Nowadays, media and TV are flooded with various advt.
Obviously few are Spurious also.
Out of these the frequently seen is promotional advt of antimicrobial soaps.
Before we deal with the reality of these soaps, let?s perform microscopic examination of our skin and the related facts:
FACT-I
Our skin consists bacterias of two categories:
Transient Bacteria : which colonize the superficial layers of the skin, are more amenable to removal by routine handwashing.
Resident flora: which are attached to deeper layers of the skin, are more resistant to removal. Resident flora e.g., coagulase-negative staphylococci and diphtheroids.The hands of health Care Workers may become persistently colonized with pathogenic flora (e.g., S. aureus), gram-negative bacilli, or yeast.
Investigators have documented that, although the number of transient and resident flora varies considerably from person to person, it is often relatively constant for any specific person.
FACT-II
Bathing soaps do not remove bacterias. Bathing or showering cleans the skin by mechanical removal of bacteria shed on corneocytes. Bacterial counts are at least as high or higher after bathing or showering with a regular soap than before. Frequent bathing has aesthetic and stress-relieving benefits but serves little microbiologic purpose. Mild, nonantimicrobial soap should suffice for routine bathing.
FACT-III
What is the role of antimicrobial soaps?
I?ve seen too many literate(So called) urban people using antimicrobial soaps just because of the promotional advt on TV.
They try to pretend more aware about the health and hygiene(Even more than health care professionals).However, actually they are inviting a diseased skin.
Regular usage of antimicrobial soaps for bathing purpose may lead to changing the ecology and health of the skin and increasing resistance in the normal skin flora as described above.The numbers of organisms spread from the hands of nurses who washed frequently with an antimicrobial soap actually increased after a period of time; this increase is associated with declining skin health. In a recent survey, nurses with damaged hands were twice as likely to be colonized with S. hominis, S. aureus, gram-negative bacteria, enterococci, and Candida spp. and had a greater number of species colonizing the hands.
FACT-IV
Even with use of antiseptic preparations, which substantially reduce counts of hand flora, no reductions beyond an equilibrium level are attained
CONCLUSION:
The trend in both the general public and among health-care professionals toward more frequent washing with detergents, soaps, and antimicrobial ingredients needs careful reassessment in light of the damage done to skin and resultant increased risk for harboring and transmitting infectious agents. More washing and scrubbing are unlikely to be better and may, in fact, be worse. With those exceptions, available data do not support a recommendation for bathing with antimicrobial products.
Where the antimicrobial washing & bathing is actually indicated:
1. When skin infections are likely
2. Before certain surgical procedures.
3. The potential advantage of sustained antimicrobial activity for certain occupations (e.g., food handlers and child-care providers) must be balanced with the theoretical possibility of emergence of resistant strains and perhaps other, as yet unrecognized, safety issues.
SUBSTITUTE FOR ANTIMICROBIAL SOAPS IN SUCH SITUATIONS:
An alternative to detergent-based antiseptic products is the use of alcohol hand rinses, which have recently become widely available over the counter. Their advantages include rapid and broad-spectrum activity, excellent microbicidal characteristics, and lack of potential for emergence of resistance.
Alcohol-based products could be recommended for use among persons who need immediate protection after touching contaminated surfaces or before and after contact with someone at high risk for infection.