Antibacterial Activity Of Some Household Surface Cleaners Against Common Pathogens. Vol 8 (1), Jan 2017 ISSN: 2305 - 8722 23 R A D S J . B i o l . R e s . A p p l . S c i 23 Op e n Ac c e ss F u l l L e n g t h A r t i c l e Antibacterial Activity of Some Household Surface Cleaners against Common Pathogens Sahifa Naz1 and Farkhanda Afaque1* 1 Department of Microbiology, Jinnah University for Women A B S T R A C T Surface cleaner has been widely used to control infections and its transmission. In Hospitals Antiseptics are used to control microbial growth on living tissues and inanimate objects. The activity of six commercial household surface cleaner, Dettol, Phenyl, Harpic, Max, sweepy and local surface cleaner were tested against common pathogens of 10 different species of each strains of Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeroginosa and Bacillus subtilis. Disc diffusion method were implanted with different concentrations of 100%,75%,50%,25% for each surface cleaner and applied on MHA. After incubation of 24 hours inhibition zones were measured as the maximum zone of inhibition were observed by Staphylococcus aureus at 75 % concentration and the minimum zone of inhibition were observed by Bacillus subtilis at 25 % concentrations. This conducted study showed effectively killing of Disinfectant in all test organisms and provide greatest protection in the transmission of diseases. Keywords Antimicrobial activity, Surface cleaners, Potential pathogens, Health risk. Address of Correspondence farahasiddiqui@hotmail.com Article info. Received: April 3, 2017 Accepted: May 29, 2017 Cite this article: Naz S, Afaque F. Antibacterial Activity Of Some Household Surface Cleaners Against Common Pathogens. RADS j. biol. Res. Appl. Sci 8(1):23-25. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Funding Source: Nil Conflict of Interest: Nil I n t r o d u c t i o n The health of a man is the major part of life , health hazards can be very severe and more often leads to death (1). Therefore, the environment should be clean and free from harmful microorganisms to prevent as much diseases as possible to remain healthy. This condition can be accompanied by using disinfectants and surface cleaners (2,3). The personal hygiene should be maintained by proper hand washing and using different cleaners and disinfectant to avoid the attack of bacteria that are the major cause of health hazards (4) and causes the GIT infections which are the main reason of food borne diseases. Food borne diseases affect human by ingestion or drinking contaminated water and food with microorganisms. The kitchen utensils become contaminated with Staphylococcus mainly S. aureus causes food borne gastroenteritis. They include nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, sweating, headache and prostration (5). In order to prevent infection it's highly important to use trusted detergents that kill pathogenic microorganism. According to Osbore and Grobe by using antiseptic Surface 65 to 85% removal of bacteria could be attained from human skin (6). Transient bacteria are attached to the skin and cause many infections these bacteria include Pseudomonas aeruginosa (7) and Staphylococcus aureus (8). Cleaning surfaces are essential to obtain the germs free environment. Many products are used to clean the surfaces but all products give the varying results. Some products are designed to work best on specific surfaces and/or soils few of them are Dettol, Harpic, Phenyl etc that can be effective to E.coli, S.aureus, Pseudomonas and B.subtillus. O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E Antibacterial Activity Of Some Household Surface Cleaners Against Common Pathogens. Vol 8 (1), Jan 2017 ISSN: 2305 - 8722 24 R A D S J . B i o l . R e s . A p p l . S c i 24 Using wel diffusion method, different disinfectants are evaluated on the human skin flora and surface flora (9). Identification of bacterial species that are most resistant to the antibacterial surface cleaners of daily use was also made. In an analysis of the action of a disinfectant, there are some compounds that act upon different components of the cell such as acidic or alkaline compounds, chlorine derivatives, amphoteric compounds, phenolic compounds, Hydrogen Peroxides and Ozone. It may often be difficult to distinguish between the primary stage (characteristic of the mode of action) and the secondary stage (merely a consequence of the action). Precisely these compounds act upon cell wall, cell membrane, energy metabolism, cytoplasm, nucleus and even kill the spores (10). This study shows the comparison of different surface cleaners such as the branded surface cleaners against locally manufactured surface cleaners as well as this study also shows the effect of selected surface cleaners against different pathogens. M a t e r i a l s a n d M e t h o d Sample collection and culture preparation: The samples are taken from different companies including Dettol, Phenyl, Harpic, Sweepy, Max and local surface cleaner. Nutrient broth used for each culture including S.aureus, E.coli, P.aeroginosa , B.subtilis and incubate for 24 hours. Preparation of Sterile Disc: Filter disks about 5 mm in diameter were made from Whatman’s No.3 filter paper wrapped in aluminum foil. Each sterile disc was incorporated individually with 40 μl of detergent with various concentrations (25%, 50% and 100%). Assay of Antimicrobial Activity: Using sterile forceps, discs impregnated with different dilution and different disinfectants were placed on each of the plates inoculated with the test organisms. The forceps was used to press down each of the disc gently against the agar surface so as to ensure good contact. The plates were incubated in an inverted position at 37oC for 24 hours. The zones of inhibition were observed. R e s u l t s The average sensitive zone for Escherichia coli were 3.2cm, Staphylococcus aureus were 2.7cm, Pseudomonas aeruginosa were 2.6cm, Bacillus subtilis were 2.4cm at 100%. The intermediate zones for Escherichia coli were 2.4cm, Staphylococcus aureus 2.8cm, Pseudomonas aeruginosa 2.4cm, Bacillus subtilis were 2.2cm at 75%. Intermedaite zones for Escherichia coli were 2.7cm, Staphylococcus aureus 2.6cm, Pseudomonas aeruginosa 2.4 cm, Bacillus subtilus were 2.1cm at 50%. Other zones for Escherichia coli 2.6cm, Staphylococcus aureus 2.7cm, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were 2.5cm, Bacillus subtilus 0.8cm. Whereas Harpic, Phenyl, Sweepy were not show any zones. D i s c u s s i o n The effect of Dettol® was assessed by (11) against some microorganisms associated with nosocomial infection including Staphylococcusaureus, it was highly effective like this study results, results of this study regarding Dettol® are similar to that obtained by (12) as the study recorded inhibition zones ranging from 28 to 17 mm for 100% to 5% concentration. The antimicrobial properties of surface cleaner are very helpful against some pathogenic organisms such as multi- drug-resistant pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Bacillus subtilis. The Results of our Research is that the antibacterial effects of antiseptics different pathogens are not only dependent on the types of antiseptics but also on their concentrations. Sodium hypochlorite has a good activity against Staphylococcus aureus and it is the most used antiseptic compound in homes cleaning. It also shows that different types of microorganisms vary in their response to different types of antiseptics. Dettol, Max, and local surface cleaner were having highest activity against all pathogens. Antibacterial effect of Dettol was more effective against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Bacillus subtilis. Max was more effective against Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. Local surface cleaner was showed better antibacterial efficacy against common pathogens. Antibacterial Activity Of Some Household Surface Cleaners Against Common Pathogens. Vol 8 (1), Jan 2017 ISSN: 2305 - 8722 25 R A D S J . B i o l . R e s . A p p l . S c i 25 Table I: Antimicrobial activity of Dettol and Lemon Max against different bacteria Concentration Dettol Max S.aureus B.subtilus E.coli P.aeruginosa S.aureus B.subtilus E.coli P.aeruginosa 100% 2.7 cm 2.3 cm 3.2 cm 2.6 cm No Zone 27 cm 27 cm No Zone 75% 2.8 cm 2.2 cm 2.4 cm 2.5 cm No Zone 26 cm 17 cm No Zone 50% 2.6 cm 2.1 cm 2.7 cm 2.4 cm No Zone 21 cm 16 cm No Zone 25% 2.7 cm 0.8 cm 2.6 cm 2.6 cm No Zone 16 cm 15 cm No Zone Table II: Antimicrobial activity of Local Tile ash, Harpic, Sweepy and Phenyl against different bacteria Concentration Local Tile Wash Harpic Phenyl Sweepy S.aureus B.subtilus E.coli P.aeruginosa 100% 2.1 cm 2.1 cm 2.0 cm 1.3 cm No Zone No Zone No Zone 75% 1.9 cm 2.2 cm 1.3 cm 1.0 cm 50% 0.8 cm 1.6 cm 1.2 cm 1.0 cm 25% 0.8 cm 1.5 cm 1.2 cm 0.9 cm All strains of Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Bacillus subtilis are resistant to Phenyl, Harpic, and Sweepy . C o n c l u s i o n The research concludes that the surface cleaners and disinfectants can kill the bacterial pathogens and having bacteriostatic properties which is beneficial for preventing the people from many infections. The health care providers can use these cleaners to protect the immunocompromised patients from transmission of pathogenic or opurtunistic organisms. R e f e r e n c e s 1. Awodele O, Emeka PM, Agbamuche HC, Akintonwa A. The antimicrobial activities of some commonly used disinfectants on Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans. Afr J Biotechnol. 2007;6(8). 2. Moses I, Rosemary M, Linda A and Nsikak A. Antimicrobial activity of some cleaning products against selected bacteria. Int Res J Pharma Appl Sci. 2013; 3(4):175-179. 3. Wang Z, Shen Y, Ma J, Haapasalo M. The effect of detergents on the antibacterial activity of disinfecting solutions in dentin. J Endod. 2012 Jul 31;38(7):948-53. 4. Bhat R, Prajna PS, Menezez VP, Shetty P. Antimicrobial activities of soap and detergents. Adv Biores. 2011 Dec;2(2):52-62. 5. Jay JM, Loessner MJ, Golden DA. Modern food microbiology. Springer Science & Business Media; 2008. 6. Osborne RC, Grube J. Hand disinfection in dental practice. Clin Prev Den. 1981;4(6):11-5. 7. Fluit AC, Schmitz FJ, Verhoef J. Frequency of isolation of pathogens from bloodstream, nosocomial pneumonia, skin and soft tissue, and urinary tract infections occurring in European patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Inf Dis. 2001;20(3):188-91. 8. Higaki S, Kitagawa T, Kagoura M, Morohashi M, Yamagishi T. Predominant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from various skin diseases. J Int Med Res. 2000;28(4):187-90. 9. Cheesbrough M. District laboratory practice in tropical countries. Cambridge university press; 2006. 10. Barrette Jr WC, Hannum DM, Wheeler WD, Hurst JK. General mechanism for the bacterial toxicity of hypochlorous acid: abolition of ATP production. Biochemistry. 1989;28(23):9172-8.. 11. Mahmood EL. Effect of Dettolâ on viability of some microorganisms associated with nosocomial infections. Afr J Biotechnol. 2008;7(10):1554. 12. Saha AK, Haque MF, Karmaker S, Mohanta MK. Antibacterial effects of some antiseptics and disinfectants. J Life and Earth Sci. 2009;3:19-21.