Whether
you’re coming home from an airport fluttering with international germs, a
daycare full of sticky-fingered toddlers, or just a grimy office building,
scrubbing your hands with bacteria-busting soap seems like a great idea. But
the data that have washed up on the cleansers in recent years suggest that they
actually do more harm than good—for you, those around you, and the environment.
Scientists
report that common antibacterial compounds found in those soaps, namely
triclosan and triclocarban, may increase the risk of infections, alter the gut
microbiome, and spur bacteria to become resistant to prescription antibiotics.
Meanwhile, proof of the soaps’ benefits is slim.
There are
specific circumstances in which those antimicrobials can be useful, civil
engineer Patrick McNamara of Marquette University in Milwaukee told Ars.
Triclosan, for instance, may be useful to doctors scrubbing for minutes at a
time before a surgery or for hospital patients who can’t necessarily scrub with
soap but could soak in a chemical bath. Triclosan and triclocarban do kill off
bacteria during long washes. But most people only clean their hands for a few
seconds. “There’s evidence that there is no improvement with using soaps that
have these chemicals relative to washing your hands under warm water for 30
seconds with soaps without these chemicals,” he said.
And the point
hasn’t been lost on the US Food and Drug Administration. Though the agency
ruled years ago that triclosan and other antimicrobials are safe,
it’s now revisiting claims that the chemicals make soaps and other personal
care products better. The FDA has asked antibacterial soap makers
to send in data showing that their soaps beat out regular soaps at keeping
people germ-free and healthy. The agency expects to announce this September
whether the submitted data pass muster. If they don't, the companies that make
up the $5.5 billion soap market may be forced to ditch the chemicals entirely.
Sullied Soaps
In the
meantime, however, researchers seem to be digging up more and more dirt on the
chemicals, particularly triclosan. This antimicrobial is widely used in not
just hand soaps, but body washes, shampoos, toothpastes, cosmetics, household
cleaners, medical equipment, and more. And it’s just as pervasive in people as
it is in homes and clinics. Triclosan easily enters bodies by ingestion (think
toothpaste) or skin absorption. It’s commonly found in people’s urine, blood,
breast milk, and even their snot.
A 2014 study led by
microbiologist Blaise Boles of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor tested
90 adults and found that 41 percent (37 people) had triclosan-laced boogers.
Antimicrobial-snot paradoxically doubles your odds of having the
potentially-infectious Staphylococcus aureus bacteria up your
nose.
In rats
exposed to triclosan, Dr. Boles and his colleagues found that triclosan
exposure made it more difficult, not less, for the rodents to fend off Staph invasions.
Triclosan seems to make the bacteria “stickier”—better able to adhere to
proteins and surfaces. That stickiness could be why Staph is
so good at hunkering down in the schnoz, setting the stage for future
infections.
Other
researchers have been looking at how triclosan and other antimicrobials may
alter microbial communities further down from the nose—in the gut.
Microbiologist
Thomas Sharpton of Oregon State University and his colleagues are currently
studying triclosan’s effect on the gut microbiomes of zebrafish, a model
organism for vertebrate development. Their preliminary data suggest that the antimicrobial causes swift, sweeping changes in
the zebrafish gut microbiome, altering both diversity and community structure.
In another
study, presented April 1 at the Endocrine Society's 98th annual meeting in Boston, researchers report that mother rats
exposed to triclocarban—an antimicrobial used most frequently in bar
soaps—passed on the chemical to their pups. The study, led by public health
researcher Rebekah Kennedy of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, also
found that the chemical altered the microbiomes of both the mothers and the
babies.
"Our
research adds to the growing body of scientific literature suggesting
unintended health consequences related to non-prescription antimicrobial use
and will allow pregnant and nursing mothers to make informed decisions
regarding use of these antimicrobial products," said Dr. Kennedy.
But, Dr.
Sharpton cautions, we don’t know yet if such microbiome changes are lasting or
if they spark health effects. “We’re really are in the beginning days of
understanding how to interpret changes in the microbiome,” he said to Ars.
Still,
previous studies have linked dampened diversity and rapid microbial changes
from prescription antibiotics to health effects, such as a greater risk of
intestinal infections. The results certainly warrant follow-up research, both
Sharpton and Kennedy said.
Flush with chemicals
While
researchers continue to work out what antimicrobials do while they’re in
people’s bodies, Dr. McNamara of Marquette University focuses on what the
chemicals do once people pee them out or wash them down the drain. McNamara and
his colleagues have been tracking both triclosan and triclocarban in wastewater
treatment plants, where both chemicals can accumulate.
In a 2014 study, McNamara’s
research team found that triclosan messed with the microbial communities that
break down sewage, in some cases sabotaging their ability to digest the sludge.
The chemical also caused a spike in the presence of a gene called mexB in
the sewage microbes. This gene codes for a pump that allows bacteria to simply
kick out triclosan before it can kill them off. This pump, McNamara
hypothesizes, also spits out common prescription antibiotics, such as
ciprofloxacin. In experiments, bacteria with mexB were
resistant to antibiotics, too.
In a January study, McNamara,
his graduate student Daniel Carey, and colleagues found that triclocarban had
the same effect as triclosan—it also disrupts the microbial communities that
digest sewage and spurs bacteria to become resistant to drugs.
From
wastewater treatment plants, these superbugs can leak out into waterways,
wildlife, and potentially back to people, McNamara told Ars.
While some
experts are hopeful that actions by the FDA and state regulators may nix the
use of these chemicals in commercial products, McNamara thinks consumer choices
may be the most powerful way to reduce use of the chemicals. People could use
regular soap or ethanol-based sanitizers and have effective, less risky
cleansers, he said. “There’s a way that we can still keep our hygiene without having
these extra chemicals.”
http://bacteriasactuaciencia.
http://tntoday.utk.edu/2013/
http://bacteriasactuaciencia.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
Cada vez que lees un artículo y no dejas un comentario, alguien mata a un gatito en alguna parte del mundo...