What are the qualifications a soap needs to meet in order to be labeled “antibacterial”?
Isn’t any soap antibacterial, technically, if one washes ones hands properly?
If not, how have we survived so long without antibacterial soap?
Another question: What is the difference between antibacterial and antimicrobial soap? Is one better than the other?
Chrome Toaster
I seem to recall from some years ago that the “anti-bacterial” aspect of any soap was due to the fact that the cleansing action helps uproot the dirt that the critters are living in–not any antibiotic aspect of the soap itself.
Most antibacterial soaps use a substance called triclosan which kills the bacteria. Generally things like this are a bad idea: The improvement over regular soap is marginal at best by any practical measure, and of course you can end up breeding resistant strains of bacteria. That’s a problem for hospitals, which use triclosan as a topical antibacterial.
I don’t recall offhand the mechanism of action of triclosan, but a web search might bring it up.
Toaster, glad to hear you’re looking at the simple stuff; handwashing works.
Antimicrobial/antibacterial is the same thing. Companies vie for the most clinical-sounding name.
The handwashing liquid business is VERY big right now with manufacturers putting varying concentrations of germ killing compounds in their product. Bacteria are by and large weak and almost ANY soap and water will diminish their numbers a significant amount.
You hit the wood fastening device with the inertial driving tool when you wondered how we have lived this long without the wonders of Purell handscrub and its ilk. Lots of hysteria involved w/ the bacterial world and some of it is deserved, but, a simple handwash w/ soap and water is sufficient for everyday protection. Save your money for beer.
GB
Chrome toaster said:
"If not, how have we survived so long without antibacterial soap? "
For that matter, how did we survive so long without soap?
The use of soap might prevent some disease, but it’s not essential. Americans tend to use a lot of soap but that’s fairly recent. The main purpose of soap is saponification, which is the process that reduces the surface tension of the water, making it “wetter” so it is more effective at washing away dirt and oil.
I deal with a lot of people on a daily basis, and try to wash my hands fairly often.
In my mind, the jury is still out on the efficacy of anti-bacterial handsoaps, but I do use instant hand sanitizer by Purell, which is 90% alcohol. This kills germs without danger of resistance.
VB
Remember, you can tune a piano, but you can’t tuna fish!
I found it interesting that when I did a very quick AOL search (I will go back later when I have more time, which is when I can pull myself away from the StraightDope) of Tricosan, and it came up with these three topics:
Hmmm very interesting conglomeration of topics!
CT
Vestal, the alcohol based hand products are great for certain environments (alcohol is an excellent antibacterial, BTW). A friend is an elementary school librarian and surrounded by snotty noses all day long. She doesn’t have a sink nearby so uses an alcohol scrub as an adjunct to washing. So far, so good
Toaster,
That’s because it’s triclosan, not tricosan. Try the link below, it’s one of the first that came up when I did a search; there were plenty of others, too many to post links.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_145000/145955.stm
Correct me if I am wrong, but I had thought that soap, being a long-chain phospholipid polar at one end (the alkali) and non-polar at the other (the fat or lipid, bonded on to oils and fats one the one end and onto highly polar water molecules on the other, thus allowing them to be washed away together under a rinse. I, personally,have never heard of ‘saponification’, although i can’t reliably state that it is hog-wash (pun intended)I am fairly certain that making water “wetter” is somewhat of an obtuse explanation.
Also, regular long-chain phospholipids are quite anti-bacterial/microbial (bacteria are microbes therefore the two are somewhat interchangeable) int hat they bond to the parts of the cell membrane and if agitated will pull a bacteria apart.
If you want to see DNA strands (big clumps of them, they are normally too small to see even with a good microscope) but a bacteria culture in a test tube, apply some liquid dish soap and gently agitate. The two should separate. then simply throw it ni a centrifuge and look at under high objective microscope. At leats,t hat’s what i remember fromthe experiment. I always liked physics better.
“C’mon, it’s not even tomorrow yet…” - Rupert
If you need a graphic solution, http:\ alk.to\Piglet
Our skins are covered with local and pretty harmless “flora and fauna” that is said to discourage some of the other more dangerous bacteria. Using a stong anti-biotic soap kills off our local “good” stuff and can allow the growth of some pretty awful “bad” bacteria.
I’ve seen this kind of infection called folliculitis - kind of generic bag-all name which may involve a hair follicle or not.
Not only were the individuals given what used to be called something like “reserve antibiotic” but told to change to a non-antibiotic soap.
Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.
Oops… Heh heh, Yeah, I kin read! (Thanks, APB!! I probably wouldn’t have noticed my error, and driven myself crazy trying to find nonexistent info!)
The thought of creating resistant strains of bacteria by using antibacterial soap is somewhat alarming. Is it something that we should be alarmed at, do you think? Or is that being overly paranoid?
CT
Maybe when my time comes
I will have guessed.
Chrome Toaster
I wouldn’t worry too much about creating resistant bacteria strains by bathing with anti-bacterials. Their action is different than the anti-biotics used internally.
Think about it, we have been bathing in anti-bacterial water for decades, chlorine ring a bell? If there was a need for concern, I imagine we would have seen an an alarming rise in chlorine resistant bacteria, especially in pool swimmers, long ago.
Here is an excellent link on just that topic. Published by Scientific American. Good solid fact here.
I missed the connection between that link EvilGhandi provided and antibacterial soap.
You know that chlorine in our drinking water isn’t enough to kill the bacteria on our skin; gee, I’d just woosh water on boo-boos and walk off - won’t kill the germs in your socks or undies either.
Pools have their own problems with bacteria and chlorine some how I haven’t heard of it having the same effect on our skin as antibacterial soaps do.
Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.
Ack,
Sorry Jois, wrong link. I thought it was another SciAmerican article discussing the possiblity of bacteria aquiring resistance to anti-bacterials like those in soaps and clorine.
It’s a good link however and it does touch breifly on the subject. Just not the one I thought it was. I’ll go hunting for it later.
Your reply does illustrate my point though. Since resistance is often caused by underdosage, (clorine in water isn’t strong enough to kill much bacteria) then why dont we see clorine resistant strains popping up? Super fungi that eat pool users?
It’s a valid question though. After all, insects seem to become tolerant to deadly poision at an alarming speed. So why couldn’t bacteria do the same with woosie levels of anti-bacterials found in soap?
A good question, just not one I can answer without my trusty links to back me up.
Okay found it. though it doesn’t say quite what I remember. Maybe I was thinking of something else.
http://www.sciam.com/1998/0398issue/0398levybox1.html
Hey BigRoryG, You’re correct, I screwed up. Saponification is part of soap making process, (see attached site for details),
the term I was intending to use is surfactant.
http://tnpinc.home.texas.net/soap1.html
I’m going in for LASIK eye surgery later today (no more glasses!), and as part of the preparation the doctor told me to wash my face (and to make sure that included my eyebrows) with antibacterial soap the night before and the morning of.
I bought a bottle of Jergens Antibacterial soap, and I’ve just looked at its ingredients list. It lists only one active ingredient - triclosan.
Good distinction Ghandi.
Triclosan, chlorhexidine gluconate, etc., kill by cell membrane disruption or some sort of physical dismemberment of the organism. Antibiotics (ABX) are taken up into the bug where they mess with replication mechanisms. That’s how bacteria can become resistant: incomplete killing leaves the resistant bugs behind to propagate.
FWIW, the bugs are gonna win every time.
GB
This site has some good info, it’s put out by the Soap and Detergent Association so it’s not unbiased but seems reasonable. http://www.sdahq.org/about/sda_news.html#faq