Top Health Tools
Top Health Tools

Top Reports
Top Reports
Top Articles
Top Articles

Top Reviews
Top Reviews
Hand Sanitizers Don't Kill Anywhere Near The Claims Made By Manufacturers

Using hand sanitizer won't necessarily kill 99.99 per cent of germs on your hands despite the claims made by many such products, a CBC investigation has found.

CBC News tested three popular sanitizers — top-selling Purell, President's Choice and Soapopular — on a class of Grade 8 students at Ryerson Middle School in Hamilton, Ont., last month.

President's Choice and Purell both contain alcohol, while Soapopular contains no alcohol but rather an immune suppressing and carcinogenic agent called benzalkonium chloride.

Students were divided into three groups of six and a different hand sanitizer was assigned to each one.

The CBC enlisted the help of microbiologist Jason Tetro of the Ottawa-based Centre for Research on Environmental Microbiology.

Students were divided into three groups of six and a different hand sanitizer was assigned to each one.

The CBC enlisted the help of microbiologist Jason Tetro of the Ottawa-based Centre for Research on Environmental Microbiology.

The students weren't asked to wash their hands before the test. They began the test with their fingers contaminated by whatever they had touched on a lunch break.

Tetro took swabs of their hands to get a baseline measure of the bugs and germs lurking around fingernails and in creases.

Students then liberally rubbed their hands with sanitizer. A second swab was taken and the results were sent to Tetro's lab. He helped explain them once they came back.

And they needed a little explaining.

Test results

President's Choice killed an average of 54.6 per cent of microbes on the kids' hands. Purell killed about 60.4 per cent. And Soapopular killed 46 per cent.

So why did CBC's results differ so much from the claims on hand-sanitizer bottles and websites?

According to Tetro, the companies are not deliberately misleading consumers. They've had to test their products in accredited labs before Health Canada would allow them to make the 99.99 per cent claim.

Tetro knows this because he's carried out hundreds of similar tests.

"The claim is based on these very controlled laboratory tests and we do those tests here at the lab," he said.

When hand sanitizers undergo testing, the hands they're tested on are first sanitized in the lab, then sprinkled with microbes in a controlled situation.

"We wash the hands. We make sure they are clean and devoid of any germs, then we artificially put the germs on their finger pads. Then we test to find out whether the product kills or eliminates it," said Tetro.

Grease and grime protect germs

Hand sanitizers don't work as well on really dirty hands because grime and grease actually protect germs from being destroyed.

"In a real life situation, we don't know how clean those hands are and so you're not going to see anywhere near the type of results [identified on the bottle]," Tetro said.

All three firms were critical of CBC's test results.

"We feel the methodology used by CBC is unscientific and therefore the result is not representative of President's Choice hand sanitizer's true potential," wrote David Primorac, senior director of public relations for Loblaw Companies Ltd., which sells President's Choice products.

"We clearly believe the 54 per cent results achieved by the CBC are inaccurate and misleading," wrote Primorac, who also questioned whether the students were tested in exactly the same method under controlled conditions.

"I ask these questions because we get these inquiries now and again and it is extremely important that this is an apples-to-apples comparison. The slightest deviation can skew results," Primorac wrote.

Test conditions not 'real world': Loblaw

He said Loblaw has tested its sanitizer in "real world" conditions in a Health Canada accredited lab.

"We brought in volunteers from real life situations and measured the microbial load on their hands before use and after use. Seventy-nine per cent of the subjects achieved 100 per cent kill rate with 21 per cent achieving 99 per cent or over kill rate," Primorac wrote.

Purell said it was "unable to comment on the accuracy of any third-party data we haven't reviewed" and that it was "confident in the science that supports our claims and the efficacy of Purell hand sanitizer."

Soapopular said in a statement that CBC's results were "less than half of any result reported during literally hundreds of previous tests conducted for health and safety agencies in all G8 countries and ministries of health in over 65 countries."

The companies acknowledged that sanitizers are an alternative when soap and water aren't available, but they are not meant to substitute for hand washing.

So it all comes back to the advice that doctors and mothers give all the time: Wash your hands with soap and water.

Immune Suppressing, Carcinogenic
Hand Sanitizers in Schools to Prevent H1N1 Flu

Reference Sources:
December 3, 2009

STAY CONNECTEDNewsletter | RSS | Twitter | YouTube |
This site is owned and operated by 1999-2018. All Rights Reserved. All content on this site may be copied, without permission, whether reproduced digitally or in print, provided copyright, reference and source information are intact and use is strictly for not-for-profit purposes. Please review our copyright policy for full details.
volunteerDonateWrite For Us
Stay Connected With Our Newsletter