Evidence mapPaperPMID 40529471Full record

ArticleGMS hygiene and infection control2025

Development of the active ingredient composition of hand antiseptics in Germany from 2004 to 2022 with special consideration of ethanol as active agent.

Philine Grashoff, Nico Tom Mutters, Axel Kramer, Carola Ilschner, Marvin Rausch, Jürgen Gebel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Philine GrashoffInstitute of Hygiene and Public Health, University Clinic, Bonn, Germany.
Nico Tom MuttersInstitute of Hygiene and Public Health, University Clinic, Bonn, Germany.
Axel KramerVerbund für Angewandte Hygiene, Bonn, Germany.
Carola IlschnerInstitute of Hygiene and Public Health, University Clinic, Bonn, Germany.
Marvin RauschInstitute of Hygiene and Public Health, University Clinic, Bonn, Germany.
Jürgen GebelInstitute of Hygiene and Public Health, University Clinic, Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The number of active agents used in hand antiseptics (HA) in Germany was analyzed using the disinfectant lists of the Association for Applied Hygiene (VAH) for the years 2004, 2012 and 2022 to evaluate the development regarding the use of unnecessary or critical active agents in alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHR). Results: While 20 different active agents were used in the HAs (97 listed HAs) in 2004, only 14 were used in 2012 (201 listed HAs) and 15 in 2022 (332 listed HAs). Benzoic acid, clorocesol, chlorophene, octenidine dihydrochloride, peracetic acid, polihexanide and triclosan are no longer used as additives to ABHR. At the same time, the number of active ingredients per product fell.In the period from 2002 to 2022, there was an increase in ABHR, so that in 2022, only four HAs did not contain alcohol: three were based on PVP iodine and one was based on quaternary ammonium compounds.While 2-propanol still dominated as the first-named active ingredient in 2004 and 2022, in 2022 mainly ABHR with ethanol as the first-named active ingredient were certified. The percentage share of ethanol in ABHR, measured against all VAH-listed HA and as the main active ingredient, increased by 43.4% between 2004 and 2022. At the same time, there has been a 33.2% decrease in ABHR of 2-propanol as active ingredient. Discussion: There are probably two reasons for the decrease in the total number of active ingredients used. The addition of antiseptic agents to ABHR does not increase their residual effectiveness. In addition, the antimicrobial antiseptics added to ABHR are less well tolerated than alcohols. Consequently, for ethical reasons it makes sense not to add these antimicrobials to the formulas. The increase of ethanol-based hand rubs (EBHR) suggests that these are preferred by users. One explanation may be that, unlike ethanol, 1-propanol can have an irritating effect on both healthy and atopic skin. Conclusion: Ethanol must be retained as an active ingredient for ABHR for the following reasons: ethanol is the only active ingredient that can be used for HA with comprehensive efficacy against non-enveloped viruses; both propanols are less physiological for the human organism than ethanol; ethanol is better tolerated by the skin than 1-propanol; and an adverse effect on the skin microbiome has been ruled out for ethanol. This must be considered when discussing the possible biocide classification of ethanol as CMR, especially because such a classification has absolutely no scientific basis.

Indexed as

active ingredientschlorofeneclorocresoldecrease in propanol-based hand rubsdevelopment in Germanyhand rubsincrease in ethanol-based hand rubsoctenidine dihydrochlorideperacetic acidpolihexanidetriclosanwaiver of benzoic acid

Identifiers

PMID40529471
PMCPMC12171977

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.