Plain Soap in Dealing With Bacteria - Report Example

Plain Soap as Good as Antibacterial and Alcohol Containing Soap This scientific report demonstrates that Antibacterial Soaps and hand sanitizers that contain alcohol are as ineffective as plain soap on the bacterial properties. Since, there is a great variety of bacteria, effectiveness against any type of bacterium does not ascertain the effectiveness against the discrete types. However, plain soaps have some ability to remove loose and temporary microorganisms due to the physical rubbing during hand-wash (Ngo, 2005). Here, we will discuss about the characteristics of antibacterial as well as alcohol containing soaps. This report delineates an experiment which ascertains the similarity in the effects of all the types of soaps, regardless of their ‘so-called’ clinical features and claims. The result of this experiment is a failure which depicts the inefficiency of all kinds of soaps on bacteria and germs. 2. Introduction The recent marketing and promotion of antibacterial everything has transformed the consumer thought that an antibacterial soap is necessary to get rid of all the bacteria on the hands. Anti-bacterial agents have been pumped by manufacturers in to soap for several decades, although, it has been within the last decade that anti-bacterial soaps have been widely used (Ngo, 2005). However, there have been many discussions on this topic because of the super-bugs. Super-bugs are bacteria which are resistant to anti-biotic. This is due to the overuse of anti-biotic and thus, when people get sick and are in need of anti-biotic, a stronger anti-biotic has to be used, although, there are a limited number of anti-biotic available. A regular plain soap has the same effectiveness as that of an antibacterial soap containing triclosan and any other hand sanitizer containing alcohol. Hence, it is not necessary to consume a product which claims to be antibacterial in order to ensure that the hands would be free from germs that cause illness. Most of the liquid hand and body soaps contain anti-bacterial chemicals, out of which triclosan is a common ingredient, as is alcohol. Since, there is a great variety of bacteria; effectiveness against any given type of bacterium does not ensure that it is efficacious in comparison to any other related types. Generally, these are restrained to preservative level unless the product is labeled antibacterial, antiseptic, germicidal or deodorant. Triclosan, also known as Triclocarban or Trichlorocarbamide is a common ingredient used for antibacterial effect on the consumer products such as soap. It is a threat to the public health because of its ability to form anti-bacterial resistance (Ngo, 2005). In the first acknowledged comprehensive analysis of whether antibacterial soaps perform better than plain soaps, it was found out that washing hands with an antibacterial soap was no more efficacious in preventing infectious malady than the plain soap. Furthermore, antibacterial soaps at formulations sold to the public do not take away any more bacteria from the hands during washing than plain soaps. Many studies have concluded that merely washing hands or other body parts thoroughly with a plain soap is sufficient in order to reduce bacteria, and further, effective against virus. However, there are many other studies which reveal that soaps that contain antibacterial active ingredients prove to be beneficial for removing more bacteria than washing with plain soap and water. Despite the vast use of triclosan as an anti-bacterial agent, there is a very little evidence that it prevents diseases when used in house-hold consumer products like soaps (Ngo, 2005). In most of the antibacterial soaps, triclosan, which is the main ingredient, reacts in the cells, and causes some bacteria to become defiant to the commonly used drugs such as amoxicillin as the researchers say. These transformations have not been detected at the citizenry level; however, the bacteria bugs adapted in several lab experiments depicted resistance when they were exposed to as much as 0.1 per cent wt/vol triclosan soap. Triclosan inhibits the generation of a fatty acid vital to life within the bacteria cells as it functions by aiming at a bio-chemical pathway in the bacteria which enables the bacteria to keep their cell wall intact. The way in which triclosan kills the bacteria can result in mutations at the targeted site. A mutation could refer to the fact that triclosan can no longer get to the target site so as to kill the bacteria as the bacteria and the pathway has transformed forms. This report delineates the effectiveness of a regular soap in comparison to any other antibacterial soap or alcohol sanitizer. Further, it is inclusive of all the materials and methods involved in concluding so, and also, the inferences involved with it. The misuse of such antibacterial agents, which are used to treat infections over the last decades have resulted in serious problem of antibacterial resistances (Ngo, 2005). As a result, this report can prove to be an eye-opener to the conventional usage of anti-bacterial sanitizers. 3. Materials and Methods In order to arrive to a conclusion that a normal soap is as good as an antibacterial soap or any other hand sanitizer containing alcohol, several materials as well as apparatus would be required. Firstly, cakes of hand-soaps that contain triclosan, since, triclosan is so effective that it can form cancer-causing compounds in every-day use (Ngo, 2005). Secondly, cakes of regular anti-bacterial hand soaps, thirdly, hand sanitizers which contain alcohol, fourthly, at least six sterile cotton swabs and six Tryptic Soy Agar plates or the TSA plates which are used for the isolation and cultivation of non-fastidious as well as fastidious micro-organisms. The reason for using TSA plates is that TSA is a general purpose media produced with the help of enzymatic digestion of soybean meal and casein, since it is the base media for all plate types. The method for the experiment involves the attainment of samples by swabbing one person’s hand, ensuring that they haven’t use any kind of hand soap or hand sanitizer. Then, the person hand is swabbed again after he has used one of the products. It has to be kept in mind that when the hand soap is applied, the person is supposed to use proper hand wash procedures viz. washing hands in warm water for 30 seconds. On the other hand, when the person is made to use the hand sanitizer, he is supposed to rub his hands until the hand sanitizer gets completely dissolved in his hands. This method involves the usage of eight different types of products, and therefore, after the person cleans his hands, he is supposed to walk around and touch different objects so that the effectiveness of the product is duly tested. This method is used throughout the entire process. The TSA plates are incubated at room temperature for the reason that all the objects that are supposed to come in contact with the person will be at room temperature. About 3-4 centimeters of the person’s palm is supposed to be tested, which totally varies with the size of the person’s hand. The laboratory workers need to ensure that the samples are obtained from the same person’s palm throughout the entire process. Further, the process is supposed to undergo under the strict usage of distilled water throughout so that the bacteria on the person’s palm is easily picked up. However, the requirement for distilled water is limited to the covering of cotton on the cotton swab. 4. Results The results of this test are interpreted in the format of the number of bacterial colonies on every TSA plate. In the first case, when the person washed his hands with a regular hand soap, the number of bacterial colonies which were 10, incremented up to 43 after the hand-wash. On the other hand, when the person was made to apply to his hands the alcohol containing hand sanitizer, the bacterial colonies on the plate which were 51 previously, reduced to only 13 prior to the hand wash. Similarly, when the person was made to wash his with the hand-soap that contains triclosan, the number of bacterial colonies on the TSA plate reduced to 17, which were previously 74, before the hand-wash. 4.1. Morphology of the Unknown Samples: 1. Pseudomonas Aeruginosa: It has come out to be gram negative, lactose and glucose test as negative and nitrate test as positive. This is the member of the Gamma Protobacteria class of Bacteria (Todar, 2008). It is a Gram-Negative, aerobic rod which belongs to the bacterial family Pseudomonadaceae. This family of macromolecules includes only the members of genus Pseudomonas which are cleaved in to eight groups. This bacterium is ubiquitous in soil and water, and on surfaces in contact with soil and water. It is an opportunistic pathogen, which means that it exploits some break in the host defenses in order to initiate an infection. In fact, Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the epitome of an opportunistic pathogen of humans. It causes urinary tract infections, respiratory system infections, dermatitis, soft tissue infections, gastrointestinal infections and a variety of other systemic infections. This is a crucial problem in patients who are hospitalized with cancer, cystic fibrosis and burns. 2. Neisseria Mucosa: It is gram negative, with glucose acid and gas, and nitrate test as positive. These are the bacteria causing infections such as endocarditis (Tronel et. al, 2001). 3. Neisseria Sicca: It is gram negative, with glucose acid and gas test as positive, where as, nitrate is negative. It is a bacterial species found in the mucous membranes of the human respiratory tract. It was previously classified as a non-pathogenic organism, but is not cognizant as a cause of many infections, which include endocarditis and meningitis. It has not been reported as a cause of peritonitis. 4. Panula Inconstans: It has come out to be negative for lactose, indole as well as urea. However, it is glucose positive. It is a small species, is brown in color with uniquely clear, prominent dorsal sculpture (Mock, 2004). Male gonopods are without the spine on the internal face of the telopodite. Both the species can be distinguished fairly and easily by color and body-size. 5. Corynebacterium Pseudodiptheriticum: It is Gram positive, non-motile rod, orange in color, and also known as Corynebacterium Hofmannii (Nathan et. al, 1973). It is negative for spore information and mannitol, and positive for catalase. It is a milky translucent on the BHIA slant at ~25 degree faranheit. 5. Conclusion For most of the human chronology, soap has always been used to get rid of germs by making surface dirt and oils slippery enough to be rubbed and rinsed off. However, human made chemicals have altered the traditional recipe. Manufacturers are increasingly fortifying liquid soaps and body washes and other inputs which include the so-called germ-fighting ‘antibacterial’ properties, thereby, touting the benefits of doing so (Pennybacker, 2008). After scrutinizing every aspect of soaps and the results related to it in this experiment, it can be concluded that proper and frequent hand washing is the only solution to keep away from germs and bacteria, regardless of the kind of soaps we bring to use. Moreover, studies have revealed that antibacterial soaps are not significantly more effective at fighting germs than regular soaps. Even worse, their prominence is contributing to the growing problem of drug-resistance, thereby, creating greater opportunities for the appearance of deadly super-bugs which are immune to the germ fighting agents. Consequently, many anti-biotic and other relevant compounds use to combat the life-threatening infections like malaria and tuberculosis are no longer as efficacious as they once were. It can be concluded that when it comes to germ prevention, there is no real substitute to plain soap and water. Some researchers have become concerned with the overwhelming acceptance of these anti-bacterial soaps and cleansers by the public. They think that the organisms will become resistant to all the biocides making them useless and they believe that the biocide-resistant bacteria might also resist their slaughter by anti-biotics which are used in the treatment of bacterial diseases. The results of this experiment delineate that plain soaps have the same effect as that of the antibacterial soaps or any other soaps containing alcohol and it is very important to use the soaps which do not contain triclosan for the sake of our environment (Ngo, 2005). The study has shown that antibacterial soaps have not demonstrated that they were effective than plain soaps at prevention of infection or reducing bacterial levels on the hands. Moreover, it has demonstrated that there is an increased risk of resistance to anti-biotic with the continuous usage of anti-bacterial soaps. 6. References 1. Pennybacker, Mindy. SOAP. The Green Guide. Massachusetts: Worldwatch Institute, 2008. 2. Todar, Kenneth. Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Todars Online Textbook of Bacteriology, 2008. 3. Tronel et. al. Endocarditis Due to Neisseria Mucosa After Tongue Piercing. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 7; Number 5. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2001. 4. Mock, Andrej. First record of Polydesmus inconstans Latzel, 1884 (Diplopoda, Polydesmidae) in Slovakia. Faunistical Notes. Biologia, Bratislava, 59/5: 552, 2004. 5. Nathan A. W. et. al. Clinical Nephrology. Germany: Dustri-Verlag Dr Karl Feistle, 1973. 6. Ngo, Ky. 2005, Antibacterial Soap: Unnecessary and Harmful. California: San Diego Oceans Foundation. Pp. 1-8. 7. Stedman Medical Spellchecker. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2006. Read More