• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

New Copper-based Hand Sanitizer Tested

M

mixin

Well-known member
A comparison of the antibacterial efficacy and cytotoxicity to cultured human skin cells of 7 commercial hand rubs and Xgel, a new copper-based biocidal hand rub

Background
Hand cleanliness is important in hospital infection control, but skin irritation from frequent alcohol-based hand rub use reduces compliance. We have compared a new copper biocide/Aloe vera-based biocidal hand rub (Xgel) with 7 commercially available hand rubs.

Methods
Hand rubs were cultured with human skin cells for 24 hours after which cytotoxicity was assessed using the sulforhodamine B assay. The EN 12054 bacterial suspension test protocol was used to assess biocidal activity of 2 of the least cytotoxic hand rubs (Xgel and Purell).

Results
Hand rubs had 50% cytotoxic concentrations ranging from >10% to <0.1% vol/vol. In the EN12054 assay, Xgel reduced colony forming units (CFU) by >108 with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Acinetobacter in 1 minute, whereas Purell only reduced CFU by 104 and 105, respectively. Purell was ineffective against C difficile spores, whereas Xgel produced a 3 ? 103 reduction in CFU.

Conclusion
The hand rubs had a wide range of cytotoxicity values for human skin cells, with Xgel being the least cytotoxic to human skin cells. In the EN 12054 bacterial suspension test, Xgel was more effective than Purell against all organisms tested. It should be noted that these in vitro results may not translate into clinical differences.

http://www.ajicjournal.org/article/PIIS0196655308007621/abstract?rss=yes
 
Re: New Copper-based Hand Sanitizer Tested

http://remedyresearch.org/030807-AB-NPSA-FINAL.pdf

Extensive testing of these products over the past 18 months has shown their remarkablebiocidal activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter, glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcus, Legionella pneumophila and even Clostridium difficileorganisms and spores [4]. All three compounds effectively inhibited colony formation in all of the 185 antibiotic-resistant clinical isolates referred to the Health Protection Agency (HPA; Dr Tyrone Pitt, personal communication, 2007).All three copper compounds were highly effective at decontaminating ultramicrofibre (UMF) cloths [5] and disinfecting contaminated laundry in conjunction with commercially availabledetergents [6]. An Aloe vera-based alcohol-free hand gel (Xgel) containing one of thesecopper-based formulations (CuAL42) was much more effective than Purell against MRSA, Acinetobacter and spores of C. difficile using the standardised EN12054 suspension test protocol (Hall TJ, et al. submitted for publication, 2007). Furthermore, our recent studies have shown that the dried residue of Xgel on hospital surfaces inhibits bacterial survival much more effectively than that of PurellExtensive testing of these products over the past 18 months has shown their remarkablebiocidal activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Acinetobacter, glycopeptide-resistant Enterococcus, Legionella pneumophila and even Clostridium difficileorganisms and spores [4]. All three compounds effectively inhibited colony formation in all of the 185 antibiotic-resistant clinical isolates referred to the Health Protection Agency (HPA; Dr Tyrone Pitt, personal communication, 2007).All three copper compounds were highly effective at decontaminating ultramicrofibre (UMF) cloths [5] and disinfecting contaminated laundry in conjunction with commercially availabledetergents [6]. An Aloe vera-based alcohol-free hand gel (Xgel) containing one of thesecopper-based formulations (CuAL42) was much more effective than Purell against MRSA, Acinetobacter and spores of C. difficile using the standardised EN12054 suspension test protocol (Hall TJ, et al. submitted for publication, 2007). Furthermore, our recent studies have shown that the dried residue of Xgel on hospital surfaces inhibits bacterial survival much more effectively than that of Purell
 
Re: New Copper-based Hand Sanitizer Tested

I wonder if it's safe to assume it is as effective against influenza virus?

Is flu virus easier to kill than those types of bacteria?
 
Re: New Copper-based Hand Sanitizer Tested

Results
Hand rubs had 50% cytotoxic concentrations ranging from >10% to <0.1% vol/vol. In the EN12054 assay, Xgel reduced colony forming units (CFU) by >108 with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Acinetobacter in 1 minute, whereas Purell only reduced CFU by 104 and 105, respectively. Purell was ineffective against C difficile spores, whereas Xgel produced a 3 × 103 reduction in CFU.
Click to expand...
Lest there be any confusion the numbers highlighted (e.g. 104) are to be read as 'ten to the power four' etc. (104 = 10,000 = 10^4).
 
Re: New Copper-based Hand Sanitizer Tested

In the case of these studies, it is clear that they were funded by Remedy Research, as is normal for a company that is essentially an R&D discovery organisation in the process of new product development. So how do you mean, are the studies biased? I would recommend that you take a close look at the methodologes used, but in this case it is fairly straight forward, unlike human trial results where outputs can be skewed by excluding certain population subgroups. In this case it is a simple case of how many of the organisms are killed or not, and how quickly.

The team at UCL have a global reputation to protect (ranked amongst the top 10 medical schools and research facilities in the world), and the studies would have been carried out to strict protocols that would have gone before UCL ethics committees before the work was approved to go ahead. Does this help you?
 
Re: New Copper-based Hand Sanitizer Tested

I cannot help but wonder what common usage of this product would do to our water supply? While it certainly appears to kill organisms, I would not like to add humans to the list because of contaminated water.
 
Re: New Copper-based Hand Sanitizer Tested

if their study finds results, which they don't like,
then it would not be published ?
 
Re: New Copper-based Hand Sanitizer Tested

In general (following recent outcries over studies that have not been published when results were bad), studies conducted through teaching hospitals such as UCL and Universities have agreements such that publication must be sought (there are never guarantees taht papers will be accepted), and that submission applications and choice of journal are in the hands of the research group in question. However, in cases where research is carried out by private contract research organisations, the decision to publish or not rests with the organisation that commissioned it.

Shannon - just as a note, the concentraiton being talked of here is extremely low. Do you think that would be an issue at this sort of level?

Quote:
All three copper-based formulations were potently biocidal down to concentrations of 1 ppm for both stationary- and log-phase organisms, and they were all active against C. difficile spores. At 150 ppm, they achieved a complete (>6 log10) kill of MRSA and ACCB mostly within 1 h.
 
Re: New Copper-based Hand Sanitizer Tested

Whether or not it poses a problem depends on how many people use the product and how many people reuse the water the product floes into. While the still common argument for pollution is dilution, it has been proved in repeated cases that some toxins are better left out of the water supply entirely. Not just for humans but also for fish, single cell life the fish depend on, etc... I still like the idea of faucets, doorknobs and other commonly touched items to be copper. I would like to see more data on the safety of the product and its long term affect on the environment prior to releasing it into every household, office building and medical facility.
 
Re: New Copper-based Hand Sanitizer Tested

Anyone seen any more news regarding copper and virus killing? It would be smart to have a copper tube next to each sink so hand washing in conjuction with hand rubbing of the tube would kill at least as many as alcohol gels. Also might be a good idea to have a flat copper disc in our pocket or purse for trips on public transport. Especially on planes as alcohol gels amounts are strcily limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top