper towel dispenser. Virus was detected by plaque formation on agar plates layered with the host bacterium. Vertical dispersal of virus was assessed at a fixed distance (0.4 m) and over a range of different heights (0.0 – 1.8 m) from the floor. Horizontal dispersal was assessed at different distances of up to three metres from the hand-drying devices. Virus aerosolization and dispersal was also assessed at different times up to 15 minutes after use by means of air sampling at two distances (0.1 and 1.0 m) and at a distance behind and offset from each of the hand-drying devices. Results Over a range of heights, the jet air dryer was shown to produce over 60 times greater vertical dispersal of virus from the hands than a warm air dryer and over 1300 times greater than paper towels; the maximum being detected between 0.6 and 1.2 metres from the floor. Horizontal dispersal of virus by the jet air dryer was over 20 times greater than a warm air dryer and over 190 times greater than paper towels; virus being detected at distances of up to three metres. Air sampling at three different positions from the hand-drying devices 15 minutes after use showed that the jet air dryer produced over 50-times greater viral contamination of the air than a warm air dryer and over 110-times greater than paper towels. Conclusions Due to their high air speed, jet air dryers aerosolize and disperse more virus over a range of heights, greater distances, and for longer times than other hand drying devices. If hands are inadequately washed, they have a greater potential to contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment. Main messages: Jet air dryers with claimed air speeds of over 600 kph have a greater potential than warm air dryers or paper towels to aerosolize and disperse viruses on the hands of users. The choice of hand-drying device should be carefully considered. Jet air dryers may increase the risk of transmission of human viruses, such as norovirus, particularly if hand washing is inadequate.