New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Ancient Honey-and-Vinegar Combo Could Actually Treat Infected Wounds

An age-old remedy that was prescribed by Hippocrates may be a cheap alternative to antibiotics for those with chronic wounds

Glass jar containing a mixture of honey, vinegar, and botanicals viewed from above

Oxymel is a mixture of honey and vinegar that is used as a medicine.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Honey and vinegar, a traditional medicinal combination known as oxymel, dates to the ancient world. Apothecaries in the Middle Ages sold it, Hippocrates prescribed it and the physician-philosopher Ibn-Sīnā extolled its virtues. Today such a mixture sounds likelier to dress a salad than a lesion—but with antibiotic-resistant bacteria on the rise, scientists are eagerly seeking new ways to fight intransigent infections. Now a study in Microbiology suggests oxymel may indeed help.

“In modern medicine both honey and acetic acid are used individually to treat infected wounds,” but they are typically not combined, says study co-author Erin Connelly, an interdisciplinary researcher at the University of Warwick in England, who studies the antimicrobial properties of historic remedies. Honey stresses bacteria and fights infections with its high sugar content and acidity. Similarly, vinegar's active component, acetic acid, is a natural antiseptic that breaks down bacterial DNA and proteins.

Neither compound is particularly effective alone, Connelly and her team found. The researchers applied low doses of honey and acetic acid separately to laboratory-grown formations called biofilms, made up of the common wound pathogens Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Most of the bacteria lived. “But when we put these low doses together, we saw a large number of bacteria dying, which is really exciting,” says study co-author Freya Harrison, who studies chronic infections at the University of Warwick. Oxymel killed up to 1,000 times more bacteria in the biofilm than vinegar alone and up to 100,000 times more than honey alone.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Oxymel could be particularly valuable for chronic wound infections, the researchers say. These long-lived skin lesions are common in people with diabetes or burn trauma, and they often contain organized colonies of stubbornly antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It is estimated that 1 to 2 percent of the population in developed countries will experience a chronic wound during their lifetime, and the rate appears to be increasing as diabetes becomes more common.

“Chronic wounds are a huge burden on the health-care system,” says Andrew Vardanian, a plastic surgeon at UCLA Health, who specializes in complex wounds. “We need alternatives because some treatments don't work for certain patients.” Additionally, long-term antibiotic use on a stubborn infection can make the bacteria more drug-resistant. Oxymel would also be much cheaper than existing infection treatments, Vardanian explains.

Next the researchers plan to investigate why the combination of honey and vinegar works better than either alone, which remains a mystery for now. If oxymel proves successful in treating humans, this inexpensive old remedy would be an important addition to the arsenal for fighting resistant infections.

Leo DeLuca’s work has appeared in Scientific American, the New York Times, Smithsonian Magazine, Rolling Stone and Popular Science, among other media outlets. DeLuca, an award-winning writer, holds a Master of Arts in Science Journalism from Columbia Journalism School. A native of Dayton, Ohio, he works as a communications specialist and scientific editor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

More by Leo DeLuca
Scientific American Magazine Vol 329 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Ancient Antimicrobials” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 329 No. 3 (), p. 14
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1023-14b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe