In the game of bacteria and human health, antibacterial products have been key “weapons” in our hands. As science and technology develop, new and developed antibacterial products are emerging and promising. However, there is anecdotal evidence that newly developed antibacterial products do not result in bacteria producing resistance. This makes people less wary of using new products without knowing that the potential for bacterial resistance is growing.
Bacteria resistance is essentially the evolution of bacteria to adapt to the antibacterial environment. When exposed to anti-bacterial substances, a small part of the bacterial population may develop new survival strategies based on mutation or gene exchange, avoiding the “end-of-life” disaster and passing on resistance.
New antibacterial products, with an innovative halo, are equally vulnerable to this pattern. In the case of new nanosilver antibacterial materials, for example, it has been used in a wide range of areas such as medical dressing, textiles and so forth, with the efficient release of silver ions at nanoscales, which can rapidly inhibit a wide range of pathogens, such as coliform and yellow grapes. Initially, bacteria were “unprepared” for this new type of antibacterial agent, but, over time, bacteria in a long-term nanosilver-containing environment began to “counter-attack”. Some of the bacterial membranes have changed the protein structure to reduce the ingestion efficiency of the silver ion; others produce special sulfol compounds in bacteria that combine with the silver ion and render it less antibacterial. As a result, drug-resistant bacteria are being born, and the advantages of new antibacterial products are being eroded.
Similar situations are common in everyday life. For example, the new light-catalyzed antibacterial air cleaners, which use ultraviolet light to stimulate catalysts to produce stronger oxidizing substances to kill bacteria. Once used in the home, however, the indoor bacteria undergo repeated oxidizing “attacks” and some recalcitrant bacteria activate stress mechanisms. They produce resistance by increasing the synthesis of intracellular antioxidation substances, and oxidizing free radicals produced by mesopurifiers. Not only is the clean-up highly compromised, but it can also allow drug-resistant bacteria to spread indoors, threatening the health of families.
The area of personal care is also vulnerable. New plant sources are resistant to mouthwashing, which attracts a large number of consumers under the banner of “natural, mild and resistant risks”. However, the active ingredients in plant extracts, such as the platinum compounds in tea-tree oil, are also “eye nails” of bacteria. The frequent use of this mouthwash and the survival of the oral bacteria can modify their own metabolic circuits, reducing the sensitivity of the enzyme to thorium compounds, and the long-term formation of oral drug-resistant strains, leading to increased problems such as stench and dental inflammation.
This misperception is far-reaching. On the one hand, consumers over-reliance on new antibacterial products due to misbelief, accelerating the process of bacterial resistance, and, on the other hand, over-sensitization of the risk of drug impurity by enterprises, which hinders in-depth research into bacterial resistance and the subsequent development of better antibacterial products, should they become infected.
To break this gap, consumers need to look rationally at new antibacterial products. Use in accordance with the principle of proportionality and not to be misused for “new” use; focus on product specifications and follow-up scientific reports to understand potential drug resistance risks. Scientists are constantly monitoring the resistance to bacteria following the use of new antibacterial products, and enterprises are promoting it, and the regulatory authorities are monitoring it more closely.
