| Public Health | Full-Length Text

Product formulation and rubbing time impact the inactivation of

enveloped and non-enveloped virus surrogates by foam-based
hand sanitizers
Francis Torko,1 Kristen E. Gibson1

AUTHOR AFFILIATION See affiliation list on p. 10.

ABSTRACT Effective hand hygiene, such as hand washing and hand sanitizer use,
is crucial in reducing infectious disease transmission via the hands. The efficacy of
hand washing has been well-documented; however, relatively less is known regard­
ing foam-based hand sanitizer efficacy, which is considered an effective alternative
to washing hands with soap and water. Hand sanitizers are recommended by both
the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health
Organization when the hands are not visibly dirty or greasy. This study examined the
efficacy of five commercially available foam hand sanitizers—four alcohol-based and one
non-alcohol-based—against enveloped and non-enveloped viruses using bacteriophage
phi6 (Φ6) and bacteriophage MS2 as surrogates, respectively. A cocktail of MS2 and
Φ6 (8 log PFU/mL) was inoculated on the hands and exposed to 3 or 6 mL of hand
sanitizer product followed by rubbing the palmar surface of the hands together for 10 s
or until dry. The results showed significant log reduction among the virus surrogates (P
≤ 0.05), with Φ6 consistently showing higher susceptibility across all factors compared
with MS2 with log reductions of 2.83 ± 1.98 and 0.50 ± 0.53 log reduction, respectively.
Although dosing volume did not significantly impact log reduction (P = 0.31), rubbing
time significantly affected bacteriophage inactivation (P ≤ 0.05). Higher log reduction
was observed when hands were rubbed until dry (2.69 ± 2.06), compared with the typical
10 s rubbing time (0.65 ± 0.75). This study revealed that the efficacy of commercially
available foam hand sanitizers depends on rubbing time and overall product formula­
tion, rather than exclusively on active ingredient concentration.

IMPORTANCE Human hands are a key factor in the transmission of viral diseases, and
proper hand hygiene is regarded as the gold standard against the spread of such
diseases. This study examined the effectiveness of a hand hygiene technique, that is,
the application of foam-based hand sanitizers, against the inactivation of enveloped and
non-enveloped virus surrogates on the hands. Factors such as virus type, rubbing time,
Editor Christopher A. Elkins, Centers for Disease
volume of product used, and product formulation can significantly influence the efficacy Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
of hand sanitizers. To assess these effects, we tested different rubbing times and product
Address correspondence to Kristen E. Gibson,
volumes across alcohol- and non-alcohol-based, foam hand sanitizer formulations, each [email protected].
with varying active ingredient concentrations and inactive ingredients. The study was
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
performed on the palmar surface of human hands to realistically simulate real-world
conditions, providing valuable evidence to inform future hand sanitizer practices aimed See the funding table on p. 10.
at maximizing the reduction of infectious viral pathogens on the hands. Received 10 December 2024
Accepted 20 February 2025
KEYWORDS hand hygiene, formulation, rubbing time, foam hand sanitizer, efficacy Published 25 March 2025

Copyright © 2025 Torko and Gibson. This is an

E ffective hand hygiene is a critical step in reducing the transfer of pathogens between open-access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
persons and fomites (1). According to the United States Centers for Disease Control
license.

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 1

Full-Length Text Applied and Environmental Microbiology

and Prevention (CDC), hand hygiene involves cleaning the hands to substantially reduce
the amount of potentially harmful microorganisms that might be present on the
hands. This can be achieved through hand washing with soap under running water or
using hand sanitizers. Hand washing has been repeatedly shown to effectively reduce
the amount of pathogens on the hands (2–4). Godoy et al. (2) established that washing
hands at least five times a day or after touching contaminated fomites significantly
protected against influenza A (H1N1). Similarly, a systematic review by Xun et al. (4) led
to the conclusion that increased frequency of hand washing lowers the risk of acquiring
diseases. Hand washing is the preferred form of hand hygiene when the hands are
visibly dirty or greasy; however, in the absence of soap and water, the use of a hand
sanitizer is the alternative form of hand hygiene recommended by both the CDC and
the World Health Organization (WHO). However, although there are numerous studies on
the efficacy of hand hygiene techniques in the control of pathogens, particularly around
hand washing, comparatively little is known about the efficacy of commercially available
hand sanitizers, especially as formulations and formats have evolved over time.
The CDC recommends that alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHS) contain a mini­
mum of 60% alcohol (5), whereas the WHO recommends 80% ethanol or 75% vol/vol
isopropanol (6). Although most previous studies noted the concentration of active
ingredients as a key factor in hand sanitizer efficacy (7, 8), recent publications suggest
that the efficacy of hand sanitizers may not solely depend on the concentration of active
ingredients but rather on the overall formulation of the product (9–12). Escudero-Abarca
et al. (9) investigated the efficacy of one non-alcohol-based hand sanitizer (NABHS)
with benzalkonium chloride as the active ingredient and seven ABHSs with ethanol
as the active ingredient, which included foam, gel, and liquid formats, against human
norovirus (HuNoV) GII.4 on fingerpads. The authors found that the efficacy of the
hand sanitizers was not exclusively dependent on the active ingredients but on the
product formulations. This conclusion was based on observing statistically significant
differences between products with similar active ingredient concentrations (85% vol/vol
and 80% wt/wt [85 vol/vol] ethanol) as well as a lack of significant differences between
products with varying active ingredient concentrations (85 vol/vol compared with 68%–
70% vol/vol ethanol). This observation is supported by Siddharta et al. (11) and Suchomel
et al. (12) in their exploration of the efficacy of modified WHO formulations where
reduced glycerol—an inactive ingredient—appeared to positively impact the efficacy of
the formulations.
In environments with high contact rates, such as childcare centers, food establish­
ments, public transport, and gyms, contaminated surfaces and hands play a critical
role in pathogen transmission (13). Both enveloped viruses [e.g., influenza and corona­
viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2)] and
non-enveloped viruses (e.g., HuNoV) can potentially be transmitted via contaminated
surfaces (14–18). Bloomfield et al. (13) also further investigated the role of hands and
secondary surfaces as critical points for the spread of infectious diseases. The authors
noted that hands often make primary contact with pathogen points of entry such as the
eyes, mouth, and nose, highlighting the role of effective hand hygiene in controlling the
spread of diseases such as gastrointestinal and respiratory infections.
As previous studies suggest, the efficacy of hand sanitizers can be influenced by
several factors, including active ingredient concentration, exposure/rubbing time, dosing
volume, and overall formulation. However, many of these studies face limitations, such as
the lack of direct comparisons between different rubbing times and dosing volumes for
both enveloped and non-enveloped virus inactivation under similar testing conditions.
Variations in methodologies across studies make it challenging to compare efficacy
results between virus types, as testing methods have been shown to significantly impact
estimates of microbial reduction (19). Moreover, past research often focused on active
ingredient concentrations in lab-based solutions rather than in commercially available
hand sanitizer formulations (7, 20). Furthermore, although data on foam hand sanitizers’
efficacy against viruses is limited, most research has been conducted in suspension, with

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 2

Full-Length Text Applied and Environmental Microbiology

in vivo studies primarily performed on fingerpads—an approach less representative of

real-world use compared with the whole hand.
This study aimed to address these gaps by comparing five foam-based hand sanitizers
for the inactivation of enveloped and non-enveloped viruses on hands, using bacterioph­
ages—viruses that specifically infect and propagate in bacterial cells (21)—Φ6 and MS2
as surrogates. More specifically, an assessment of dosing volumes, rubbing times, and
overall formulation was completed to determine the impact on the efficacy of ABHS
and NABHS. Φ6 was selected as a surrogate to study enveloped viruses based on its
prior use in hand-related research and recommendations from previous studies (22–24).
Similarly, MS2 is a well-established surrogate for the study of non-enveloped viruses (8,
25). The outcome of this research will contribute valuable insights to inform effective
hand sanitizer usage strategies to control infectious disease transmission.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Volunteer recruitment
Thirty volunteers (≥18 years old) gave their consent to participate in this in vivo hand
hygiene efficacy study. All volunteers had no skin diseases or any apparent damage
such as dermatitis, open wounds, cuts, burns, hung nails, or any additional known
hand disorders. The University of Arkansas Institutional Review Board approved all
protocols used here (Protocol number: 2009287687R002). Five commercially available
hand sanitizers, including one NABHS and four ABHS, were investigated for their efficacy
against enveloped and non-enveloped virus surrogates according to the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E2011-21 (26) with modifications.

Phage propagation and quantification

Bacteriophages Φ6 (HER102; procured from Dr. Sylvain Moineau at Université Laval
in Québec, Canada) and MS2 [American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) 15597-B1,
Manassas, VA] were used as surrogates for the study of enveloped and non-enveloped
viruses, respectively. Using previously described methods (22, 27), Pseudomonas syringae
pathovar phaseolicola (Pph; HER1102) was used as a host for Φ6 propagation on
lysogeny agar/broth (LC; 10 g/L NaCl, 10 g/L tryptone, 5 g/L yeast extract, pH 7.5),
whereas Escherichia coli C3000 (ATCC 15597) was used as a host for MS2 propagation on
tryptic soy broth/agar (TSB/TSA) (30 g/L of TSB; Becton, Dickson and Company, Sparks,
Maryland). A single colony of Pph or E. coli was cultured overnight in 25 mL of LC broth
or TSB in a shaking incubator at 125 rpm. One hundred microliters of overnight E. coli
culture was added to 15 mL of TSB and put in the shaking incubator for 3 to 4 h to
attain a log phase growth prior to assay. Using the double agar overlay (DAL) assay,
Φ6 and MS2 were propagated by mixing 250 µL of Pph overnight liquid culture or 50
µL of E. coli overnight log phase growth culture with 100 µL of Φ6 or MS2 stock (at
approximately 9 or 10 log PFU/mL) in 5 mL of LC or TSA soft agar, respectively. The
mixture was then poured onto LC or TSA plates and incubated at 25°C (Φ6) or 37°C
(MS2). Plates that were observed to show lysis of host cells were harvested by scrapping
the soft agar overlay with a 25 cm cell culture scraper (VWR, Radnor, PA) into a 50 mL
centrifuge tube. The underlying hard agar was rinsed with 4 mL of LC (Φ6) or TSB (MS2),
and the broth was transferred to the 50 mL centrifuge tube. The mixture was vortexed
for 15 s and centrifuged for 10 min at 2000 × g at 4°C. The supernatant was then filtered
through a 0.22 µm, 33 mm diameter polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane filter
(EZFlow Syringe Filter; Foxx Life Sciences, Londonberry, NH), and stored at −20°C (Φ6)
and −80°C (MS2) for later use. Quantification of viruses was performed by serially diluting
the propagated phages, followed by the DAL method as previously described (22, 27).
Phage stocks were prepared using DAL (as described here) and stored at −20°C for Φ6
and −80°C for MS2 prior to use for propagation. Additionally, no serial dilutions were
performed prior to the use of phage stocks for Φ6 and MS2 propagation.

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 3

Full-Length Text Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Organic matter and virus cocktail preparation

The ASTM tripartite organic matter solution was prepared following the ASTM E2011-21
guidelines as a source of organic matter (OM). Specifically, 0.5 g of yeast extract, 0.5 g
of bovine serum albumin (BSA), and 0.04 g of bovine mucin were each separately added
to 10 mL of 1× PBS and subsequently filtered via a 0.22 µm, 33 mm diameter PVDF
membrane filter (EZFlow Syringe Filter; Foxx Life Sciences). A virus cocktail comprising
Φ6 and MS2 was prepared by suspending both phages in LC broth to achieve a final
concentration of 8 log plaque forming units (PFU)/mL. The final cocktail suspension
included the tripartite solution consisting of 20% bovine mucin, 7% yeast extract, and 5%
BSA. Tripartite stocks were stored at 4°C until use.

Volunteer hand preparation

Hand preparation was performed using previously described methods (22). Volunteers
were instructed to wash their hands with non-antimicrobial soap (Equate Hand Soap;
Walmart Inc., Bentonville, Arkansas), for 60 s (30 s wash with soap and 30 s rinse with
water) under running tap water and dried thoroughly with paper towels. Approximately
5 mL of 80% ethanol was applied to the hands, and volunteers were instructed to
rub the ethanol over the entire hands until dry. Hands were then rinsed with approxi­
mately 200 mL of sterile deionized water and dried with paper towels. Volunteers were
instructed to avoid contact with all surfaces.

Hand inoculation and hand sanitizer treatment

Inoculation of volunteers’ hands was performed according to ASTM E2011-21 with
modifications. One milliliter of the cocktail virus suspension (~8 log PFU/mL of each
virus), in the presence of ASTM tripartite organic matter, was inoculated onto the palm of
the volunteer’s left hand, and using their right hand, the inoculum was distributed over
the palmar surface of both hands for 10 s while avoiding contamination of the backs of
hands or dripping of the inoculum. Following hand inoculation, one unit (3 mL foam,
equivalent to ~0.4 mL liquid) or two units (6 mL foam, equivalent to ~0.8 mL liquid) of
foam hand sanitizer (Table 1) was dispensed, using an automatic dispenser (Alpine Hand
Sanitizer Dispenser; Alpine Industries Inc., Irvington, New Jersey), onto the palm of the
volunteer’s left hand. The sanitizer was then distributed over the palmar surfaces of both
hands using the right hand for 10 ± 1 s or until dry (range from 2.12 min to 6.42 min),
and any remaining virus on the hands was recovered as described in the “Virus Recovery”
section. 10 ± 1 s rubbing time was based on preliminary studies on how long it typically
takes users to rub a hand sanitizer product (data not shown).

TABLE 1 Foam-based hand sanitizers investigated and their formulationsa

Product Brand name Formulation

A Global industrial foam hand sanitizer 62% ethanol, H2O, PEG-10 dimethicone, glycerin, isopropyl myristate, polyquaternium-11,
62% alcohol disodium EDTA, aloe barbadensis leaf juice, tocopheryl acetate
B Global industrial foam hand sanitizer 0.13% BZK, H2O, propylene glycol, cocamidopropyl betaine, aloe barbadensis leaf juice,
alcohol-free tocopheryl acetate (vitamin E), PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate, fragrance, phenoxyethanol, tetrasodium
EDTA
C PURELL advanced hand sanitizer green 70% ethanol, H2O, isopropyl alcohol, PEG-12 dimethicone, caprylyl glycol, glycerin, isopropyl
certified foam myristate, tocopheryl acetate
D Tork premium alcohol foam hand 70% ethanol, H2O, glycerin, carbomer, glycereth-7 triacetate, triethanolamine, tocopheryl acetate
sanitizer
E SCJ professional hand sanitizer, 85% ethanol, H2O, DL-panthenol, Bis-PEG-12 dimethicone, dihydroxypropyl PEG-5 linoleammo­
non-alcohol nium chloride, PEG-200 hydrogenated, glyceryl palmitate, PEG-7 glyceryl cocoate, coco-gluco­
side, glyceryl oleate, citric acid
a
BZK, benzalkonium chloride; bold and italics indicate the active ingredient.

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 4

Full-Length Text Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Virus recovery and quantification

Virus recovery was performed using a modification of the dish method according to the
ASTM E1838-17 (28) protocol based on preliminary studies for recovery optimization (29).
After hand sanitizer treatment, the volunteer pressed both palms onto the bottom of a
sterile dish container (Autoclavable Polypropylene Pan, 12.75 × 4.25 × 10.125 in [L × H
× W]; Fisher Scientific, Rochester, NY) containing 3.5 mL of D/E neutralizing broth and
66.5 mL of LC broth (1:20) and rubbed continuously for 1 min ± 5 s. After recovery, 70%
ethanol was then sprayed onto the volunteer’s hands and rubbed over the entire hand.
Hands were then washed thoroughly using plain soap and water followed by drying
with a paper towel. The recovered eluate was transferred into a sterile container (Media/
Storage Bottle, 100/150 mL, VWR, Radnor, PA) and assayed to determine the concentra­
tion of the recovered virus using the DAL method. Briefly, a 5-fold or 2-fold serial dilution
was performed using LC broth as diluent. One hundred microliters of serially diluted
samples were then added to 5 mL of TSA or LC soft agar media containing 50 µL of E. coli
or 250 µL of Pph. The mixture was added to TSA or LC plates and incubated overnight at
25°C (Φ6) or 37°C (MS2). Control plates were prepared to determine the potential host or
broth contamination and cytopathic effect of phages. Host control consisted of 50 µL of
E. coli or 250 µL of Pph in 5 mL of TSA or LC soft agar. For virus control, 100 µL of highly
concentrated (approximately 8 log PFU/mL) MS2 or Φ6 was added to their respective
host and soft agar. Broth control included 100 µL of TSB or LC broth in 5 mL of TSA or LC
soft agar.

Neutralizer effectiveness/toxicity
Neutralization of test products was conducted during the recovery of phages from
hands, and the determination of neutralization effectiveness and cytotoxicity was
performed following ASTM E1054-22 (30). The neutralizer-nutrient medium was
prepared at a final ratio of 1:20 using D/E (Dey/Engley) Neutralizing media (BD Life
Sciences, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey) and LC broth. Briefly, a 100 µL cocktail of Φ6 and
MS2, in the presence of ASTM tripartite organic matter, containing between 103 and
104 virus particles was introduced into 10 mL of the neutralizing media and LC broth
mixture at a 1:20 ratio (0.5 mL neutralizer + 9.5 mL LC broth). To evaluate the neutralizer’s
effectiveness, 114 µL of hand sanitizer product was added to the neutralizer-LC-virus
suspension, which corresponds to the scaled highest volume of liquid hand sanitizer
used in the study. For the cytotoxicity test, 114 µL of 1× PBS was added to the neutral­
izer-LC-virus suspension instead of the hand sanitizer product. As a control, the same
volume of virus suspension was added to 10.114 mL of LC. The resulting mixture was
tested to determine the phage concentration and potential impact on the DAL assay. The
neutralization assay results showed no significant differences in neutralization effective­
ness, cytotoxicity, and control for Φ6 (P = 0.75) and MS2 (P = 0.19). Comparable results
were also observed among individual hand sanitizers with effectiveness, cytotoxicity, and
control.

Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using the R statistical software version 4.2.2. A
generalized linear mixed effects model (“Gamma” family and “log” link) was developed to
assess the statistical significance between the levels of fixed factors (virus type, product,
dosing volume, rubbing time), estimate variance for random factors (volunteers), and
determine significant two-way interactions between the variables. Since the Gamma
distribution with a log link cannot take 0 values, a constant of 0.5 was added to all log
reduction values to determine statistical significance without impacting the statistical
analysis. The model’s normality and homoskedasticity of variance assumptions were
examined using the Shapiro-Wilk and Breusch-Pagan tests, respectively. The results
indicated that assumptions for both normality (P = 0.16) and homoskedasticity (P = 0.98)
were met. Type 3 analysis of variance of the generalized linear mixed effects model was

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 5

Full-Length Text Applied and Environmental Microbiology

used to detect statistical significance at P ≤ 0.05. Volunteers were randomly assigned to

a hand sanitizer product and dosing volume unit but received both treatment levels
of rubbing time on separate days, with at least 1 week between treatments, in a
randomized order. All experimental units were performed in triplicate. The amount of
virus suspended on the hands was calculated by performing a DAL assay of the cocktail
inoculum suspension, and the expected amount to be recovered was determined by
dividing the suspended amount of PFU by 70 mL. Plaque-forming unit values were
log10 transformed to log PFU/mL for subsequent analyses. As a treatment control, the
expected value was multiplied by a factor of 1 for MS2 and by a factor of 0.95 for Φ6
as preliminary results (data not shown) showed that about 100% and 95% recovery
efficiencies from hands were observed for MS2 and Φ6, respectively. Treatment values
were the amount of virus recovered after the hand sanitizer treatment, and log reduction
(response factor) was calculated by determining the difference between the treatment
and control values. All negative log reduction values (n = 11; range = [-0.2 to −0.02]),
which occurred when treatment values exceeded control values, were assigned a 0 to
indicate no log reduction or no product efficacy. For treatment, replicates where no
PFU was detected, 1 PFU/mL (limit of detection) was assigned in order to log transform
the data to calculate the log reduction achieved by the test products. Efficacy of the
hand sanitizer products, expressed in percentage, for Φ6 and MS2 across all treatment
combinations can be found in the supplemental material.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Previous studies have explored the efficacy of hand sanitizers for the reduction of
infectious virus particles, often focusing on correlating hand sanitizer efficacy to an
increasing concentration of active ingredients (7, 8, 25). However, in the present study,
the efficacy of the tested foam hand sanitizers against both enveloped and non-envel­
oped phage did not correlate with increasing concentrations of the active ingredients,
consistent with findings from previous studies (9–12, 31). Instead, these findings suggest
that foam hand sanitizer efficacy is influenced in part by the overall formulation,
including inactive ingredients.
For instance, across all levels of factors, the average highest log reduction of 2.06 ±
2.22 was achieved by product D (70% vol/vol ethanol) followed by products B (0.13%
BZK), C (70% vol/vol ethanol), E (85% wt/wt ethanol), and A (62% vol/vol ethanol) (Table
2). Although product D had the highest log reduction, its efficacy was comparable
with products B, C, and E. Moreover, product E had a comparable log reduction with
products B, C, and D, as well as product A, which had the lowest log reduction. Simi­
larly, Escudero-Abarca et al. (9) observed significant differences in reduction of HuNoV
GII.4 among products that had similar active ingredient concentrations [85% vol/vol
and 80% wt/wt (85 vol/vol) ethanol], whereas products with varying active ingredient
concentrations (85% vol/vol compared with 68%–70% vol/vol ethanol) did not show
any significant differences as observed in the current study. Macinga et al. (10) also
studied the efficacy of hand sanitizer formulations with different active ingredients

TABLE 2 Efficacy of foam-based hand sanitizer products against MS2 and φ6 across all variablesa,b

Product Log reductionc

Phi 6 MS2
a
A (62% EtOH) 2.33 ± 1.53 0.92 ± 0.43a
B (0.13% BZK) 3.94 ± 2.12c 0.95 ± 0.43a
C (70% EtOH) 3.51 ± 2.01bc 1.13 ± 0.84a
D (70% EtOH) 4.08 ± 2.24c 1.03 ± 0.49a
E (85% EtOH) 2.79 ± 1.61ab 0.97 ± 0.35a
a
Efficacy is expressed as log reduction in virus concentration (log PFU/mL).
b
BZK, benzalkonium chloride; EtOH, ethanol.
c
Log reduction values represent arithmetic mean log reduction across all variables ± standard deviation, and
statistical significance was determined using Tukey’s honestly significant difference test. Values sharing the same
superscript letters are not significantly different.

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 6

Full-Length Text Applied and Environmental Microbiology

against native microorganisms on hands after single and repeated use. Results showed
that the highest log reduction (4.37) was achieved with a 70% ethanol-based hand
rub, which was superior to a 62% ethanol-based product (1.86 log). However, a 63%
2-propanol-based product demonstrated a higher log reduction than a 70% 2-propanol
product formulated differently, emphasizing that overall product formulation impacts
efficacy. The results from this study underscore that hand sanitizer efficacy is affected by
overall product formulation.
Although these findings emphasize the importance of formulation on hand sanitizer
efficacy, earlier studies primarily focused on the role of active ingredient concentration
as mentioned early on. For example, Park and coauthors (8) investigated the in vitro
efficacy of seven hand sanitizers, four of which contained ethanol as an active ingredient.
The results showed that three of the hand sanitizers with higher ethanol concentrations
(72%–79%) exhibited rapid inactivation of murine norovirus (MNV, a HuNoV surrogate)
by more than 2.6-log to 3.6-log reduction after 1 min in suspension. In comparison,
one of the products with 67% ethanol achieved only a 2.0 log reduction after 1 min,
indicating that higher active ingredient concentration (ethanol in this case) increases
efficacy. Similarly, Tung et al. (25) established that MNV exhibited higher susceptibility to
ethanol at elevated ethanol concentrations (70 and 90% compared with 50%), reinforc­
ing the idea that increasing concentration enhances inactivation. However, the findings
of the current study, along with those of previous research, indicate that the efficacy of
hand sanitizers may not only depend on the active ingredients but also on overall hand
sanitizer formulation.
Although some studies found that BZK-based hand sanitizers perform poorly against
non-enveloped viruses when compared with ethanol-based products or solutions (9, 10),
others demonstrated that BZK performs better (20). For instance, in a fingerpad study
by Wilson et al. (20), a BZK containing liquid hand sanitizer achieved 2.13 ± 0.50 and
2.09 ± 0.35 log reduction of HuNoV GII.4 after 30 s and 60 s exposure times, respectively,
compared with a benchmark 60% ethanol solution, which achieved log reduction of 1.06
± 0.54 and 1.22 ± 0.56 for the same exposure times. In this study, the BZK-based hand
sanitizer (0.13% BZK) had a significantly higher (P ≤ 0.05) log reduction than product A
(62% vol/vol ethanol) similar to Wilson et al. (20) but was comparable with products C,
D (both containing 70% vol/vol ethanol), and E (85% wt/wt ethanol) across both phages
(Fig. 1).
In addition to active ingredient concentration and hand sanitizer formulation,
exposure/rubbing time and product dosing volume may also be relevant for virus
inactivation (7, 9, 32, 33). Most of these studies were conducted in vitro with a limited
number of in vivo studies performed primarily on fingerpads (3, 9, 20, 34–36). Meanwhile,
the present study also investigated the impact of rubbing time and hand sanitizer dosing
volume on the efficacy of foam-based hand sanitizers against both enveloped and non-
enveloped virus surrogates on hands. Table S1 (in the supplemental material) reports the
percent efficacy of each product based on the variables of rubbing time, dosing volume,
and virus type.
Non-enveloped viruses are generally less susceptible to inactivation with chemical
sanitizers (7, 37, 38) due to the high stability of their protein capsids (39). The observed
virucidal activity against the enveloped virus surrogate (bacteriophage Φ6) and non-
enveloped virus surrogate (bacteriophage MS2) is consistent with a review by Kampf (7)
on the efficacy of ethanol in solution against enveloped and non-enveloped viruses
where it was found that enveloped viruses were generally less resistant than non-
enveloped viruses. Here, it was observed that, across factors, the average log reduction
achieved for Φ6 (2.83 ± 1.98) was significantly higher (P ≤ 0.05) than MS2 (0.5 ± 0.53).
Likewise, Van Engelenburg et al. (38) found that an ethanol-based hand rub mixture
completely inactivated all tested enveloped viruses (more than a 6 log reduction)
including hepatitis C, whereas non-enveloped viruses, including hepatitis A virus, were
more resistant with log reduction ranging from no reduction to a maximum of 6 log.

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 7

Full-Length Text Applied and Environmental Microbiology

FIG 1 Efficacy of hand sanitizer products against Φ6 (Pseudomonas phage Φ6) and MS2 (Emesvirus zinderi) for 10 s and “until dry” rubbing times for 3 mL and
6 mL dosing volumes. Each data point represents the difference between treatment and control values. The red line represents the mean of the factor levels. The
open triangle and cross symbols represent 3 mL and 6 mL dosing volumes, respectively. Log reduction values were expressed in log PFU/mL.

Beyond virus structure, exposure time plays a crucial role in virus activation, with
longer contact time between hand sanitizers and viruses generally linked to greater virus
inactivation (20, 40). In a study by Kampf et al. (40), although results were not directly
investigated for different exposure times for the same virus, it was evident that higher
exposure times were required for ABHSs to achieve similar log reductions across various
non-enveloped viruses. Although other factors, such as varying stability of viral protein
capsid, may have contributed to reduced susceptibility of viruses in Kampf et al. (40),
exposure time was clearly an influential factor. For instance, whereas 2- and 3-min
exposure times were needed to achieve >4 log reduction for adenovirus and poliovirus,
respectively, papovavirus required 15 min. Similarly, in a study by Wilson et al. (20), which
compared a BZK-based hand sanitizer and a 60% ethanol solution on fingerpads, the
authors reported that the highest log reduction for both products was achieved at 60 s

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 8

Full-Length Text Applied and Environmental Microbiology

exposure time compared with a 30 s exposure time. The findings from the current study
align with Wilson et al. (20). Rubbing the hands until dry (range from 2.12 min to
6.42 min) after sanitizer application demonstrated greater efficacy compared with a 10 s
rub (Fig. 1; Table S1). A 10 s rubbing time consistently led to significantly lower (P ≤ 0.05)
log reduction (0.65 ± 0.75) than until dry (2.69 ± 2.06) for phages combined (Fig. 1). This
indicates that rubbing the hands until dry after applying a foam hand sanitizer achieves
increased virus inactivation on the hands than the typical 10 s rubbing time, reinforcing
the importance of extended contact time for effective virus reduction. Regarding dosing
volume, no significant differences (P = 0.31) were observed in log reduction for 3 mL
(1.66 ± 1.89) and 6 mL (1.67 ± 1.84) dosing volumes.
To better understand the efficacy of hand sanitizers against individual phages, we
compared phage susceptibility across the tested factors. Among products, significant
differences (P ≤ 0.05) were observed in log reduction for Φ6 but no significant differences
(P = 0.13) were observed for MS2 (Table 2). Significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) were
observed in rubbing time for both Φ6 and MS2. The “until dry” rubbing time yielded
significantly higher (P ≤ 0.05) log reduction (0.93 ± 0.42 for MS2 and 4.45 ± 1.44 for Φ6)
than the typical 10 s rubbing time (0.07 ± 0.1 for MS2 and 1.22 ± 0.68 for Φ6), with Φ6
consistently showing higher log reduction than MS2. Dosing volume did not significantly
impact log reduction for Φ6 (P = 0.07) and MS2 (P = 0.55).
For MS2, significant two-way interactions were found between product and volume,
product vs rubbing time, and volume vs rubbing time (P ≤ 0.05). This suggests that log
reduction achieved with each product depends on both dosing volume and rubbing
time. Although the dosing volume alone did not significantly differ, the 3 mL volume
yielded a higher log reduction than 6 mL. Also, log reductions of MS2 for the dosing
volumes were dependent on rubbing time because, while “until dry” achieved greater
reduction regardless of the dosing volume applied to the hands, 3 mL had a significantly
higher log reduction than 6 mL when paired with “until dry” rubbing time.
For Φ6, a significant interaction (P ≤ 0.05) was observed between product and
rubbing time as well as volume and rubbing time indicating that product efficacy
depends on the rubbing time and dosing volume. During both 10 s and until dry rubbing
times for Φ6, product A recorded the lowest significant log reduction whereas products
B, C, D, and E had comparable log reductions. Although product A had the lowest log
reduction, its efficacy was comparable with product E when a 10 s rubbing time was
used and products B, C, and E when hands were rubbed until dry. Although no significant
log reduction (P = 0.97) was observed when hands were rubbed until dry, 6 mL dosing
volume had a significantly higher (P ≤ 0.05) log reduction than 3 mL dosing volume
when a 10 s rubbing time was employed.
Although this study closely reflects real-world scenarios, it has some limitations.
Despite appropriate measures observed to apply inoculum solely to the palmar surface,
the potential contamination of the back of the hand and dripping could have influ­
enced virus quantification. However, when this was observed, the hand preparation
and inoculum procedures were repeated prior to hand sanitizer treatment to ensure
consistent inoculum application. Future studies should consider using smaller inocu­
lum volumes to better accommodate volunteers with smaller palmar surface areas. In
addition, although the inoculum was still wet before sanitizer application, minimizing
the effect of drying on virus inactivation, the authors acknowledge that drying may
impact virus quantification, particularly with “until dry” rubbing time. Future studies
should examine the effect of drying on virus inactivation when investigating an “until
dry” rubbing/exposure time. Hand characteristics, such as the size of the palm or texture
of the skin, could also have affected factors such as until dry rubbing time or inoculum
spillage, although the latter was controlled as indicated previously. To estimate variation
due to individual volunteers, volunteer variability was estimated, using a generalized
linear mixed effects model, revealing that approximately 15% of the variation in virus log
reduction was due to individual differences. This suggests that volunteer characteristics,

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 9

Full-Length Text Applied and Environmental Microbiology

including palm size, texture, or until dry rubbing time, contribute minimally to moderate
random variation to the results.
Overall, the results from this study indicate that foam hand sanitizer efficacy against
viruses is influenced by the product formulation, rubbing time, and virus type. This
suggests that manufacturers should focus on complete formulation instead of active
ingredient concentration, as the latter does not fully dictate antiviral activity. Addition­
ally, virus type also plays a role, with enveloped viruses being more susceptible than
non-enveloped viruses (Fig. 1). To maximize viral reduction, hands should be rubbed
until dry. Testing on the palmar surface in this study enhances real-world relevance,
as this area of the hand is primarily in contact with surfaces as well as direct con­
tact between individuals. Finally, two-way interaction results revealed that the efficacy
against non-enveloped viruses may be affected by a wider range of factors compared
with enveloped viruses. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first in vivo study to
comparatively investigate the impact of rubbing time, dosing volume, and formulation
on the efficacy of foam-based hand sanitizers against both enveloped and non-envel­
oped virus surrogates utilizing the palmar surface—an approach that closely reflects
real-world scenarios.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Sahaana Chandran, Gayatri Dhulappanavar, and Eric Nuertey for contributing
their assistance with the completion of this study. We also thank Anna Rechtin for her
assistance in the lab during experiment preparations.
This project was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive
Grant no. 2020-67017-32427 from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
National Institute of Food and Agriculture. This work was also supported in part by the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Hatch Act funding.
Conceptualization, F.T. and K.E.G.; Methodology, F.T. and K.E.G.; Formal Analysis and
Investigation, F.T.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, F.T.; Writing – Reviewing and
Editing, F.T. and K.E.G.; Funding Acquisition, K.E.G.; Resources, K.E.G.; Supervision, K.E.G.

AUTHOR AFFILIATION
1
Department of Food Science, Center for Food Safety, University of Arkansas System
Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

AUTHOR ORCIDs

Kristen E. Gibson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4071-7914

FUNDING

Funder Grant(s) Author(s)

USDA | National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2020-67017-32427 Francis Torko
(NIFA) Kristen E. Gibson

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Francis Torko, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visuali­

zation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing | Kristen E. Gibson, Con­
ceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources,
Supervision, Writing – review and editing

ADDITIONAL FILES

The following material is available online.

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 10

Full-Length Text Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Supplemental Material

Table S1 (AEM02474-24-s0001.docx). Efficacy in percentages of foam hand sanitizer

products for bacteriophages Φ6 and MS2 across all factor levels.

REFERENCES
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2024. Hand sanitizer SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med 382:1564–
guidelines and recommendations. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ 1567. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2004973
clean-hands/about/hand-sanitizer.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.c 18. Xiao S, Tang JW, Li Y. 2017. Airborne or fomite transmission for
dc.gov/handwashing/hand-sanitizer-use.html. Retrieved 18 Jan 2025. norovirus? A case study revisited. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14:1571.
2. Godoy P, Castilla J, Delgado-Rodríguez M, Martín V, Soldevila N, Alonso https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121571
J. 2012. CIBERESP cases and controls in pandemic influenza working 19. Edmonds-Wilson S, Campbell E, Fox K, Macinga D. 2015. Comparison of 3
group, Spain. Prev Med (Baltim) 54:434–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yp in vivo methods for assessment of alcohol-based hand rubs. Am J Infect
med.2012.04.009 Control 43:506–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.01.025
3. Liu P, Macinga DR, Fernandez ML, Zapka C, Hsiao H-M, Berger B, 20. Wilson AM, Reynolds KA, Jaykus LA, Escudero-Abarca B, Gerba CP. 2020.
Arbogast JW, Moe CL. 2011. Comparison of the activity of alcohol-based Comparison of estimated norovirus infection risk reductions for a single
handrubs against human noroviruses using the fingerpad method and fomite contact scenario with residual and nonresidual hand sanitizers.
quantitative real-time PCR. Food Environ Virol 3:35–42. https://doi.org/1 Am J Infect Control 48:538–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.09.01
0.1007/s12560-011-9053-x 0
4. Xun Y, Shi Q, Yang N, Yang N, Li Y, Si W, Shi Q, Wang Z, Liu X, Yu X, Zhou 21. Kasman LM, Porter LD. 2022. Bacteriophages. In StatPearls [Internet]. Vol.
Q, Yang M, Chen Y. 2021. Associations of hand washing frequency with Available from. StatPearls Publishing.
the incidence of illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann 22. Baker CA, Gibson KE. 2022. Phi 6 recovery from inoculated fingerpads
Transl Med 9:395. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-6005 based on elution buffer and methodology. J Virol Methods 299:114307.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2024. Hand sanitizer facts. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114307
Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/clean-hands/data-research/facts-st 23. Casanova LM, Weaver SR. 2015. Evaluation of eluents for the recovery of
ats/hand-sanitizer-facts.html an enveloped virus from hands by whole-hand sampling. J Appl
6. World Health Organization. 2010. Guide to local production: WHO- Microbiol 118:1210–1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12777
recommended handrub formulations (No. WHO/IER/PSP/2010.5). World 24. Wolfe MK, Gallandat K, Daniels K, Desmarais AM, Scheinman P, Lantagne
Health Organization. D. 2017. Handwashing and Ebola virus disease outbreaks: a randomized
7. Kampf G. 2018. Efficacy of ethanol against viruses in hand disinfection. J comparison of soap, hand sanitizer, and 0.05% chlorine solutions on the
Hosp Infect 98:331–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2017.08.025 inactivation and removal of model organisms Phi6 and E. coli from
8. Park GW, Barclay L, Macinga D, Charbonneau D, Pettigrew CA, Vinjé J. hands and persistence in rinse water. PLoS ONE 12:e0172734. https://doi
2010. Comparative efficacy of seven hand sanitizers against murine .org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172734
norovirus, feline calicivirus, and GII.4 norovirus. J Food Prot 73:2232– 25. Tung G, Macinga D, Arbogast J, Jaykus LA. 2013. Efficacy of commonly
2238. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-73.12.2232 used disinfectants for inactivation of human noroviruses and their
9. Escudero-Abarca BI, Goulter RM, Manuel CS, Leslie RA, Green K, Arbogast surrogates. J Food Prot 76:1210–1217. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028
JW, Jaykus LA. 2022. Comparative assessment of the efficacy of X.JFP-12-532
commercial hand sanitizers against human norovirus evaluated by an in 26. ASTM International. 2021. Standard test method for evaluation of
vivo fingerpad method. Front Microbiol 13:869087. https://doi.org/10.33 hygienic handwash and handrub formulations for virus-eliminating
89/fmicb.2022.869087 activity using the entire hand (ASTM E2011-21).
10. Macinga DR, Edmonds S, McCormack R. 2013. P100: efficacy of alcohol- 27. Gibson KE, Crandall PG, Ricke SC. 2012. Removal and transfer of viruses
based and non-alcohol hand rubs after a single use and repeated use. on food contact surfaces by cleaning cloths. Appl Environ Microbiol
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2:P100. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-29 78:3037–3044. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00027-12
94-2-S1-P100 28. ASTM International. 2017. Standard test method for determining the
11. Siddharta A, Pfaender S, Vielle NJ, Dijkman R, Friesland M, Becker B, Yang virus-eliminating effectiveness of hygienic handwash and handrub
J, Engelmann M, Todt D, Windisch MP, Brill FH, Steinmann J, Steinmann agents using the fingerpads of adults (ASTM E1838-17).
J, Becker S, Alves MP, Pietschmann T, Eickmann M, Thiel V, Steinmann E. 29. Torko F, Gibson KE. 2025. Optimization of an enveloped virus surrogate,
2017. Virucidal activity of World Health Organization–recommended bacteriophage Phi6, recovery from hands. Food Environ Virol. https://doi
formulations against enveloped viruses, including Zika, Ebola, and .org/10.1007/s12560-025-09637-3
emerging coronaviruses. J Infect Dis 215:902–906. https://doi.org/10.109 30. ASTM International. 2022. Standard practices for evaluation of
3/infdis/jix046 inactivators of antimicrobial agents. (ASTM E1054-22).
12. Suchomel M, Steinmann J, Kampf G. 2020. Efficacies of the original and 31. Edmonds SL, Macinga DR, Mays-Suko P, Duley C, Rutter J, Jarvis WR,
modified World Health Organization-recommended hand-rub Arbogast JW. 2012. Comparative efficacy of commercially available
formulations. J Hosp Infect 106:264–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2 alcohol-based hand rubs and World Health Organization-recommended
020.08.006 hand rubs: formulation matters. Am J Infect Control 40:521–525. https://
13. Bloomfield SF, Aiello AE, Cookson B, O’Boyle C, Larson EL. 2007. The doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2011.08.016
effectiveness of hand hygiene procedures in reducing the risks of 32. Leslie RA, Zhou SS, Macinga DR. 2021. Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by
infections in home and community settings including handwashing and commercially available alcohol-based hand sanitizers. Am J Infect
alcohol-based hand sanitizers. Am J Infect Control 35:S27–S64. https://d Control 49:401–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.08.020
oi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2007.07.001 33. Ogilvie BH, Solis-Leal A, Lopez JB, Poole BD, Robison RA, Berges BK. 2021.
14. Anderson CE, Boehm AB. 2021. Transfer rate of enveloped and Alcohol-free hand sanitizer and other quaternary ammonium
nonenveloped viruses between fingerpads and surfaces. Appl Environ disinfectants quickly and effectively inactivate SARS-CoV-2. J Hosp Infect
Microbiol 87:e0121521. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01215-21 108:142–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.11.023
15. Baker CA, Gibson KE. 2022. Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces and 34. Lages SLS, Ramakrishnan MA, Goyal SM. 2008. In-vivo efficacy of hand
relevance to the food industry. Curr Opin Food Sci 47:100875. https://doi sanitisers against feline calicivirus: a surrogate for norovirus. J Hosp
.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2022.100875 Infect 68:159–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2007.11.018
16. Thomas YA, Boquete-Suter P, Koch D, Pittet D, Kaiser L. 2014. Survival of 35. Sattar SA, Abebe M, Bueti AJ, Jampani H, Newman J, Hua S. 2000.
influenza virus on human fingers. Clin Microbiol Infect 20:O58–O64. http Activity of an alcohol-based hand gel against human adeno-, rhino-, and
s://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12324 rotaviruses using the fingerpad method. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
17. van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, Holbrook MG, Gamble A, 21:516–519. https://doi.org/10.1086/501796
Williamson BN, Tamin A, Harcourt JL, Thornburg NJ, Gerber SI, Lloyd- 36. Sickbert-Bennett EE, Weber DJ, Gergen-Teague MF, Sobsey MD, Samsa
Smith JO, de Wit E, Munster VJ. 2020. Aerosol and surface stability of GP, Rutala WA. 2005. Comparative efficacy of hand hygiene agents in the

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 11

Full-Length Text Applied and Environmental Microbiology

reduction of bacteria and viruses. Am J Infect Control 33:67–77. https://d 39. Narula P, Lokshman MK, Pathak SB, Mukherjee S, Banerjee M. 2024.
oi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2004.08.005 Chemical inactivation of two non-enveloped viruses results in distinct
37. Foddai ACG, Grant IR, Dean M. 2016. Efficacy of instant hand sanitizers thermal unfolding patterns and morphological alterations. BMC
against foodborne pathogens compared with hand washing with soap Microbiol 24:413. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-024-03565-1
and water in food preparation settings: a systematic review. J Food Prot 40. Kampf G, Rudolf M, Labadie JC, Barrett SP. 2002. Spectrum of antimicro­
79:1040–1054. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-492 bial activity and user acceptability of the hand disinfectant agent
38. van Engelenburg FAC, Terpstra FG, Schuitemaker H, Moorer WR. 2002. Sterillium Gel. J Hosp Infect 52:141–147. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhin.200
The virucidal spectrum of a high concentration alcohol mixture. J Hosp 2.1281
Infect 51:121–125. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhin.2002.1211

April 2025 Volume 91 Issue 4 10.1128/aem.02474-24 12