Evaluation of the Effect of Ethyl Alcohol Solutions in Different Concentrations on Bacteria
Author:
Akıncı Naile1ORCID, Çelik Meriç2ORCID, Çetinkaya Hakan Yasin3ORCID, Çelik GülnazORCID
Affiliation:
1. fenerbahçe üniversitesi 2. GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ, TIP PR. 3. İZMİR KATİP ÇELEBİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ
Abstract
Objective: In this randomized controlled experimental study, it is aimed to evaluate the effect of different concentrations of ethyl alcohol solutions on bacterial growth
Material and Methods: Alcohol solutions of different concentrations by volume were prepared as a preliminary process. Microbiological agar was used as the medium. As the third process, sterile Petri dishes were obtained, and the dishes to be used were labelled as dirty hand, ethyl alcohol solutions of 10%, 30%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 96%.
Results: It was observed that the count of colonies in petri dishes decreased visibly as the alcohol concentration increased. Approximately 74% reduction was observed in bacterial colonies between 10% ethyl alcohol to 30% ethyl alcohol. About 51% reduction was observed in bacterial colonies between 30% ethyl alcohol to 60% ethyl alcohol. As seen in the table, as the ethyl alcohol concentration increased, the count of colonies detected decreased and eventually vanished with 70% ethyl alcohol.
Conclusion: The lowest and most effective ethyl alcohol concentration was found to be 70%. As a result of the research, we think that observing bacterial growth at different alcohol concentrations with samples taken from different environments in future research will provide us with more data on the effect of disinfectants and antiseptics.
Publisher
Fenerbahce University
Reference19 articles.
1. Avcı, D. & Otkun, M. (2017). Evalution of antibacterial activities of some antiseptics and disinfectants. THDB. 74(3):211-220. https://doi.org/10.5505/TurkHijyen.2017.75002 2. Bal, S. & Şanlı, N.Ö. (2020). Evaluation of the effectiveness of antibacterial wall paint to enhance the hygienicconditions of the interiors. J Fac Eng Archıt Gaz, 35:1913-1922. https://doi.org/10.17341/gazimmfd.678683. 3. Bellissimo-Rodrigues, F., Soule, H., Gayet-Ageron, A., Martin, Y., & Pittet, D. (2016). Should alcohol-based handrub use be customized to healthcare workers’ hand size?. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, https://doi.org/ 37(2):219-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2015.271 4. Cruz, A.F., Abreu, A.O., Souza, P.A., Deveza, B., Medeiros, C.T., Sousa, V.S., Sabagh,B.P., & Bôas, M.H.S. (2022). Journal of Microbiological Methods, 193.106402. 5. Czeisler, M.E., Williams, A.G.G., Molinari, N.A., Gharpure, R., Li, Y.,Barrett, C.E., Robbins, R., Facer-Childs, E.R., Barger, L.K., Cheizler, C.A., Rajaratnam, S.M.W., & Howard, M.E. (2020). Demographic Characteristics, Experiences, and Beliefs Associated with Hand Hygiene Among Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic, CDC2020 / 69(41),1485–1491. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6941a3. PMID: 33056951;
|
|