The Efficacy of AlcoholBased Hand Sanitizer in the Reduction of Bacteria and YeastMold on the Footbe

1
The Efficacy of Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer in
the Reduction of Bacteria and Yeast/Mold on the
Footbeds of Running Shoes

• By Laura Rapp

2
So Whats the Big Deal??

• A common recurring problem for runners and other
  athletes is the growth and presence of bacteria
  and other microbials on the insoles, or footbeds,
  of running shoes.
• Overgrowth of microorganisms can lead to odor as
  well as infection or other health problems.

3
Can It Be Fixed??

• According to Elsner, 2006, odor may be reduced by
  antibacterial agents without modifying the amount
  of perspiration.
• Studies have shown the use of silver ions to
  reduce bacteria (Heide et al, 2006), but
  silver-lined textiles are expensive.
• An inexpensive way for reducing bacteria could
  be found in the usage of alcohol-based hand
  sanitizer on the footbeds of shoes.

4
The Solution

• Due to the properties of alcohol, alcohol-based
  antibacterial hand sanitizer should be effective
  in reducing bacteria and yeast/mold.
• In a study on the effectiveness of alcohol-based
  solutions, alcohol-based sanitizer removes
  microorganisms effectively (Picheansathian,
  2004).
• Alcohols have been shown to be excellent in
  reducing bacteria, fungi, and viruses quickly
  with the optimum concentration sixty to
  ninety-five percent (Elsner, 2006).

5
Rationale

• If the study demonstrates positive results for
  the effectiveness of the project, then the usage
  of hand sanitizer on footbeds or insoles of shoes
  could be a feasible solution to the common
  problems of bacterial growth as well as odor on
  feet and shoes.
• This could assist runners and athletes as well as
  the general public for a much more reasonable
  price than what is on the market today.

6
The Specifics

• Independent variable whether or not a footbed
  had hand sanitizer on it
• Dependent variable amount of bacteria and
  yeast/mold on the footbeds
• The footbed without sanitizer was viewed as the
  control.

7
Materials and Methods

• In the experiment, Millipore Petri dishes were
  labeled and pads saturated with either bacterial
  Tryptone Glucose Extract or m-Green Yeast/Mold
  Broth.
• Two footbeds were then taken from a pair of
  running shoes one footbed was saturated in
  alcohol-based hand sanitizer while the other was
  not.

8

• The untreated footbed was rinsed in sterile
  buffer which was collected in a flask. This
  became the stock of microorganisms.
• A micropipetter was used to measure out .10mL of
  the stock and add it to 100mL sterile buffer.
• The same process was repeated for the treated
  footbed once the sanitizer had dried for about 45
  minutes.

9
(No Transcript)
10
From Millipore to the Incubator

• The solution was then processed through Millipore
  Filter Assembly which collected the
  microorganisms on a filter while draining the
  solution.
• The filters were then placed in the Petri dishes
  and went into the incubator set to 35 degrees
  Celsius.

11
Counting the Colonies

• The bacterial samples were incubated for 24
  hours the yeast/mold samples for 48 hours.
• After incubation, the colonies from each Petri
  dish were counted using a compound microscope.
• The numbers were then recorded and prepared for
  statistical analysis.

12
(No Transcript)
13
Statistical Analysis

• The results were set up to be statistically
  analyzed using a Two-Sample t-Test Assuming Equal
  Variances to determine significant difference.
• The null hypothesis (HO) of the analysis was that
  the mean number of colonies from the samples of
  the treated footbed would be equal to those of
  the untreated footbed.
• The alternative hypothesis (HA) of the analysis
  was that the mean number of colonies from the
  samples of the treated footbed would be fewer
  than those of the untreated footbed.

14
More analysis

• Significant differences could be found and the HA
  accepted if the p-value from the t-test was
  smaller than the alpha value (.05).
• The one-tail p-value was utilized in this study
  due to the alternative hypothesis predicting the
  mean of the treated to be significantly lower
  than that of the untreated rather than just
  significantly different (higher or lower) as
  would pertain to the two-tailed p-value.

15
Results

• The data showed a decrease in number of colonies
  of both bacteria and yeast/mold on the footbed
  treated with sanitizer from the footbed that went
  untreated.

16
(No Transcript)
17

• Four Two Sample t-Tests Assuming Equal
  Variances were conducted on the data. They all
  demonstrated a significant difference between the
  sanitized and unsanitized footbeds for bacteria
  and yeast/mold in that the p-value was MUCH
  smaller than .05 (alpha).

18
What this means

• The original research hypothesis was that if
  footbeds of running shoes are saturated in
  alcohol-based hand sanitizer, then both the
  bacteria and yeast or mold on the footbeds will
  be reduced. The hypothesis is valid.
• This means that the treated footbeds had
  significantly less bacteria and yeast/mold than
  the untreated footbeds, and alcohol-based hand
  sanitizer is a simple, effective, and inexpensive
  way to reduce bacteria and yeast or mold on the
  footbeds of running shoes.

19
Literature Cited

• Elsner, P. (2006). Antimicrobials and the skin
  physiological and pathological flora. Current
  Problems in Dermatology, 33, 35-41.
• Heide, M., Mohring, U., Hansel, R., Stoll, M.,
  Wollina, U., Heinig, B. (2006).
  Antimicrobial-finished textile three-dimensional
  structures. Current Problems in Dermatology, 33,
  179-199.
• Picheansathian, W. (2004). A systematic review on
  the effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions for
  hand hygiene. International Journal of Nursing
  Practice, 10(1), 3-9.