4.7 Article

Antimicrobial Efficacy Assessment and Rheological Investigation of Two Different Hand Sanitizers Compared with the Standard Reference WHO Formulation 1

期刊

GELS
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/gels9020108

关键词

alcohol-based hand sanitizer; ABHS; rheology; organoleptic features; antimicrobial activity; MIC; MBC; agar diffusion test; in vitro; in vivo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, the frequent use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers has necessitated a careful evaluation of their stability and effectiveness. This study focused on the characterization and rheological behavior of the hand sanitizers, confirming their good stability in gel formula compared to the liquid formula. The antimicrobial assessment also showed the efficacy of both formulations in vitro and in vivo. Overall, our study presents a valid quality control assessment for ensuring the stability and efficacy of alcohol-based hand sanitizers.
(1) Background: recently, the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHSs) has become very frequent, and an evaluation of the stability and effectiveness of their formulations is a critical topic which should be carefully considered. (2) Methods: starting from the characterization of the hand sanitizers object of the study, our interest was focused on their rheological behavior in order to confirm their intrinsic features, but also the stability of each formulation in different conditions of shear and temperature; the second aspect concerns the antimicrobial assessment through a panel of in vitro and in vivo experimental trials. (3) Results: rheological investigation confirmed good stability for the two hand sanitizers in gel formula with respect to the reference in liquid formula; the antimicrobial activity evaluation showed good efficacy of each formulation both in vitro and in vivo. (4) Conclusions: altogether, our overview presents a valid quality control assessment to ensure the stability and efficacy of an alcohol-based hand sanitizer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据