Science Behind Clean Hands

Running head: Running head: HAND WASHING TECHNIQUES VALUE IN THE REMOVAL OF 1
BACTERIA COLONIES FROM HUMAN HAND SURFACE. IDENTIFICATION AND

CLASSIFICATION OF BACTERIA COLONIES BY TYPES AND NUMBERS
Science Behind Clean Hands: a comparative look into the average percent effectives of hands cleaning
methods at removing bacteria growth from the surface of human hands when using Hand Soap and
water vs. Hand Sanitizing. Identification and classification by number and types of bacteria colonies
found before and after hand cleaning methods experiment
BIOL 2053
Dr. Celeste M. Lajala
21 February 2018
Science Behind Clean Hands: a comparative look into the average percent effectives of hands cleaning
methods at removing bacteria growth from the surface of human hands when using Hand Soap and
water vs. Hand Sanitizing. Identification and classification by number and types of bacteria colonies
found before and after hand cleaning methods experiment
Living things are classified as either eukaryotes or prokaryotes (Vidyanagar, 2015). The bacteria
are in the class of prokaryotes. This class of organism consists of single cells and simple internal
structures. Bacteria are cells organism which is not plants, neither animals. Bacteria contain different
DNA and circular pieces known as plasmids, they do not have membrane-enclosed organelles or
nuclear envelops. On the outer part of the bacteria are protective covers, the inner and the outer layer.
To identify bacteria by their cell walls, researches use Gram staining techniques, which consists of
applying violet dye to bacteria cultures, followed by a decolorizing compound, finishing with a red dye
compound. Gram-positive bacteria appear as a violet color; this is due to its thick peptidoglycan walls
that allows for more retention of the violet stain and iodine. Although, they present a more complex cell
wall structure, gram-negative bacteria have thinner peptidoglycan walls and cannot sustain the purple
stain, appearing light pink in color. Bacteria are very tiny and exist in millions; up to forty million of
bacteria can be present in a soil gram. Bacteria can live in an environment as wide as in the ocean, or in
small section, such as the human gut. The relation between human and the bacteria is a complex one,
they are harmful as they cause deadly infections, but they can also be “good bacteria”, like the ones
living in our gut and responsible for our digestive system. Bacteria can be classified on the bases of
their shapes, cell walls or by the difference in genetic makeup. Moreover, there are standard bacteria
that affect human beings which are pathogenic and cause infections. Bacteria such as E. coli, a
spherical (cocci) bacterium that may exist as a single bacterium, they can also live in pairs, clusters or
they may exist in chins. Their existence highly depends on the conditions of the environment. The most
common cocci bacteria are the Staphylococcus which appears in the form of cocci clusters. Not all
Staph bacteria is bad, in fact S. epidermis, resides within your skin and can help fight off other bacteria.
The S. aureus bacteria can be pathogenic, it grows in the nose and mouth of a human being and may
sometimes cause boils, meningitis, toxicity and also pneumonia. Moreover, there is Salmonella and
Listeria, both gram-negative Bacilli, a rod-shaped bacterium that can occur as single bacteria or in
chains. The bacillus lives in the intestines where they do not cause harm; Bacillus bacterium can cause
diseases in other parts of the body like the urinary tract systems. These bacteria enter into the body
through contaminated food and water which leads to diarrhea, vomiting and other severe complications.
The spirochete, is spiral shaped bacteria, thin and flexible with a corkscrew shape. This bacterium
moves in a rotating form which makes them flexible in an environment which is in mucus form. The
bacteria cause sexually transmitted infections like Syphilis and Lyme disease. The diseases caused by
the bacteria starts just like a sore throat, leading to lashes and can spread through the whole body if it is
not well treated. The Vibrio bacteria are spiral in shape. They are most common on water, and they
move in a motion of darting. Cholera is an infectious disease caused by the vibrio bacterium and can be
acquired through contaminated water, food or feces. As significant as it is to understand the world of
bacteria, more importantly, is learning and practicing ways to prevent contracting the diseases caused
by them. There are hygienic measurements in place, that should be exercise by everyone in the
communities to prevent the spread of disease causing bacteria. Methods such as boiling water for
drinking and cleaning purpose; chlorination is another useful method helpful in treating water for social
services like sewage and swimming pool. Furthermore, in recently studies it has been shown that
having good hand washing hygiene can prevent contamination and aid in disease control. Our hands are
one of the most used parts of our bodies. They are in constant move, allowing us to feel, grab, touch,
and express who we are in our own unique ways. It is also, because of these features that the hands are
under constant exposure to diseases and are consider potential carriers of a diversity of deadly
pathogens. Therefore, it is important to maintain good hygiene in our hands and to understand that
proper hand washing techniques can help reduce the risk of being contaminated with infectious
diseases. In today’s age there are many informative resources on the proper ways of conducting hand
washing techniques, as there are a diversity of hand washing and cleaning products; some products
claim to be more efficient than others at removing the most percentage of bacteria from hand surface.
The purpose of this lab research was to explore the average percent effectiveness of two different hand
cleaning products, Soft Soap advanced clean hand soap vs. CVS hand sanitizer, at removing bacteria
growth from the surface of human hands. In addition, it also tested the effects of soap and water vs.
hand sanitizer on the numbers and types of bacteria found on the two agar plates, before and after, hand
cleaning techniques. During the experiment, bacteria colonies were identified and classified according
to the discrete quantitative data collected reflecting the “before” and “after” results for both hand
cleaning products. A null hypothesis was formulated that there wouldn’t be much difference in the
removal of bacteria from hand surface between hand soap and water vs. hand sanitizer. Moreover, an
alternate hypothesis was developed about hand sanitizing displaying better results than hand soap and
water in eliminating bacteria from hand surface. Additionally, it was predicted that if hand sanitizer is
more efficient that hand soap and water, than the results of hand sanitizer would display a greater
reduction on bacterial growth than the hand soap and water method.
Methods
The goal of the experiment was to find out the effectiveness at eliminating bacteria growth on
human hands of soap and water vs. hand sanitizer, using Soft Soap advanced clean hand soap vs. CVS
brand hand sanitizer. The experiment was conducted in two sections. The first section was to determine
the average percent effectiveness of controlling bacteria growth on human hands with soap and water
vs. hand sanitizer based on sample size of 60. Class data as collected, and calculations applied based on
discrete quantitative data. Statistical T-tests were calculated as well as standard deviation and standard
error for 30 replicates of hand soap and water and 30 replicates of hand sanitizing. The percent
effectiveness for each treatment type was also calculated. The second section was to determine the
effects of soap and water vs. hand sanitizer on the numbers and types of bacteria found on the two agar
plates, before and after, hand cleaning techniques based on smaller group data. Identification and
classification of bacteria was made by analyzing morphological characteristics such as colony shape,
size, and color, cell shape and size and Gram staining results.
Section 1: Average percent effectiveness of controlling bacteria growth on human hands with
soap and water vs. hand sanitizer.
Each group was assigned two blood agar plates, one for hand soap and water and other for hand
sanitizer. Student A, conducted the hand soap and water procedure, pressed three “unclean” fingers in
the side labeled “before” in the agar plate making sure to close the plate right after. Student A
proceeded to hand washing station and washed the hands for approximately 30 seconds, using 1 pump
of the Soft Soap advanced clean hand soap. After drying the hands with paper towel, student pressed
the same three fingers in the after section of the agar plate. Student assigned to the hand sanitizer plate,
placed three “unclean” fingers in the section labeled “before” of the hand sanitizer agar plate. Student
then proceeded to rub their hands with 1 pump of CVS hand sanitizer until they felt dry, then placed the
same three fingers on the “after” section in the hand sanitizer agar plate. Plates were labeled and
incubated in the dark at 37°C for 24-48 hours, or until bacterial colonies were visible. After incubation,
group data was collected for before and after procedures on both agar plates. Data was recorded on lab
notebook, classified and sorted out by visual identification of individual size, color, texture and shape.
The total number of bacterial colonies per group was counted for both hand treatment methods before
and after results. Calculations were applied based on discrete quantitative data collected on a sample
size of 60. Statistical T-tests were calculated as well as standard deviation and standard error for 30
replicates of hand soap and water and 30 replicates of hand sanitizing. The percent effectiveness for
each treatment type was also calculated.
Section 2: Effects of soap and water vs. hand sanitizer on the numbers and types of bacteria
found on the two agar plates, before and after, hand cleaning techniques.
Agar plates were collected, containing results from before and after treatment with hand soap
and water, and hand sanitizer. Colonies were counted and identified under a dissecting scope, by color,
texture, shape, size and margins. Gam staining procedures were as followed:
 A clean slide was used to prepare smears for the bacterial species.
 Water and smear was added to the slide
 Three to four drops of Crystal Violet were added
 After a minute has passed, the slide was gently rinsed with water.
 The slide was then covered with Gram Iodine for another minute, then rinsed with water.
 Distained of the slide as conducted by dropping 95% alcohol/acetone mixture down the
slanted slide one drop at a time until a fainted violet color was observed, followed by a
water rinse.
Slides of each colony type were analyzed after Gram staining procedure, cells were viewed
under a microscope and identified according to cell morphology and results from Gram staining. The
total number of bacterial colonies in the “Before” and “After” treatments for both cleaning methods
was calculated, and results given to instructor.
Results
The objective of the experiment was to measure which of the two cleaning methods, hand soap
and water vs. hand sanitizing, removes more bacteria from the hand surface. The research set out to test
two probabilities. First, the average percent effectiveness of controlling bacteria growth on human
hands with soap and water vs. hand sanitizer. A null hypothesis formulated that there wouldn’t be
significant differences between the effectiveness of the two methods, hand sanitizer and the soap and
water, in removing bacteria from the hands. An alternative hypothesis conveys that there would be a
difference between the two-cleaning methods. This research predicts that the hand sanitizer cleaning
method will be better in killing germs than the use of soap and water method, because the use of hand
sanitizer does not require one to touch the sink surface which might be contaminated with bacteria.
Second, the effects of soap and water vs. hand sanitizer on the numbers and types of bacteria found on
the two agar plates, before and after, hand cleaning techniques. The null hypothesis expressed that the
number and types of bacteria found after cleaning hands with sanitizer will be less than the number of
bacteria found after cleaning hands using soap and water only. An alternative hypothesis suggested that
the number and types of bacteria present in the plate after washing hands with hand sanitizer and with
the soap and water will be the same. This experiment predicts that the hand sanitizer plate would have
fewer germs compared to the one that used soap and water for cleaning.
Section 1: Average percent effectiveness of controlling bacteria growth on human hands with
soap and water vs. hand sanitizer.
This part of the lab report shows results of the experiment done on the percent effectiveness of
controlling Bacteria Growth on human hands with soap and water vs. hand sanitizer. Figure 1 showed
differences in the overall number of bacteria colonies as a result of hand washing techniques involving
hand soap and water vs. hand sanitizer. Discreet quantity data was collected from sixty test subjects.
Thirty tested hand soap and water, the other utilized hand sanitizer. The results showed a 76.4 %
effectiveness in hand sanitizer, with a 5.3 deviation uncertainty. Soap and water results showed a
47.7 % effectiveness with a 13.0 deviation of uncertainty. The error bar showed no overlap, indicating
some significant differences (0.005 >p> 0.02). The results indicated that the hand sanitizer method
seemed more efficient in controlling bacteria growth on hand’s surface. The results rejected the null
hypothesis formulated that there wouldn’t be significant differences between the effectiveness of the
two methods.
Figure 1. Mean of percent effectiveness as a function of hand washing technique showed

differences in the control and removal of bacteria growth in human hands, when comparing Soft
Soap advance cleaning hand soap vs. CVS brand hand sanitizer. The graph showed differences in
the overall number of bacteria colonies as a result of hand washing techniques involving hand soap and
water vs. hand sanitizer. Discreet quantity data was collected from sixty test subjects. Thirty tested
hand soap and water, the other utilized hand sanitizer. The results showed a 76.4 % effectiveness in
hand sanitizer, with a 5.3 deviation uncertainty. Soap and water results showed a 47.7 % effectiveness
with a 13.0 deviation uncertainty. The error bar showed no overlap, indicating some significant
differences (0.005 >p> 0.02). The results gave indications that the hand sanitizer method seemed more
efficient in controlling bacteria growth on hand’s surface.
Running head: Running head: HAND WASHING TECHNIQUES VALUE IN THE REMOVAL
OF BACTERIA COLONIES FROM HUMAN HAND SURFACE. IDENTIFICATION AND
CLASSIFICATION OF BACTERIA COLONIES BY TYPES AND NUMBERS 9
Table 1. Average percent effectiveness and standard error information between hand
washing treatments. Results showing a higher percent effectiveness of 76.4% in hand sanitizer
with lowest standard error of 5.3 vs. Soap and water washing techniques which accumulated to a
47.7% effectiveness and a 13.0 standard error.
Average % Standard error
Soap and Water 47.7 13.0
Hand Sanitizer 76.4 5.3
The objective of this section of the experiment was to find out the number and types of
bacteria on the ground washing plates after and before cleaning hands with the two cleaning
methods. The results below show the types and numbers of bacteria on the group handwashing
plates Before and after the two Hand Cleaning Methods. Figure 2 displayed the colonies found in
the before and after washing with hand soap and water. The agar plate incubated in the dark at
370C for 24-48 hours, showed visible colonies present in hand surface before the use of hand
cleaning techniques with soap and water. Additionally, the plate displayed bacteria left after the
use of hand cleaning techniques with soap and water. Colonies of Micrococcus luteus (yellow,
small circular) showed in groups of four or more in the “before” half of the agar plate.
Additionally, Staphylococcus epidermis (small, white circular cocci) and Strep pyogenes (shiny
white, opaque) were also visible in the plate. Figure 3 showed results for the agar plate showing
colonies before and after cleaning hands with CVS hand sanitizer. After being incubated in the
dark at 370C for 24-48 hours, showed visible colonies present in the hand surface before the use
of hand sanitizer. Additionally, the plate exhibited bacteria remaining after the use of hand
RUNNING HEAD: HAND WASHING TECHNIQUES VALUE IN THE REMOVAL OF
sanitizing. Colonies of Micrococcus lutes (yellow, small circular) and Staphylococcus aureus
(small yellow, convex cocci) showed in groups of four or more in the “before” half of the agar
plate. Additionally, Staphylococcus epidermis (small, white circular cocci) and Strep pyogenes
(shiny white, opaque) were also visible in the plate. Bacteria colonies were visible in the “after”
portion of the agar plate.
Table 2 Demonstrates the types of bacteria colonies and cell morphology identified after
the Gram staining techniques. Bacteria colonies and cell morphology were identified under a
microscope, after applying Gram staining procedures. Gram-positive bacteria have simpler cell
walls and thicker peptidoglycan layers that retain the purple stain, by Crystal Violet, more than
Gram-negative bacteria. Gram-negative bacteria, while it has a more complicated cell wall
structure, it contains less peptidoglycan and is not able to retain the purple stain. Instead, Gram-
negative gets its pinkish color from safranin. Results were delivered from identifying cell
morphology, colony shape, size, color, surface, texture, margin and Gram stain results.
Hemolysis was also recorded as it was present in the samples. The results supported the null
hypothesis expressed that the number and types of bacteria found after cleaning hands with
sanitizer will be less than the number of bacteria found after cleaning hands using soap and water
only. The agar containing the hand washing with soap and water results in Figure 2, shows less
colonies left after the cleaning with soap and water. On the other hand, the agar showing results
for before and after cleaning hands with hand sanitizer, shows more colonies reaming after being
treated with hand sanitizer.

After
Before
Figure 2. Agar plate showing colonies before and after washing hands with Soft
Soap advanced cleaning hand soap. Agar plate, incubated in the dark at 370C for 24-48 hours,
showed visible colonies present in hand surface before the use of hand cleaning techniques with
soap and water. Additionally, the plate displayed bacteria left after the use of hand cleaning
techniques with soap and water. Colonies of Micrococcus luteus (yellow, small circular) showed
in groups of four or more in the “before” half of the agar plate. Additionally, Staphylococcus
epidermis (small, white circular cocci) and Strep pyogenes (shiny white, opaque) were also
visible in the plate.
After
Before
Figure 3. Agar plate showing colonies before and after cleaning hands with CVS
hand sanitizer. Agar plate, incubated in the dark at 370C for 24-48 hours, showed visible
colonies present in the hand surface before the use of hand sanitizer. Additionally, the plate
exhibited bacteria remaining after the use of hand sanitizing. Colonies of Micrococcus luteus
(yellow, small circular) and Staphylococcus aureus (small yellow, convex cocci) showed in
groups of four or more in the “before” half of the agar plate. Additionally, Staphylococcus
epidermis (small, white circular cocci) and Strep pyogenes (shiny white, opaque) were also
visible in the plate. Bacteria colonies were visible in the “after” portion of this agar plate as well.
Table 2. Bacteria colonies and cell morphology identification using Gram staining
techniques. Bacteria colonies and cell morphology were identified under a microscope, after
applying Gram staining procedures. Gram-positive bacteria have simpler cell walls and thicker
peptidoglycan layers that retain the purple stain, by Crystal Violet, more than Gram-negative
bacteria. Gram-negative bacteria, while it has a more complicated cell wall structure, it contains
less peptidoglycan and is not able to retain the purple stain. Instead, Gram-negative gets its
pinkish color from safranin. Results were delivered from identifying cell morphology, colony
shape, size, color, surface, texture, margin and Gram stain results. Hemolysis was also recorded
as it was present in the samples.
Name of Cell
Bacteria Size Shape Color Surface Texture Margin Morphology Qnt Hemolysis Gram
Staphylococcus 1-2 White/ Smooth
epidermis mm Circular agar /mucoid Raised Entire Cocci 40 No (+)
1 White/
Strep pyogenes mm Circular opaque Shiny Convex Entire Cocci 50 Yes (+)
Cocci (pairs,
Staphylococcus 1 tetrads and
aureus mm Circular Yellow Smooth Convex Entire cluster) 50 Yes (+)
Micrococcus 1 Yellow/ Cocci/
luteus mm Circular opaque Smooth Convex Entire tetracoccus 50 No (+)
Discussion.
The overall objective of the experiment was to find out the effectiveness of monitoring
bacteria growth on human sides with soap and water vs. hand sanitizer. The null hypothesis
predicted that there would be difference in the two hand washing methods, one is better than
another way. The alternative hypothesis predicted that here is no difference between the two-
cleaning method the hand sanitizer and the soap in removing bacteria from the hands. This
research predicted that the hand sanitizer cleaning method would be better in killing germs than
the use of soap and water method. The null hypothesis stated that the number and types of
bacteria found after cleaning hands with sanitizer will be less compared to the number of bacteria
recovered after washing hands using soap and water only. Alternative hypothesis predicted that
the number and types of bacteria present in the plate after washing hands with hand sanitizer and
with the soap and water will be the same. This experiment predicts that the plate that hand
sanitizer will have fewer germs compared to the one that used soap and water for cleaning.
Section 1: Average percent effectiveness of controlling bacteria growth on human hands
with soap and water vs. hand sanitizer.
The results of the experiment supported the null hypothesis that one method of hand
washing is better than the other process. When using hand sanitizer, the results have 76.4%
effectiveness, and it has 5.3 deviations of uncertainty. On the other hand, the soap and water have
47.7% effectiveness. And it has 13. variation. The results of the study are statistically significant
with a p-value of 0. 04913244.The percentage of effectiveness in soap and water vs. hand
sanitizer in washing human hands. The results show that the sanitizer is more efficient with
76.4% and it has a very low standard error of 5.3. Water and soap has had effectiveness of
47.7%, and it has an error of 13.0 Results are showing higher percent effectiveness of 76.4% in
hand sanitizer with a lowest standard error of 13.0. The results show that use of hand sanitizer is
the best method to wash hands. This method kills germs present in the hands which significantly
helps in reducing infections than using soap and water. If one uses hand sanitizer or the detergent
in cleaning hands, then the use of sanitizer will be more efficient and will remove most of the
germs, this is because the use of sanitizer does not require one to touch the sink surface which
might be having bacteria (Leamy, 2016).

The number and types of bacteria found on the groups hand washing plates after and
before the two hand washing methods showed differences. The experiment did not agree with the
hypothesis. The plate that used the hand sanitizer had more bacteria than the dish that used soap
and water, the bacteria present in the hand sanitizer plate were, micrococcus letus, this is small
yellow circular bacteria. Staphylococcus aureus, this is little yellow convex bacteria,
Staphylococcus epidermis which are white and small bacteria and the strep pyrogen. On the plate
containing the soap and water have used the bacteria found were three which are micrococcus
lutes which are yellow and tiny bacteria, Staphylococcus epidermis and strep pyogenic bacteria.
The reason behind getting the result which supported the hypothesis could be the plate and used
the hand sanitizer was not clean enough before there was some contamination of bacteria and
virus. Looking at the bar graphs, use of hand sanitizer is more effective in hand washing. The
study on the effectiveness of hand sanitizer vs. soap and water should be done in details in the
future by use of many samples. From the results of the experiment, it shows that use of hand
sanitizer is efficient than the use of soap and water as it has the higher percentage of
effectiveness. This study is crucial as it will help the schools and homes to make better decisions
on the best hand washing method to use.
The experiment conducted was to show the average percent effectiveness of controlling
Bacteria growth on human hands with soap and water vs. hand sanitizer and the types of bacteria
found on the hand washing plates before and after the two cleaning methods. According to the
research, the way to stay healthy which is economical is through hand washing. Following this
fact, I had to find out which is the better method of washing hands between hand sanitizer and
soap. In the hypothesis, using hand sanitizer will be a better method to clean hands than using the
soap. The sanitizer will remove the germs and bacteria present. The data presented shows that
washing hands using soap reduces the number of microbes in the hands by 12%-50%. On the
other hand, when using the sanitizer to clean hands, the number of germs was reduced by 35%-
70%. The result of the experiment conducted shows that the hypothesis I had was correct
because of use of the sanitizer 146% better and useful than the standard soap. This hypothesis is
supported by Centre for Disease Control (CDC) It also shows that alcohol kills germs faster. The
hand sanitizer with no alcohol will still be active but because it also has an agent that kills
bacteria too. The third cleaning agent is the soap that has the anti-bacterial agent; this soap has
properties which are antibacterial which help in killing the germs and bacteria (Leamy, 2015).
Some of the bacteria are present in the virus. The standard hand soap is the last in the rank of
washing hands; this soap does not contain any property to fight germs. The experiment will
enlighten people in making better decisions to fight bacteria and live a healthy life.
12 articles were used in this review. Cloth towels, paper towel dry and hot air are the
conventional methods used to dry the washed hands. Hands can also dry through evaporation.
Air dryers are the electric devices which are used in drying hands the dryers may operate
automatically or with the button. Efficacy of hygiene in drying has included removing the
bacteria and also helps in preventing the cross contamination (Blank Children Hospital,
2014).We looked at the white dots where the E coils had already grown on the plate’s incubation.
Sanitizer based on alcohol was found as the best sanitizer, and it works best. It is recommended
that sanitizer containing 60% alcohol should be used for hand washing purposes. The soap with
little antibacterial component worked just a better from the regular detergent. Based on the
results, it is not essential to apply antimicrobials to products. The difference is there but not
significant
The information from my experiment is of vital importance. The information, when used
well, will help in reducing the spread and germs contamination in schools, will ensure that both
the teachers and students are healthy. The knowledge can also be used at home, to ensure that
people at home are healthy order to reduce diseases. I can, therefore, recommend that students in
schools and also people at homes to be allowed to use the sanitizer instead of the usual soap.
This experiment can further be expanded by the use of many samples. The samples can be taken
from any surface. To test on the best method, the effectiveness of the best soap and the sanitizer
will be evident on the hands which are dirty.

References
Leamy, E. (2016). Hand Sanitizer and soap. The force Sound, 89-97.
Mikesh, L. (2017). Bacteria. Plastinated Specimen, 66-75.
Vidyasagar, A. (2015). Bacteria. LIVE SCIENCE, 28-47.

Science Behind Clean Hands

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science Behind Clean Hands

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: Running head: HAND WASHING TECHNIQUES VALUE IN THE REMOVAL OF 1

BACTERIA COLONIES FROM HUMAN HAND SURFACE. IDENTIFICATION AND

found before and after hand cleaning methods experiment

Dr. Celeste M. Lajala

found before and after hand cleaning methods experiment

soap and water vs. hand sanitizer.

each treatment type was also calculated.

 Water and smear was added to the slide

 Three to four drops of Crystal Violet were added

was calculated, and results given to instructor.

soap and water vs. hand sanitizer.

Figure 1. Mean of percent effectiveness as a function of hand washing technique showed

Soap and Water 47.7 13.0

Hand Sanitizer 76.4 5.3

portion of the agar plate.

treated with hand sanitizer.

Section 1: Average percent effectiveness of controlling bacteria growth on human hands

with soap and water vs. hand sanitizer.

might be having bacteria (Leamy, 2016).

on the best hand washing method to use.

will be evident on the hands which are dirty.

Mikesh, L. (2017). Bacteria. Plastinated Specimen, 66-75.

Vidyasagar, A. (2015). Bacteria. LIVE SCIENCE, 28-47.

You might also like