Journal of Life Science and Biomedicine  
J Life Sci Biomed, 9 (5): 130-137, 2019  
License: CC BY 4.0  
ISSN 2251-9939  
Assessment of antibacterial efficacy of Lugol's  
iodine compared with commercial hand  
sanitizers of Bangladesh  
Md. Nafiur Rahman1, Mohammad Abdullah-Al-Shoeb1, Saaimatul Huq2 and Muhammad Abul Kalam Azad1  
1Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh  
2Molecular Biotechnology division, National Institute of Biotechnology, Savar, Dhaka-1349, Bangladesh  
Corresponding author's Email: makazad-bmb@sust.edu  
ABSTRACT  
Research Article  
PII: S225199391900021-9  
Introduction. Hand disinfection is an essential step to prevent infection, reduce morbidity  
and minimize health care costs in a community. Aim. In this study, the Lugol's iodine (2%)  
solution was evaluated to use as an emergency hand sanitizer and compared with the three  
commercially available hand sanitizers (Hexisol, Sepnil and Handirub) of Bangladesh.  
Methods. These hand sanitizers were examined and analyzed by susceptibility test,  
minimum bactericidal concentration test and efficacy determination test. The agar  
diffusion test was used to assess the efficacy of the products against pathogenic Escherichia  
coli, Shigella flexneri, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella typhi and Streptococcus pneumoniae.  
Results. Handirub has inhibited all the test organisms with highest zones of inhibition  
ranging between 24.38 mm and 28.63 mm while Hexisol zone of inhibition was ranging from  
13.3 mm to 15 mm. Unfortunately, Sepnil was inactive against Salmonella typhi, with very  
poor performance against other test organisms. All the three commercial hand sanitizers  
were only bacteriostatic at 100% concentration, while both 2% and 1% iodine were 100%  
bactericidal. The comparative study of the efficacy determination tests revealed that the  
Hexisol, Sepnil and Handirub are 93.05%, 85.99% and 96.57% effective against  
microorganism, respectively. Interestingly, both 2% and 1% of iodine solutions gave 100%  
reduction of viable bacteria during the efficacy determination test. Conclusion. It is  
concluded that 1% iodine showed better results against infection when compared to the  
other hand sanitizers used in this study. Recommendation. Lugol's iodine could be an  
effective alternative to hand washing to achieve asepsis for the health-care professional in  
emergency outreach program and water scarcity areas.  
Rec. 13 July 2019  
Rev. 20 September 2019  
Pub. 25 September 2019  
Keywords  
Hand sanitizer,  
Lugol's iodine,  
Hand hygiene,  
Minimum inhibitory  
concentration  
INTRODUCTION  
A hand sanitizer or hand antiseptic is a supplement or alternative to hand washing with soap and water.  
Keeping hand clean is one of the most essential actions for the reduction of transmission of infectious diseases  
in the community and hospitals environment [1, 2]. Cold viruses, flu viruses, and pathogenic bacteria are easily  
spread through public meeting places such as hospital, school, bus, office, etc. [3]. One gram of human feces  
which is about the weight of a paper clip can comprises one trillion of microorganisms [4]. Once someone  
coughed or sneezed or touched by some other contaminated object, the germ can spread easily from hands to  
hands. When these contaminated hands are not washed off, they can be passed from person to person and  
makes people sick [5].  
A decent hand hygiene practice have been shown to be effective in various situations such as the reduction  
of gastrointestinal infection and diarrhea [68], alleviate the outbreaks of the Ebola-Virus Disease [9], lowers the  
rate of the respiratory illnesses, like common colds [6, 10], and finally overcome the global morbidity and  
minimize health care cost [11]. In a health care setting hand washing is mandatory procedure according to  
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) and it may protect us from thousands of microbes [6]. The  
CDC guideline reported that, about two million people get hospitalized each year due to infections and that  
around ninety thousands of these patients die as a result of their infections [12]. Improved hand hygiene  
practice by health care workers and better cleaning of common hospital equipment could reduce the probability  
of patients becoming colonized and lead to subsequent reductions in infectious diseases. Thus it was calculated  
that, routine hand hygiene could save one million lives per year [13].  
Citation: Rahman Md.N, Abdullah-Al-Shoeb M, Huq S and Abul Kalam Azad M. Assessment of antibacterial efficacy of Lugol's iodine compared with commercial  
hand sanitizers of Bangladesh. J Life Sci Biomed, 2019; 9(5): 130-137; www.jlsb.science-line.com  
130  
Hand hygiene can be performed by the removal of microbes with ordinary soap and water, and/or hand  
antiseptic using an antimicrobial soap or an alcohol-based hand rub. Considering the importance of hand  
hygiene, the CDC issued a guideline endorsing that, the hand rub can be regularly used for decontaminating  
hands. The hand sanitizers are composed of alcohol, ethanol, isopropanol or propanol with a suggested  
concentration [14, 15]. However, iodine-based hand sanitizers also used frequently and a povidone-iodine hand  
wash and hand rub products demonstrated efficacious virucidal products to help prevent infection and limit the  
spread of Ebola virus disease [16].  
Some research already reported that, hand washing with soaps may result in cracked skin as soap can  
remove body’s fatty acid from the skin, which then provides an entry portal for pathogens [17, 18]. On the other  
hand, eminent antiseptic has supplementary skincare product such as emollients, and recommended that the  
hand sanitizers are also well-suited by the skin [19]. Another great benefit of hand sanitizer is that it could play a  
vital role to prevent commonly transmissible pathogens in water lacking areas as it does not require water to  
wash hands. However, when use too frequently, the alcohol based hand sanitizers also can cause drying and  
cracking on skin. Moreover the alcohol-based hand sanitizers are classified as a fire hazard [14, 15]. Therefore,  
they should be stored out of child's reach and only should use with adult supervision. If ingested, alcohol  
toxicity can even lead to alcohol poisoning [15]. The iodine have persistent antimicrobial activity for a prolonged  
period and iodine-based hand sanitizers could be a good alternative for alcohol-based hand sanitizers.  
This particular study was aimed to check out the efficacy of some alcohol-based hand sanitizers and a  
Lugol's iodine (2% iodine) formulation against bacteria of clinical importance using both dilution and diffusion  
susceptibility methods. This investigation serves to broaden the knowledge of the general public about the  
effect of hand sanitizers and also increases awareness on hand hygiene. Furthermore, this research might lead  
the manufacturers of these products to improve their products and make it more users friendly as well as a fetal  
tool for infectious microorganism.  
MATERIAL AND METHODS  
Test isolates  
The clinical isolated used in this study were previously characterized and obtained from the Enteric  
Microbiology Laboratory of the International Central for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh. These isolates  
include the S. flexneri, S. aureus, S. typhi, E. coli, and S. pneumoniae. All isolates were stored in -70ºC until when  
needed.  
Hand sanitizers and Lugol's iodine  
Three brands of alcohol-based hand sanitizers were purchased from the local shop of Sylhet, Bangladesh.  
These are Hexisol, Sepnil, and Handirub (Table 1). Lugol's iodine solution (2% iodine) prepared in the general  
laboratory of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Shahjalal University of Science and  
Technology (SUST) according to FDA manual [20]. The following table 1 was developed for showing the  
ingredients used in hand sanitizers.  
Table 1. Hand sanitizers used in this study and their fundamental ingredients  
Product Name  
Active ingredients  
0.5% w/v chlorhexidinegluconate,  
70% w/w isopropyl alcohol  
Manufacturer name  
Advanced Chemical Industries  
Limited  
Hexisol  
Sepnil  
62% Ethanol  
Square Toiletries Limited  
Eskayef Bangladesh Limited  
Laboratory formulation  
0.5 % w/v chlorhexidinegluconate,  
70% w/w isopropyl alcohol  
Handirub  
Lugol's Iodine  
Potassium iodide and iodine crystal  
Agar diffusion test (well variant)  
In this study, the agar diffusion method was used demonstrated by Valgas et al. [21]. This test was carried  
out as a preliminary screen to assess the antimicrobial activities of the various products. This involved the use  
of an inoculum corresponding to 0.5 McFarland [22]. The absorbance of the 0.5 McFarland standards was  
adjusted to 0.08-0.10 in 625 nm wavelengths. The prepared standard always keeps into a dark cabinet until  
needed [23]. Müller-Hinton agar (MHA) was prepared for antibiotic susceptibility testing [24]. The test inoculum  
was swab inoculated to an MHA plate and allowed to stand at room temperature for 15 minutes. With the aid of  
Citation: Rahman Md.N, Abdullah-Al-Shoeb M, Huq S and Abul Kalam Azad M. Assessment of antibacterial efficacy of Lugol's iodine compared with commercial  
hand sanitizers of Bangladesh. J Life Sci Biomed, 2019; 9(5): 130-137; www.jlsb.science-line.com  
131  
a sterile 6 mm cork borer, 4 equally spaced holes were bored in the agar plate with a fifth hole in the center of  
the plate. Fifty microliters (50 µL) of the hand sanitizer was then introduced into each of the 4 wells while the  
central well was filled with an equal volume of sterile water to serve as a control. This was done for all the test  
organisms and hand sanitizers. The plates were incubated for 24 hours at 37ºC in an upright position. They  
were then examined for zones of inhibition. The test was carried out in duplicates and the average of two  
readings was taken as the zone of inhibition in each case. Inhibition zones were measured with the aid of a ruler  
and all the measurement was taken as millimeter [21].  
Determination of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)  
MIC was carried out to determine the lowest concentration of test substances needed to prevent the  
growth of a given organism in vitro [25]. Various concentrations of the sanitizers were prepared in ascending  
order (40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%). In case of iodine solution, a formulation of 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, and 2% of iodine  
solutions were used. The tubes were incubated for 24 hours at 37˚C and examined for visible growth or  
turbidity. The concentration of the sanitizer at which no visible growth was observed compared with the  
controls, was regarded as the MIC [26].  
Determination of minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC)  
MBC is the lowest concentration of a specific antimicrobial that kills 99.9% of cells of a given bacterial  
strain [25]. MBC was determined by assaying for live organisms in the tubes from the MIC tests which have  
shown no visible growth. A loop full of inoculums from the MIC tubes was streaked on fresh nutrient agar  
plates without the hand sanitizer incorporated into them. The plates were observed for growth after incubated  
at 37ºC for 24 hours. Absence of growth indicated a bactericidal effect of the sanitizers at that concentration  
which is the MBC.  
Determination of efficacy of hand sanitizers in reducing viable counts of bacteria on the hands of  
subjects  
All the three commercial hand sanitizers and Lugol's iodine were further evaluated for their efficacy in  
reducing baseline bacterial counts of resident flora on the hands of subjects. Twenty individual volunteers were  
randomly selected for the study and verbal permission was obtained from all participating volunteers prior to  
the experiment. Before starting this procedure, the volunteers were well educated about correct hand  
disinfection procedure according to WHO [27]. The five randomly selected subjects hand were examined for  
baseline bacterial count reduction with each sample. Sterile nutrient agar plates were serially numbered and  
marked as with sanitizer and without sanitizer. At first, the test was carried out with unwashed hands of the  
subjects. Subjects' left hands were gently used to make a finger impression on the agar by pressing and rolling  
the finger on the agar in the plate marked as without sanitizer. After that, three milliliters of the sanitizer was  
applied to the hand and then rubbed thoroughly on the palm, hands, and fingernails until the hands became dry.  
Further the finger impression was repeated on the plate marked with sanitizer for all subjects. The plates were  
incubated for 24 hours at 37ºC and after 24 hours the number of colonies was counted with a colony counter.  
The reduction in colony-forming unit (CFU) percentage was calculated to evaluate the efficacy of different hand  
sanitizers. The CFU percent reduction was determined by the following simple formula.  
(
)
ꢀꢁꢂ ꢃꢄꢅꢅꢆ  
CFU percent reduction  
Where A is the viable counts of microorganism before treatment  
Where B is the viable counts of microorganism after treatment  
RESULTS  
Agar diffusion test  
In the susceptibility test, all the test products exhibited inhibitory activity against the test isolates (Table  
2), except Sepnil against S. typhi. There was no inhibition zone for Sepnil against S. typhi (Figure 1), and also had  
lowest inhibition zone against S. flexneri, S. aureus, E.coli, and S. pneumoniae, which were 6.63 mm, 9.63 mm, 10.13  
mm, and 8.30 mm respectively. Thus Sepnil was the least effective hand sanitizer to kill bacteria in agar  
diffusion test. Handirub gave better agar diffusion test result against S. aureus, E. coli, S. flexneri, and S. typhi by  
comparing with Hexisol and Sepnil. It showed the maximum diameter of the inhibition zone against S. typhi (27  
Citation: Rahman Md.N, Abdullah-Al-Shoeb M, Huq S and Abul Kalam Azad M. Assessment of antibacterial efficacy of Lugol's iodine compared with commercial  
hand sanitizers of Bangladesh. J Life Sci Biomed, 2019; 9(5): 130-137; www.jlsb.science-line.com  
132  
mm) and lowest diameter of inhibition zone against E.coli (25.38 mm). The highest inhibition zones were  
observed by the 2% iodine and Handirub ranging from 24.38 mm to 28.63 mm.  
Table 2. Summary of the susceptibility patterns of test organism against different hand sanitizers  
Diameter of inhibition zones (mm) of hand sanitizers against test organisms  
Sanitizers  
name  
S. flexneri  
15.00  
S. aureus  
13.13  
S. typhi  
14.50  
0
E. coli  
14.50  
10.13  
25.38  
26.36  
S. pneumoniae  
16.50  
Hexisol  
Sepnil  
06.63  
09.63  
26.00  
26.75  
8.30  
Handirub  
2% iodine  
25.88  
27.00  
24.38  
26.80  
28.63  
28.00  
Figure 1. Sample MHA plate of Hexisol and Sepnil against S. flexneri and S. typhi respectively.  
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC)  
All the commercially available hand sanitizers tested here had a MIC of 100% (Table 3). At 80%  
concentration, Handirub was effective against all the test organisms except Salmonella typhi, and Hexisol was  
effective against S. flexneri and S. aureus only (Table 3). Sepnil was not effective even at a concentration of 80%  
for any of the test organism. In the case of Lugol's iodine, inhibitions of all the test organisms were observed at  
1%, 1.5%, and 2% concentrations (Table 3). Thus only 1% of iodine is highly effective to kill all the test organisms  
used in this study.  
Table 3. Minimum inhibitory concentration determination (MIC) test results  
Test organism  
Concentration  
Hand sanitizer  
Hexisol  
(%)  
S. flexneri  
S. aureus  
S. typhi  
E. coli  
S. pneumoniae  
MIC  
40  
60  
+
+
-
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
+
80  
+
100  
40  
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
N/A  
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
60  
N/A  
Sepnil  
100%  
80  
N/A  
100  
40  
N/A  
+
+
-
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
-
+
+
-
60  
Handirub  
80  
100  
0.25  
0.50  
1.0  
-
-
-
-
+
+
-
+
+
-
+
+
-
+
+
-
+
+
-
Iodine  
1%  
1.5  
-
-
-
-
-
2.0  
-
-
-
-
-
Key: + growth, - no growth, N/A not applicable  
Citation: Rahman Md.N, Abdullah-Al-Shoeb M, Huq S and Abul Kalam Azad M. Assessment of antibacterial efficacy of Lugol's iodine compared with commercial  
hand sanitizers of Bangladesh. J Life Sci Biomed, 2019; 9(5): 130-137; www.jlsb.science-line.com  
133  
Minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC)  
The contents of the 100% concentration tubes were further tested to determine the MBC. Unfortunately,  
the MBC test plates of commercial hand sanitizers showed the bacterial growth indicating that the products  
were only bacteriostatic against the organisms and not bactericidal. Interestingly, when the 2% iodine contents  
were plated on nutrient agar, there were no growths of test organisms. Similar results were also observed with  
the iodine concentration of 1.5% and 1%. Thus 2% iodine appeared to be the more effective hand sanitizer option  
as it is highly bactericidal.  
Efficacy determination test  
The efficacy of hand sanitizers in reducing viable counts of bacteria on the hands of volunteers was  
determined after applying the hand sanitizers and 2% iodine individually. The internal ethics committee of  
SUST approved the study protocol and informed consent were taken from all the participants. There were no  
commercial hand sanitizers which can reduce the 100% viable bacterial count. The efficiency determination test  
revealed that Handirub had highest CFU reduction rate (96.57%) by comparing with Hexisol and Sepnil (93.05%  
and 85.99 %, respectively) (Table 4). However, 2% iodine formulation was highly effective for the reduction of  
viable bacterial count on volunteer’s hand (100%). The performance of Sepnil was only 85.99%, which represent  
the lowest performance.  
Table 4. Viable bacterial count reduction on Hands of volunteers  
CFU percentage reduction  
Volunteers no  
Hexisol  
Sepnil  
Handirub  
2% iodine  
1
98.16  
92.69  
94.39  
96.21  
83.79  
93.05  
82.72  
87.5  
97.12  
99.66  
96.86  
89.90  
99.32  
96.57  
100  
100  
100  
100  
100  
100  
2
3
85.34  
91.83  
85.5  
4
5
Average reduction  
85.99  
DISCUSSION  
Hand hygiene is one of the most important parts to control infections and prevent various diseases [28, 29]. The  
importance of efficacy in choosing the right-hand hygiene product is reflected in the CDC guideline on hand  
hygiene [30]. An eminent and prescribed method of hygiene is hand sanitizing especially in a healthcare setting  
and in areas lacking adequate water supply [28]. We have evaluated the antibacterial efficacy of the most  
popular and available brands of hand sanitizers sold in Bangladesh. Laboratory preparation of 2% iodine was  
also used as a hand sanitizer in this study, which can be considered as a homemade hand sanitizer.  
In this study, the commercially available hand sanitizers showed a variable level of efficiency in the MIC  
test. Although Hexisol and Handirub have chlorohexidine and isopropyl alcohol as their active ingredient,  
Hexisol showed a lower diameter of inhibition zone for S. aureus and S. typhi. This could be occurring due to the  
poor or prolonged storage of the products which could lead to increased temperature causing evaporation of  
the active ingredient. In addition, the diluted hand sanitizers did not show antibacterial activity in the MIC test.  
Thus the antibacterial effect in MIC tests was only observed with 100% concentration of commercial hand  
sanitizers. On the other hand, the laboratory formulation of 2% iodine was effective in a diluted form such as 1%  
during MIC test.  
This study revealed a poor performance in the agar diffusion test of Sepnil, as the highest diameter of  
inhibition zone was only 10.13 mm against E. coli. Moreover, there was no zone of inhibition for S. typhi, which  
represent that this bacterium was resistant against Sepnil. The Sepnil also gave the lowest CFU reduction value  
among the four hand-sanitizers (Graph 1). The poor activity of Sepnil is probably due to the negative interactive  
effects of the additional ingredients such fragrance, emollients, humectants, and thickening agents added to  
them. Besides, Sepnil is a gel type hand sanitizer whereas the other two sanitizers sold in liquid form. Therefore,  
the efficacy of hand sanitizers is also affected by the types of the sanitizers and liquid form is more suited and  
well distributed to the skin when it is applied to hand. The same type of finding also obtained by Kramer and his  
colleagues and they recommended that alcohol-based gels should not replace liquid hand disinfects in hospitals  
Citation: Rahman Md.N, Abdullah-Al-Shoeb M, Huq S and Abul Kalam Azad M. Assessment of antibacterial efficacy of Lugol's iodine compared with commercial  
hand sanitizers of Bangladesh. J Life Sci Biomed, 2019; 9(5): 130-137; www.jlsb.science-line.com  
134  
85.99%  
93.05%  
96.57%  
100%  
100.00%  
95.00%  
90.00%  
85.00%  
80.00%  
75.00%  
Sepnil  
Hexisol  
Handirub  
2% Iodine  
formulation  
Graph 1. The overall efficiency of the used hand sanitizers to reduce the viable bacterial count  
The CFU reduction rate for the commercial hand sanitizers was ranging from 85.99 to 96.57%, although  
the manufactures claim is 99.9% leveled on the bottle. A useful and effective hand antiseptic is still lacking in  
Bangladesh. Government and proper authorities should take care of this issue because the effect of hand  
hygiene interventions on rates of gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses is well known. As the hand hygiene  
is the simplest and most effective measure to reduce hospital-acquired infections [32], government and proper  
authorities should take care of this issue to certify the effective hand sanitizers.  
This study also focused on a laboratory-made iodine-based hand sanitizer, as they are reported as  
antimicrobial agents for many years [33]. However, some Muslim health care workers also refuse to use alcohol-  
based hand sanitizers [34]. Thus an iodine-based hand sanitizer could be a good alternative. Previously, a  
different form of iodine such as tincture of iodine was used as an antiseptic [35]. Interestingly, 2% iodine hand  
sanitizer was performed very accurately in the context of all kind of efficiency which represents it as strong  
hand sanitizers. Instead of all good antibacterial activity of iodine, there were some disadvantages of using it as  
hand sanitizer also. The iodine solution has an odd odor and a yellowish color, which might discourage to use of  
this iodine formulation. A further study is needed to establish this iodine formulation to use as a suitable hand  
sanitizer with good odor and color.  
CONCLUSION  
Proper hand hygiene is an important first-line defense against the spread of numerous infectious diseases. The  
commercially available hand sanitizers are not effective in this study, although the manufacturers claim that  
their products could kill 99.9% germs in hands. Thus these hand sanitizers are not sufficient for our safety, and  
some hand sanitizer is proved for unfair claims. On the other hand, only 1% iodine is more effective than  
commercial hand sanitizers in preventing bacteria from the hands of individuals. Therefore there is a necessity  
to confirm the effectiveness of hand sanitizers sold in Bangladesh. Regulatory authorities and manufacturers  
should enforce stringent quality control measures and routine inspections during production to ensure the  
efficacy of these products and thus protect consumers from buying inferior products. Finally, in case of an  
emergency and water deficit areas of the world, only 1% iodine formulation can be used as a suitable and  
effective hand sanitizer verified in this study.  
DECLARATIONS  
Acknowledgements  
This work was supported by SUST Research Grant of Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Bangladesh. Our  
obligations to the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology,  
Sylhet, Bangladesh for technical support. A special thanks to the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research,  
Bangladesh (ICDDR, B) for providing the clinical isolates of microorganisms.  
Authors’ contributions  
All authors contributed equally to this work.  
Citation: Rahman Md.N, Abdullah-Al-Shoeb M, Huq S and Abul Kalam Azad M. Assessment of antibacterial efficacy of Lugol's iodine compared with commercial  
hand sanitizers of Bangladesh. J Life Sci Biomed, 2019; 9(5): 130-137; www.jlsb.science-line.com  
135  
Competing interests  
The authors declare that they have no competing interests  
Consent to publish  
Not applicable  
REFERENCES  
1.  
Pittet D, Allegranzi B, Sax H, Dharan S, Pessoa-Silva CL, Donaldson L, et al. Evidence-based model for hand  
transmission during patient care and the role of improved practices. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2006 Oct  
1;6(10):64152. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
2. Zapka C, Leff J, Henley J, Tittl J, Nardo ED, Butler M, et al. Comparison of standard culture-based method to culture-  
independent method for evaluation of hygiene effects on the hand microbiome. mBio. 2017 May 3;8(2):e00093-17.  
3. Boone SA, Gerba CP. Significance of fomites in the spread of respiratory and enteric viral disease. Appl Environ  
Microbiol. 2007 Mar 15;73(6):168796. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
4. Franks AH, Harmsen HJM, Raangs GC, Jansen GJ, Schut F, Welling GW. Variations of bacterial populations in human  
feces measured by fluorescent in situ hybridization with group-specific 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes.  
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998 Sep 1;64(9):333645. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
5. Show Me the Science - Why Wash Your Hands? | Handwashing | CDC [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Sep 4]. Available from:  
6. Aiello AE, Coulborn RM, Perez V, Larson EL. Effect of hand hygiene on infectious disease risk in the community setting:  
a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2008 Aug 1;98(8):137281. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
7. Ejemot Nwadiaro RI, Ehiri JE, Arikpo D, Meremikwu MM, Critchley JA. Hand washing promotion for preventing  
diarrhoea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2019 Sep 4];(9). Available from:  
;
Export Citation as EndNote)  
8. Meadows E, Le Saux N. A systematic review of the effectiveness of antimicrobial rinse-free hand sanitizers for  
prevention of illness-related absenteeism in elementary school children. BMC Public Health. 2004 Nov 1;4(1):50. (Search  
Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
9. Wolfe MK, Gallandat K, Daniels K, Desmarais AM, Scheinman P, Lantagne D. Handwashing and Ebola virus disease  
outbreaks: A randomized comparison of soap, hand sanitizer, and 0.05% chlorine solutions on the inactivation and  
removal of model organisms Phi6 and E. coli from hands and persistence in rinse water. PLOS ONE. 2017 Feb  
23;12(2):e0172734. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
10. Rabie T, Curtis V. Handwashing and risk of respiratory infections: a quantitative systematic review. Tropical Medicine  
& International Health. 2006;11(3):25867. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
11. Haque M, Sartelli M, McKimm J, Abu Bakar M. Health care-associated infections an overview. Infect Drug Resist. 2018  
Nov 15;11:232133. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
12. Zerr DM, Garrison MM, Allpress AL, Heath J, Christakis DA. Infection control policies and hospital-associated  
infections among surgical patients: variability and associations in a multicenter pediatric setting. Pediatrics. 2005 Apr  
1;115(4):e38792. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
13. Curtis V, Cairncross S. Effect of washing hands with soap on diarrhoea risk in the community: a systematic review. The  
Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2003 May 1;3(5):27581. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
14. Pickering AJ, Boehm AB, Mwanjali M, Davis J. Efficacy of waterless hand hygiene compared with handwashing with  
soap: a field study in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2010 Feb  
1;82(2):2708. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
15. Reynolds SA, Levy F, Walker ES. Hand Sanitizer Alert. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Mar;12(3):5279. (Search Google Scholar ;  
Export Citation as EndNote)  
16. Eggers M, Eickmann M, Kowalski K, Zorn J, Reimer K. Povidone-iodine hand wash and hand rub products  
demonstrated excellent in vitro virucidal efficacy against Ebola virus and modified vaccinia virus Ankara, the new  
European test virus for enveloped viruses. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2015 Sep 17;15(1):375. (Search Google Scholar ;  
Export Citation as EndNote)  
17. Larson EL, Norton Hughes CA, Pyrek JD, Sparks SM, Cagatay EU, Bartkus JM. Changes in bacterial flora associated  
with skin damage on hands of health care personnel. American Journal of Infection Control. 1998 Oct 1;26(5):51321.  
18. Winnefeld M, Richard MA, Drancourt M, Grob JJ. Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination  
procedures in everyday hospital use. British Journal of Dermatology. 2000;143(3):54650. (Search Google Scholar ;  
Export Citation as EndNote)  
19. Boyce JM. Using Alcohol for Hand Antisepsis: Dispelling Old Myths. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 2000  
Jul;21(7):43841. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
Citation: Rahman Md.N, Abdullah-Al-Shoeb M, Huq S and Abul Kalam Azad M. Assessment of antibacterial efficacy of Lugol's iodine compared with commercial  
hand sanitizers of Bangladesh. J Life Sci Biomed, 2019; 9(5): 130-137; www.jlsb.science-line.com  
136  
 
20. Ngc  
H.  
Bacteriological  
Analytical  
Manual.  
[cited  
2019  
Sep  
30];  
Available  
from:  
21. Valgas C, Souza SM de, Smânia EFA, Smânia Jr. A. Screening methods to determine antibacterial activity of natural  
products. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology. 2007 Jun;38(2):36980. (Search Google Scholar  
; Export Citation as  
22. McFarland J. The nephelometer: an instrument for estimating the number of bacteria in suspensions used for  
calculating the opsonic index and for vaccines. JAMA. 1907 Oct 5;XLIX(14):11768. (Search Google Scholar ; Export  
Citation as EndNote)  
23. Cheesbrough M. District Laboratory Practice in Tropical Countries. Cambridge University Press; 2006. 464 p. (Search  
Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
24. Atlas RM. Handbook of Microbiological Media [Internet]. CRC Press; 2004 [cited 2019 Sep 4]. Available from:  
25. Nester E, Anderson D, Roberts C, Nester M. Microbiology: a Human Perspective. 6th ed. The McGraw-Hill Companies,  
Inc. New York.; 2009. 480481 p.  
26. Oke MA, Bello AB, Odebisi MB, El-Imam AMA, Kazeem MO. Evaluation of antibacterial efficacy of some alcohol-based  
Hand sanitizers sold in Ilorin (North-Central Nigeria). Ife Journal of Science. 2013 Jan 1;15(1):111-117117. (Search Google  
Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
27. Babeluk R, Jutz S, Mertlitz S, Matiasek J, Klaus C. Hand hygiene evaluation of three disinfectant hand sanitizers in a  
community setting. PLOS ONE. 2014 Nov 7;9(11):e111969. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
28. Kampf G, Kramer A. Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for  
scrubs and rubs. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2004 Oct 1;17(4):86393. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as  
29. Mathur P. Hand hygiene: Back to the basics of infection control. Indian J Med Res. 2011 Nov;134(5):61120. (Search  
Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
30. Boyce JM, Pittet D. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand  
Hygiene Task Force. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare  
Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Society  
for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Association for Professionals in Infection Control/Infectious Diseases Society  
of America. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002 Oct 25;51(RR-16):145, quiz CE1-4. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as  
31. Kramer A, Rudolph P, Kampf G, Pittet D. Limited efficacy of alcohol-based hand gels. The Lancet. 2002 Apr  
27;359(9316):148990. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
32. Bessonneau V, Clément M, Thomas O. Can intensive use of alcohol-based hand rubs lead to passive alcoholization?  
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2010 Aug;7(8):303850. (Search Google Scholar ;  
Export Citation as EndNote)  
33. McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clinical Microbiology Reviews.  
1999 Jan 1;12(1):14779. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
34. Ahmed QA, Memish ZA, Allegranzi B, Pittet D. Muslim health-care workers and alcohol-based handrubs. The Lancet.  
2006 Mar 25;367(9515):10257. (Search Google Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
35. Fleischer W, Reimer K. Povidone-iodine in antisepsis state of the art. DRM. 1997;195(Suppl. 2):39. (Search Google  
Scholar ; Export Citation as EndNote)  
Citation: Rahman Md.N, Abdullah-Al-Shoeb M, Huq S and Abul Kalam Azad M. Assessment of antibacterial efficacy of Lugol's iodine compared with commercial  
hand sanitizers of Bangladesh. J Life Sci Biomed, 2019; 9(5): 130-137; www.jlsb.science-line.com  
137