ASTM E2361-2004(2007) Standard Guide for Testing Leave-On Products Using In-Situ Methods《现场法测试Leave-On产品用的标准指南》.pdf

《ASTM E2361-2004(2007) Standard Guide for Testing Leave-On Products Using In-Situ Methods《现场法测试Leave-On产品用的标准指南》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASTM E2361-2004(2007) Standard Guide for Testing Leave-On Products Using In-Situ Methods《现场法测试Leave-On产品用的标准指南》.pdf（5页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Designation: E 2361 04 (Reapproved 2007)Standard Guide forTesting Leave-On Products Using In-Situ Methods1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 2361; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last

2、revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This guide covers test methods and sampling procedureoptions for leave-on products for consumer and hospitalpersonnel. Lea

3、ve-on products, such as alcohol hand rubs andlotions containing antimicrobial ingredients, are increasinglymarketed and used by consumers and health care personnel.These products are distinguished from conventional washingand scrubbing preparations in that they do not rely on therinsing, physical re

4、moval, and antimicrobial action in deter-mining their effectiveness. Although agitation and friction mayserve to release organisms from the skin and folds and crevices,organisms are then killed in situ and are not rinsed from theskin surface before sampling. Appropriate test methods for thehands hav

5、e been published, while other sampling methods willbe needed for testing body areas other than the hands.1.2 Methods of recovery after application of the contami-nating organisms to a part of the body other than by theagitation/rubbing of the hands against a glass petri plate alsoneed examination. C

6、onsideration should be given to contactplating, controlled swabbing with a template, and cup scrub-bing (detergent/agitation used) since the target organisms forrecovery are likely to be on the superficial layers of skin.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as thestandard.1.4 This st

7、andard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory requirements prior to use.2. Referenced Documents2.

8、1 ASTM Standards:2E 1174 Test Method for Evaluation of the Effectiveness ofHealth Care Personnel Handwash FormulationsE 1327 Test Method for Evaluation of Antimicrobial Hand-wash Formulations by Utilizing Fingernail Regions2.2 European Standard:3EN1500 Chemical Disinfectants and Antiseptics-Hygienic

9、Handrub-Test Method Requirements (phase 2/step 2)approved by CEN (Comit Europen de Normalisation)3. Summary of Guide3.1 In this guide, choices of recovery techniques after theuse of antimicrobial products will be considered. By the natureof the distribution of the skin flora, these sampling techniqu

10、esestimate the flora remaining after antimicrobial use; some of itis superficial and some hidden. An appropriate samplingmethod can be selected depending on product use and theimportance of superficial (transient) and hidden or deep(mostly resident) flora.3.2 This guide was written because ASTM Subc

11、ommitteeE35.15 worked on its own test method for leave-on productsused without water, but found that the EN1500 protocolencompassed the test method that had been developed.3.3 This CEN type of test methodology is widely used inEuropean and Scandinavian countries but has not been widelyused in the Un

12、ited States, although the use of alcohol/alcoholgel hand rubs has expanded greatly here in the last few years.The underlying question is whether a test method designed fora leave-on product like alcohol or the conventional handwashing followed by sampling in a glove or plastic bag is moreappropriate

13、. There have been criticisms of test methods, suchas EN1500, which was based on Rotters methods (1),4butpublished data confirm that the test is highly reliable inshowing consistent reduction levels with low variation fromsubject to subject. Leave-on products that are not rinsed orwashed off in use a

14、re primarily represented by alcohol-basedhand rubs. However, other leave-on formulations have beenintroduced and, undoubtedly, their number will increase in thefuture. Often test methods designed for washing/rinsing pro-cedures have been used for these products. When differentmore specific methods a

15、re required for testing, questions ofmethodology become clearer, and the selection of a new ordifferent sampling method is necessary.1This guide is under the jurisdiction ofASTM Committee E35 on Pesticides andAlternative Control Agents and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E35.15on Antimi

16、crobial Agents.Current edition approved Nov. 1, 2007. Published November 2007. Originallyapproved in 2004. Last previous edition approved in 2004 as E 2361 04.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of

17、ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.3Available from British Standards Institute (BSI), 389 Chiswick High Rd.,London W4 4AL, U.K.4The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end ofthis standard.1Copyright AST

18、M International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.3.4 When a typical hand-washing product is used, the handsare wet; scrubbing and manipulation are pursued, often vigor-ously; and rinsing follows. Agitation here is to remove organ-isms and particula

19、te and oily soil physically. Any residue ofactive ingredient remaining on the skin is a small fraction ofthe amount applied and assumed to be attached to the stratumcorneum. The residual may also be absorbed over time.Ultimately, the reduction in microbial count is a combinationof kill from the anti

20、microbial and the physical removal byagitation and rinsing.3.5 In contrast, leave-on products, such as alcohol productsintended to be applied and not rinsed off, present a differentsituation. There are two distinct techniques when sampling: (1)sampling by washing target organisms off with detergent,

21、assuming that most of removal is transient flora, and (2)sampling in situ, for example, the cup scrub, swab, contactplate, or velvet block/pad that sample bacteria by impressionand contact or by using fluid to remove samples so that thevolume of the sample is restricted to a very small size. Thesedi

22、fferent sampling methods disturb the deep or hidden flora todiffering degrees. There has been an overwhelming concentra-tion of the cup-scrub sampling method as various test methodshave been developed. The combination of detergent andagitation attempts to remove as much remaining flora aspossible. T

23、he best effort, however, only removes about 15 % ofthe full thickness flora (2). When other contact sampling ortape stripping are used, the distribution of bacterial colonies onthe skin are mirrored as they occur; whereas, if detergent/scrubbing techniques are used, the microcolonies are dispersedyi

24、elding higher counts. Washing/scrubbing methods stir up thecells and bacteria from the deeper skin layers and release moreof the hidden flora (described by Reybrouck (3). This is alsotrue of the cup scrub method that uses detergent/surfactants todetach bacteria from the skin. Contact methods sample

25、theflora that can easily be transferred and that is conceded to bethe most important in disease transmission. Williams (4) hasstated that, “although the distinction between residents andtransients must certainly be a real one, it is not to allocate thevarious bacterial species to one or other class

26、with regularity.”3.6 There has been a long-time focus on the cup-scrubtechnique only, and it would be beneficial to look at samplingspecific areas, such as Test Method E 1327, which samplesaround the fingernail region using a toothbrush, or the use ofdirect contact plating when washing is not involv

27、ed (5),asinskin prepared for surgery. This guide is intended to assess theeffectiveness of application of products rubbed into the skin oron the hands when these sites are not washed between uses.3.7 Superficially, the testing method is the same as withproducts that are used to scrub and wash the ha

28、nds or skin inthat the hands are contaminated with a recoverable transientorganism and the test product applied. The similarity ends here.3.8 If the hands are sampled after application of organismsand the test product in sequence, they are dried or gloved wetand are sampled after extensive rinsing.

29、The stripping solutionis then added for sampling to increase the release of viableorganisms to be recovered. In contrast, in testing for hand rubsor leave-on products, glove sampling would seem appropriateonly if sampling were performed after each contamination andproduct application. Since changes

30、have been made in TestMethod E 1327 to sample only after the first and last applica-tions, the applicability of this test method for products rubbedinto the skin and used repeatedly without water may not beapplicable for these leave-on products.3.9 EN1500 is an adaptation of a test developed by Rott

31、erknown as the Vienna Model (6).3.10 There are many publications describing and evaluatingfingertip-sampling methods. One of the major criticisms of themethods is the procedure used for sampling. The tips of thefingers and thumb are sampled by rubbing against the bottomof a glass petri dish to relea

32、se contaminating bacteria fromthese areas before and after treatment. The sampled areas areonly portions of the areas treated. However, published resultshave shown consistent, statistically valid data. With theEN1500 test procedure, sampling is performed after a singleuse of the product (divided int

33、o two portions for application).4. Significance and Use4.1 The United States has concentrated attention and testingefforts on surgical scrubbing far more than on hand care inpatient-to-patient routines. Great Britain, the originators ofinfection control nursing, have always had their focus oninfecti

34、on transmission. In the United States, published articleshave documented the short exposure time for health carepersonnel who do wash their hands between patients. Theaverage is less than 10 s. The ideal product for the reduction oftransient flora is one that rapidly kills or removes or both themicr

35、obial load acquired during health care activities. Theemphasis on rapidity is essential simply because health carepersonnel will not take the necessary time when using conven-tional hand-washing products. The use of products not in-tended for use with water has increased dramatically and theiruse is

36、 common in European countries largely because ofconvenience and effectiveness. A second characteristic is thelevel of antimicrobial action. The use of a rapid and potentactive product to reduce work-acquired microbial flora is ideal.4.2 Since the change from strictly in-vitro testing of topicalantim

37、icrobials for use on skin to simulated use testing in handwashing, prepping, site access testing, and sampling, emphasishas always been on washing hands, agitating, rubbing, andbrushing with liquid on the skin site to estimate bacteriaremoved after testing.4.3 The use of hard agitation has diminishe

38、d with surgicalscrubs without brushes or with only mild agitation and friction.4.4 There is a history of microbial dispersal (7) and increasein surface bacteria from deeper layers resulting from showering(8-10), washing, scrubbing, and agitation. In the normalsituation on the skin, there is a superf

39、icial, surface flora and adeeper or hidden flora (3). The proportion of one to the otherhas been addressed by Selwyn (2) and his judgment is thatfrom 20 to 50 % of the flora is “deep.” The intent in skinsampling has almost always been to scrub, agitate, and usesurfactant to remove as many organisms

40、as we can. In doingthis, we have completely ignored the two types of flora.4.5 Further, when the skin is treated with a cleansing agentor an antimicrobial that is subsequently rinsed away, the“deep” or “hidden” flora is pushed to the surface as the sebumreplenishes the sebum from the sebaceous gland

41、s removed inE 2361 04 (2007)2washing. Many early investigators have looked at simplersampling methods that we now recognize were samplingprimarily the superficial transient flora.5. Published Testing Methods for Leave-On Products5.1 Hygienic Hand RubVienna Model:5.1.1 When viable organisms are captu

42、red in the samplingfluid after exposure to a test product, sampling like that used inthe glove juice test uses a much larger amount of fluid followedby microbiological analysis on a small sample. While in thetest method in EN1500 and Rotters procedure (6), the volumein the plate after rubbing the fi

43、ngertips on the plates bottom iseither cultured in toto or sampled and diluted.5.1.2 With this in-situ procedure, only the fingertips aresampled in contrast to the whole hand in the glove juiceprocedure. The agitation to the fingertips in the in-situ testingis more intense than 1 min of massage of t

44、he whole hand.5.1.3 This test method has been legally mandated as theofficial CEN method for their member countries. It is describedin this international standard as simulating practical conditionsfor whether a product designed as a hygienic hand rub reducesthe release of transient flora in use. The

45、 criteria specified in thestandard require that the mean reduction shall not be less thanachieved by a reference hand rub with propan-2-ol, 60 % (v/v).5.1.4 Rotter, in Austria, has published numerous articlesdescribing the development of this hand-rub procedure as wellas comparative studies. It has

46、been adopted as a standard inGermany and Austria and may now be replaced with the CENstandard. Other tests with a product, for example, in-vitromicrobiological testing, are required before use, depending onthe specified use pattern. Users may want to examine themethodology published in the many tria

47、ls described by Rotteret al (11) for more details than those described the Europeanstandard. High correlation in the reductions in counts (reduc-tion factor) was found from subject to subject in the manypublished studies.5.2 Sampling Procedure Using Fingernail Regions:5.2.1 Mahl (12) published a sam

48、pling procedure for thesubungual and fingernail regions of the hand, which is also anASTM International standard, Test Method E 1327. Again, thismethodology samples a portion of the entire hand using atechnique to enhance the recovery from a difficult-to-samplearea. Fingers artificially contaminated

49、 with marker organismsthat can be enumerated after sampling are used. The fingernailareas are sampled with a toothbrush (manual or electric) in 7mL of recovery fluid in a petri dish. This methodology issimilar in concept to that used by Rotter (6) and the methodcodified in EN1500.5.2.2 This test method offers a procedure for reliablysampling a difficult area, for instance, compared to the fingertipsampling of Rotter (6) and in EN1500. Furthermore, individualfingers or combinations of fingers can be used to test more thanone test product.5.2.3 Any of the test methods for sampli