Why We're Meant to Stop Using Antibacterial Soap

A study published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy has found that antibacterial soaps are in fact no better than removing bacteria than conventional soaps. 

Greeeeaaaat! So, that stuff that kills 99.9% of germs isn't even better!?

After this study, questions are coming up about whether we should keep using antibacterial soaps as they contain chemicals which has been labeled potentially dangerous and even cancer causing. This chemical isn't in conventional soaps.

Science blog iflscience has published a breakdown of the findings from the study:

The study, looked at its effect on 20 dangerous bacterial strains, including Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella enteritidis. They placed them in Petri dishes with either the antibacterial or normal soap and heated them to 22 degrees Celsius (72 degrees Fahrenheit) or 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), simulating exposure to warm or hot water, for 20 seconds.

In addition to this experiment, they then went on to test the antibacterial soap in real life so to speak, rather than in the lab. Volunteers had their hands coated with the bacteria Serratia marcescens (a species often found in bathrooms), and were then asked to wash their hands for 30 seconds, again using either conventional or antibacterial soap containing 0.3% triclosan, the maximum allowed in products sold in the E.U., Canada, Australia, China and Japan.

After failing to find a difference in bactericidal effect between the soaps, the researchers looked to see just how long it would take for triclosan to kill bacteria. Using the same concentration as before, they found that it was only effective if the microorganisms were allowed to soak in it for over nine hours.

Coauthor of the study Min Suk Rhee said the public should be made aware of these findings. “It should be banned to exaggerate the effectiveness of… products which can confuse consumers,”