Talk:Hand sanitizer

message: i added a bit about how i use hand sanitizer gel because i believe it's informative and educational and may inspire some to learn a new form af art using flammable mediums. i won't be offended if someone wants to delete this but i may work on creating a separate article. and yes i'm drunk. Amirman 07:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm not aware of any research suggesting alcohol hand sanitizers reduce rates of cold transmission or inactivate cold viruses.  In fact I have read studies showing that alcohol hand sanitizers are quite ineffective at inactivating cold viruses.  Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I think this bit of the article should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.111.236.2 (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: kills cold virus?

message: finally some comedy on wikipedia.
There are rumors that use of the gel over a period of time will cause the gel to lose its effect as bacteria becomes resistant. This, however, is only a rumor. The alcohol content is too great for bacteria and microorganisms to become resistant in less than about 15 to 20 years.
Contradicts itself Villainone 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ha ha funny article ending 

message: I've redirected here the advertisement-masquerading-as-an-article Alcohol rubs. However, it might still be worth saying a word about that if anyone cares. Pascal.Tesson 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol rubs 

message: Article now has: "Alcohol gels containing 62 v/v % alcohol are less effective germ killers than alcohol rubs containing at least 70 wt/wt % alcohol."
Yet the reference cited has: "Alcohol solutions containing 60%--95% alcohol are most effective, and higher concentrations are less potent because proteins are not denatured easily in the absence of water."
I don't see that the reference supports the assertion in the article. — Zaui (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: It is a well known fact that the optimum concentration for alcohol efficacy is 70 to 80 %. The higher the concentration of alcohol the greater the effectiveness (up to approximately 95%). The problem with higher concentrations of alcohol is the drying effect on skin. It is a delicate balance between higher alcohol concentrations and the drying effect on skin. Basic microbiology textbooks state the optimum concentration for alcohol efficacy is around 70%. You may have misunderstood the statement in the reference. Higher concentrations of alcohol above 95% are less potent because proteins are not denatured easily in the absence of water. The problem with using 62 % alcohol is dilution. If a 62% concentration of alcohol is used, any small dilution might result in a loss of effectiveness. There is very little margin for error. There are two references that deal with the effectiveness of alcohol gels. They were in my original article. They are:
5. Pietsch, H. Hand Antiseptics: Rubs Versus Scrubs, Alcoholic Solutions Versus Alcoholic Gels. J. Hospital Infection 2001, (200) 48: Suppl A, S33-S36.
6. Kramer, A., Rudolpf, P., Kamph, G., and Pittet, D, Limited Efficacy of Alcohol-based Hand Gels. The Lancet, 2002, 359: April 27 1489-1490.
If you want us to add these references to the article, we will be happy to do it. Thank you for your quick review. We appreciate your help in making alcohol rub an excellent article.JSHibbard (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2007
:Yep, I mistook "higher concentrations" to mean higher concentrations within the stated range.   — Zaui (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No Contridiction

message: Please note that I have added the following sentence and reference to this article. "Hand sanitizers containing alcohol are more effective germ killers than soaps or antimicrobial soaps and alcohol rubs do not dry out hands as much as soaps.[1]"
--JSHibbard 16:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Sentence

message: Is there any evidence of either the former or latter being better for hand sanitizing? I'd like to know which to look out for, or if I should care at all. It seems that Ethyl is the least expensive to make...
Another question is which is preferred when it comes to use for cleaning electronics (not which hand-sanitizer, but rather which alcohol type). Thanks. 207.12.38.25 10:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the reference given in the article on alcohol rubs, the order for alcohol effectiveness is propanol is better than isopropanol which is better than ethanol. I do not know which alcohol is better for cleaning electronics--JSHibbard 16:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is "better": Ethyl v.s. Isopropyl 

message: I have removed the ridiculous phrase " I LIKE CHEESE CRACKERS   OJ DID IT ". It was completely inappropriate and out of place.--JSHibbard 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed rediculous phrase

message: I have removed the paragraph below from the alcohol rub article for the following reasons:
1) The paragraph is a disguised advertisement. Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. (see above)
2) The product is mislabeled in the US. The maximum concentration for benzalkonium chloride in a sanitizer is 200 ppm. (CFR178:10:10)
3) Alcohol rubs with moisturizers do not dry hands with repeated use. (see references in article)
More recently, and in connection with side effects of alcohol-based products--specifically dry/irritated hands after prolonged or ongoing use, alternatives to alcohol-based products have been introduced to the marketplace. One product manufactured in Canada and distributed worldwide is Sopopular...its active ingredient is benzalkonium chloride, FDA-approved and proven to have the same germ-killing efficacy as alcohol-based products. Unlike alcohol-based products, this is hypoallergenic and used as an antiseptic.--JSHibbard 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disguised Advertising

message: I have removed the sentence below because this list of inactive ingredients in alcohol rubs is incomplete. If we are going to list the inactive ingredients in alcohol rubs, then we need to expand the list. The inactive ingredients in hand sanitizers are not important except for the use of moisturizers or emollients. The rest are simply to change the physical characteristics of alcohol rubs from a liquid to a gel or foam.
"Inactive ingredients typically include a thickening agent such as Carbomer (a trade name for polyacrylic acid), and humectants such as glycerin and propylene glycol."JSHibbard (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Information should not be removed because it is incomplete.  This has already been explained to you in regards to your insistence on either having a picture of every form of alcohol rub or none.  Benea (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Incomplete Information

message: I have removed the image of CVS Hand Sanitizer. This is blatant advertising and is not allowed by Wikipedia.JSHibbard (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a single WP policy that I am aware of that prohibits the use of such an image in the article for demonstration purposes. If you believe it is not allowed on WP, it is your burden to cite the exact policy which disallows it. Failing to do so, your edit will be justifiably reverted. --AB (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see it as advertising. It's just a photo of a typical alcohol rub.  What's the harm? — Zaui (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: According to the extensive discussion above there is a WP rule against advertising. Or maybe there is a rule against advertising for just some individuals and/or products. I have added a photo of a typical liquid alcohol rub and a typical foam alcohol rub to the article. I assume this is OK with everyone? I also have no problem with the image of the CVS alcohol gel being prominently displayed (the lead image?) at the top of the article and the liquid and foam alcohol rubs being "stuck" in the gallery where no one will see them. I am assuming no one will object to the removal of the CVS alcohol gel image from the gallery so there is no redundancy? However to be fair, and we must be fair, the Image at the top of the article (the lead image?) should be rotated so that each alcohol rub has it's day? week? month? "moment in the spotlight". I believe this would be the only "fair" thing to do. What is the consensus? I will be more than happy to make certain all of the alcohol rubs get their "moment in the spotlight"JSHibbard (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for removing the image of a liquid alcohol rub. I really appreciate it. I also think the insertion of the colorless alcohol gel image is very funny. You have  great sense of humor. I hope you don't mind. I added the liquid alcohol rub image back into the gallery. Have a great day. Your friend.JSHibbard (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I definitely concur with the point about WP:OWN. I think this article would be better improved by images that actually show what the subject is about i.e. an image of actual alcohol gel, not an image of the bottle that alcohol gel comes in. Take soap as an example; the images show soap, not the packaging soap comes in. A reader is going to want to know what visual difference there is between different alcohol rubs and that can't be well illustrated with a picture of a bottle. Alcohol rubs could be better illustrated with an image of someone using it on their hands. Seraphim♥  Whipp 01:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: JSHibbard, as I understand, the ideal lead image for any article should be one which is best and sufficiently representative of the article. There is typically one and only one such image. Weight should also be given to the freedom delivered by the license of the image, with public domain being the most free and least restrictive license possible. For this article, I believe the CVS image is ideal, as explained above by Seraphim. Moreover, as stated by Benea, there is no precedent for rotating images – unless the images are all first class, highly representative, and equally free. --AB (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also much prefer the CVS image over any that are currently in the article. Seraphim♥  Whipp 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I definitely concur with Seraphim Whipp that the article would be better improved by images that actually show the application of an alcohol rub on the hands. I will work on it and get back to everyone. Hey, by the way, what happened to the image of an alcohol foam in the gallery? Have a great day.JSHibbard (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of CVS Hand Sanitizer

message: I suggest a compromise before this gets out of hand.  JSHibbard's picture can stay in the image gallery.  I think we can bend the rule that wikipedia is not a collection of images this once since the user feels so strongly about it.  However stating that "According to the extensive discussion above there is a WP rule against advertising." is not proof of this rule, JSHibbard has been the only one repeatedly demanding observance of this guideline without actually seeming to be aware of what it actually states.  Several other users and I seem to agree that the current image is currently the best one illustrating an alcohol rub.  There is no precedent for rotating images around for the sake of 'fairness' because one is in one user's opinion is perceived to be 'advertising', and the image will stay as the lead until consensus decides that another image is the best one to illustrate the subject of the article.  There is no particular issue about removing the repeating image in the image gallery. Images in the image gallery are not stuck there so that 'no one will see them', the intention is exactly the opposite.  To be honest I really can't understand JSHibbard's determination to edit this article so that it conforms to what he wants, only grudgingly giving ground when opposed by consensus.  I would remind him to consider WP:OWN -Benea (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely concur with the point about WP:OWN. I think this article would be better improved by images that actually show what the subject is about i.e. an image of actual alcohol gel, not an image of the bottle that alcohol gel comes in. Take soap as an example; the images show soap, not the packaging soap comes in. A reader is going to want to know what visual difference there is between different alcohol rubs and that can't be well illustrated with a picture of a bottle. Alcohol rubs could be better illustrated with an image of someone using it on their hands. Seraphim♥  Whipp 01:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: JSHibbard, as I understand, the ideal lead image for any article should be one which is best and sufficiently representative of the article. There is typically one and only one such image. Weight should also be given to the freedom delivered by the license of the image, with public domain being the most free and least restrictive license possible. For this article, I believe the CVS image is ideal, as explained above by Seraphim. Moreover, as stated by Benea, there is no precedent for rotating images – unless the images are all first class, highly representative, and equally free. --AB (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also much prefer the CVS image over any that are currently in the article. Seraphim♥  Whipp 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I definitely concur with Seraphim Whipp that the article would be better improved by images that actually show the application of an alcohol rub on the hands. I will work on it and get back to everyone. Hey, by the way, what happened to the image of an alcohol foam in the gallery? Have a great day.JSHibbard (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: I have removed the following sentence from the article again. "Inactive ingredients typically include a thickening agent such as Carbomer (a trade name for polyacrylic acid), and humectants such as glycerin and propylene glycol".  I did not remove the sentence just because it was incomplete. Please reread the first reason for removal again. The inactive ingredients in alcohol rubs are not relevant except for moisturizers and or emollients. They serve an important function. Moisturizers and emollients keep alcohol from drying out hands. The rest of the inactive ingredients are unnecessary and in some case are potentially harmful (ie. propylene glycol). They change the physical characteristics of the alcohol rub from a liquid to a foam or a gel. What about the dozens of other inactive ingredients? Shall we list those too? What about the dozens of fragrances? I don't believe they should be listed and I do not believe other inactive ingredients should be listed. It contributes absolute nothing but confusion to the article.JSHibbard (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the harm in this either.  It's just a list of what people could find if they read the label of a typical alcohol rub. We could expand it to mention fragrances or any other class of material that may be found in these products - whether they serve an "important function" or not. And why would propylene glycol be potentially harmful? — Zaui (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I also don’t see the harm in listing what is on the labels. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Inactive Ingredient Information Again

message: 12,000 children did not have alcohol gel "related alcohol-poisoning directly attributed to hand sanitizer products" 12,000 children "were repoted to have ingested a hand sanitizer product" Listen to the video.JSHibbard (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited the Statement

message: The OTC Division at the FDA no longer recognizes "hand sanitizer" as a drug category (class or indiction). They now prefer the use of "hand antiseptic" either with or without removal.JSHibbard (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Added latest definition of Hand Sanitizer

message: I believe, in order not to be misleading and in the interests of science and accuracy of the alcohol rubs article, the following sentence should be changed from this:
However, the NIH [3] and the CDC [4] cite studies that find products using only these non-alcohol agents can lead to antibiotic resistant germs like MRSA Staph, whereas the CDC states "No mechanism for resistance to alcohol has been described in bacteria" [5].
To This:
However, one un-collaborated laboratory study has shown benzalkonium chloride may be associated with but not cause antibiotic resistance in MRSA.[3][4] No mechanism for resistance to alcohol has been described in bacteria”[5]
For the following reasons:
I believe the [NIH] and the [CDC] references should be deleted. Reference [3] is not in any way associated with NIH. It is an ASM publication. It is also a very questionable scientific publication to be associated with the alcohol rubs article for the following reasons. 1) There is no significant difference between an MIC of 5 μg/mL and an MIC of 10 μg/mL of Benzalkonium chloride. This is only a two-fold (one dilution) difference and a two-fold dilution difference is not considered significant. 2) Hand Antiseptics (Sanitizers) contain a minimum of 200 μg/mL to maximum of 1300 μg/mL of Benzalkonium chloride. This 20 to 130 times the concentration needed to kill the resistant MRSA found in the paper. 3) The mechanism of action of β-lactamase antibiotics is similar but not identical to Benzalkonium chloride. The resistance to the antibiotics and benzalkonium chloride is probably by association and is not causal. In other words, benzalkonium chloride did not cause the antibiotic resistance but was associated with it. The CDC was not associated with reference [4]. Reference [4] was a non-peer reviewed paper presented at a scientific meeting sponsored by CDC. It was a review paper that contained laboratory scientific data and information that was extrapolated into clinical information. Sometimes the extrapolation of data is accurate and sometimes it is not. The FDA will not extrapolate any laboratory data into human or clinical data.--JSHibbard (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Change Sentence

message: Vicks should be deleted from the alcohol rubs article because it does not contain alcohol. Lysol should be deleted from the alcohol rubs article because the active ingredients are not alcohols. Lysol contains ethyl alcohol 1-3% and isopropanol 1-2% but neither alcohol is concentrated enough to kill germs. Lysol is also classified as a disinfectant and not an antiseptic in the US.--JSHibbard (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting Vicks and Lysol from the Alcohol Rubs Article

message: Method Products should be deleted from the alcohol rubs article because it does not contain alcohol. The active ingredient(s) in Methods Product is not known. Dettol should be removed from the alcohol rubs article because it does not contain alcohol. The active ingredient in Dettol is PCMX.--JSHibbard (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting Method Products and Dettol

message: I am removing the following sentence because the reference sited does not support the statement in the sentence. "Hand sanitizers may kill all germs, including good germs too."[10] The reference sited does not say anything about "good" germs. It does not say anything about "good" or "bad" germs.--JSHibbard (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Sentence

message: " Vicks, Lysol, Method Products, and Dettol also produce popular alcohol rubs." All of these products are not classified as "Topical Antiseptics". Therefore they should not be included in this article on Alcohol Rubs, Hand Sanitizers, Hand Antiseptics, or Healthcare Antiseptic Handwashes. Vicks is a mentholated rub. It is not an Alcohol rub. Lysol is a disinfectant. It is not an alcohol rub. Method Products is a cleaning solution. It is not an alcohol rub. Dettol contains PCMX which has not been approved as a Topical Antiseptic and is therefore not an alcohol rub. A product should contain at least 60% alcohol to be classified and called an alcohol rub and or be classified as a Hand Sanitizer, Hand Antiseptic, Healthcare Antiseptic Handwash or alcohol rub in the Tentative Final Monograph for Healthcare Antiseptic Drug Products Proposed Rule 21 CFR Parts 333 and 369, Friday, June 17, 1994.--JSHibbard (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing the Following Sentence

message: The following web site debunks the urban legend that an alcohol gel caused a fire that seriously burned a persons hands. The hands that were seriously burned were from an electrician who seriously burned his hands repairing a 277 volt fluorescent light. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/purell.asp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSHibbard (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Alcohol Gel Causing Burns on Hands

message: This is not true. There are plenty of articles which describe contaminated solution (69%) of hand rubs, especially with Pseudomonas, Bacillus etc. Also, alcohols are not capable to kill small viruses (influenza), too. 
Miroslav Besermenji  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroslavbesermenji (talk • contribs) 09:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No mechanism for resistance to alcohol has been described in bacteria”.

message: Please reference the publications describing 69% solutions of alcohol contaminated with bacteria (including Pseudomonas). I would also like you to reference the publications that state 70% alcohol will not kill Influenza virus. I would like to read them. Thanks you.JSHibbard (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No Mechanism for resistance

message: Dettol should be removed from the alcohol rubs article because it does not contain alcohol as an active ingredient. The active ingredient in Dettol is PCMX. Method Products manufactures a hand sanitizer that contains ethanol. Unfortunately, Method Products does not state the percent ethanol. We will assume the concentration of ethanol is at least 62%. Therefore Method Products hand sanitizer should not be removed fro the alcohol rub article.JSHibbard (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Dettrol from the Article Again

message: Removed "Citation Needed" from effectiveness section and added a reference on the end of the paragraph.JSHibbard (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Citation Needed and Added a Reference

message: I have made some additions to the article to correct some gross misconceptions and inaccuracies.JSHibbard (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions to the Article

message: Air sanitizer to Air freshener, as the former can disinfecting and the later can not
FYI
* http://www.oust.com/products.aspx
--124.78.215.195 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not auto-direct the topic of.... 

message: In the "Effectiveness" section, at the very bottom, someone added the sentence: "Dr Abhishek Mukherjee adds : Now Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer is available in Surat(GUJ),India."
This line is completely out-of-place.   It may be interesting information, but it has nothing to do with the topic of Effectiveness.   It should be moved elsewhere...  perhaps to the introduction, or to the "Uses" section, or to the "Notes" section.
Myki Cassie (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last line in "Effectiveness" should be moved to a different section. 

message: "Even so, assuming 99.999% germs killed, in 5:20, the effect wears off."
No cite, redundant ("even so" plus "assuming"), unclear (does "5:20" mean five hours and 20 minutes or five minutes and 20 seconds?), at odds with other aspects of this paragraph. 1) Uses "assuming" to refer to a previously cited claim, 2) a product which claims to kill germs when applied isn't claiming to have a duration, so it cannot meaningfully 'wear off.'
I would have edited or added tags, but it seems like this article has a lot of watchers/discussion, so figured I'd just kick something off here. --Thomas B♘talk 09:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses section: "in 5:20, the effect wears off" 

message: Wanted to ask the opinion of the editors on the last line of the first paragraph of "Non-Alcohol" section.  The line reads: "Benzalkonium chloride is the active ingredient in Bactine Antiseptic Spray, the universal antiseptic that has been used on open wounds and childhood scrapes for decades, at an amount higher than that present in the most popular non-alcohol sanitizers."
Is this not seen as a plug for a product?  It would seem this is unnecessary to the topic and only promotes a product.
Thoughts?
Robert.georgejr (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious Plug For Bactine In "Non-Alcohol" Section 

message: I am writing this to foreshadow removing the redirect of alcohol gel (currently, it points to alcohol rub which then suggests coming here.)
There are 3 very serious problems with this redirect:
* Alcohol gels are a very wide range of materials which form a broad topic of interest in physical chemistry. This redirect currently focuses entirely on just one application of just two types of gels. It provides no information at all about gels of alcohols other than ethanol or isopropanol, no information about gelling agents, no information about the physical chemistry of the process. It is as though "Colloid" was a redirect to "Milk".
* Hand sanitizers are not even alcohol gels at all. They are complex formulated products, which may include alcohol gels as one ingredient. Some are not gels, and some do not even contain alcohol.
* Until very recently, hand sanitisers were not even the main practical application; alcohol based cooking stoves were (e.g. Sterno.) It is not clear if this is the case now or not; there is certainly more heat without light cast on the subject by hand sanitisers, but I would not be surprised if total production volume was still greater for fuels. Be that as it may, there is a lot of business being done with gelled alcohols that aren't meant to be rubbed on your hands.
I can't write the article; I came here to research the subject, and was disappointed to find absolutely nothing. But a stub which also includes dab links to Sterno and hand sanitizer would be much better than what we have now. -- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove alcohol gel redirect 

message: Number eight wire pharmacology...n.z created poppy tea...and home bake...and drinking hand gel...resoursefull isolationists?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.47.150 (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isolation, kiwis, N.Z...drugs and alcohol 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hand sanitizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090102180425/http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/F76BC658-5554-4A82-89ED-67E36F033CF8/0/Infection_Control_Brochure.pdf to http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/F76BC658-5554-4A82-89ED-67E36F033CF8/0/Infection_Control_Brochure.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hand sanitizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091115115248/http://www.cbc.ca:80/consumer/story/2009/11/09/consumer-hand-sanitizer.html to http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/11/09/consumer-hand-sanitizer.html#ixzz0fdH46wBc
Hand sanitizer: https://naturesquest.com.au/products/hand-sanitiser  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.76.103 (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hand sanitizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091115115248/http://www.cbc.ca:80/consumer/story/2009/11/09/consumer-hand-sanitizer.html to http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/11/09/consumer-hand-sanitizer.html#ixzz0fdH46wBc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * Deionized Water, Isopropyl Alcohol, Glycerin, Carbomer, Triethanolamine, Propylene Glycol, PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Fragrance, Alphatocopherol Acetate (Vitamin E)
This article seems to have a troubled history dating back at least a decade, and is still not in very good shape.
It would be more complete and useful if it had a section on typical other "inactive" ingredients, including common examples and potential associated purposes, benefits, issues, concerns etc. -71.174.186.57 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  other "inactive" ingredients 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hand sanitizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091231233542/http://issa.com/data/files/articles/88/generalchemical.pdf to http://www.issa.com/data/files/articles/88/generalchemical.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510165612/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/Triclosan_Concept_final-100608_508.pdf to http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/Triclosan_Concept_final-100608_508.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hand sanitizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306193444/http://biomedexperts.com/abstract.bme/16307649/less_skin_irritation_from_alcohol-based_disinfectant_than_from_detergent_used_for_hand_disinfection to http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/16307649/Less_skin_irritation_from_alcohol-based_disinfectant_than_from_detergent_used_for_hand_disinfection
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am too sick to try to edit this beyond a quick alert. It needs a rewrite and should be removed until someone does a proper job. Anyone following the advice implicit in this would be putting themselves and others at risk. The WHO document cited in the footnote itself cites reports from 2004 and 2009–If the reports were published 14 and 9 years ago, the data was even older.
WHO was adding sanitizers to the list of essential medicines, for a worldwide audience, where clean water and good cleansers for handwashing may be hard to come by, especially in a crisis. 
Even a cursory search of the web reveals numerous articles from reliable sources describing the resistance of many viruses—including noroviruses, enteroviruses, adenoviruses and HPV—to hand sanitizers. This is due to the viruses' fundamental structure.  The importance of handwashing in removing those viruses is cited repeatedly.  The rampage of Norovirus in settings where people are relying on hand sanitizers instead of hand washing has also been documented. 
 Merry medievalist (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerously out of date 

message: It has been recognized that triclosan is absorbed through the skin, and has been detected in breast milk. It would be good to note any information about the effect of absorbed triclosan on adults, and the unknown effects of triclosan in breast milk, perhaps with a cautionary note for pregnant and nursing women.  
Chemosphere. 2018 Jul;203:467-473. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.186. Epub 2018 Mar 28.
Effects of triclosan in breast milk on the infant fecal microbiome.
 45.46.35.29 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on triclosan 

message: This Guardian article claims that the inventor was Lupe Hernandez in 1966. Unfortunately, like so many newspaper articles it doesn't cite its sources. That information, however, could be included here in a single sentence, although ideally there would be a history section. There is no WP article for Hernandez but I'm not sure I'll be able to find sufficient info - will look, however. Lamona (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventor 

message: Will a solution of 75% Ethanol kill the Cov19 Virus, I would like a definative answer to this question.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9D5D:C00:D57C:5913:E9DD:1FB7 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethanol Sanitizer 

message: We now know that hand sanitizer was first developed by Lupe Hernandez in 1966, when she realized that alcohol in a gel could sanitize healthcare workers' hands; a history of hand sanitizer is what this article still lacks. MaynardClark (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There do not appear to be any reliable sources for this claim. "The origin of this claim appears to be a 2012 article in The Guardian; all other mentions of Lupe Hernandez came after that article and provide no other information. Facts about Lupe Hernandez are nonexistent: no patent under that name was filed, nor was any hand-sanitizer-related patent under any other name for a decade on either side. Laura Barton, the author of that Guardian article, told me she didn’t recall where that story came from." (emphasis added)  US patents are available online in many different searchable databases; if this patent was real it should be easy to find. -- Visviva (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of hand sanitizer 

message: Were does this come from? Can you provide an exact quote from the source?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "if used for the necessary 15-30 seconds"

message: I just reverted an edit that changed :File:Hand Sanitizer.JPG to :File:HandSanitizerGermsBeGoneCanadian.jpg by  and I was wondering if there is any consensus to change the default image on this article?  The new could be potentially spam (I am not saying it is) or a copyright violation.  Aasim 20:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have blocked the account in question. We are not here for product placement. North Face already tried that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the default image 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Per here https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Guide_to_Local_Production.pdf
Is to keep the bottle fro getting contaminated with spores. Not for removing spores from a person's hands. 
Moved to body.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This ref does not speak about H2O2 in the setting of handsanitizer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Hydrogen peroxide

message: Not everyone is American. Non-American people use the term "hand sanitiser" LeticiaLL (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't imply everyone is but it's unnecessary in the lead as you wrote it and consensus should be reached here before it is re-added. This isn't a guide to phonetics. Praxidicae (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative spelling 

message: — Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture