{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.046139359698681735, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022598870056497175, 'mean_word_length': 5.403614457831325, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Detergents compared with each other and with antiseptics as skin ‘degerming’ agents

SUMMARY Three detergent preparations (bar soap, ‘Hibiscrub’ base and ‘LIC 76’), two antiseptic preparations (0·5% chlorhexidine in 95% ethyl alcohol and an alcohol jelly, ‘Alcogel’), and one antiseptic-detergent solution (4% chlorhexidine gluconate in a detergent base, ‘Hibiscrub’) were compared for their effectiveness, on a single use, in reducing the yield of bacteria from the hands of volunteers. The antiseptic and antiseptic-detergent preparations were more effective than the detergents, with a mean reduction in yield of skin bacteria of 96·0% after use of alcoholic chlorhexidine and of 81·2% after use of Hibiscrub. One of the detergents, LIC 76, appeared more effective than the others, causing a mean reduction in the yield of skin bacteria of 41·5%, compared with reductions of 4·6% by the Hibiscrub detergent base and an increase of 3·2% with bar soap; unlike the other detergents, LIC 76 was found to have appreciable bacteristatic and bactericidal properties.