Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 52925

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionKey MessageAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Readers' Comments (0) Article in PDF Audio Visual Citation Manager Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri

"The Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) has been in operation since almost a decade. It has contributed a huge number of peer reviewed articles, across a spectrum of medical disciplines, to the medical literature.
Its wide based indexing and open access publications attracts many authors as well as readers
For authors, the manuscripts can be uploaded online through an easily navigable portal, on other hand, reviewers appreciate the systematic handling of all manuscripts. The way JCDR has emerged as an effective medium for publishing wide array of observations in Indian context, I wish the editorial team success in their endeavour"



Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri
Faculty, Pediatric Medicine
Super Speciality Paediatric Hospital and Post Graduate Teaching Institute, Noida
On Sep 2018




Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dematolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2011 | Month : April | Volume : 5 | Issue : 2 | Page : 231 - 235

The In Vitro Efficacy Testing Of Skin Disinfectants Against Nosocomial Pathogens

JAYAKUMAR S1, KANAGAVALLI M2, SHAMEEM BANU A S3, RENU MATHEW4, KALYANI M5, BINESH LAL Y6

1MBBS, MD (Microbiology); 2Msc, (Medical Microbiology); 3MBBS, MD (Microbiology); 4MBBS,MD (Microbiology); 5MBBS, MD (Microbiology); 6MBBS, MD (Microbiology), Department of Microbiology, Saveetha Medical College & Hospital,Saveetha University, Thandalam, Kancheepuram District – 602 105, Tamilnadu

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Jayakumar S, MD
Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology,
Saveetha Medical College & Hospital, Saveetha University, Thandalam
Kancheepuram District – 602 105
Tamilnadu.
E mail: drjk_micro@rediffmail.com
Mobile Number: 94437 50196

Abstract

Background
Nosocomial infections increase the morbidity among hospitalized patients and are a major cause of death. The national surveillance data and public health research have demonstrated that hospital- acquired infections (HAIs) take a major human toll on society. Disinfectants play a major role in reducing the hospital acquired infections (HAIs). There are many skin disinfectants which are commercially available and there has been a considerable recent interest in the bacterial adaptation and resistance to skin disinfectants.

Aim
To study the bactericidal activity of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol, 5% povidone – iodine, 10% povidone – iodine and 10% 20%, 30%,40%, 60%, 80% and 99.5% ethanol against Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA], multi drug resistant [MDR] Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli - extended spectrum beta lactamase producers [ESBL] and Klebsiella pneumoniae [ESBL]. Each strain was evaluated in quadruplicate.

Methods
The testing was carried out by means of a suspension test. The pathogen was exposed to each of the disinfectants at various concentrations for 15, 30, 60,120 and 240 seconds at room temperature. After the exposure of the inocula to the disinfectants, the antimicrobial activity of the disinfectants in the suspensions was inactivated by neutralizers. Of the resulting suspensions, 100µl of each was transferred to nutrient agar plates in triplicates and these were incubated at 37˚C for 72 hrs. The number of colonies in each plate was counted and tabulated.

Results
Povidone-iodine (10%) and 60% ethyl alcohol were found to be effective against 20 bacterial strains than 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethyl alcohol and 5% povidone-iodine. Statistical analysis was done by a nonparametric test. The differences in the percentage change in the colony counts between the 4 disinfectants were significant at 15 and 30 seconds of exposure [P < 0.05].

Conclusion
The results suggest that 10% povidone-iodine and 60% ethyl alcohol were superior and more potent as well as rapid against the common nosocomial pathogens.

Keywords

Hospital- acquired infections (HAIs), Nosocomial pathogens, Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA], Multi drug resistant (MDR), Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase producers (ESBL), Disinfectants.

How to cite this article :

JAYAKUMAR S, KANAGAVALLI M, SHAMEEM BANU A S, RENU MATHEW, KALYANI M, BINESH LAL Y. THE IN VITRO EFFICACY TESTING OF SKIN DISINFECTANTS AGAINST NOSOCOMIAL PATHOGENS. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research [serial online] 2011 April [cited: 2018 Nov 15 ]; 5:231-235. Available from
http://www.jcdr.net/back_issues.asp?issn=0973-709x&year=2011&month=April&volume=5&issue=2&page=231-235&id=1192

INTRODUCTION
Nosocomial infections or hospital acquired infections (HAIs) are infections that develop in a hospitalized patient, that were not present or were in incubation at the time of admission. Hospital acquired infections are typically exogenous, the source being any part of the hospital ecosystem (hospital personnel, operative procedures, animate objects including medical devices, therapeutic pressure and environmental pressure such as food, water, and air). They may occur sporadically or as outbreaks. (1) Nosocomial infections increase the morbidity among hospitalized patients and are a major cause of death. According to a survey which was conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organization in 55 countries, a mean of 8.7% of the patients were found to have nosocomial infections and at any given time, 1.4 million people worldwide were found to suffer from hospital acquired infections (WHO, 2002). (2)

A significant proportion of nosocomial infections result from cross-contamination and from the transmission of microorganisms by the hands of health care workers (HCWs). (3)

Disinfectants play a major role in reducing the hospital acquired infections (HAIs). They are widely used in hospitals for various purposes such as hand-washing, skin preparation before epidural or spinal blocks, vascular catheter –site care, skin preparation before blood culture, etc. The function of the topical antiseptics is to quickly decrease a broad spectrum of resident and transient microbes to sub pathogenic levels and to prevent the rebound of growth. (4) The effectiveness of these products is usually investigated by in vitro techniques, as their activity on the human skin is difficult to assess. (5) The testing of disinfectants under laboratory conditions is very important with regards to the determination of their correct concentration and other aspects of their use. It forms the basis of the selection of the skin disinfectants. (6) Skin disinfectants used should be effective against bacteria, yeasts, and enveloped viruses within a minimum period of exposure. (7)
The speed with which the bactericidal effect is achieved was studied by exposing the pathogens to common disinfectants for graded periods of duration and by then culturing the inocula from these suspensions after the antimicrobial activity to the disinfectants was antagonized by a neutralizer in a 1:1000 dilution. There are many skin disinfectants which are commercially available and there has been a considerable recent interest in the bacterial adaptation and resistance to the skin disinfectants. (8) The purpose of the study was to know the in vitro bactericidal activity of different disinfectants against the common bacterial strains which were associated with nosocomial infections and to suggest suitable disinfectants which could be used in our hospital environment.

Material and Methods

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA], multi drug resistant [MDR] Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli - extended spectrum beta lactamase producers [ESBL] and Klebsiella pneumoniae [ESBL] were used in this study. The four strains from each of the above mentioned organisms were isolated from various clinical samples which were received in our laboratory. The skin disinfectants which were studied were 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol, 5% povidone – iodine, 10% povidone – iodine, 10% 20%, 30%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 99.5% ethanol.

The antimicrobial efficacy evaluations of the skin disinfectants involved the measurements of the microbial population reductions at a specific time point after the exposure to the tested product. Therefore, the antimicrobial action of the product had to be stopped by using inactivating agents such as 1% Tween 20 and 1% Tween 80 for 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate and 0.5 % chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol, physiological saline for ethanol and 2% sodium thiosulfate for 5% and 10% povidone-iodine. (9)
Preparation of the test inoculum (10):
Each strain was inoculated in 5ml of peptone water and incubated over night at 37˚C. The suspension containing 109 CFU/ml was used as the test inoculum.

The suspension test (10):
10µl of the test inoculum was added to 5ml of each of the disinfectant solutions and this was vortexed for 5 seconds to obtain an approximate bacterial density of 2×106 CFU/ml. The control suspension was prepared by adding the inoculum to 5ml of physiological saline for each strain. After the exposure of the inocula to the disinfectants for 15, 30, 60, 120 and 240 seconds at room temperature, the antimicrobial activity of the disinfectants in the suspensions was inactivated by diluting 10µl of each of the suspensions with 10ml of neutralizers.

Sodium thiosulphate (2.0%) was used to neutralize 5% and 10% povidone-iodine, Tween 80 was used to neutralize 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol and physiological saline was used to neutralize the effect of ethanol. Of the resulting suspensions, 100µl of each was transferred to nutrient agar plates in triplicates and these were incubated at 37˚C for 72 hrs. The number of colonies in each plate was counted and tabulated.

Testing the validity of the inactivation of the antimicrobial activity of the disinfectants by 1:1000 dilution with neutralizers (10):
Ten µl of the test inoculum was added to 10ml of physiological saline for control, and 10µl to 10ml of the mixture consisting of 10µl of a disinfectant and 10ml of the respective neutralizer. The inoculums were exposed to the mixture of disinfectant and neutralizer for 30 min at room temperature, 100µl of these suspensions were transferred to nutrient agar plates in duplicate and these were incubated at 37şC for 72 hours for doing the colony counting.

The antimicrobial activity was considered to be inactive when the decrease in the colony count, as compared to the control, was less than 5%. The data were presented as a percentage change in the colony counts between the disinfectants at each period of exposure and these were analyzed by a nonparametric test.

Results

The results obtained by the suspension test on 20 bacterial strains against the disinfectants such as 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethyl alcohol, 5% povidone-iodine and 10% povidone-iodine are presented in (Table/Fig 1), (Table/Fig 2), (Table/Fig 3) and (Table/Fig 4) respectively. A result obtained by testing 20 bacterial strains against various concentrations of ethyl alcohol is shown in (Table/Fig 5). There were individual variations among the strains which were used in our study with regards to the susceptibility to various skin disinfectants. The statistical analysis was done by a nonparametric test. The differences in the percentage change in the colony counts between the 4 disinfectants were significant at 15 and 30 seconds of exposure [P < 0.05]. There was no percentage change in the colony count between the disinfectants after 60 seconds of exposure and no strains grew colonies after 120 seconds of exposure to the 4 disinfectants.



Discussion

Nosocomial infections have been recognized for more than a century as a critical problem affecting the quality of the health care which is provided in hospitals. A significant proportion of the infections result from cross-contamination, and transmission of microorganisms by the hands of health care workers (HCWs) is the main route of spread. (11) Four categories of HAIs such as surgical site infections (SSI), catheter-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator- associated pneumonia and catheter-associated urinary tract infections are a major source of prolonged illness (12) which can be avoided by the proper usage of skin disinfectants.

Effective skin antiseptics are essential in preventing the increased incidence of infections during routine patient care, surgery and intramuscular, intravenous and intravascular catheter insertions. It has been suggested that the disinfectant should be effective against microorganisms within a minimum period of exposure and at optimal concentrations. (13)

Microorganisms have developed resistance to antiseptics and disinfectants and this has been less extensively studied. So, the disinfectants should be tested periodically to check their potency and also to determine whether the microorganisms have developed resistance against them or not.
The optimal disinfection regimen for avoiding the spread of nosocomial infections has not yet been defined. Many other antiseptics or their combinations are still being used and investigated and research efforts to identify improved antisepsis approaches are continuing. (14), (15) In our study, we compared the efficacy of 4 disinfectants which were commonly used in our hospital setup. It included 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethyl alcohol, 5% povidone-iodine and 10% povidone-iodine. In addition, we also compared the efficacy of different concentrations of ethyl alcohol. All these disinfectants were tested against common pathogens which are found to be associated with nosocomial infections.

In our in vitro test results, there were marked individual variations in the responses to the disinfectants between the strains. Among the 20 strains which were tested against 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, only two strains of MRSA grew colonies after 60 seconds of exposure and thereafter, there was no growth, whereas in a study which was performed by Sakuragi T et al, (10) on the bactericidal activity of skin disinfectants on Methicillin –resistant Staphylococcus aureus , one strain survived even after 240 seconds of exposure. The organism survival rate was less in our study as compared to their study. This discrepancy may be due to individual variations in the susceptibility of the strains to disinfectants.
On studying the efficacy of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol, we found that four strains grew colonies after 15 second exposures and there was no growth after 30 seconds, in contrast to the findings of the study by Sakuragi T et al., (10) where they observed that 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol was very effective even at 15 seconds of exposure itself. So, the efficacy of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate was dramatically improved by the addition of 80% ethyl alcohol. The bactericidal activities of 5% povidone-iodine and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol were found to be similar after exposing the strains to them for 15 seconds.

The Povidone-iodine solution, at a concentration of 10%, had a greater in vitro microbicidal activity. After 15 seconds of exposure to 10% povidone-iodine, no organisms survived. Surprisingly, in another study which was performed by Haley et al., (16) the organisms survived even after 15 seconds of exposure. On comparing the efficacy, 10% povidone-iodine was found to have a greater invitro microbicidal activity than 5% povidone-iodine, 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol.
We also found that 60%, 80% and 99.5% of ethyl alcohol was effective against MRSA and this correlated well with the study which was done by Sakuragi T et al. (10) Moreover, all other strains showed sensitivity to 60%, 80% and 99.5% of ethyl alcohol.

The concentrations of the bacteria which were exposed to the disinfectants may be much higher in our study than the in vivo concentrations. As the number of organisms in the normal skin flora ranges widely, the disinfectants must be effective in a broad range of concentrations, thus securing a bacteria free state on the surface as well as in the deeper structures.

To conclude, the bactericidal effect on 20 bacterial strains against 10% povidone-iodine and 60% ethyl alcohol was found to be more rapid and potent than 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethyl alcohol and 5% povidone-iodine. This result suggests that 10% povidone-iodine is superior to other antiseptics for use before surgery, for vascular catheter site care and for wound dressing. But one drawback of povidone-iodine is that it causes staining and so, it cannot be used for routine hand care in the patients. It can be replaced by ethyl alcohol which is considered to be the safest antiseptic and also, it generally has no toxic effects on the human skin. Moreover, it is less cytotoxic. So, for the routine hand care purposes and for use before intramuscular and subcutaneous injections, we suggest 60% ethyl alcohol as an ideal skin disinfectant.

Key Message

1. Nosocomial infections increase the morbidity among hospitalized patients and are a major cause of death.
2. Disinfectants play a major role in reducing the hospital acquired infections (HAIs).
3. The disinfectants should be tested periodically to check their potency and also to determine whether the microorganisms have developed resistance against them or not .

Acknowledgement

Nosocomial infections have been recognized for more than a century as a critical problem affecting the quality of the health care which is provided in hospitals. A significant proportion of the infections result from cross-contamination, and transmission of microorganisms by the hands of health care workers (HCWs) is the main route of spread. (11) Four categories of HAIs such as surgical site infections (SSI), catheter-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator- associated pneumonia and catheter-associated urinary tract infections are a major source of prolonged illness (12) which can be avoided by the proper usage of skin disinfectants.

Effective skin antiseptics are essential in preventing the increased incidence of infections during routine patient care, surgery and intramuscular, intravenous and intravascular catheter insertions. It has been suggested that the disinfectant should be effective against microorganisms within a minimum period of exposure and at optimal concentrations. (13)

Microorganisms have developed resistance to antiseptics and disinfectants and this has been less extensively studied. So, the disinfectants should be tested periodically to check their potency and also to determine whether the microorganisms have developed resistance against them or not.
The optimal disinfection regimen for avoiding the spread of nosocomial infections has not yet been defined. Many other antiseptics or their combinations are still being used and investigated and research efforts to identify improved antisepsis approaches are continuing. (14), (15) In our study, we compared the efficacy of 4 disinfectants which were commonly used in our hospital setup. It included 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethyl alcohol, 5% povidone-iodine and 10% povidone-iodine. In addition, we also compared the efficacy of different concentrations of ethyl alcohol. All these disinfectants were tested against common pathogens which are found to be associated with nosocomial infections.

In our in vitro test results, there were marked individual variations in the responses to the disinfectants between the strains. Among the 20 strains which were tested against 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, only two strains of MRSA grew colonies after 60 seconds of exposure and thereafter, there was no growth, whereas in a study which was performed by Sakuragi T et al, (10) on the bactericidal activity of skin disinfectants on Methicillin –resistant Staphylococcus aureus , one strain survived even after 240 seconds of exposure. The organism survival rate was less in our study as compared to their study. This discrepancy may be due to individual variations in the susceptibility of the strains to disinfectants.
On studying the efficacy of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol, we found that four strains grew colonies after 15 second exposures and there was no growth after 30 seconds, in contrast to the findings of the study by Sakuragi T et al., (10) where they observed that 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol was very effective even at 15 seconds of exposure itself. So, the efficacy of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate was dramatically improved by the addition of 80% ethyl alcohol. The bactericidal activities of 5% povidone-iodine and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol were found to be similar after exposing the strains to them for 15 seconds.

The Povidone-iodine solution, at a concentration of 10%, had a greater in vitro microbicidal activity. After 15 seconds of exposure to 10% povidone-iodine, no organisms survived. Surprisingly, in another study which was performed by Haley et al., (16) the organisms survived even after 15 seconds of exposure. On comparing the efficacy, 10% povidone-iodine was found to have a greater invitro microbicidal activity than 5% povidone-iodine, 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethanol.
We also found that 60%, 80% and 99.5% of ethyl alcohol was effective against MRSA and this correlated well with the study which was done by Sakuragi T et al. (10) Moreover, all other strains showed sensitivity to 60%, 80% and 99.5% of ethyl alcohol.

The concentrations of the bacteria which were exposed to the disinfectants may be much higher in our study than the in vivo concentrations. As the number of organisms in the normal skin flora ranges widely, the disinfectants must be effective in a broad range of concentrations, thus securing a bacteria free state on the surface as well as in the deeper structures.

To conclude, the bactericidal effect on 20 bacterial strains against 10% povidone-iodine and 60% ethyl alcohol was found to be more rapid and potent than 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 80% ethyl alcohol and 5% povidone-iodine. This result suggests that 10% povidone-iodine is superior to other antiseptics for use before surgery, for vascular catheter site care and for wound dressing. But one drawback of povidone-iodine is that it causes staining and so, it cannot be used for routine hand care in the patients. It can be replaced by ethyl alcohol which is considered to be the safest antiseptic and also, it generally has no toxic effects on the human skin. Moreover, it is less cytotoxic. So, for the routine hand care purposes and for use before intramuscular and subcutaneous injections, we suggest 60% ethyl alcohol as an ideal skin disinfectant.

References

1.
Emori T.G, Gaynes R P. An Overview of Nosocomial Infections, Including the Role of the Microbiology Laboratory. Clin Microbiol Rev 1993; 6(4): 428-442.
2.
Oule K.M , Azinwi R, Bernier A M, Kablan T, Maupertuis A M, Mauler S et al . Polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride-based disinfectant: a novel tool to fight meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and nosocomial infections. J Med Microbiology 2008; 57: 1523-28.
3.
Bauer T M, Ofner E, Just H M, Just H, Daschner F D. An epidemiological study assessing the relative importance of airborne and direct contact transmission of microorganisms in a medical intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 1990; 15:301-9.
4.
Pereira LJ, Lee GM, Wade KJ. An evaluation of five protocols for surgical hand washing in relation to skin condition and microbial counts. J Hosp Infect 1997; 28:15-30.
5.
Messager S, Goddard P A, Dettmar P W, Maillard J Y. Determination of antibacterial efficacy of several antiseptics tested on skin by an ex-vivo test. J Med Microbiol 2001; 50:284-92.
6.
Lakticova, K., Ondrasovic, M., Ondrasovicova, O. Smirjakova, A. The testing of the efficacy of selected disinfectants under laboratory conditions and the ecological aspects of their application concerning environmental impacts. Folia veterinaria 2005; 49 (3):54-6.
7.
Kampf G, Kramer A. Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004; 17:863-93.
8.
Russell A D. Bacterial adaptation and resistance to antiseptics, disinfectants and preservatives is not a new phenomenon.J Hosp Infect 2004; 57:97-104.
9.
Russell AD, Ahonkhai I,Rogers DT. Microbiological applications of the inactivation of antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. J Appl Bacteriol 1979; 46:207-45.
10.
Sakuragi T, Yanagisawa K, Dan K. Bactericidal activity of skin disinfectants on Methicillin – resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Anesth Analg 1995; 81:555-8.
11.
Pittet D, Sasidharan MT, Touveneau S, Sauvan V, Thomas V, Perneger.Bacterial contamination of the hands of hospital Staff during routine Patient Care. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159(8): 821-826.
12.
Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Richards CL Jr, et al. Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep 2007; 122(2):160-166.
13.
McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity,action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1999; 12(1):147-79.
14.
Gluck T. Combined skin disinfection with chlorhexidine/propanol and aqueous povidone-iodine reduces bacterial colonization of central venous catheters. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30(6):1081-8.
15.
Karpanen TJ, Worthington T, Hendry ER, Conway BR, Lambert PA et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine digluconate alone and in combination with eucalyptus oil, tea tree oil and thymol against planktonic and biofilm cultures of Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62(5):1031-6.
16.
Haley CE, Marling-Cason M, Smith JW, Luby JP, Mackowiak PA. Bacteriological activity of antiseptics against Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 1985; 21:991-2.

DOI and Others

JCDR/2011/1192

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2016: 132.37
  • SCOPUS
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • EBSCOhost
  • Embase & EMbiology
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com