Fact or Fiction

Do Antibacterial Soaps Do More Harm Than Good?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Soaps, household cleaners, sponges, and even mattresses and lip glosses now pack bacteria-killing ingredients. Does adding those ingredients make sense?

Traditionally people wash bacteria from their bodies and homes using soap and hot water, alcohol, chlorine bleach or hydrogen peroxide. Soap works by loosening and lifting dirt, oil and microbes from surfaces so that they can be easily rinsed away with water. General cleaners such as alcohol inflict sweeping damage to cells by demolishing key structures, after which the cleaners evaporate. Products containing antibacterial agents, in contrast, leave surface residues, notes Stuart Levy of the Tufts University School of Medicine

Spurring Evolution


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.


This persistence is problematic. When a bacterial population that survives the first hit of an antibacterial agent vies with the lingering chemical, a small subpopulation armed with special defense mechanisms can evolve. This group then multiplies as its weaker relatives perish, and it will withstand attack the next time the chemical is applied. “What doesn't kill you makes you stronger” is the governing maxim here; antibacterial chemicals select for bacteria that can endure their presence.

Resistance to topical chemicals is not the only risk. When bacteria become tolerant to these compounds, they sometimes also become less sensitive to certain antibiotic medicines. This phenomenon, called cross-resistance, has already been demonstrated with triclosan, one of the most common chemicals in antibacterial products.

Genetic mutations can arise in bacteria exposed to triclosan for long periods and endow certain types of bugs with resistance to isoniazid, an antibiotic used for treating tuberculosis, explains Allison Aiello of the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Other mutations can allow microbes to supercharge their efflux pumps—protein machines in the cell membrane that can spit out several types of antibiotics, including ciprofloxacin, used to treat anthrax. These effects have been demonstrated only in the laboratory, not in households and other real-world environments, but Aiello suspects that the few household studies conducted so far might not have been long enough. “The potential is there,” she says.

Scientists have further concerns about antibacterial compounds. Both triclosan and its close chemical relative triclocarban are present in 60 percent of U.S. streams and rivers, points out Rolf Halden of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Both chemicals also end up in the sludge produced by wastewater treatment plants, which is used as fertilizer for crops, thereby opening a potential pathway for contamination of food, Halden says. “The concentrations in agricultural soil are very high,” and this abundance, “along with the presence of pathogens from sewage, could be a recipe for breeding antimicrobial resistance” in the environment, he adds.

Triclosan has also been found in human breast milk, though not in concentrations considered dangerous to babies, as well as in human blood plasma. There is no evidence that current concentrations of triclosan in the human body are harmful, but recent studies suggest that it compromises the function of the hormone systems in bullfrogs and rats.

No Benefit

Ultimately, the value of such antibacterial additives is questionable. An expert panel convened by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration determined that there is insufficient evidence for any benefit from consumer products containing them. “What is this stuff doing in households when we have soaps?” asks John Gustafson of New Mexico State University.

Some scientists argue that consumer use of antibacterial products is appropriate in the homes of people with weakened immune systems. In general, however, good hygiene means using regular soaps rather than antibacterial ones, experts say. “The main way to keep from getting sick,” Gustafson says, “is to wash your hands three times a day, and don't touch mucous membranes.”

Scientific American Magazine Vol 298 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Fact or Fiction” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 298 No. 2 (), p. 96
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0208-96

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe