Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:18:23.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Antiseptic Efficacy of Chlorxylenol-Containing vs. Chlorhexidine Gluconate-Containing Surgical Scrub Preparations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

M.E. Soulsby ,
J.B. Barnett  and
S. Maddox
M.E. Soulsby*
Affiliation:
Departments of Physiology, Biophysics and Toxicology and Microbiology and Immunology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
J.B. Barnett
Affiliation:
Departments of Physiology, Biophysics and Toxicology and Microbiology and Immunology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
S. Maddox
Affiliation:
Departments of Physiology, Biophysics and Toxicology and Microbiology and Immunology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
*
Physiology, Biophysics and Toxicology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham St., Slot 505, Little Rock, AK 72205
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The studies described here evaluate the efficacy of the chlorxylenol-containing surgical scrub formulations against the Chlorhexidine gluconate-containing formulations using the Glove Juice Test, as recommended by the FDA's panel to develop guidelines for the study of antiseptic agents. Similar reports from the literature evaluating the relative efficacies of the iodophor-containing and the hexachlorophene-containing formulations are cited. Results fail to detect any significant differences in the efficacy of these two preparations, each significantly reducing the bacterial flora on the hands as indicated by immediate post-wash colony counts, and each demonstrating the continuing ability to significantly reduce bacterial growth with continued regular use.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , April 1986 , pp. 223 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Peterson, AF: The microbiology of the hands, in Developments in Industrial Microbiology. Washington, D.C., American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1973, p 125.Google Scholar
2.Dineen, P: Hand-washing degerming: A comparison of povidone-iodine and Chlorhexidine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1978;23(1):63–67.Google Scholar
3.Van De Hoeven, E, Hinton, NA: An assessment of the prolonged effect of antiseptics on the bacterial flora of the hands. Can Med Assoc J 1968;99:402.Google Scholar
4.Alder, VG, Burman, D, Simpson, RA, et al: Comparison of hexachlorophene and Chlorhexidine powders in the prevention of neonatal infection. Arch Dis Child 1980;55:277–280.Google Scholar
5.Forfar, JO, Gould, JC, Maccabe, AF: Effect of hexachlorophene on incidence of staphylococcal and gram-negative infection in the newborn. Lancet 1968;2:177.Google Scholar
6.Colebrook, L: The anaerobic streptococci associated with puerperal fever. J Obstet Gynecol of the British Empire 1933;40(6):609–629.Google Scholar
7.Colebrook, L: Puerperal fever: Its aetiology and prevention. Br Med J 1933;2:723.Google Scholar
8.Adams, RM: p-chloro-m-xylenol in cutting fluids. Contact Dermititis 1981;7(6):341–343.Google Scholar
9.Blacow, NW: Martindale: The Extra Pharmacopea, ed 26. London, Pharmaceutical Press, 1972, p 183.Google Scholar
10.Clarke, ECG(ed): Isolation of Drugs, vol. 1, London, London Press, 1974, p 254.Google Scholar
11.Gosselin, RE, et al: Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, ed 4. Baltimore, Williamsand Wilkins, 1976, p 131.Google Scholar
12.Zondek, B, Finkelstein, M: Blood concentration of p-chloro-m-xylenol in man following parenteral, percutaneous and rectal application. Proc Soc Exptl Biol Med 1946;61:200–202.Google Scholar
13.Federal Register 1974;39(179):33102.Google Scholar
14.Kaul, FA, Jewett, FJ: Agents and techniques for disinfection of the skin. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981;152:677–685.Google Scholar
15.Morse, JL: Staphylococcal bacteremia, in Braude, IA (ed): Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, W.B. Saunders Co., 1981, p 1395–1399.Google Scholar
16.Aly, R, Shirley, C, Currico, B, et al: Effects of prolonged occlusion on the microbial flora, pH, CO2, and transepidermal water loss on human skin. J Invest Dermatol 1981;71:378–381.Google Scholar
17.Lowbury, EJL: Removal of bacteria from the operation site, in Malibach, HI, Hildick, G (eds): Skin Bacteria and Their Role in Infection. New York, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1965, p 263–275.Google Scholar
18.Cole, WR, Bernard, HR: Inadequacy of present methods of surgical skin preparation. Arch Surg 1966;89:215–222.Google Scholar
19.Price, PB: Skin antisepsis, in Brewer, HJ (ed): Lectures on Sterilization. Durham, North Carolina, Duke University Press, 1960, pp 79–98.Google Scholar