Leitgeb, et al. (2013) evaluated the number of bacteria recovered from a stainless steel coupon after touching a pigskin substrate with an examination glove coated on its outside with polyhexanide (PHMB), as compared to the number of bacteria recovered in the same manner with non-coated control gloves.
Â
Suspensions containing 1 x 109 colony-forming units of four clinically relevant bacterial species (Enterococcus faecium ATCC #51559; Escherichia coli ATCC #25922; Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC #4352; and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC #33591) were used to contaminate Gamma-irradiated pigskin substrates. Bacterial recoveries from the pigskin substrate, stainless steel coupons, and each glove swatch were performed. A difference in the bacterial recovery from the stainless steel coupons after touching with coated and uncoated control gloves was measured.
For E. faecium, the coated glove showed a reduction of 4.63 log10 cfu recovery, when compared to control gloves. For E. coli, the coated glove showed 5.48 log10 cfu, for K. pneumoniae 5.03 log10 cfu, and for S. aureus 5.72 log10 cfu recovery, when compared to the non-coated control glove.
Â
The researchers concluded that their in-vitro experiment designed to mimic cross-contamination of clinically relevant bacteria in a simulated healthcare setting following glove contact with a contaminated biological surface and cross-transfer to a stainless steel surface has demonstrated that an examination glove coated on its outside surface with PHMB was able to reduce bacterial recovery from a contaminated surface by > 4 log10 cfu, compared to a control non-coated examination glove. These elaborated results may encourage further clinical investigation on the clinical impact of an antibacterial examination glove. Their research was published in Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control.Â
Reference: Leitgeb J, Schuster R, Eng AH, Yee BN, Teh YP, Dosch V and Assadian O. In-vitro experimental evaluation of skin-to-surface recovery of four bacterial species by antibacterial and non-antibacterial medical examination gloves. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control 2013, 2:27 doi:10.1186/2047-2994-2-27
Â
The Next Frontier in Infection Control: AI-Driven Operating Rooms
Published: July 15th 2025 | Updated: July 15th 2025Discover how AI-powered sensors, smart surveillance, and advanced analytics are revolutionizing infection prevention in the OR. Herman DeBoard, PhD, discusses how these technologies safeguard sterile fields, reduce SSIs, and help hospitals balance operational efficiency with patient safety.
CDC Urges Vigilance: New Recommendations for Monitoring and Testing H5N1 Exposures
July 11th 2025With avian influenza A(H5N1) infections surfacing in both animals and humans, the CDC has issued updated guidance calling for aggressive monitoring and targeted testing to contain the virus and protect public health.
A Helping Hand: Innovative Approaches to Expanding Hand Hygiene Programs in Acute Care Settings
July 9th 2025Who knew candy, UV lights, and a college kid in scrubs could double hand hygiene adherence? A Pennsylvania hospital’s creative shake-up of its infection prevention program shows that sometimes it takes more than soap to get hands clean—and keep them that way.