Comparison of hand contamination rates and environmental contamination levels between two different glove removal methods and distances Joanna Y.F. Lai, MS, Y.P. Guo, PhD, Peggy P.L. Or, MS, Yi Li, PhD American Journal of Infection Control Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 104-111 (March 2011) DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.06.007 Copyright © 2011 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Terms and Conditions
Fig 1 FPs on the edge of the rubbish bin cover (A) and on the rubbish bin cover (B). American Journal of Infection Control 2011 39, 104-111DOI: (10.1016/j.ajic.2010.06.007) Copyright © 2011 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Terms and Conditions
Fig 2 Fluorescent solution (10 mL) sprayed on a subject’s palms. American Journal of Infection Control 2011 39, 104-111DOI: (10.1016/j.ajic.2010.06.007) Copyright © 2011 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Terms and Conditions
Fig 3 Flowchart of the study procedure. American Journal of Infection Control 2011 39, 104-111DOI: (10.1016/j.ajic.2010.06.007) Copyright © 2011 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Terms and Conditions
Fig 4 Small patches of fluorescent stain (A) and HCW rankings (B) on the front of the cloth for pretest and posttest of the CDC glove removal demonstration. NS, not significant. ∗P < .05; ∗∗P = .01. American Journal of Infection Control 2011 39, 104-111DOI: (10.1016/j.ajic.2010.06.007) Copyright © 2011 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Terms and Conditions
Fig 5 Glove removal times for the pretest and posttest periods. ∗∗∗P < .001. American Journal of Infection Control 2011 39, 104-111DOI: (10.1016/j.ajic.2010.06.007) Copyright © 2011 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Terms and Conditions