Skip the antibacterial soap: Regular suds work just as well

Antibacterial hand soaps containing a chemical flagged as potentially dangerous are not much better at killing germs than regular suds, researchers say. The chemical, triclosan, was one of the most common ingredients in antibacterial soaps, used by millions of people and generate $1billion (880 million euros) in sales annually in the U.S alone. But studies have linked it to antibiotic resistance and hormone problems, prompting a safety review by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that may yet lead to restrictions. A study in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy reports that when it comes to normal hand-washing, there is “no significant difference” between the bactericidal effects of plain soap and antibacterial soap.

This study shows that presence of antiseptic ingredients (in this case, triclosan) in soap does not always guarantee higher anti-microbial efficacy during hand washing.

Min-Suk Rhee, researcher of food bioscience and technology at Korea University in Seoul, South Korea.

The agent only became effective after microbes had been steeped in the stuff for nine hours, the authors found. To evaluate triclosan’s germ-killing abilities, the team placed 20 dangerous bacteria strains, including Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella enteritidis, in Petri dishes with either antibacterial or regular soap. The samples were heated to 22 or 40 degrees Celsius (72 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit), simulating exposure to warm or hot water for 20 seconds – the World Health Organization-advised duration for hand-washing.

At times less than six hours there was little difference between the two (soaps).

The researchers wrote of their tests.

Health antibacterial soap