Kills 99.9% of bacteria

  • Thread starter dleacock
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Bacteria
In summary, anti-bacterial products claim to kill 99.9% of bacteria, but this is due to the fact that bacteria can develop resistance to anti-bacterial agents. Testing is done with a specific number of bacteria, and the more nines the better the product is at killing them. Bacteria can also transfer genetic material to each other, making it harder to completely eradicate them. However, the misuse of anti-bacterial products can lead to the development of resistant strains. In hospitals, alcohol-based handwashes are a good way to prevent the spread of resistant bacteria.
  • #1
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 :redface:
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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
 
  • #4
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
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 :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #6
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?
 
  • #7
dleacock said:
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.
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
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?
 
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
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?
 
  • #11
DaveC426913 said:
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.

matthyaouw said:
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.
 
  • #12
iansmith said:
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.


iansmith said:
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.
 
  • #13
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?
 
  • #14
Well, it also mechanically removes the bacteria. That, as I understand it, is the preferred way.
 
  • #15
iansmith said:
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.
 
  • #16
dleacock said:
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".
 
Last edited:
  • #17
dleacock said:
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.

Mk said:
Where can I get a hand washing guide?

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

What does "Kills 99.9% of bacteria" mean?

"Kills 99.9% of bacteria" is a statement commonly found on cleaning and personal care products. It means that the product has been tested and proven to eliminate 99.9% of bacteria present on a surface or in a certain area.

How does a product achieve a 99.9% bacteria kill rate?

Products that claim to kill 99.9% of bacteria usually contain active ingredients such as alcohol, bleach, or hydrogen peroxide that are known to be effective in killing bacteria and other microorganisms. These ingredients work by disrupting the cell membranes and structures of bacteria, ultimately leading to their death.

Is it possible for a product to kill 100% of bacteria?

No, it is not possible for a product to kill 100% of bacteria. There will always be a small percentage of bacteria that may survive due to various factors such as resistance to the active ingredients or not being in direct contact with the product. However, 99.9% is a high enough kill rate to effectively reduce the risk of infections and illnesses.

What types of bacteria does a product with a 99.9% kill rate target?

A product that claims to kill 99.9% of bacteria is typically effective against a wide range of common household bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Staphylococcus. However, it may not be effective against all types of bacteria, so it is important to read the label and use the product as directed.

Does a higher percentage of bacteria kill rate mean a product is more effective?

Not necessarily. A product with a 99.9% kill rate is considered highly effective in eliminating bacteria. Higher percentages do not necessarily mean a product is more effective, as the remaining bacteria may be resistant to the active ingredients. It is important to follow proper cleaning and hygiene practices in addition to using these products for optimal protection against bacteria.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
401
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
23
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
808
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
952
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
15
Views
323
Replies
16
Views
1K
Back
Top