Antimicrobial Activity of Commercial Antibacterial Soaps Against Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: An In Vitro Comparative Study

Authors

Andrés Felipe Fuentes Lopera Universidad de Santander, Bucaramanga, Santander, Colombia.
Jairo Enrique Mateus Sánchez Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga, Bucaramanga, Colombia.
María Eugenia Cárdenas Angelone Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga, Bucaramanga, Colombia
Paula Fernanda Arciniegas Cadena Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga, Bucaramanga, Colombia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15332/us.v24i1.3344

Keywords:

Soaps, Anti-bacterial agents, Hand disinfection, Community-acquired infections

Abstract

Introduction. Hand hygiene remains one of the most effective measures for preventing infectious diseases. Commercially marketed antibacterial soaps contain antimicrobial agents that may provide greater protection against pathogenic microorganisms than conventional soaps. Nevertheless, the evidence supporting their effectiveness against clinically relevant bacterial pathogens remains limited and inconsistent. Objective. To evaluate the antimicrobial activity of five commercially available antibacterial soaps against ATCC strains of Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Materials and Methods. An in vitro study was conducted to assess the antimicrobial activity of five commercial antibacterial soaps against ATCC strains of Escherichia coli (E. coli), Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) using the disk diffusion method. Results. The chlorhexidine-based surgical soap exhibited the highest antimicrobial activity against all three bacterial strains. Commercial antibacterial soaps demonstrated limited activity and did not show clear advantages over conventional soap. Conclusions. The use of commercially marketed antibacterial soaps did not improve the results obtained with soaps that do not contain antimicrobial agents. The use of surgical soaps containing chlorhexidine is recommended.

Author Biographies

Andrés Felipe Fuentes Lopera, Universidad de Santander, Bucaramanga, Santander, Colombia.

Estudiante, Bacteriólogo y laboratorista clínico, Universidad de Santander, Bucaramanga, Santander, Colombia.

Jairo Enrique Mateus Sánchez, Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga, Bucaramanga, Colombia.

Bacteriólogo y laboratorista clínico, MSc. Ciencias Básicas Biomédicas, Profesor asociado, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga, Bucaramanga, Colombia.

María Eugenia Cárdenas Angelone, Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga, Bucaramanga, Colombia

Bacterióloga y laboratorista clínico, MSc. Microbiología, Profesora asociada, Medicina, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga, Bucaramanga, Colombia.

Paula Fernanda Arciniegas Cadena, Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga, Bucaramanga, Colombia

Estudiante, Medicina, Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga, Bucaramanga, Colombia.

References

World Health Organization; United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Global guidelines on hand hygiene in community settings. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2025. Available from: https://www.who.int

Ross I, Bick S, Ayieko P, Dreibelbis R, Wolf J, Freeman MC, et al. Effectiveness of handwashing with soap for preventing acute respiratory infections in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2023;401(10389):1681–1690. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00021-1

Kampf G, Kramer A. Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004;17(4):863–893. doi:10.1128/CMR.17.4.863-893.2004

Giuliano CA, Rybak MJ. Efficacy of triclosan as an antimicrobial hand soap and its potential impact on antimicrobial resistance: a focused review. Pharmacotherapy. 2015;35(3):328–336. doi:10.1002/phar.1553

Kim SA, Moon H, Lee K, Rhee MS. Bactericidal effects of triclosan in soap both in vitro and in vivo. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(12):3345–3352. doi:10.1093/jac/dkv275

Ley C, Sundaram V, Sanchez ML, Desai M, Parsonnet J. Triclosan and triclocarban exposure, infectious disease symptoms and antibiotic prescription in infants: a community-based randomized intervention. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0199298. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199298

Montville, R., & Schaffner, D. W. (2011). A meta-analysis of the published literature on the effectiveness of antimicrobial soaps. Journal of Food Protection, 74(11), 1875–1882. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-122

Santos Junior, C. J., Lins, F. C. C. O., Santos, P. O., Silva, V. B., Barros, Y. V. R., Araújo, M. A. S., Rocha, T. J. M., & Souza, A. K. P. (2024). Evaluation of antibacterial and antifungal activity of antimicrobial soaps. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 84, e263364. https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.263364

Banik GR, Durayb B, King C, Rashid H. Antimicrobial resistance following prolonged use of hand hygiene products: a systematic review. Pharmacy (Basel). 2022;10(1):9. doi:10.3390/pharmacy10010009

Aiello AE, Larson EL, Levy SB. Consumer antibacterial soaps: effective or just risky? Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(Suppl 2):S137–S147. doi:10.1086/519255

Widmer AF. Replace hand washing with use of a waterless alcohol hand rub? Lancet Infect Dis. 2000;356(9238):1307-8.

Tong SYC, Davis JS, Eichenberger E, Holland TL, Fowler VG Jr. Staphylococcus aureus infections: epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2023;36(2):e00047-22. doi:10.1128/cmr.00047-22.

Mahlapuu M, Håkansson J, Ringstad L, Björn C. Antimicrobial peptides: an emerging category of therapeutic agents. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1165832. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2023.1165832.

Thi MTT, Wibowo D, Rehm BHA. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(22):8671. doi:10.3390/ijms21228671.

Horcajada JP, Montero M, Oliver A, Sorlí L, Luque S, Gómez-Zorrilla S, et al. Epidemiology and treatment of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2024;37(1):e0001323. doi:10.1128/cmr.00013-23.

Jurado-Martín I, Sainz-Mejías M, McClean S. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: an audacious pathogen with an adaptable arsenal of virulence factors. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(6):3128. doi:10.3390/ijms22063128.

Pang Z, Raudonis R, Glick BR, Lin TJ, Cheng Z. Antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: mechanisms and alternative therapeutic strategies. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019;9:124. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2019.00124.

Moradali MF, Ghods S, Rehm BHA. Pseudomonas aeruginosa lifestyle: a paradigm for adaptation, survival, and persistence. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7:39. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2017.00039.

Pang Z, Raudonis R, Glick BR, Lin TJ, Cheng Z. Antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: mechanisms and alternative therapeutic strategies. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019;9:124. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2019.00124.

Nightingale CH. Clinical significance of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions of antimicrobial agents. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1987;44(5):1043-50.

Balouiri M, Sadiki M, Ibnsouda SK. Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: a review. J Pharm Anal. 2016;6(2):71-79. doi:10.1016/j.jpha.2015.11.005.

Martins KB, Ferreira AM, Pereira VC, Pinheiro L, de Oliveira A, Cunha MLRS. In vitro effects of antimicrobial agents on planktonic and biofilm forms of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:40. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2019.00040.

Price L, MacDonald J, Gozdzielewska L, et al. Effectiveness of hand hygiene interventions in healthcare settings: an updated evidence review. Am J Infect Control. 2022;50(10):1154-1162. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2022.04.015.