Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T14:14:00.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disinifectants for use in bar-soaps

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Hurst ,
L. W. Stuttard  and
R. C. S. Woodroffe
A. Hurst
Affiliation:
Unilever Limited, Food Research Department, Colworth House, Sharnbrook, Bedford
L. W. Stuttard
Affiliation:
Unilever Limited, Food Research Department, Colworth House, Sharnbrook, Bedford
R. C. S. Woodroffe
Affiliation:
Unilever Limited, Food Research Department, Colworth House, Sharnbrook, Bedford
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Part I

1. The following disinfectants were investigated for use in bar-soaps: Hexachlorophene (G11) (2:2′-dihydroxy-3:5:6:3′5′:6:′-hexachlorodiphenylmethane); Actamer (2:2′-thiobis, 4-6-dichlorophenol); DCMX (dichloro-m-xylenol); TMTD (3:4:5-tetramethyl thiuram disulphide); TCC (3:4:4′-trichlorcarbanilide); TBS (3:4′:5-tribromsalicylanilide) and TCS (3:3′:4′:5-tetrachlorsalicylanilide).

2. The concentration required for bacteriostasis of Staph. aureus was 2·5 p.p.m. for DCMX and 0·1 p.p.m. for TCS, the other disinfectants falling between these values. None were effective against E. coli, 12·5–50 p.p.m. being required for bacteriostasis (Tabel 1).

3. In the presence of serum the concentration required for bacteriostasis was increased (Table 4).

4. The soap inactivation coefficient (S.I.C.) is a value derived from zone diffusion tests. Zone diameters of the same disinfectant are compared in soap and soap-free solution so that the S.I.C. measures the effect of soap on disinfectant activity.

5. DCMX is inactivated by soap (S.I.C. = ∞). The activity of G 11 is much reduced by soap (S.I.C. = 200). Actamer and TMTD are active in soap, whereas TCC, TBS and particularly TCS is more active in soap than soap-free solution (S.I.C. = 0·32) (Table 3).

6. Another test based on zone diffusion is described which measures the effect of soap-soluble skin substances on disinfectant activity. Zone diameters of the same disinfectant are compared in fresh soap and used soap solutions.

7. Of the disinfectants tested only TMTD lost some of its activity in the presence of soap-soluble skin substances (Table 5).

Part II

8. Conventional bacteriological plate-counting technique was used to enumerate bacteria in wash-water. The bacteria were removed from hands by using a standardized washing procedure with bar-soap but without scrubbing.

9. Bacteria were not removed uniformly when washing was carried out twelve times in succession, significantly more bacteria being removed at the beginning of of the washing procedure.

10. When the same individuals were tested at weekly intervals the rate at which bacteria were removed in successive washes was found to vary significantly.

11. Using a single standardized wash the variation in the count of twenty individuals was followed for a period of 16 months. The count from one individual could vary by a factor of 10.

12. A design for a handwashing test, to take account of these variables is described. The bacterial counts of the wash-water when subjects used control soap for 1 week was compared with counts obtained from subjects using disinfectant soap. Subjects and soaps were randomized according to multiple Latin squares.

13. This handwashing technique was used to test the disinfectants described in Part I of this paper. All these disinfectants were effective but tetrachlorsalycilanilide (TCS) was the best. Soap containing 0·5% TCS caused an 84% reduction (Table 9).

The authors wish to thank Dr H. Wilkinson for the ideas he contributed and the interest he has shown in this work, and the Directors of Unilever Limited for permission to publish this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 1960 , pp. 159 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

References

REFERENCES

Annotation (1959). Brit. med. J. i, 1398.Google Scholar
Arnold, L. (1942). J. invest. Derm. 5, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, R. L. & Rosenthal, S. A. (1954). J. invest. Derm. 23, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bean, H. S. & Berry, H. (1950). J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2, 484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, C. S. & Mallmann, W. L. (1932). J. Lab. clin. Med. 18, 1249.Google Scholar
Burtenshaw, J. M. L. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 575.Google Scholar
Burtenshaw, J. M. L. (1942). J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cade, A. R. (1950). J. Soc. cosmet. Chem. 2, 281.Google Scholar
Diasis, F. A. (1934). Med. Rev. of Revs., N.Y., 40, 421.Google Scholar
Egan, R. R. & Reed, M. D. (1953). Soap, N.Y., 29, 42.Google Scholar
Evans, C. A., Smith, W. M., Johnston, S. H. & Giblet, E. R. (1950). J. invest. Dermatol. 15, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firmenich & Co. Ltd. (1954). Soap Perfum. Cosm. 27, 165.Google Scholar
Gemmell, J. (1952). Mfg. Chem. 23, 63.Google Scholar
Gillespie, W. A., Simpson, K. & Tozer, R. C. (1958). Lancet, ii, 1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gump, W. S. (1945). Soap, N.Y., 21, 36.Google Scholar
Gump, W. S. & Cade, A. R. (1952). Soap, N.Y., 28, 52.Google Scholar
Hare, R. & Ridley, M. (1958). Brit. med. J. i, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, R. & Thomas, C. G. A. (1956). Brit. med. J. i, 840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellatt, A. (1948). Ann. Med. exp. Fenn, Suppl. 26.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. & Muras, R. (1955). J. appl. Bact. 18, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, M. P. & Minch, V. A. (1951). Food Res. 16, 133.Google Scholar
Hufnagel, C. A., Walker, C. W. & Howard, R. W. (1948). Surgery, 23, 753.Google Scholar
Källander, A. (1953). Nordisk hyg. Tidskr. nos. 1–2, 1–8.Google Scholar
Kempf, A. H. & Nungester, W. J. (1942). J. infect. Dis. 71, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killian, J. A. (1950). Proc. Sci. Sect. Toilet Goods Ass. 34, 13.Google Scholar
Laurie, P. & Jones, B. (1952). J. Pharm. 168, 288.Google Scholar
Lovell, D. L. (1945). Surg. Gynec. Obstet. 81, 174.Google Scholar
Lowbury, E. J. L. & Fox, J. (1953). J. Hyg., Camb., 51, 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, E. & Vicher, A. E. (1943). Arch. Surg. 47, 468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, A. A., Williams, R. E. O. & Clayton-Cooper, R. (1944). J. Path. Bact. 56, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monsanto Chemical Company (1953). Technical Bulletin ODB-53-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monsanto Chemical Company (1957). Technical Bulletin O-4.Google Scholar
Nungester, W. J., Thirlby, R. L. & Vial, A. B. (1949). Surg. Gynec. Obstet. 88, 639.Google Scholar
Payne, A. M. M. (1949). Mon. Bull. Minist. Hlth Lab. Serv. 263.Google Scholar
Pohle, W. D. & Stuart, L. D. (1940). J. infect. Dis. 67, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, B. & Bonnet, A. (1948). Surgery, 24, 542.Google Scholar
Price, P. B. (1938). J. infect. Dis. 63, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. B. (1954). Antiseptics, Disinfectants, Fungicides and Sterilisation, ed. Reddish, p. 321. London: Henry Kimpton.Google Scholar
Ricketts, C. R., Squire, J. R., Topley, E. & Lilly, H. A. (1951). Clin. Sci. 10, 89.Google Scholar
Shelley, W. B., Hurley, H. J. & Nichols, A. C. (1953). Arch. Derm. Syph., N.Y., 194, 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shumard, R. S., Beaver, D. J. & Hunter, M. C. (1953). Soap, N.Y., 29, 34.Google Scholar
Story, P. (1952). Brit. med. J. ii, 1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, J. S. & Kligman, A. M. (1956). J. invest. Derm. 27, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, G. J. (1955). J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 7, 561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traub, E. F., Newhall, C. A. & Fuller, J. R. (1944). Surg. Gynec. Obstet. 79, 205.Google Scholar
Vinson, L. J. (1954). Soap N.Y., 30, 44.Google Scholar
Walker, J. E. (1924). J. infect. Dis. 35, 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. E. (1925). J. infect. Dis. 37, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. E. (1926). J. infect. Dis. 38, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. E. O. (1946). J. Path. Bact. 58, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar