{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023968042609853527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005992010652463382, 'mean_word_length': 5.863013698630137, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Specificity of the neutralizers as the cause of errors in evaluating disinfectant efficacy: an assessment of triclosan

One of the most commonly used methods for assessing disinfectants in vitro is the dilution‐neutralization test. Although it is known that using an effective neutralizer is essential for obtaining reliable results, in the case of disinfectants like triclosan, whose neutralization is more complicated, an adequate neutralizer is not always used. Here, we compare the efficacy of different neutralizers described previously, and others that have been modified, against several antiseptic formulations of triclosan. The strains of reference used were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. The solutions of antiseptic were triclosan 2% aqueous solution, and three alcoholic solutions containing 2, 0·068 and 0·5% triclosan, respectively. In the dilution‐neutralization test, six neutralizers with different degrees of complexity were assayed. Our results show that the antiseptic solutions studied are effective against the strains of reference, with the exception of triclosan 2% aqueous solution against Ps. aeruginosa. Most neutralizers proved ineffective, depending on the antiseptic solution and the bacterial species, particularly in the case of Staph. aureus. These findings confirm a need to test every neutralizer specifically for each disinfectant, at the maximum concentration used, and for every specific bacterial strain.