What is the 0.1% of Bacteria That Antibacterial Products Can't Kill?

[dleacock]

"Kills 99.9% of bacteria"

You know how on basically all anti-bactiera product commericals (soap, kictchen cleaner, hand santizer..etc), they always say "kills 99.9% of bacteria", what I'm wondering is, what is that 0.1% that they can't kill, is it something specific?

hope this doesn't sound like to silly of a question

 

[shruth]

Bacteria, due to a variety of reasons, have the ability to develop resistance to most anti-bacterial agents. So if a large enough sample of bacteria are taken, there will be a very very tiny fraction which are resistant. So when they say 99.9% of bacteria, they are acknowledging this fact.

Though different bacterial strains have varying capacities to develop resistance, I do not know of any specific strains which are resistant to disinfectants in general. Maybe a bacteriologist might offer her/his opinion.

 

[dleacock]

ok, heh... cause what I'm picturing is this strain of bacertia that's immune to it, and its that %0.1

I find bacteria to be really interesting, I found this used biology textbook on amazing. looking forward to that comming in

 

[iansmith]

There is two to consider when you try to sanitize or sterilize a surface or any other thing: Time and the number of bacteria present. Resistance has nothing to do with it most of the time.

Here how it works. In the product there is specific concentration of the anti-bacterial agent inside. So when you spread the product, there is a limited amount of chemical that can interact with a specific number of bacteria at a time. So the larger the number of bacteria the larger the amount of product must be applied. Also, time is another factor. The product take a certain amount of time to interact with its target and takes a certain amount of time to kill the target.

So when they test their product, they used it as described in their direction. So they set a specfic number a bacteria on a surface and then treat the surface. They then recover the bacteria from the surface and count them. the lower the number the more efficient the killing by the product. So at 99.9% your product can handle about 1000 bacteria per mL or cm³. The more the 9 the better.

Also you have to take into account that science does not work with absolute certainties. Although we recover a given amount of bacteria only part of that recovered material is looked at and there might be mistake. Therefore there is no way for people to know for sure that 100% of the bacteria have been killed.

 

[shruth]

cause what I'm picturing is this strain of bacertia that's immune to it, and its that %0.1

No...I am pretty positive that it is not anyone particular bacterial strain. But species like Staphylococcus have a very high resistance development rate.
Bacteria are interesting...because they have had millions of years to evolve more than we have had

 

[dleacock]

makes sense, thanks for the response.

I also read that bacteria have the ability to pass their genetics onto other bacteria that isn't of their decent, it was called "hortizontal..." something. is this true?

 

[iansmith]

I also read that bacteria have the ability to pass their genetics onto other bacteria that isn't of their decent, it was called "hortizontal..." something. is this true?

Yes it true. It is called Horizontal gene transfer (HGT). There is different ways a bacteria can pick up DNA from another bacteria.

There something called conjugation. This is dependent on a cell to cell contact.
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/animations/conjugation/conj_frames.htm

Some bacteria can also pick up DNA from the environment. The best examples are Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae.

Also viruses may transfer bacterial genetic material into a new recipent.

 

[scott1]

It might be a legel thing if it says it killes 100% of bacteria the FDA or somthing might do some testing and then they find some of the bacteria doesn't get killed they might make them do a recall or somthing.If it says 99.9% it whould adovid them form going to court.

 

[DaveC426913]

This, by the way, is why anti-bacterial soaps are a bad idea. They wipe out perfectly good, harmless bacteria and leave behind resistant types as well as lots of rich feeding ground for other types to thrive.

Anti-bacterial soaps are actually going to be the cause of widespread bacterial infections.

Same logic goes for antibiotics.

Did we learn nothing from Wells' Martians?

 

[matthyaouw]

This, by the way, is why anti-bacterial soaps are a bad idea. They wipe out perfectly good, harmless bacteria and leave behind resistant types as well as lots of rich feeding ground for other types to thrive.
Anti-bacterial soaps are actually going to be the cause of widespread bacterial infections.
Same logic goes for antibiotics.
Did we learn nothing from Wells' Martians?

I've actually been meaning to ask about that for a while, so thanks for the pre-empive answer!

One question though- In order to prevent the spread of MRSA and other resistant strains, some hospital wards have alcohol based handwash despensers at the entrance to each ward, and won't allow you to enter until you've cleaned your hands. Are these a good idea or not?

 

[iansmith]

This, by the way, is why anti-bacterial soaps are a bad idea. They wipe out perfectly good, harmless bacteria and leave behind resistant types as well as lots of rich feeding ground for other types to thrive.
Anti-bacterial soaps are actually going to be the cause of widespread bacterial infections.
Same logic goes for antibiotics.
Did we learn nothing from Wells' Martians?

The problem is not the use of anti-bacterial soaps but the misuses of it.

I don't think the general public should have acces to anti-bacterial soap. Most people do not know how to use soap and wash their hand properly.

Efficient anti-bacterial soaps and antibiotics that are used properly are very powerfull tool. Resistance is harder to acquire when these are use properly.

One question though- In order to prevent the spread of MRSA and other resistant strains, some hospital wards have alcohol based handwash despensers at the entrance to each ward, and won't allow you to enter until you've cleaned your hands. Are these a good idea or not?

Washing your hand is always the best idea to prevent disease.

The mode of action of alcohol against bacteria is different then most antibacterial agent. It is very hard for resistance to develop against alcohol even when misused. These solution should have 70-75% alcohol content. This concentration is the most best for killing. The only problem alcohol does not kill spores, some viruse and fungus but luckly Staph aureus does not produce spores.

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem is not the use of anti-bacterial soaps but the misuses of it.
I don't think the general public should have acces to anti-bacterial soap.

Agreed. It should be used in circumstances where cleanliness is particularly important. Note that these clean conditions are temporary. Once that situation (such as surgery or other hospital things) is resolved, one goes back to normal bacteria presence. That way, one never gets vulnerable.

Washing your hand is always the best idea to prevent disease.

This is true. And note that normal washing cleans mostly due to mechanical removal, so no issues about resistance - and it works on all types of critters, including spores etc. It also removes the oils and dirt that these critters thrive on.


As for alcohol stations and hospital clean conditions, don't get my wife started on that. She worked front-line during the SARS scare here in Toronto. Wacky. Great gaping holes in protocol.

 

[dleacock]

how does normal soap then do the trick of killing bacteria?

If I'm understand the issue correctly, the problem with antibacterial soap is that it kills both good and bad bacteria, right?

Well how does regular soap then work? Does it just take off dirt and grime which the bacteria would live off?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, it also mechanically removes the bacteria. That, as I understand it, is the preferred way.

 

[Mk]

The problem is not the use of anti-bacterial soaps but the misuses of it.
I don't think the general public should have acces to anti-bacterial soap. Most people do not know how to use soap and wash their hand properly.

Where can I get a hand washing guide?

This solution should have 70-75% alcohol content. This concentration is the most best for killing. The only problem alcohol does not kill spores, some viruse and fungus but luckly Staph aureus does not produce spores.

Is that evaporating hand soap antibacterial than? I think it's 60-65% usually.

 

[selfAdjoint]

how does normal soap then do the trick of killing bacteria?
If I'm understand the issue correctly, the problem with antibacterial soap is that it kills both good and bad bacteria, right?
Well how does regular soap then work? Does it just take off dirt and grime which the bacteria would live off?

My daughter, who knows something about these issues, says the surfactants in soap, designed to break down fatty and waxy substances, disrupt the cell walls.

She also confirmed that the 99.9% is a science thing, lab accuracy, not a government or legal thing. In fact she says the Department of Health refers to the 99.9% level of activity as "100% effectiveness".

 

[iansmith]

If I'm understand the issue correctly, the problem with antibacterial soap is that it kills both good and bad bacteria, right?
?

Both regular and antibacterial soap have a broad spectrum of activity. So both good and bad bacteria will be kill.

Where can I get a hand washing guide?

Any health related agency should have a hand washing protocol to be distributed to the population.