A Comparative Test between International and Local Brands of Liquid Hand

Soap for Eliminating Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus

Researchers:
Bautista, Leila Denise J.
Encarnacion, Reigne Miguel B.
Lopez, Rose Marie S.
ABSTRACT
The research aims to compare the International and Local brands in eliminating
Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus as well as being affordable but still effective on
removing the bacteria. The experiment was done by culturing the bacteria on agar in a petri dish,
with filter paper soaked overnight in an incubator for 24 hours. Most of the brands appeared to be
effective in eliminating bacteria but there are some which excel, and some are not. In conclusion,
one of the local brands have more effectivity on eliminating bacteria, Escherichia coli and
Staphylococcus aureus, which is more affordable in terms of price than the International brands.
INTRODUCTION recommends the use of liquid hand wash to
lessen the risk of growth of harmful bacteria.
Human hands perform a lot of It shows that hand washing is necessary for
functions of human body which allow us to be protected from diseases. It is also
different substances such as dust, different recommended to consider the type of liquid
body fluids, and raw and contaminated hand soap to be bought. As per Min Suk Rhee
materials that can be caught from the of Korea University, the study has revealed
environment and personal hygiene. Hand that antiseptic ingredients do not assure the
washing with antibacterial soap prevents the higher efficacy of antimicrobial during hand
infection by controlling the spreading of washing (Forbes, 2015).
microbes or loose transient. There is a layer
on our skin that protects the normal flora of In the Philippines, hand washing is
the hands from high rate distinct hospital- also promoted by UNICEF Chief for Water
acquired infections. Hand washing can avoid and Sanitation Timothy Grieve as he stated
the risk of diarrhea by almost half and that by doing hand washing can reduce the
respiratory tract infections by a third. Lastly, rate of diarrhea by 40% which may give more
hands which are dirty or potentially time to do the things we love. In addition to
contaminated from waste must be washed this, the Department of Health (DOH)
with liquid hand soap and water (Sajed, et al., Assistant Secretary Dr. Paulyn Jean Ubial
2014). With this, hand washing is important stated that there are proofs that hand washing
for removing some daily encountered lessen the risk of diarrhea, as well as cough
bacteria. The researchers want to study the and cold. Infection can be also avoided by
local and international brand of liquid hand frequent hand washing as much as 20 times a
soap to assure its effectivity to remove day (Crisostomo, 2011). In relation to this,
bacteria specifically Escherichia coli and there are estimated 3.5 million children die
Staphylococcus aureus. every year due to diarrhea and respiratory
diseases. Millions suffer more from Hepatitis
Centers for Disease Control and A, Influenza, and Measles which can be
Prevention (CDC) (Cameron, 2016)

1
prevented through a proper hand washing
which removes the disease-spreading germs
(Unilever leads, n.d.). As much as possible,
clean the hands after participating in any
activity that causes dirty hands (Hand
washing basics to, n.d.).
Since different sources provided
piece of information discussing hand
washing and harmful bacteria, the researchers
have decided to conduct a comparative
analysis of the effective of international and
local brands of liquid hand soap for the
removal of two chosen bacteria – Escherichia
coli and Staphylococcus aureus. This concern
draws the researchers’ objectives. The
researchers aim to determine if liquid hand
soaps can help people to lessen the harmful
common bacteria that can cause diseases
even the liquid hand soap is diluted; the
researchers also want to classify the
effectivity of international and local brands of
liquid hand soap; and lastly, to give an
informative result to everyone.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The result of the study will help the
consumers to assure the effectiveness of
liquid hand soap people buy at the market. In
connection to this, the study will also help the
manufacturers of the liquid hand soap to be
mindful of their product. The company will
be informed about the effectiveness of liquid
hand soap; thus, the company will also
consider developing their product. For the
researchers, who are part of the consumers
will be informed through this study. This
study can also serve as an additional
information due to the lack of local studies
and it can give a vivid reference regarding the
effectivity between international and local
brands of hand soap. Since time is changing,
the future researchers can improve the study
due to changing equipment, methods, and
materials.
METHODOLOGY
2
Experimentation will be conducted to
compare the products. But beforehand, it is
necessary to wear Personal Protective
Equipment which is laboratory hairnet,
laboratory gown, surgical gloves, face mask
and safety googles.
A day before the experiment,
different concentration level or dilution of the
products is prepared in a urine cup. The
dilution is consisting of 20 percent a 2 mL of
the product and 10 mL of water; 40 percent,
4 mL of the product and 10 mL of water; 60
percent, which is 6 mL of liquid hand soap
and 10 mL of water; 80 percent, 10 mL of
water added in 8 mL of product; and, 100
percent of a product which pure 10 mL of
product. Punched out filter paper will be put
on the solution, soaked overnight so it may
absorb the solution properly. This filter paper
will be put in the cultured bacteria.
The tools and equipment needed to this
experiment are 60 petri dishes, 3 Erlenmeyer
flasks, a tong, a tripod, an alcohol lamp, a
stirring rod, a spatula, 2 test tube, an
inoculating loop, 2 cotton swabs, rug, the
autoclave, stove and an incubator.
First, clean all the petri dishes, stirring
rod, spatula, Erlenmeyer flask with water and
soap. Next is put all these tools in the
Autoclave for 15 minutes in 120 psi for it to
be sterilized.
While sterilizing the remaining petri
dishes, prepare the agar solution. A standard
of 30 grams of Mueller Hinton Agar or MHA
per 1000 mL of Distilled Water (DH2O).
30 𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝐻𝐴
1000 𝑚𝐿 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝐻2 𝑂
The total water needed is computed
by 60 petri dishes multiplied by 25 mL of
DH2O per petri dish which result to 1500 soaked filter paper on the agar and name the
mL of DH2O. petri dish on which dilution and of what
𝐷𝐻2 𝑂 product to the cover of petri dish. Lastly, put
60 𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖 𝑑𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠 × 25 𝑚𝐿 all the petri dish in an incubator and let it sit
𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖 𝑑𝑖𝑠ℎ
= 1500 𝑚𝐿 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝐻2 𝑂 for 24 hours.

The 1, 500 mL DH2O is divided into
3 Erlenmeyer flasks with a quotient of 500
mL DH2O per Erlenmeyer flasks.
1, 500 𝑚𝐿 𝐷𝐻2 𝑂
3 𝐸𝑟𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑠
𝐷𝐻2 𝑂
= 500 𝑚𝐿
𝐸𝑟𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑠
To know how much MHA needed
per Erlenmeyer flasks is shown by the
formula of the quantity of 30 g of MHA per
1000 mL of DH2O multiplied by 500 mL
DH2O is equal to 15 g of MHA.
30 𝑔 𝑀𝐻𝐴
× 500 𝑚𝐿 𝐷𝐻2 𝑂
1000 𝑚𝐿 𝐷𝐻2 𝑂
= 15 𝑔 𝑀𝐻𝐴
After putting 15 g of MHA per
Erlenmeyer flasks, put it over high heat and
stir it until it boils or presence of bubbles at
the bottom part of it. Lastly, pour the agar
and let it cool and harden.
After a day, put out all the petri dish from
the incubator. Using a ruler, check the zone
of inhibition of each petri dish and finally
write all the data needed such as the product,
dilution, zone of inhibition in millimeter, and
the interpretation of zone of inhibition
whether it is Susceptible, Intermediate, or
Resistant.
RESULTS
The zone of inhibition is measured in
millimeters (mm). It is interpreted by 3
categories: Resistant (0 mm), Intermediate
(5-9 mm), and Susceptible (≥ 10 mm).
1. Staphylococcus aureus
Table 1.1: The Effectivity of Liquid Hand
Soap Removing Staphylococcus aureus
with Concentration Level of 20 Percent
Brands Zone of Interpretation
Inhibition
(mm)

Next is to prepare cultured bacteria, International

Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli.
Prepare also 2 test tubes with water. Using an A 0 Resistant
inoculating loop, scrape a decent number of
bacteria and put it over the test tube. Mix it B 0 Resistant
and repeat the process. It is necessary to heat C 0 Resistant
the inoculating loop with the fire from
alcohol lamp for it to be sterile before Local
scrapping again a new bacterium.
X 5 Intermediate
Using a cotton swab, dip it in the water
and swab it in the agar. Use a different swab Y 5 Intermediate
for different bacteria. Then, put over the

3
 Table 1.3: The Effectivity of Liquid Hand
Z 0 Resistant
Soap Removing Staphylococcus aureus
Based on the result, the effectivity of with Concentration Level of 60 Percent
the liquid hand soap with concentration of
20 percent shows that only Local brand X
Brands Zone of Interpretation
and Y have an intermediate effectiveness in
removing the bacteria Staphylococcus Inhibition
aureus. On the other hand, Staphylococcus (mm)
aureus is resistant with the International
brands and Local brand Z. International

Table 1.2: The Effectivity of Liquid Hand

A 10 Susceptible
Soap Removing Staphylococcus aureus
with Concentration Level of 40 Percent B 5 Intermediate

Brands Zone of Interpretation C 0 Resistant

Inhibition
Local
(mm)

International X 10 Susceptible

A 10 Susceptible Y 10 Susceptible

B 5 Intermediate Z 5 Intermediate
Based on the result, the effectivity of
C 0 Resistant liquid hand soap with concentration level of
Local 60 percent shows that International brand A
and Local brand X and Y are susceptible in
removing the bacteria Staphylococcus
X 10 Susceptible
aureus. In addition, International Brand B
Y 10 Susceptible and Local brand Z have an intermediate
effectiveness. On the other hand,
Z 5 Intermediate Staphylococcus aureus is resistant with
Based on the result, the effectivity of International brand C.
liquid hand soap with concentration level of
Table 1.4: The Effectivity of Liquid Hand
40 percent shows that International brand A
and Local brand X and Y are susceptible in Soap removing Staphylococcus aureus
removing the bacteria Staphylococcus with Concentration Level of 80 Percent
aureus. In addition, International brand B
and Local brand Z have an intermediate Brands Zone of Interpretation
effectiveness. On the other hand, Inhibition
Staphylococcus aureus is resistant with (mm)
International Brand C.

4
 International X 20 Susceptible

Y 10 Susceptible
A 10 Susceptible
Z 20 Susceptible
B 5 Intermediate
Based on the result, the effectivity of
C 5 Intermediate liquid hand soap with 100 percent
concentration level shows that Local brand
Local X and Z is the most susceptible in removing
the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus followed
X 10 Susceptible by the International brand A. In addition,
International brand B and Local brand Y are
Y 10 Susceptible susceptible for removing the bacteria too.
On the other hand, International brand C
Z 5 Intermediate have an intermediate result.
Based on the result, the effectivity of 2. Escherichia coli
liquid hand soaps with concentration level of Table 2.1: The Effectivity of Liquid Hand
80 percent shows that International Brand A Soap Removing Escherichia coli with
and Local brand X and Y are susceptible in Concentration Level of 20 Percent
removing the bacteria Staphylococcus
aureus. In addition, International brand B and Brands Zone of Interpretation
C and Local brand Z have an intermediate Inhibition
effectiveness. (mm)
Table 1.5: The Effectivity of Liquid Hand
International
Soap Removing Staphylococcus aureus
with Concentration Level of 100 Percent
A 0 Resistant
Brands Zone of Interpretation B 0 Resistant
Inhibition
(mm) C 0 Resistant

International Local

A 15 Susceptible X 0 Resistant

B 10 Susceptible Y 10 Susceptible

C 5 Intermediate Z 5 Intermediate

Local Based on the result, the effectivity of

liquid hand soap with concentration level of
20 percent shows that Local brand Y is

5
susceptible in removing bacteria Escherichia
Brands Zone of Interpretation
coli. In addition, Local brand Z has an
Inhibition
intermediate effectiveness. On the other
(mm)
hand, Escherichia coli is resistant with the
International brands and Local brand X. International
Table 2.2: The Effectivity of Liquid Hand
Soap Removing Escherichia coli with A 5 Intermediate
Concentration Level of 40 Percent B 0 Resistant

Brands Zone of Interpretation C 5 Intermediate

Inhibition
(mm) Local

International X 0 Resistant

A 0 Resistant Y 10 Susceptible

B 0 Resistant Z 5 Intermediate
Based on the result, the effectivity of
C 0 Resistant
liquid hand soap with concentration level of
Local 60 percent shows that Local brand Y is
susceptible in removing bacteria Escherichia
X 0 Resistant coli. In addition, International brand A and C
and Local brand Z have an intermediate
Y 10 Susceptible effectiveness. On the other hand, Escherichia
coli are resistant with the International brand
Z 5 Intermediate B and Local brand X.
Based on the result, the effectivity of
Table 2.4: The Effectivity of Liquid Hand
liquid hand soap with concentration level of
Soap Removing Escherichia coli with
40 percent shows that Local brand Y is
Concentration Level of 80 Percent
susceptible in removing bacteria Escherichia
coli. In addition, Local brand Z has an
Brands Zone of Interpretation
intermediate effectiveness. On the other
Inhibition
hand, Escherichia coli is resistant with the
(mm)
International brands and Local brand X.
International
Table 2.3: The Effectivity of Liquid Hand
Soap Removing Escherichia coli with
Concentration Level of 60 Percent A 10 Susceptible

B 0 Resistant

6
 Based on the result, the effectivity of
C 5 Intermediate
liquid hand soap with concentration level of
Local 100 percent shows that Local brand Y is the
most susceptible in removing bacteria
X 0 Resistant Escherichia coli followed by International
brand A. In addition, International brand C
Y 10 Susceptible and Local brand Z have an intermediate
effectiveness. On the other hand, Escherichia
Z 5 Intermediate
coli is resistant with the International brand B
Based on the result, the effectivity of and Local brand X.
liquid hand soap with concentration level of
DISCUSSION
80 percent shows that International brand A
and Local brand Y is susceptible in removing The purpose of this study is to
bacteria Escherichia coli. In addition, compare and the effectiveness of different
International brand C and Local brand Z have brands of liquid hand soap in eliminating
an intermediate effectiveness. On the other Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.
hand, Escherichia coli are resistant with the The researchers collected six different liquid
International brand B and Local brand X. hand soaps- half are made internationally and
half are made locally. Previous study
Table 2.5: The Effectivity of Liquid Hand
suggests that cleaning hands with
Soap Removing Escherichia coli with
antibacterial hand washes stops the spread of
Concentration Level of 100 Percent
microbes or loose transient flora thus
Brands Zone of Interpretation preventing infections (Sajed, et al. 2014). In
Inhibition connection to this, our results confirmed that
(mm) there are brands of local and international
liquid hand soaps are effective in eliminating
International Staphylococcus aureus and/or Escherichia
coli.
A 10 Susceptible

B 0 Resistant

C 5 Intermediate

Local

X 0 Resistant

Y 20 Susceptible

Z 5 Intermediate

7
 Brand A, C, and Z at a concentration level of
Summary of the Effectivity of
20%.
Liquid Hand Soap for
Eliminating Staphylococcus
aureus Summary of the Effectivity of
Liquid Hand Soap for
25
Eliminating Staphylococcus
20 20
aureus
15 15
10 10 10 10 10 25

5 5 5 5 5 5 20
0 0 0 0 15
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
10
Brand A Brand B Brand C 5
Brand X Brand Y Brand Z 0
Brand Brand Brand Brand Brand Brand
A B C X Y Z
Chart 1: Summary of the Effectivity of
Liquid Hand Soap for Eliminating 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Staphylococcus aureus Based on
Concentration Level Chart 2: Summary of the Effectivity of
Liquid Hand Soap for Eliminating
From the data given above, the
Staphylococcus aureus
researchers made a summary chart to see the
overall result of the effectiveness of the liquid The chart shows a summary of the
hand soap based on their concentration level overall effectiveness based on their brand.
wherein, the x-axis is the concentration level The x-axis shows Brand in their
in percent, the y-axis is the zone of inhibition concentration level while the y-axis shows
in millimeters, the Brand A to Brand C is the the zone of inhibition in millimeters. Their
international brand of liquid hand soap, and effectiveness as a brand is determined by
Brand X to Z is the local brand of liquid hand getting its mean.
soap.
The brand that shows the greatest effectivity
The chart shows that if the is based on overall result is Brand X followed
concentration level increases, then the zone by Brand Y and A, Brand Z, Brand B and the
of inhibition increases. The smallest zone of least effective is Brand C. Therefore, the
inhibition is 0 millimeters from Brand C at local brands are the most effective in
20% to 60% concentration level while the Staphylococcus aureus disinfectant.
largest zone of inhibition is 20 millimeters
from Brand X and Brand Y in concentration
level of 100%. Therefore, Brand X and Y is
the most effective in eliminating
Staphylococcus aureus at a concentration
level of 100% while the least effective is

8
 most effective in eliminating Staphylococcus
Summary of the Effectivity of
aureus at a concentration level of 100% while
Liquid Hand Soap for
Eliminating Echerichia coli the least effective is Brand A, C and X at a
concentration level of 20%.
25

20 20 Summary of the Effectivity of

Liquid Hand Soap for
15 Eliminating Escherichia coli
25
10 10 10 10 10 10
20
5 5 5 5 5 5
15
0 0 0 0 0 0
20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 10

Brand A Brand B Brand C 5

Brand X Brand Y Brand Z
Chart 3: Summary of the Effectivity of
Liquid Hand Soap for Eliminating
Escherichia coli Based on Concentration
Level
The researchers made a summary chart
to see the overall result of the effectiveness of
the liquid hand soap based on their
concentration level wherein, the x-axis is the
concentration level in percent, the y-axis is
the zone of inhibition in millimeters, the
Brand A to Brand C is the international brand
of liquid hand soap, and Brand X to Z is the
local brand of liquid hand soap.
The chart shows that if the
concentration level increases, then the zone
of inhibition increases. The smallest zone of
inhibition is 0 millimeters from Brand A at
20% to 40%, Brand C at 20% to 40%, and
Brand B and X at 20% to 100% concentration
level while the largest zone of inhibition is 20
millimeters from Brand Y in concentration
level of 100%. Therefore, Brand Y is the
0
Brand Brand Brand Brand Brand Brand
A B C X Y Z
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Chart 4: Summary of the Effectivity of
Liquid Hand Soap for Eliminating
Escherichia coli
The chart shows a summary of the
overall effectiveness based on their brand.
The x-axis shows Brand in their
concentration level while the y-axis shows
the zone of inhibition in millimeters. Their
effectiveness as a brand is determined by
getting its mean.
The brand that shows the greatest
effectivity is based on overall result is Brand
Y followed by Brand A, Brand Z, Brand C
and the least effective is Brand B and X.
Therefore, the local brands are the most
effective in Escherichia coli disinfectant.
The effectivity of these hand soaps has
different considerations to take before

9
concluding it is the most effective. Also, the EDTA Chelating Internation
researchers want to classify the active agent al B, Local
ingredients to know what makes the hand Z
soap effective.
Sodium Surfactant Internation
I. Common Active Ingredients
Laureth al C, Local
Chemical Purpose Present In Sulfate X, Local
Name Y, Local Z

Sodium Cleansing Internation Sodium Surfactant Internation

Chloride agent al A, Lauryl al B, Local
Internation Sulfate Y
al B, Cocamido Surfactant Internation
Internation propyl al A,
al C, Local Betaine Internation
Y al B,
Citric Preservative Internation Internation
Acid s al A, Local al C, Local
Y, Local Z X, Local
Y, Local Z
Sodium Preservative Internation
Benzoate s al C, Local Cl 42090 Coloring Internation
Y Agent al B,
Internation
Cocamide Emulsifying Internation al C
DEA agent al A, Local
Z Fragrance Scent Internation
al A,
Glycerin Skin- Internation Internation
conditioning al B, al B, Local
agent Internation Y, Local Z
al C, Local
Z Aqua Scent Internation
al A,
Water Solvent Internation Internation
al B, Local al C
X, Local
Y, Local Z DMDM Antimicrobi Internation
Hydantoin al Agent al B,
Internation

10
 al C, Local Cl 191401 Coloring
Z agent
I. Unique Active Ingredients Parfum Scent

Chemical Purpose Present Polyquaterniu Antistatic Local X

Name In m-7 agent

Dodecyl Antimicrob Internatio Floral Scent Scent

Sulfate ial agent nal A
Benzyl Anti- Local Y
Sodium Surfactant Alcohol Bacterial
Alcohol Ether agent

5-Chloro-2- Antimicrob Sodium Antiseptics

Methyl-4- ial Salicylate Preservativ
Isothiazotin preservativ es
es
Sodium Xylene Cleansing
Food Grade Coloring Sulfonate agent
Pigment agent
Zinc Pyrithione Antimicrob
Benzalkonium Antimicrob Internatio ial agent
Chloride ial agent nal B
Preservativ Trihydroxystea Skin
es nin conditionin
Surfactant g agent

Polysorbate-20 Surfactant Zinc Sulfate Antiseptic

astringent
Aloe Anti-
Barbadensis Inflammato FD & C Dye Coloring Local Z
Leaf Extract ry agent
The tables have shown different active
Cl 17200 Coloring
ingredients. According to William Rutala as
agent
cited by Hatti (2005), antimicrobial hand
Benzophenone- Prevents Internatio washing agents are powerful in decreasing
3 UV light nal C bacteria rather than waterless wipes and
from rubbing alcohol products. Brand Y is
damaging effective because it contains anti-bacterial,
the scents antimicrobial, and antiseptics such as Benzyl
and color Alcohol, Sodium Salicylate, Zinc Pyrithione,
Trihydroxysteanin, and Zinc Sulfate which

11
are helpful to remove the daily encountered
bacteria. Based on CDC, surfactants remove
dirt and microbes from the skin especially
when the hands are scrub thoroughly (Which
is, November 20, 2018). In relation to this,
Brand Y also possesses surfactants and
cleaning agents such as Sodium Chloride,
Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Sodium Lauryl
Sulfate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, and
Sodium Xylene Sulfonate. Second to the
most effective is Brand A which contains
Dodecyl Sulfate, and 5-Chloro-2-Methyl-4-
Isothiazotin for antimicrobial agent, and
Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Sodium Chloride,
and Sodium Alcohol Ether for surfactant and
cleaning agent.
In the introduction of this study the
researchers cited that a study has revealed
that antiseptic ingredients do not assure the
higher efficacy of antimicrobial during hand
washing as per Min Suk Rhee (Forbes, 2015).
It is proven by this study. Third overall
effective is Brand X. Next effective after
Brand X has anti-bacterial agent,
antimicrobial agent, and/or antiseptics yet
Brand X is more effective. Brand X does not
contain anti-bacterial agent, antimicrobial, or
even antiseptics but it can kill the two chosen
bacteria. On the other hand, it has surfactants
such as Sodium Laureth Sulfate and
Cocamidopropyl Betaine that helped the
hand soap to remove the two chosen bacteria.
Therefore, having an anti-bacterial,
antimicrobial, or antiseptics will not assure
the liquid hand soap’s effectiveness.
CONCLUSION
Based on the data gathered,
International brands are effective, but the
Local brands are more effective. The best
12
hand soap to use for killing Staphylococcus
aureus is Brand X of Local brand. The best
hand soap to use for removing Escherichia
coli is Local Y. The overall effective is 1.
Local Y; 2. International A; and 3. Local X.
Based on its concentration the Brand X of
local brand is effective in disinfecting
Staphylococcus aureus at a concentration of
100 percent while the Brand Y is the best in
killing Escherichia coli at a concentration of
100 percent. Based on the findings higher
price are more effective in killing the
bacteria. Having an anti-bacterial,
antimicrobial and antiseptics will not
guarantee the successful removal of the
germs in the hands.
RECOMMENDATION
In line with this research, the
researchers recommend using the local
brands with a lot of surfactant and anti-
bacterial, antimicrobial and antiseptics. Since
Brand Y possesses it and successfully remove
both bacteria; therefore, the researchers
recommend using it. The best use of the hand
soap is at concentration level of 100 percent.
As Bailey (2019) stated, “Proper hand
washing and drying is the most effective
method of preventing the spread of disease,
as it removes the dirt and germs that can be
spread to others and helps to keep the
environment around you clean.” Thus, we
recommend washing thoroughly even in a
hundred percent concentration level of liquid
hand soap.
To sum it up, local brand Y is an
effective liquid hand soap in eliminating both
Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.
REFERENCES
Bailey, R. (January 21, 2019). Why you https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredie
should wash your hands. Retrieved from nt/701520/COCAMIDOPROPYL_BET
https://www.thoughtco.com/top- AINE/
reasons-to-wash-your-hands-4043996
EWG’s Skin Deep. (n.d). Dmdm hydantoin
Benzophenone-3. (2019). Retrieved from [Data Set]. Retrieved from
https://cosmeticsinfo.org/ingredient/ben https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredie
zophenone-3 nt/702196/DMDM_HYDANTOIN_(FO
RMALDEHYDE_RELEASER)/
Cameron, C. (May 2, 2016). Is there a
difference between bar soap and liquid EWG’s Skin Deep. (n.d.). Polysorbate-20
hand wash?. Discover. Retrieved from [Data Set]. Retrieved from
http://discovermagazine.com/2016/june/ https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredie
2-bar-soap-or-hand-wash nt/705137/POLYSORBAT-20/

Crisostomo, S. (October 15, 2011). DOH, EWG’s Skin Deep. (n.d.). Polyquaternium-7
UNICEF, promote hand washing vs [Data Set]. Retrieved from
diseases. Philstar Global. Retrieved https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredie
from nt/705124/POLYQUATERNIUM-7/
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/201
Hand washing basics to help your family stay
1/10/15/737109/doh-unicef-promote-
safe. (n.d.). Retrieved from
hand-washing-vs-diseases
https://www.safeguard.ph/en-ph/hand-
DiSalvo, D. (September 28, 2015). washing-basics
Antibacterial soap is no more effective
Glycerin. (2019). Retrieved from
than regular soap, so why are we still
https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-
buying it?. Retrieved from
20275/glycerin-topical/details
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisal
vo/2015/09/28/antibacterial-soap-is-no- Hitti, M. (2005). Which hand washing
more-effective-than-regular-soap-so- cleansers fight germs best?. Retrieved
why-are-we-still-buying- form https://www.webmd.com/cold-
it/#5c4301fa7155 and-flu/news/20050311/which-hand-
washing-cleansers-fight-germs-best#1
EDTA. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.webdm.com/vitamins/ai/in McCulloch, M. (2019). What is sodium
gredientmono-1032/edta benzoate? Everything you need to know.
Retrieved from
EWG’s Skin Deep. (n.d.). Cocamide dea
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/so
[Data Set]. Retrieved from
dium-benzoate
https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredie
nt/701516/COCAMIDE_DEA/ National Center for Biotechnology
Information. (n.d.). Benzyl alcohol [Data
EWG’s Skin Deep. (n.d). Cocamidopropyl set]. Retrieved from
betaine [Data Set]. Retrieved from

13
 https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/comp bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@D
ound/Sodium_salicylate OCNO+8270
National Center for Biotechnology Unilever leads global handwashing day.
Information. (n.d.). Dodecyl sulfate (n.d.). Inquirer. Retrieved from
[Data Set]. Retrieved from https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/174730/unil
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/comp ever-global-handwashing-day/
ound/dodecyl_sulfate#section=Therape
utic-Uses Which is better, using soap and water or
sanitizer?. (November 20, 2018). Vital
National Center for Biotechnology Record. Retrieved from
Information. (n.d.). https://vitalrecord.tamhsc.edu/which-is-
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid [Data better-using-soap-and-water-or-
Set]. Retrieved from sanitizer/
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/comp
ound/edta#section=Therapeutic-Uses

National Center for Biotechnology

Information. (n.d.). Zinc sulfate [Data
Set]. Retrieved from
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/comp
ound/24424

Sajed, A. N., et al. (2014). Antibacterial

activity of liquid hand washes against
daily encounter bacteria. IOSR Journal
of Pharmacy, 4 (2). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio
n/237255933_Antibacterial_activity_of
_soaps_against_daily_encountered_bact
eria
Sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth
sulfate. (2019). Retrieved from
https://cosmeticsinfo.org/sodium-lauryl-
sulfate-and-sodium-laureth-sulfate

Sodium salicylate. (2019). Retrieved from

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/comp
ound
Toxnet. (n.d.). 5-Chloro-2-Methyl-4-
Isothiazotin [Data Set]. Retrieved from
https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-

14