Antibacterial products are highly visible in the wave of pursuit of healthy life, and consumers tend to choose their hearts and minds on the basis of the product’s antibacterial test results, with the conviction that these data are the hard evidence of the antibacterial strength of the product. However, one of the areas of error that is often overlooked is that the results of antibacterial tests are not subject to environmental impact. In fact, the detection environment is like an invisible but powerful hand, and the credibility of the detection data is at hand.
Antibacterial testing is designed to simulate the antibacterial performance of the product in practice and to inform consumers. Ideally, as far as possible, the actual scene will be restored. In the case of antibiotics, for example, the laboratory takes into account the temperature of the human body when wearing it — the temperature of the surface at close to 37°C, simulation of the changes in humidity caused by sweating, and friction in daily activities, as these factors affect the attachment and reproduction of bacteria on the fabric. In this simulated environment, a qualified anti-bacterial uniform effectively suppresses common pathogens such as vinyl fungus and coli, giving skin health protection to sports fans.
But the reality is far more complicated than imagined. In practice, different test environmental factors can make the results very different. Temperature is a key “key” that opens different growth patterns of bacteria. Most bacteria are more active between 20 °C – 37 °C, which is also the temperature range routinely detected in most laboratories. If the detection temperature rises to more than 40°C, some heat-resistant bacteria, such as the hot fat sprouts, are “awakening” and antibacterial products that would otherwise be colorful at normal temperatures may be significantly less effective in the face of special bacteria. For example, on hot southern summers, outdoor anti-bacterial facilities, which are only measured at conventional temperatures, may not be able to resist high-temperature-induced heat-resistant bacteria, accelerating aging and breeding bacteria.
Humidity is also important, and high humidity provides a natural “hotbed” for bacteria. When the relative humidity of the air reaches 80% or more, the aroma bacteria like fungus, green fungi, and so forth, breed in large numbers. If the testing environment for antibacterial products remains dry and does not take into account the actual use of humid areas, such as the southern moist season, bathrooms, etc., the antibacterial effects of the product may be in reality empty. Like antibacterial tiles, antibacterials are detected at dry laboratories up to 90 per cent, but in wet ablutions, water is immersed for long periods of time, antibacterial constituents are lost, bacteria are fast-established and do not achieve the intended antibacterial purpose.
In addition, environmental variables such as alkalinity, light conditions at the time of testing are of critical importance. For some chemical antibacterial agents, the acid-alkali environment can alter their activity, the acidic acidity is too high or the alkaline overcommitment renders the antibacterial agent ineffective; the ultraviolet light in the light may decompose certain photo-sensitive antibacterial elements and cause the product to “silver”. These complex environmental factors are interwoven, and if they are not fully considered at the time of testing, the results of antibacterial tests are as if they were airborne and do not really reflect the antibacterial efficacy of the product in practice.
This error poses many risks to consumers. When selected, the results of tests that are isolated from the actual environment may lead to the mistaken selection of products that are not suitable for their own environment, the lack of effective antibacterial protection and increased risk of infection. In order to get out of the wrong zone, consumers cannot simply look at the figures in the test report, but understand the actual environmental requirements of the product, taking into account its geographical location, season and other factors. Regulatory authorities should urge the testing agencies to improve the testing standards to cover multiple environmental variables and to ensure that the results are “landed” and that useful and reliable antibacterial products are actually screened for consumers.
