Figures index

From

The Immunomodulatory, Antimicrobial and Bactericidal Efficacy of Commonly Used Commercial Household Disinfectants, Sterilizers and Antiseptics in Vitro: Laboratory Assessment of Anti-Inflammatory Infection Control Mechanisms and Comparative Biochemical Analysis of the Microbial Growth of Gram-Negative Bacteria

Niveen M. Masri, Lama B. Hanbali, John J. Haddad

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 2015, 3(1), 1-32 doi:10.12691/ajmbr-3-1-1
  • Figure 1. Depictive comparative assessment of the antimicrobial efficacy of various detergents against gram-negative Citrobacter koseri bacteria, as compared with ceftazidime (30 μg). The zone of inhibition of ceftazidime was set as a reference (lane 24; horizontal straight line), and that for absolute methanol (MetOH) is shown in lane 23, and all values of the zones of inhibition at undiluted concentrations of disinfectant/sterilizer/antiseptic were compared against those references (Lanes 23 and 24). Lanes 1 – 5 represent Class A (Daily Mouthwash); Lanes 6 – 14 represent Class B (Toilet Bowl Cleaners/Bleaches/Sanitizers); Lanes 15 – 19 represent Class C (Surface and Floor Mopping Cleaners/Detergents); and Lanes 20 – 22 represent Class D (Hand and Body Wash Gels). This comparative analysis allows descriptive visualization of the antimicrobial effectiveness relative to ceftazidime, on one hand, and various classes (A – D), on the other hand, thereby showing the most effective class and/or detergent within a given category against a specific type of bacteria. The number of experimental observations is n = 3, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, as compared with either ceftazidime or absolute MetOH. NI = No inhibition
  • Figure 2. Depictive comparative assessment of the antimicrobial efficacy of various detergents against gram-negative Enterobacter cloacae bacteria, as compared with ceftazidime (30 μg). The zone of inhibition of ceftazidime was set as a reference (lane 24; horizontal straight line), and that for absolute methanol (MetOH) is shown in lane 23, and all values of the zones of inhibition at undiluted concentrations of disinfectant/sterilizer/antiseptic were compared against those references (Lanes 23 and 24). Lanes 1 – 5 represent Class A (Daily Mouthwash); Lanes 6 – 14 represent Class B (Toilet Bowl Cleaners/Bleaches/Sanitizers); Lanes 15 – 19 represent Class C (Surface and Floor Mopping Cleaners/Detergents); and Lanes 20 – 22 represent Class D (Hand and Body Wash Gels). This comparative analysis allows descriptive visualization of the antimicrobial effectiveness relative to ceftazidime, on one hand, and various classes (A – D), on the other hand, thereby showing the most effective class and/or detergent within a given category against a specific type of bacteria. The number of experimental observations is n = 3, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, as compared with either ceftazidime or absolute MetOH. NI = No inhibition
  • Figure 3. Depictive comparative assessment of the antimicrobial efficacy of various detergents against gram-negative Escherichia coli bacteria, as compared with ceftazidime (30 μg). The zone of inhibition of ceftazidime was set as a reference (lane 24; horizontal straight line), and that for absolute methanol (MetOH) is shown in lane 23, and all values of the zones of inhibition at undiluted concentrations of disinfectant/sterilizer/antiseptic were compared against those references (Lanes 23 and 24). Lanes 1 – 5 represent Class A (Daily Mouthwash); Lanes 6 – 14 represent Class B (Toilet Bowl Cleaners/Bleaches/Sanitizers); Lanes 15 – 19 represent Class C (Surface and Floor Mopping Cleaners/Detergents); and Lanes 20 – 22 represent Class D (Hand and Body Wash Gels). This comparative analysis allows descriptive visualization of the antimicrobial effectiveness relative to ceftazidime, on one hand, and various classes (A – D), on the other hand, thereby showing the most effective class and/or detergent within a given category against a specific type of bacteria. The number of experimental observations is n = 3, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, as compared with either ceftazidime or absolute MetOH. NI = No inhibition
  • Figure 4. Depictive comparative assessment of the antimicrobial efficacy of various detergents against gram-negative Escherichia coli ESBL bacteria, as compared with ceftazidime (30 μg). The zone of inhibition of ceftazidime was set as a reference (lane 24; horizontal straight line), and that for absolute methanol (MetOH) is shown in lane 23, and all values of the zones of inhibition at undiluted concentrations of disinfectant/sterilizer/antiseptic were compared against those references (Lanes 23 and 24). Lanes 1 – 5 represent Class A (Daily Mouthwash); Lanes 6 – 14 represent Class B (Toilet Bowl Cleaners/Bleaches/Sanitizers); Lanes 15 – 19 represent Class C (Surface and Floor Mopping Cleaners/Detergents); and Lanes 20 – 22 represent Class D (Hand and Body Wash Gels). This comparative analysis allows descriptive visualization of the antimicrobial effectiveness relative to ceftazidime, on one hand, and various classes (A – D), on the other hand, thereby showing the most effective class and/or detergent within a given category against a specific type of bacteria. The number of experimental observations is n = 3, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, as compared with either ceftazidime or absolute MetOH. NI = No inhibition
  • Figure 5. Depictive comparative assessment of the antimicrobial efficacy of various detergents against gram-negative Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteria, as compared with ceftazidime (30 μg). The zone of inhibition of ceftazidime was set as a reference (lane 24; horizontal straight line), and that for absolute methanol (MetOH) is shown in lane 23, and all values of the zones of inhibition at undiluted concentrations of disinfectant/sterilizer/antiseptic were compared against those references (Lanes 23 and 24). Lanes 1 – 5 represent Class A (Daily Mouthwash); Lanes 6 – 14 represent Class B (Toilet Bowl Cleaners/Bleaches/Sanitizers); Lanes 15 – 19 represent Class C (Surface and Floor Mopping Cleaners/Detergents); and Lanes 20 – 22 represent Class D (Hand and Body Wash Gels). This comparative analysis allows descriptive visualization of the antimicrobial effectiveness relative to ceftazidime, on one hand, and various classes (A – D), on the other hand, thereby showing the most effective class and/or detergent within a given category against a specific type of bacteria. The number of experimental observations is n = 3, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, as compared with either ceftazidime or absolute MetOH. NI = No inhibition
  • Figure 6. Depictive comparative assessment of the antimicrobial efficacy of various detergents against gram-negative Proteus vulgaris bacteria, as compared with ceftazidime (30 μg). The zone of inhibition of ceftazidime was set as a reference (lane 24; horizontal straight line), and that for absolute methanol (MetOH) is shown in lane 23, and all values of the zones of inhibition at undiluted concentrations of disinfectant/sterilizer/antiseptic were compared against those references (Lanes 23 and 24). Lanes 1 – 5 represent Class A (Daily Mouthwash); Lanes 6 – 14 represent Class B (Toilet Bowl Cleaners/Bleaches/Sanitizers); Lanes 15 – 19 represent Class C (Surface and Floor Mopping Cleaners/Detergents); and Lanes 20 – 22 represent Class D (Hand and Body Wash Gels). This comparative analysis allows descriptive visualization of the antimicrobial effectiveness relative to ceftazidime, on one hand, and various classes (A – D), on the other hand, thereby showing the most effective class and/or detergent within a given category against a specific type of bacteria. The number of experimental observations is n = 3, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, as compared with either ceftazidime or absolute MetOH. NI = No inhibition
  • Figure 7. Depictive comparative assessment of the antimicrobial efficacy of various detergents against gram-negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria, as compared with ceftazidime (30 μg). The zone of inhibition of ceftazidime was set as a reference (lane 24; horizontal straight line), and that for absolute methanol (MetOH) is shown in lane 23, and all values of the zones of inhibition at undiluted concentrations of disinfectant/sterilizer/antiseptic were compared against those references (Lanes 23 and 24). Lanes 1 – 5 represent Class A (Daily Mouthwash); Lanes 6 – 14 represent Class B (Toilet Bowl Cleaners/Bleaches/Sanitizers); Lanes 15 – 19 represent Class C (Surface and Floor Mopping Cleaners/Detergents); and Lanes 20 – 22 represent Class D (Hand and Body Wash Gels). This comparative analysis allows descriptive visualization of the antimicrobial effectiveness relative to ceftazidime, on one hand, and various classes (A – D), on the other hand, thereby showing the most effective class and/or detergent within a given category against a specific type of bacteria. The number of experimental observations is n = 3, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, as compared with either ceftazidime or absolute MetOH. NI = No inhibition
  • Figure 8. Depictive comparative assessment of the antimicrobial efficacy of various detergents against gram-negative Salmonella typhimurium bacteria, as compared with ceftazidime (30 μg). The zone of inhibition of ceftazidime was set as a reference (lane 24; horizontal straight line), and that for absolute methanol (MetOH) is shown in lane 23, and all values of the zones of inhibition at undiluted concentrations of disinfectant/sterilizer/antiseptic were compared against those references (Lanes 23 and 24). Lanes 1 – 5 represent Class A (Daily Mouthwash); Lanes 6 – 14 represent Class B (Toilet Bowl Cleaners/Bleaches/Sanitizers); Lanes 15 – 19 represent Class C (Surface and Floor Mopping Cleaners/Detergents); and Lanes 20 – 22 represent Class D (Hand and Body Wash Gels). This comparative analysis allows descriptive visualization of the antimicrobial effectiveness relative to ceftazidime, on one hand, and various classes (A – D), on the other hand, thereby showing the most effective class and/or detergent within a given category against a specific type of bacteria. The number of experimental observations is n = 3, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, as compared with either ceftazidime or absolute MetOH. NI = No inhibition
  • Figure 9. Depictive comparative assessment of the antimicrobial efficacy of various detergents against gram-negative Shigella sonnei bacteria, as compared with ceftazidime (30 μg). The zone of inhibition of ceftazidime was set as a reference (lane 24; horizontal straight line), and that for absolute methanol (MetOH) is shown in lane 23, and all values of the zones of inhibition at undiluted concentrations of disinfectant/sterilizer/antiseptic were compared against those references (Lanes 23 and 24). Lanes 1 – 5 represent Class A (Daily Mouthwash); Lanes 6 – 14 represent Class B (Toilet Bowl Cleaners/Bleaches/Sanitizers); Lanes 15 – 19 represent Class C (Surface and Floor Mopping Cleaners/Detergents); and Lanes 20 – 22 represent Class D (Hand and Body Wash Gels). This comparative analysis allows descriptive visualization of the antimicrobial effectiveness relative to ceftazidime, on one hand, and various classes (A – D), on the other hand, thereby showing the most effective class and/or detergent within a given category against a specific type of bacteria. The number of experimental observations is n = 3, * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001, as compared with either ceftazidime or absolute MetOH. NI = No inhibition
  • Figure 10. The putative immunomodulatory/anti-inflammatory, anti-microbial and bactericidal mechanisms are estimated by determining the probable effective ratios. The maximal effective ratio (ER) of Class A (Daily Mouthwash) on gram-negative bacteria. ER was calculated as the ratio of each bacterium with maximal zone of inhibition against the minimum zone of inhibition (set as 1) within the same category, such that ER = Zone max / Zone min. This ratio determines the most effective treatment for each bacterium and its comparative effectiveness against rest of antiseptics and disinfectants. For instance, the highest most effective daily mouthwash against E. coli is ‘Colgate Plax Mouthwash.’ The number of experimental observations is n = 3
  • Figure 11. The putative immunomodulatory/anti-inflammatory, anti-microbial and bactericidal mechanisms are estimated by determining the probable effective ratios. The maximal effective ratio (ER) of Class B (Toilet Bowl Cleaners/Bleaches/Sanitizers) on gram-negative bacteria. ER was calculated as the ratio of each bacterium with maximal zone of inhibition against the minimum zone of inhibition (set as 1) within the same category, such that ER = Zone max / Zone min. This ratio determines the most effective treatment for each bacterium and its comparative effectiveness against rest of antiseptics and disinfectants. For instance, the highest most effective Toilet Bowl Cleaners/Bleaches/Sanitizers against E. coli is ‘WC Net Bleach Gel.’ The number of experimental observations is n = 3
  • Figure 12. The putative immunomodulatory/anti-inflammatory, anti-microbial and bactericidal mechanisms are estimated by determining the probable effective ratios. The maximal effective ratio (ER) of Class C (Surface and Floor Mopping Cleaners/Detergents) on gram-negative bacteria. ER was calculated as the ratio of each bacterium with maximal zone of inhibition against the minimum zone of inhibition (set as 1) within the same category, such that ER = Zone max / Zone min. This ratio determines the most effective treatment for each bacterium and its comparative effectiveness against rest of antiseptics and disinfectants. For instance, the highest most effective Surface and Floor Mopping Cleaners/Detergents against E. coli is ‘Vim Cream Multipurpose Fast Rinsing.’ The number of experimental observations is n = 3
  • Figure 13. The putative immunomodulatory/anti-inflammatory, anti-microbial and bactericidal mechanisms are estimated by determining the probable effective ratios. The maximal effective ratio (ER) of Class D (Hand and Body Wash Gels) on gram-negative bacteria. ER was calculated as the ratio of each bacterium with maximal zone of inhibition against the minimum zone of inhibition (set as 1) within the same category, such that ER = Zone max / Zone min. This ratio determines the most effective treatment for each bacterium and its comparative effectiveness against rest of antiseptics and disinfectants. For instance, the highest most effective Hand and Body Wash Gels against E. coli is ‘HiGeen Hand and Body Wash Gel.’ The number of experimental observations is n = 3
  • Figure 14. Typical microbial growth of gram-negative bacteria in the presence of commercially available disinfectants and antiseptics in culture. (A) Citrobacter koseri + ‘HiGeen Hand and Body Wash Gel’ at various concentrations (undiluted, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, and 1/32 + negative control, methanol; or positive control, ceftazidime (30 μg)), noting zones of inhibition. (B) Enterobacter cloacae + ‘WC Net Bleach Gel’. (C) Escherichia coli + ‘Colgate Plax Mouthwash’. (D) Escherichia coli ESBL + ‘HiGeen Hand and Body Wash Gel’. (E) Klebsiella pneumoniae + ‘Clorox Bleach Rain Clean’. (F) Proteus vulgaris + ‘Spartan Max WC Lavender’. (G) Pseudomonas aeruginosa + ‘WC Net Bleach Gel’ (Note the typical greenish color of P. aeruginosa). (H) Salmonella typhimurium + HiGeen Hand and Body Wash Gel’. (I) Shigella sonnei + Perio.Kin Chlorhexidina 0.20% Mouthwash’. The number of experimental observations is n = 3. DF = Dilution factor
  • Figure 15. An overview schematic showing microbial infection control. (Adapted, courtesy of Talaro, Kathleen P., Foundations in Microbiology, 9th Edition, 2015. McGraw-Hill Education, USA.)