The coronavirus pandemic forced many individuals to find a way to remain safe, including loading up on cleaning splashes, gels, and cleansers. The pandemic is another ailment and a major danger to worldwide wellbeing. Hand sanitizer stations and wipes are all over the places: supermarkets, shopping centers, schools, chapels, and workplaces. As no particular antiviral specialists are accessible for its treatment, it is vital to sustaining hygiene. Keeping hands clean prevents the disease from spreading, but are hand sanitizers a worthy replacement for washing your hands with past detergents and water? For a hand sanitizer to be successful, it must be utilized accurately. That implies using the correct amount and scouring it everywhere on over two hands’ surfaces until hands are dry (Tiwari, Rai, & Kushi, 2020). Studies have demonstrated that lower-focus disinfectants or non-alcoholic hand sanitizers are not as successful at eliminating germs as those containing 60 to 95 percent ethanol (Golin, Choi, & Ghahary, 2020). Therefore, this topic is highly relevant for the researchers to study, especially these days when the pandemic may hit everyone.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
These items are used in clinics to help prevent the exchange of infections and germs, starting with one patient and then the next by emergency clinic staff. It is difficult in the medical clinic to show that hand sanitizing items are valuable (Mohan, Shiv, Neha, & Sanjay, 2020; Kirk et al., 2016). The best way to deal with this danger is to clean hands appropriately. Washing hands under running water is a superior method to stop the spread of diseases than utilizing a hand disinfect. Outside of the clinic, the vast majority get respiratory infections from direct contact with people who are currently suffering from them, and hand sanitizers will do nothing in these conditions (Kirk et al., 2016). In addition, they were found to have no greater cleansing power than just washing your hands with detergent and water.
Five sources are used within the framework of this paper:
Golin, A., Choi, D., & Ghahary, A. (2020). Hand sanitizers: A review of ingredients, mechanisms of action, modes of delivery, and efficacy against coronaviruses. American Journal of Infection Control, 48(9), 1062-1067.
The first article represents an analysis of hand sanitizer components and how they act when applied to human skin. Moreover, the study suggests that it can effectively fight COVID-19 and other infections which can be transmitted through physical touch. The transmission of some infections due to the neglect of hand hygiene is also described in the study.
Kirk, J., Kendall, A., Marx, J.F., Pincock, T., Young, E., Hughes, J. M., & Landers, T. (2016). Point of care hand hygiene – Where’s the rub? A survey of US and Canadian health care workers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices. American Journal of Infection Control, 44(10), 1095–1101.
The second source describes the efficacy of handwashing and compares it to alcohol-based products against germs. Furthermore, it demonstrates which products are used better by the Americans and Canadians and which they would not prefer to have. The survey shows several criteria for why people choose a specific means of hand hygiene.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
Singh, P., Potlia, I., Malhotra, S., Dubey, H., & Chauhan, H. (2020). Hand sanitizer an alternative to hand washing-a review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Oral Research, 1, 1-6. The third research concentrates on proving that washing hands with running water is the best way to protect oneself from catching any infection. Water is the best protection, unlike a dab of hand sanitizer and the article can justify it. However, some advantages of hand antiseptics are also emphasized in the research.
Tiwari, S., Rai, N., & Kushi, S. (2020). Hand sanitizer: Effectiveness & Characterization. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 9(4), 841-843.
The fourth article compares hand soap and hand sanitizer usage and identifies which product is better for one’s health. The study suggests that each hygiene means has pros and cons; however, there are different circumstances when each of them should be used. Furthermore, the authors provide an overview of several related materials.
Mohan, S., Shiv., S., Neha, M., & Sanjay, K. (2020). Effectiveness of hand wash and sanitizer: COVID-19. Indian Journals, 39a(1), 242-245.
This article attempts to promote that hand washing is the best appropriate method compared to hand sanitizer, as excessive use of hand sanitizer may lead to a new threat shortly. Moreover, the author describes the importance of using sanitary means to protect oneself from catching any infectious ailment and how they affect people’s health.
This study provides an overview of the existing literature regarding the use of hand sanitizers, soaps, and natural products that aim to prevent people from becoming infected and spreading infection. Analysis of the collected data will allow to compare hygiene methods and identify their advantages and disadvantages, as well as their effectiveness. Moreover, the study will suggest new material for future scientific research.
The purpose of this work is to study the effectiveness of hand sanitizers, soap, and simple running water as methods to fight bacteria and stop the spread of many viruses. This thesis is directly related to the question posed since there is a need to find out which product is more effective in fighting microbes. The research aims to solve this problem by observing the peer-reviewed literature and conducting an experiment.
Materials and Methods
The material used is the five peer-reviewed studies conducted between 2016 and 2020. After the articles had been selected, a critical appraisal was conducted to identify which of them were suitable. The inclusion criteria were surveys, interviews, and clinical trials (Singh, Potlia, Malhotra, Dubey, & Chauhan, 2020). Moreover, the papers chosen are exclusively in the English language. All the materials were summarized, compared, and criticized to establish the results and come to a personal conclusion.
The independent variables in the research will be alcohol-based antiseptics, soap, and running water, while the independent variable is to be the efficacy of their use. The main control treatments will be different sanitary products. A group of 50 people will participate in the experiment that presupposes the survey and the trial itself. Before starting a trial, people will receive a form consisting of 10 questions concerning hygiene which they need to fill out to understand their sanitary habits. Then they will be asked to try out all the products, including water, soap, and antiseptic, within three days, using different detergents each day so that it will be possible to reach the conclusions.
The participants will be supervised within three days and their fingerprints will be checked every day to identify the number of germs on them: then, the results will be compared. The data collected will be compiled in several tables with various indices. The first table will include the age, sex, ethnicity, and occupation of the participants. The rest of the graphs will demonstrate the number of germs before and after the hygiene means using. Having these tables, it will be possible to compare the efficacy of hygiene products. Moreover, the dependency between the variables can be established.
Therefore, the data gathered will let analyze how effective these products are in use and if they can prevent a person from catching an infection. After comparing the results, the conclusions will be drawn, and the thesis will be proven. The current research may be submitted to several journals related to medicine, infections treatment, or various scientific biology journals. For instance, the article may be suitable for the Journal of Bacteriology and Mycology or the Journal of Infection and Public Health.
Singh, P., Potlia, I., Malhotra, S., Dubey, H., & Chauhan, H. (2020). Hand sanitizer an alternative to hand washing-a review of literature. Journal of Advanced Oral Research, 1, 1-6.