Talk:Triclosan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chemicals WikiProject Triclosan is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Chemistry WikiProject This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Triclosan article.

Article policies

Contents

[edit] Ad

I think the Triclosan SDC ad at the end should be removed.

[edit] Talk 1

I think it's important to disclose that the study finding that triclosan does not promote microbial resistance (McBain et al. 2003) is funded by Proctor & Gamble, which uses triclosan in it's products and has a financial stake in showing that triclosan is safe. I'm not commenting on the quality of the research, simply that such an association was important enough to be noted on the original publication and should therefore also be included with its use on this page.

Also, it's not entirely true that Dr. Levy's 2004 paper "demonstrat[ed] that triclosan is not significantly associated with bacterial resistance." The authors of that paper allow that their 1-year study is not a definitive assessment of triclosan's possible association with antibiotic resistance. They allow that a longer-term study may find different results. (69.134.179.186 20:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

I removed the statement "Triclosan has been shown to be safe through extensive testing and 30 years of experience in personal care products and clinical use and is approved by both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and by the European Union." because it is not accurate and conflicts with another part of the article that says the epa classifies triclosan as a probable carcinogen. User:TitaniumDreads 20:42, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

TitaniumDreads is wrong here - the EPA refers to chloroform as a probable human carcinogen, NOT triclosan. TDs comments across Wikipedia have a marked anti-chemical tendency - no problem with that, but be aware when you read his/her comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CidermanRolls (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006
Yeah, Triclosan doesn't break down into chloroform in the mouth, although it has been shown to break down to chloroform in chlorinated water exposed to sunlight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.200.87.18 (talk) 10 August 2006

I'd like to read about how Triclosan works and how (or whether) it degrades in the environment. I've done some research but I'd rather see something written by someone with more familiarity with the subject. Notinasnaid 15:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Is it just me, or is there a POV issue with having almost all of the external links on the page point to anti-Triclosan advocacy sites? (The one that doesn't just has the chemical structure, and no other content.) The current writeup itself seems balanced, and I don't see much of a POV issue there, it's just the lack of balance in the external references that is a little troubling. -- 14:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the links seem to violate NPOV, although I can't find any pro-Triclosan sites... any ideas? 81.174.135.79 21:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

there seems to be some contradiction.. in one paragraph it says that some bacteria are resistant to triclosan, and in the next few paragraphs it says that bacterial resistance is not possible?? Hellznrg 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

--Agreed, This should be looked into--it is confusing. Proper citation of sources is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.178.116 (talk) 17 May 2006

[edit] Article

An article on triclosan: http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/10-04/triclosan-article.htm --68.239.240.144 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Triclosan external link caution

The Triclosan article's external link listed as "Antibacterials? Here's the Rub – campaign site" may be questionable. Currently (Feb 2, 07) it leads at least on my Mac browser to a single pixel graphic which may not be a good thing? Or maybe the linked site is normally ok and useful but has a temporary problem? I've never edited in Wikipedia so I leave any followup to experts, thanks. Plosel2 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute / Resistance concerns

I don't have the time to edit, but this wiki article is deeply flawed (and now has a POV problem with being too pro-triclosan). I suggest starting here for a decent review: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/mdr.2006.12.83?cookieSet=1 Triclosan and Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria: An Overview SIAMAK P. YAZDANKHAH,1 ANNE A. SCHEIE,2 E. ARNE HØIBY,3 BJØRN-TORE LUNESTAD,4 EVEN HEIR,5 TOR ØYSTEIN FOTLAND,1 KRISTINE NATERSTAD,5 and HILDE KRUSE6 MICROBIAL DRUG RESISTANCE Volume 12, Number 2, 2006 © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Please note that this is a complicated issue, so don't cherry pick from the literature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.232.165 (talk) 12 February 2007

Research has shown that resistance to triclosan does occur, and that it can be transmitted between bacteria. There is also cause to be concerned in terms of cross-resistance.

Under some conditions tested in some literature resistance or cross-resistance (e.g. dental conditions don't appear to be a problem) do not occur or are not important. However, this is not the case for all conditions, so please don't read one sentence from one article and draw conclusions for the rest of the literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.255.24 (talk) 13 February 2007

I've added the cite above to the article, and removed the NPOV tag. If you have specific concerns about the article's lack of adherence to NPOV, please mention them. —Trevyn 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pepsodent

An IP removed this from the list of products. Is this correct? Rich Farmbrough, 08:42 26 April 2007 (GMT).

I don't know, if triclosan is still used in Pepsodent. Some years ago, it was used in that toothpaste: [1] --Leyo 07:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Pepsodent and other big tooth paste companies act on so many different markets and the same brand may differ in composition between markets, not only in triclosan but in a lot of other things. And the same composition might have different names, and all kinds of other confusion ... I am pretty sure at least of some Pepsodent brands still contain Triclosan, at least they did so very recently. Anyway should specific brands be mentioned on wikipedia? The list of products containing triclosan would be so amazingly long if specific brands would be mentioned. Benkeboy 11:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a{d,b}sorb

Could someone clarify whether the interaction of triclosan with sewage sludge and particles settling out of the water column is adsorption or absorption? I changed the b to a d because the original text said that the triclosan "absorbs to" something, which as far as I can tell is just ungrammatical. But the abstracts of one of the two citations just refers to "sorption", and I don't see any similar word in the other abstract. --Trovatore 06:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed! "It has been shown to be effective in reducing and controlling bacterial contamination on the hands and on treated products." By whom??? Please work to keep Wikipedia from turning into an advert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.56.152 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements on Soap

I have marked several statements in the 'Alternatives' section as dubious:

  • Soap is itself an effective microbicide due to the fact that soap breaks down oils.
  • All bacterial cell walls are based on lipid chains, which are oil-based.
  • The simple act of applying soap to the hands and rubbing vigorously will cause the cell walls of any bacteria on the hands to be ripped apart by the soap, disintegrating and killing any bacteria present.

Soap is not a very effective microbicide. It works as a disinfectant by removing bacteria from surfaces like skin, rather than by killing them. Bacterial cell membranes are made up of lipids, but bacterial cell walls are not. Bacterial cell walls are unlikely to be damaged by exposure to soap. Bacteria with cell walls will certainly not be ripped apart by soap.--68.238.228.97 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Soap by nature is an emulsifier and has the power to denature proteins and cell membranes. The cell wall is made of peptidoglycan, a glycoprotein matrix whose molecular components are susceptible to denaturation by interaction with hydrophobic and hydrophilic moieties of soap. However, the effectiveness of soap however to denature the cell wall, cell membrane, and destroy bacteria is not known. The basic chemical interaction between an emulsifier and bacterial walls and membranes precludes that soap does have potential to kill bacteria but this is generally not recognized to sterilize surfaces or hands (like 70% ethanol). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.30.211 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Washing hands

I am sure there is a better study to quote about washing hands. I believe the findings are more relevant to the efficacy of rubbing your hands - which must be done for a certain length of time to effectively kill germs. I believe the information would be found somewhere at the CDC - especially with the now highly publicized outbreak of MRSA staph infections. Even when using a surgical scrub, you are supposed to scrub with product for at least a minute. The casual wet hands, add soap and rub for 5 seconds, that you normally see in a public restroom,is not going to really kill much of anything. I am also a soapmaker. Soap helps to clean, but you still have to wash.[I did try navigating the CDC site and gave up since I am on dial up - too many screen changes for me -sorry.]

[edit] Washing hands

I am sure there is a better study to quote about washing hands. I believe the findings are more relevant to the efficacy of rubbing your hands - which must be done for a certain length of time to effectively kill germs. I believe the information would be found somewhere at the CDC - especially with the now highly publicized outbreak of MRSA staph infections. Even when using a surgical scrub, you are supposed to scrub with product for at least a minute. The casual wet hands, add soap and rub for 5 seconds, that you normally see in a public restroom,is not going to really kill much of anything. I am also a soapmaker. Soap helps to clean, but you still have to wash.[I did try navigating the CDC site and gave up since I am on dial up - too many screen changes for me -sorry.] 4.246.208.203 (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)lmdicenzo@yahoo.com

[edit] Washing Hands (3)

I was drawn here by the absence of Triclosan (now replaced by chloroxylenol) in my favourite shower gel. I did finally find a famous brand with triclosan and purchased it, but the excercise was difficult enough that I supected a problem. I am a cynic, and have been proven right to be so so many times that I recommend that life strateg especially where profit producing goods are concerned.

The effectiveness of soap versus triclosan containing soap versus chloroxylenol containing sopa has been tested in a limited study by the. The following paper gives pretty damning results:

A Comparative Study of the Immediate Effects of a Triclosan Antibacterial, Chloroxylenol Antibacterial and Lotion Soap Katie Koecher and Debra Krenke Faculty Sponsor: Timothy S. Uphoff, Ph.D, Clinical Science Dept University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. (Undated)

http://murphylibrary.uwlax.edu/digital/jur/2000/koecher-krenke.pdf

I would prefer someone more qualified than myself to have a look please, but that paper, other net pages with negative comments and a paper on the effects of hand washing on the skin of persons employed in health related jobs: AJIC: American Journal of Infection Control. 34(10):627-635, December 2006. Larson, Elaine PhD, RN, FAAN, CIC a,b; Girard, Raphaelle MD c; Pessoa-Silva, Carmem Lucia MD d; Boyce, John MD e; Donaldson, Liam MD f; Pittet, Didier MD, MS g

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ajic/fulltext.00000545-200612000-00004.htm.

plus the concern over the decreasing effectiveness of antibiotics as multiple-resistant strains spread has lead me to decide tothat this will be the last bottle of anti-bacterial soap I buy. I will also ake any opportunity that presents itself to decry the use of such products except under medical orders adn for a limited time. Perhaps I will just have to be smelly (8-(!.)

Never Wikied before, but this one seems important. For what its worth I can be contacted at bilou540(+ another four as a decimal number)ATyahoo.com. I'm not registered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.188.228.255 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)