skip to Main Content

H1N1 (Swine Flu): Hand Sanitizers’ – Claims Don’t Always Correspond to Real-World Practices

Nothing like a few diseases to give rise to a whole new class of products proclaiming that “they” will kill 99.9% of common bacteria, viruses and fungi. This includes everything from hand-sanitizing liquids to products like computer keyboard and shopping cart tissues. However, they often are based on laboratory tests that don’t represent the imperfections of real-world use. Human subjects, or countertops, in labs are usually cleaned first, then covered on the surface with a target bug. That is of course a far cry from a typical kitchen counter or a pair of human hands.

Jason Tetro, a microbiologist at the University of Ottawa showed the difference by testing three hand-sanitizer products for CBC News last month among eighth graders in Hamilton, Ontario. Three popular sanitizers killed between 46% and 60% of microbes on the students’ hands, far short of 99.99%. Bugs that aren’t killed by sanitizers aren’t necessarily more dangerous than those that are. But the more that remain, the greater the chance of infection, doctors say.

The companies whose products were evaluated responded that those lab tests are what health regulators require. “Real-world application is completely subject to interpretation,” says Jay Beckman, head of sales for MGS Soapopular Inc., the U.S. distributor of Soapopular, one of the products tested. “Nothing is guaranteed.”

Soap can be effective, but human nature can stand in the way. In a now famous study Navy recruits (1996 – 1998) were directed by their commanding officers to wash their hands at least five times a day. That and other measures helped reduce outpatient doctor visits for respiratory illness by an impressive 45%. (

Civilians, lacking a commanding officer to direct them, can be a bit more problematic hand washers. Most, left to their own devices, don’t scrub the required time to achieve clean hands (20 seconds).

twinkle twinkle
CDC recommends singing Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star or "Happy Birthday" twice to achieve that 20-second goal.

To cite a 99.9% fatality rate, manufacturers don’t have to kill 99.9% of all known bugs. Regulations don’t require them to disclose which bugs they exterminate, just that the products are effective against a representative sample of microbes. For instance, many products can’t kill clostridium difficile, a gastrointestinal scourge, or the hepatitis A virus, which inflames the liver. Yet by killing other, more common bugs, they can claim 99.9% effectiveness.

Rules governing claims of efficacy vary by agency. In the U.S., the EPA oversees claims about products intended for inanimate objects, while the FDA regulates skin products, including hand sanitizers. To claim that other microbe-unfriendly products such as household cleaners kill 99.99% of germs, companies are permitted to show such deadliness less than 99.99% of the time, according to the EPA’s rules. The standard test is run on 60 slides inoculated with a specific bug, and 59 of them treated with the product must exhibit the claimed rate of germ death. The 60th can fail to allow for a mistake on the part of testers, according to Jean Schoeni, director of research at TRAC Microbiology, which conducts EPA testing. “It’s a very fussy, particular test,” Dr. Schoeni says. Furthermore, if fewer than 59 slides show the high kill rate, manufacturers get a do-over.

spray bottle tile
If trained lab testers sometimes need a redo, aren't consumers wielding a spray bottle likely to fall short of optimal sanitizing technique? "It's highly likely," Dr. Schoeni says. She notes that some products need to sit on surfaces for 10 minutes to attain desired kill rates, yet many home cleaners are likely to wipe them off long before that.

Some companies would like to say their products kill the swine-flu virus — a claim that some can reasonably make. However, the FDA bars companies from making claims for over-the-counter products about killing viruses, and has recently issued five warning letters to companies “for false/misleading H1N1 claims,” according to an FDA spokesman. H1N1 is, manufacturers say, rather fragile and easy to kill. But because of the FDA rule, many don’t test the efficacy of their products on the virus, says Doug Anderson, president of ATS Labs, which studies germ-killing products.

Related Posts
Filter by
Post Page
Business Continuity Management
Sort by

H1N1 (Swine Flu): Bird Flu Returns to Asia; First Confirmed Human Case in Hong Kong since 2003. Philippines On Alert, Screening At Airports

Bird flu has returned in Asia with a reported case in Hong Kong. A 59-year-old woman in the city contracted H5N1


H1N1 (Swine Flu): Two human infections with swine origin influenza A (H3N2) in the United States (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania)

Last week CDC reported 2 human infections with a novel swine origin influenza A (H3N2) virus in the United States


H1N1 (Swine Flu) Mutant Gene D222G Linked To Fatal Cases Might Have Disabled The Clearing Mechanism Of Lungs

A new study in the November issue of Virology suggests that suggests that the mutant virus, known as D222G, could


H1N1 (Swine Flu): CDC Lowers Annual Death Toll from 36,000 to 24,000

Last week, the CDC substantially lowered its often-quoted estimate of how many people die in a typical influenza


H1N1 (Swine Flu): The World Enters the Post Pandemic Phase

Today, Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director General of the World Health Organization announced that Phase 6 of the H1N1


H1N1 (Swine Flu): Wanna Lose Sleep At Night??? Read About Reassortment with H1N1 Pandemic Strain and H5N1 (Bird Flu)

The latest Journal of Virology, had an interesting article that has the ability to send chills down your spine…”High


This Post Has 2 Comments
  1. I use a hand sanitizer in my office in south Florida called SafeHands. I researhed different products prior to changing over to an alcohol free product since the alcohol was killing my hands. Severe bleeding and cracking!! SafeHands did what is called a glove juice test side by side with an alcohol product and with the tests done on HUMAN HANDS not petrie dishes the kill rate was 99.99 %. I believe the test was done at one of the california state schools. I also saw a study that I googled ;it was a study done back in 1998 and it was in the Journal of the Assoc. of Operating Room Nurses that also compared the drying, cracking and bleeding effect of alcohol against the non alcohol product. The efficacy of the non-alcohol product actually increased with multiple uses while due to the cracking and wounding of the skin the alcohol actually decreased in effectivness over multiple uses. This study didn’t mention a product by name but the glove juice study did use SafeHands. Also SafeHands does and is the only one that I researched that can atleast kill C-Diff . in it’s vegatative state. I looked into “soapopular” and “hand cleanse”. I don’t believe SafeHands has ever been warned by the FDA for false claims as soappopular has.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top
×Close search