Effectiveness of Alternative Antimicrobial Agents for Disinfection of Hard Surfaces

Full text

SEPTEMBER 2011
1
Effectiveness of Alternative
Antimicrobial Agents for
Disinfection of Hard Surfaces
7
Daniel Fong, Colette Gaulin, Mê-Linh Lê, Mona Shum
Summary
• A review of alternative antimicrobial
agents reveals the need for
standardized methodology for efficacy
testing as well as considerations of
toxicity, safety, cost, ease of use,
availability, storage, and application-
specific testing.
• The appropriateness of alternative
antimicrobial agents, such as vinegar,
lemon juice, and baking soda appear to
be limited for commercial disinfection or
sanitization, but some emerging
technologies such as ozonated water
and electrolyzed water have
demonstrated substantial antimicrobial
properties.
• Agents such as tea tree oil may
demonstrate notable antimicrobial
efficacy, but toxicity and lack of testing
on hard surfaces limit their applications
for hard surface disinfection. Thyme oil
exhibits low toxicity and has been
shown to be microbicidal, but its use
may be limited due to the need for long
contact time and costs.
• Although lacking active microbicidal
activity, microfibre fabrics have unique
properties that significantly increase
their ability to remove organic debris
(e.g., dust, bacteria, spores) and have
the potential to be more efficient and
economical than conventional cotton
fabrics.
• Silver has been demonstrated to show
residual antimicrobial properties. Its
effectiveness in making materials/surfaces
resistant to microbial growth has potential
implications for expanding its use in medical
and commercial applications.
• Further research is needed to explore
potential uses of alternative agents in
formulating novel disinfectants with
desirable characteristics (e.g., lower toxicity,
economical, environmentally friendly).
Introduction
Many alternative antimicrobial agents claim to
exhibit comparable disinfection qualities to
traditional disinfectants and sanitizers,a
such as
accelerated hydrogen peroxide, quaternary
ammonium compounds (QUATs), and chlorine-
based disinfectants (bleach). The alternative
agents are often promoted as less toxic,
environmentally friendly, and natural. The need
for disinfectants as part of sanitation procedures
has been supported by studies that show
a For a discussion of traditional disinfectants and
sanitizers, including definitions, please see the
NCCEH evidence review on Disinfectants and
Sanitizers for Use on Food Contact Surfaces.

2
cross-contamination risks from environmental and
food contact surfaces are not adequately reduced by
the use of detergents and washing alone.1
This document is intended for public health inspectors
and reviews the effectiveness, disinfection potential,
and pertinent issues of major types of alternative
agents that claim to have antimicrobial properties.
Alternative agents that are reviewed include: tea tree
oil, thyme oil, electrolyzed water, ozonated water,
silver-based products, vinegar (acetic acid), lemon
juice (citric acid), baking soda (sodium bicarbonate),
and microfibre cloths. Table 1 summarizes the
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative
agent reviewed.
Unlike registered disinfectants, many alternative
agents do not have a drug identification number (DIN).
The lack of a DIN indicates that product safety and
effectiveness have not been formally reviewed and
approved by Health Canada. Therefore, it may be
difficult for public health inspectors (PHIs) to advise
the public on the efficacy and safety of these
alternative agents. Although uncommon, some
alternative agents, such as thyme oil, silver, and citric
acid are primary active ingredients in approved hard
surface disinfectants. However, it is important to note
that the antimicrobial efficacy of these alternative
agents may be potentiated by other chemical
compounds present in such registered disinfectants.
Therefore, evaluating the efficacy of standalone
alternative agents is likely not representative of results
obtained using products in which a combination of
ingredients, in addition to an alternative agent, is
tested. Registered disinfectants can be found in
Health Canada’s Drug Product Database.2
Table 1. Summary of notable advantages and disadvantages of alternative antimicrobial agentsb
Alternative
agent Advantages Disadvantages
Primary active
ingredient of at
least one
Health Canada
registered
disinfectant Conclusions
Tea tree oil • Natural product
• Defined International
Standards for
composition of tea tree
oil
• TTO is used in existing
topical medicinal
treatments
• No special equipment
required to use
• Significant oral toxicity
• May cause adverse skin
reactions
• Insoluble in water (may
leave film of oil if used
on hard surfaces)
• No • Effective
antimicrobial, but
oral toxicity and
hydrophobic
properties limits its
use as a sanitizer
Thyme oil • Natural product
• Generally Recognized
as Safe (GRAS status)
• Low toxicity
• Environmentally friendly
• Some bacteria are
resistant to thyme oil
(e.g., P. aeruginosa, S.
aureus)
• Thymol is listed as an
asthmagen by the
Association of
Occupational and
Environmental Clinics
(AOEC)
• Expensive
• Requires long contact-
time (10 minutes)
• Yes • Promising
antimicrobial
properties for use as
a sanitizer
• High cost may limit
uses for large-scale
applications
b A brief discussion, including references, for the advantages and disadvantages in this table is available within the reviews for
each alternative antimicrobial agent.

3
Alternative
agent Advantages Disadvantages
Primary active
ingredient of at
least one
Health Canada
registered
disinfectant Conclusions
Electrolyzed
water
(EO water)
• Only salt and water
required for production
of EO water
• On-site generation
eliminates need for
transport, storage, and
handling of hazardous
chemicals
• Abundantly and readily
produced
• Low operating costs
• No toxic/chemical
residues left on surfaces
• Acidic EO water has
corrosive properties
• Safeguards are required
as chlorine gas
produced in production
chambers
• High startup and
maintenance costs
(special equipment for
production and
dispensing required)
• Rapid dissipation of
antimicrobial activity
• No • Promising
antimicrobial
properties for use as
a sanitizer
• Potential to be used
for large-scale
applications
Ozonated
water
(aqueous
ozone)
• Only oxygen (e.g., in air
or compressed) required
for production
• On-site generation
eliminates need for
transport, storage, and
handling of hazardous
chemicals
• Devices have been
registered with NSF
International and the
Canadian Food
Inspection Agency
• U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has
approved ozone (gas
and aqueous phase) as
an antimicrobial
• Maintains efficacy in
cold water
• Abundantly and readily
produced
• No toxic/chemical
residues left on surfaces
• High startup, operating,
and maintenance costs
(special equipment for
UV or corona discharge,
dispensing, etc.)
• Potential occupational
exposure to ozone
• Damaging to sensitive
materials
• Rapid dissipation of
antimicrobial activity
• No • Promising
antimicrobial
properties for use as
a sanitizer
• Potential to be used
for large-scale
applications
Silver • Existing uses of silver in
drinking water,
swimming pools,
medical devices
• Numerous potential
applications for silver-
impregnated materials/
nanotechnology
• Demonstrated residual
• Slow-acting
antimicrobial
• Microbial resistance has
been identified
• Interference by proteins
and salts
• Low toxicity at levels
needed for antimicrobial
• Yes • Research shows
potential for
numerous
applications as an
antimicrobial agent
• More research is
needed to define the
parameters required
to be effective

4
Alternative
agent Advantages Disadvantages
Primary active
ingredient of at
least one
Health Canada
registered
disinfectant Conclusions
antimicrobial activity activity
• Loses antimicrobial
properties once all silver
ions have been released
• Applications may be
limited to residual
antimicrobial activity
(i.e., non-immediate
uses)
Vinegar
(acetic acid)
Lemon juice
(citric acid)
Baking soda
(sodium
bicarbonate)
• Natural product
• Readily available and
abundant
• Low toxicity
• Limited antimicrobial
efficacy and narrow in
spectrum
• May damage the
organoleptic properties
of produce
• May be corrosive or
irritating
• Has pungent and
unwanted odours
• Mixing acids with bleach
can cause the
production of chlorine
gas
• Acetic acid: No
• Citric acid: Yes
• Sodium
bicarbonate:
No
• Applications are
limited by poor
antimicrobial efficacy
and aesthetic
considerations
• Potential to be used
in formulations of
disinfectants
• Unlikely to be used
for commercial
applications, but
may have uses in
domestic settings
Microfibre • Readily available
• More effective at
cleaning than cotton
fabrics
• Lighter material – can
promote productivity and
reduce occupational
injury
• May minimize the use of
chemicals
• Can be cost effective
• Lacks active
antimicrobial properties
– may become a source
of contamination for
subsequently cleaned
surfaces
• Damaged by heat,
chlorine-based
disinfectants, and fabric
softeners
• More expensive than
cotton
• No • Promising efficacy
for cleaning, but not
as an antimicrobial
Tea Tree Oil
This essential oil, extracted from the leaves of
Melaleuca alternifolia, is widely used as an alternative
antimicrobial agent and international standards for the
composition of tea tree oil (TTO) have been
developed (e.g., ISO 4730).3 It is often used as a
topical anti-inflammatory agent and to treat skin
infections such as acne, ringworm, scabies, and
athlete’s foot.4,5
The hydrophobic properties of TTO are hypothesized
to impair cell membrane integrity. Supporting studies
have revealed the effects of TTO on bacterial and
fungal cells, demonstrating the leakage of intracellular
components, inhibition of cellular respiration, and an
increase in susceptibility to sodium chloride.4,6,7
Available research has suggested the potential for
antiviral and antiprotozoal activity, but studies have
been limited in scope.4 Terpinen-4-ol has been noted
as the primary antimicrobial agent in TTO, but several
other components are also microbicidal or facilitate
antimicrobial activity.4,6

5
Antimicrobial efficacy
Researchers have used European Standards for
evaluating the use of TTO as a sanitizer for food
areas (EN 1276) and as an antiseptic agent for hand
washing (EN 12054).8 The minimum standard is a 5
log reduction in 5 minutes for use as a sanitizer and a
2.52 log reduction in 1 minute for use as a hand
washing agent. Test suspensions of Staphylococcus
aureus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas
aeruginosa were treated with 1% to 10% (v/v) TTO
and log reductions were recorded after 1 minute and 5
minutes of treatment.8 Treatment with 5% TTO
resulted in a 5 log reduction of E. coli in 1 minute and
a 4 log reduction of P. aeruginosa in 5 minutes.
Treatment with 8% TTO resulted in a 5 log reduction
of P. aeruginosa in 1 minute. Log reductions of S.
aureus ranged from 0.19 (1% TTO, 1 minute) to 0.80
(10% TTO, 1 min) and did not significantly differ with
varying concentrations of TTO or contact time.8 As an
antiseptic hand wash agent, 2.75% TTO resulted in
the reduction of E. coli and P. aeruginosa by 4 logs
and 2 logs, respectively, in 1 minute; the same
treatment resulted in a log reduction of <0.5 for S.
aureus.8 Other studies have determined minimum
inhibitory concentrations for E. coli and S. aureus to
be 0.25% and 0.50% (v/v), respectively.9
Potential use for disinfection:
applicability and pertinent issues
Ingestion of undiluted TTO may induce temporary
neurological effects in children and adults. Symptoms
include confusion, inability to walk, disorientation,
ataxia, unconsciousness, and coma.5,10 Allergic skin
reactions, systemic reactions, and irritation are also
associated with dermal exposure to TTO. The LD50 of
tea tree oil is estimated to be 1.9-2.6 mL/kg in rats
and when used undiluted has been determined to be
unsafe by scientific committees of the European
Commission; it can be irritating to the skin at
concentrations as low as 5% (v/v).11 Therefore, uses
of TTO on food contact surfaces and in settings with
sensitive individuals may be limited by its oral and
dermal toxicity to humans.
There also exists preliminary evidence that indicate
the potential for TTO as an endocrine disruptor,
altering the signalling of sex hormones that affect
human development.12 In particular, one clinical report
has suggested that pre-pubertal gynecomastia, the
abnormal growth of breast tissue in preadolescent
males, may be related to the repeated use of personal
products containing lavender oil and/or lavender oil
combined with TTO (both are essential oils).13,14
Investigations through mammalian cell culture studies
have revealed that TTO has slight “estrogenic and
antiandrogenic activities”.12,13,15 However, another
study emphasizes the need to consider bioavailability
when conducting human health risk assessments and
that the aforementioned in vitro results are unlikely to
represent in vivo human health risks.15 Results from
this study supported the in vitro estrogenic and
antiandrogenic effects of TTO, but also illustrated that
TTO components, known to penetrate the skin, do not
induce measurable effects.15 From this, the report
suggests that further human health risk assessments
regarding TTO should characterize TTO components
and their bioavailability, in conjunction with
observations for possible estrogenic and/or
antiandrogenic properties. Furthermore, threshold
levels of TTO required to induce these effects have
yet to be characterized. More evidence is required in
order to evaluate these potential health effects and
their significance, if any, to the population and to
public health.
Thyme Oil
Thymol and carvacrol are the main components in
thyme oil that are believed to exhibit the most
antimicrobial activity.16 They have been demonstrated
to cause an increase in permeability of the cell
membranes of bacteria, a reduction in the proton
motive force, and an associated decrease in
intracellular levels of adenosine triphosphate (ATP, a
high-energy molecule responsible for providing energy
to drive reactions in the cell).17,18 Although there is
insufficient evidence to support its effectiveness for
health benefits, thyme oil has been taken orally to
treat sore throat, cough, bronchitis and inflammatory
conditions of the gastrointestinal tract.19 As a topical
agent, it can be used as an anti-inflammatory
mouthwash and for treatment of ear infections. Thyme
oil is also a food additive and, in the United States, is
Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for ingestion
(21 CFR 182.10).20
Antimicrobial efficacy
At concentrations of 0.1 to 0.6% (v/v), thyme oil is
shown to inhibit the growth against microorganisms,
such as Campylobacter jejuni, E. coli O157:H7,
Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., S. aureus,
and Candida albicans; however, much higher
concentrations (e.g., 2 to 10%) are needed to be

6
bacteriostatic against P. aeruginosa.16,21-23 When
compared to tea tree oil, thyme oil has been shown to
have a lower minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) to
a variety of microorganisms.22,23 A 5 log reduction in
E. coli was observed within 5 minutes of exposure to
0.31% thyme oil whereas the same reduction in S.
aureus took 15 minutes with 2.5% thyme oil.23
Populations of P. aeruginosa did not achieve this
reduction even after 24 hours of exposure to >10%
thyme oil.
Potential use for disinfection:
applicability and pertinent issues
Thyme oil is natural, environmentally friendly, and has
been used as a primary active ingredient in several
disinfectant products registered with Health Canada.
Classified as a Minimum Risk Pesticide, it has low oral
and dermal toxicity, allowing it to be exempt from
some sections of the U.S. Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and pesticide
registration requirements.24 Also, some thymol-based
registered disinfectant products do not require a
rinsing or wiping step for disinfecting surfaces and can
be safely used undiluted.25 However, thymol is listed
as a sensitizer and asthmagen by the Association of
Occupational and Environmental Clinics (AOEC).26
Furthermore, the long contact times for required
disinfection (e.g., 10 minutes) may inhibit its use for
large-scale applications.
Electrolyzed Water
(Electrolyzed Oxidizing Water)
Although the mechanism has not been fully described,
this method of disinfection has been hypothesized to
rely on the chlorine-based disinfection properties of
hypochlorous acid (free chlorine) produced by the
electrolysis of a salt (sodium chloride) solution.27 In
addition, studies have shown that electrolyzed
oxidizing water (EO water) is more effective at
inactivating microbes than chlorine solutions with
similar free chlorine concentrations, suggesting that
oxidation reduction potential (ORP) and low pH, in
addition to free chlorine, may be synergistic to the
antimicrobial activity of EO water.28 Typically, acidic
EO water has a free chlorine level of 10 to 90 ppm,
ORP of 1100 mV, and a pH of 2 to 3.27,29 Neutral (pH
6 to 8) and alkaline (pH 10 to 13) forms of EO water
can also be produced by increasing the concentration
of hypochlorite ions (OCl-); this may be done to reduce
its corrosiveness.27
Antimicrobial efficacy
EO water has been tested for efficacy of use in
numerous applications, such as washing produce,
decontamination of egg shells (>6 log reduction in
Salmonella enteritidis in 1 minute), and
decontamination of hides of cattle (3.5 log reduction in
aerobic plate count, 4.3 log reduction in
Enterobacteriaceae count, 47% reduction in number
of hides testing positive for E. coli O157:H7).30-32 EO
water has been shown to be effective at inactivating a
variety of microorganisms of public health
significance. Suspensions of E. coli O157:H7, S.
enteritidis, P. aeruginosa, C. jejuni, S. aureus, L.
monocytogenes have shown to be inactivated by
approximately 7 logs in 1 minute or less after
treatment with EO water.28,33,34 The efficacy of EO
water on food contact surfaces, produce, poultry, fish,
and pork have also been reviewed.29 Summary of the
findings indicate test organisms were reduced by log
reductions of 2.0-6.0 for hard surfaces/utensils, 1.0-
3.5 for vegetables/fruits, 0.8-3.0 for chicken
carcasses, 1.0-1.8 for pork, and 0.4-2.8 for fish.29
These reductions represented treatments with contact
times ranging from less than 1 minute to 20 minutes,
in some cases.29 Furthermore, washings obtained
from inoculated stainless steel and glass surfaces,
after treatment with EO water, have been found to
contain <1 log CFU/mL of test organisms, illustrating
the potential for EO water to reduce cross
contamination from the processing water.35
Potential use for disinfection:
applicability and pertinent issues
Besides the antimicrobial efficacy of EO water, the low
operating costs from the availability of salt and water
make EO water a promising alternative disinfectant.
However, there is a high initial cost for installing
special equipment to produce and dispense EO water.
As no residue or noxious gas remains after application
of EO water, the agent is noted to be environmentally
and worker friendly.32 Also, on-site generation of EO
water eliminates the need for special transportation,
handling, or storage of hazardous chemicals.29
However, rapid dissipation of antimicrobial activity
may prevent EO water solutions from being stored in
an open environment for extended periods. Corrosion
of certain metals (e.g., carbon steel, copper) has also
been noted in certain studies; this can be minimized
by using neutral EO water.36 Furthermore, chlorine
gas may be generated in the anode chamber during
production of EO water and the appropriate

7
safeguards and response measures must be present
should leakage occur.27 The toxicity of EO water has
also been noted as lower than that of conventional
disinfectants and no adverse oral or digestive health
effects were observed in mice given EO water as
drinking water.32,37
Similar to chlorine-based sanitizing treatments,
microbial reduction may vary depending on the
susceptibility of test organisms, contact time,
treatment methodology, presence of organic
residues/debris, and the surface/texture of the area
being sanitized. The presence of organic residues,
uneven textures, and porous surfaces has been
demonstrated to impair the antimicrobial efficacy of
EO water.38,39 Studies have also shown inactivation of
microbes to be dependent on temperature of EO
water, for example, EO water at 45°C favours
microbial inactivation when compared to EO water at
23°C.33
Ozonated Water (Aqueous
Ozone)
Ozone (O3), a gaseous oxidizing agent with
antimicrobial properties, can be generated on-site and
dissolved into water to create an ozone enriched
water solution. Potential uses of ozonated water
include washing and extending the shelf life of
produce, decontaminating and lowering the chemical
oxygen demand of processing waters, sanitation of
hard surfaces, and decontamination of cattle
hides.31,40-43 However, ozone is highly unstable and
has limited solubility in water.42 Therefore, the
antimicrobial activity of ozonated water dissipates
rapidly and may limit its applications for non-
immediate uses.
In 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
approved ozone to be used as an “antimicrobial
agent” and in the “treatment, storage, and processing
of foods” as outlined in the U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations (21 CFR 173.368).44 NSF international
has registered devices deemed “acceptable for use as
an ozone generating device providing sanitation and
disinfection to hard, inanimate, pre-cleaned surfaces,
in and around food processing areas.”45 Furthermore,
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has
deemed several devices that produce ozonated water
for sanitizing hard surfaces as acceptable for use in
establishments under their regulatory authority (i.e., a
federally registered food processor). Such devices are
listed in the searchable database, Reference Listing of
Accepted Construction Materials, Packaging Materials and
Non-Food Chemical Products
Antimicrobial efficacy
.46
Lettuce dipped in ozonated water (4 ppm O3, 20°C) for
2 minutes had significant reductions in
Enterobacteriaceae (1.3 log CFU/g) as well as
psychrotrophic (1.5 log CFU/g) and mesophilic
bacteria (1.7 log CFU/g).43 These results were
comparable to treatment with 100 ppm chlorine in the
same conditions and researchers have suggested that
ozonated water may be a potential alternative to
chlorine dippings.43 Use of ozonated water in place of
chlorine in produce processing may avoid the
formation of undesirable chlorine disinfection by-
products (e.g., trihalomethanes). When used to
decontaminate cattle hides, ozonated water was able
to achieve a 2.1 log reduction in aerobic plate count,
3.4 log reduction in Enterobacteriaceae count, and
58% reduction in number of hides testing positive for
E. coli O157:H7.31
Researchers have also used European Standards EN
1040 and EN 1275 to determine the bactericidal and
fungicidal efficacy of ozonated water.47 Test
suspensions of S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and
Enterococcus hirae were inactivated (>5 log
reduction) in 30 seconds when treated with ozonated
water with a concentration of 3 ppm O3; test
suspensions of C. albicans were inactivated (>4 log
reduction) under similar treatment conditions.47 No
reduction in the number of viable spores of Aspergillus
brasiliensis was observed, even after treatment with
ozonated water (1.5 to 3 ppm O3) for 30 minutes.
Furthermore, a reduction in approximately half of the
ozone concentration (e.g., 3.0 ppm to 1.5 ppm) was
observed after 30 minutes of storage. Lower
concentrations of ozone (e.g., 0.15 to 0.20 ppm O3) in
water can achieve comparable log reductions but
contact time of 1-5 minutes is required.48
Potential use for disinfection:
applicability and pertinent issues
Ozonated water has strong non-selective antimicrobial
properties, leaves no chemical residues, can be used
with cold water, and can be produced on demand.
Furthermore, on-site generation of ozonated water
avoids the need for special transportation, handling,
and storage of hazardous chemicals. However, in
order to produce ozonated water, high energy UV
radiation (e.g., 188 nm wavelength) or electrical

8
discharges (e.g., corona discharge) are required to
convert oxygen in the air (or pure oxygen) into ozone
gas.42 These processes require special equipment
and substantial amounts of electrical energy to
operate, leading to high initial and operating costs for
large-scale commercial applications.
Limited information exists on the toxicity of ozonated
water, but studies have shown no significant adverse
effects on human oral epithelial cells after acute
exposure.49 Other potential limitations for its use
include damage to sensitive materials (e.g., rubber
gaskets) and occupational safety associated with
exposure to ozone gas.42,49
Silver
Studies have shown that the likely modes of microbial
inactivation by silver is through interference with
cellular respiration and transport, interactions with
DNA, disruption of proteins, and destruction of the cell
membrane.50 Contrary to many disinfectants, potential
applications of silver are commonly associated with
slow release of silver from silver-impregnated
materials and residual antimicrobial effects.51
Silver has been used for its antimicrobial properties in
drinking water/cooling tower disinfection, swimming
pools, and for medical uses.52 Notably, Health Canada
has issued a DIN for a silver dihydrogen citrate-based
disinfectant (silver dihydrogen citrate 0.003% and
citric acid 4.846%) for use as a hard surface
disinfectant with demonstrated residual activity.53
Antimicrobial efficacy
Antimicrobial efficacy of silver-impregnated packaging
liners on spoilage organisms from meats and melons
has also been evaluated.54,55 For meat liners, an
average difference of 1 log CFU/g was observed
between silver-impregnated pads and control pads.
For melon liners, an average difference of 3 log
CFU/g was observed between silver-impregnated
pads and control pads. As silver has an affinity for
proteins and salts, meat exudates likely interfere with
the antimicrobial activity of silver to a greater extent
than melon juices.55
Several silver-impregnated wound dressings have
also been evaluated for bactericidal efficacy.56
Notably, antimicrobial activity may depend on release
rate of silver from the impregnated material, as well as
the matrix type. For example, it has been
demonstrated that a 24-hour silver release rate of
approximately 93 ppm can result in >3.46 log
reduction (30 min contact time) in S. aureus.56
However, with a dressing of a different matrix type, no
log reduction was observed (30 min contact time)
even though the dressing had a higher 24-hour silver
release rate of 318 ppm.
In one study, stainless steel coupons and cups were
coated with a silver-zinc zeolite (2.5% w/w silver and
14% zinc), then inoculated with test organisms (e.g.,
S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and L.
monocytogenes) to evaluate bactericidal activity by
recovery of organisms at different time intervals (e.g.,
0h, 4h, 24h). Microbial reduction of up to 5 logs was
observed in 24 hours, when compared to untreated
controls.57 Microbial reductions observed at 4h
diminished after 5 washings with a towel, but
reductions at 24h remained >90% after 11 washings.57
A similar study using the same silver-zinc zeolite
coatings showed that the numbers of vegetative cells
of B. cereus were reduced by 3 logs after 24h, but
spores were not inactivated even after 48 hours.58
Furthermore, an alcohol-based (79%) disinfectant
spray with silver iodide (0.005%) was tested for
residual bactericidal activity. When compared to
untreated controls, populations of P. aeruginosa and
S. aureus were reduced by >3 logs in 2 hours and by
>4 logs in 8 hours; a chlorine based disinfectant
showed similar residual activity, but only with S.
aureus.59 Multiple rinses, abrasion, and re-
contamination did not affect residual activity.
Potential use for disinfection:
applicability and pertinent issues
Accumulation of silver in the body may lead to side
effects including: impaired absorption of medicine,
neurological problems, kidney damage, headache,
fatigue, and skin irritation.60 However, the levels of
silver in silver-based antimicrobial products have not
been documented to cause adverse effects in humans
and are unlikely to cause the side effects associated
with chronic ingestion of high levels of colloid silver
products, which may lead to argyria (an irreversible
condition which manifests as blue discolouration of
the skin and/or eyes).60-62 Silver has no known
function in the body and health claims associated with
the use of colloid silver products have yet to be
substantiated.60 For a discussion on nanosilver
technologies, please see the NCCEH contracted
review by Green and Ndegwa (2011) titled:

9
Nanotechnology: A Review of Exposure, Health Risks, and
Recent Regulatory Developments.63
The World Health Organization (WHO) has suggested
that the NOAEL of silver in drinking water to be 10 g
consumed over a lifetime (i.e., daily ingestion of 2 L of
water containing 0.2 mg/L silver for 70 years).64
Importantly, the levels of silver in natural waters and
drinking water have been noted to be thousands, if not
millions, of times lower than the NOAEL (e.g.,
5 µg/L).64
Other issues noted with the use of silver as an
antimicrobial include: the emergence of silver-
resistant microbes (e.g., cellular efflux pumps),
interference from proteins and salts, current lack of
standardization for efficacy testing, and loss of
antimicrobial properties once all active silver is
released from impregnated materials.52,65-67 Also, the
slow-acting antimicrobial activity of silver limits its use
for immediate disinfection of hard surfaces.
Nevertheless, the residual antimicrobial activity of
silver may allow for potential applications in
formulations of disinfectants or to reduce the
harbourage of microbes on surfaces and subsequent
transfer of microbes from one surface to another.
Vinegar (acetic acid), Lemon
Juice (citric acid), and Baking
Soda (sodium bicarbonate)
The antimicrobial properties of vinegar and lemon
juice are commonly associated with their acetic acid
and citric acid content, respectively.68 These organic
acids are hypothesized to cross the cell membrane of
bacteria where the release in protons (H+) causes the
cells to die.69 As the growth of many pathogenic
organisms are inhibited in conditions where the pH is
<4.6, these organic acids, with a pH 2 to 3, are
commonly added to foods as a preservative.69
Baking soda has been used to formulate toothpaste,
cosmetic products, and is known for its acid-
neutralizing properties, but limited peer-reviewed
evidence exists for its antimicrobial activity on hard
surfaces.70 It has been reported to be virucidal and
inhibit the growth of several fungi, but its mechanism
of action is unclear.71,72 Baking soda has also been
shown to enhance the effectiveness of other agents
for controlling mould growth on produce, but its
antifungal spectrum may be limited.73-77 In addition,
because the pH of baking soda in a neutral solution
equilibrates at a maximum near 8.34, its pH alone is
likely insufficient to inhibit the growth of many
foodborne microorganisms, many of which can grow
in conditions with up to pH 9 to 10.70,78 However, at
least one study has suggested its chemical properties
(e.g., alkaline pH, mild abrasive) can be effective for
cleaning kitchen surfaces.79
Antimicrobial efficacy
Numerous studies have demonstrated the
antimicrobial efficacy of acetic acid (AA), citric acid
(CA), and sodium bicarbonate (SB) using suspensions
of bacteria, recovery from treated hard surfaces,
rinsing meat, and washing produce (summarized in
Appendix A).68,80-92 However, it is difficult to compare
results between studies as there are no standardized
experimental parameters used to test efficacy.
Notably, efficacy demonstrated in suspensions are
drastically different from efficacy demonstrated on
produce (i.e., in the absence or presence of organic
matter).
Results from studies suggest that vinegar (acetic acid)
exhibits the most antimicrobial efficacy, followed by
lemon juice (citric acid) and baking soda (sodium
bicarbonate).68,90 Typically, Gram-negative bacteria,
such as Shigella sonnei, Salmonella spp., E. coli, P.
aeruginosa, and Yersinia enterocolitia are more
susceptible to organic acids (e.g., acetic acid, citric
acid) than Gram-positive bacteria, such as S. aureus
and L. monocytogenes. The highly cross-linked cell
walls of Gram-positive bacteria are believed to impair
the diffusion of the organic acids into the cell,
preventing antimicrobial action.68,69,83 Baking soda is
generally ineffective against E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S.
aureus, and Salmonella spp., but had notable virucidal
activity against feline calicivirus (norovirus
surrogate).68,72,89 The efficacy of AA, CA, and SB vary
greatly (<1 log to >5 log reduction in test microbes;
contact times ranged from 0.5 min to 15 min)
depending on test organisms and test conditions.
When used at higher temperatures, vinegar and
lemon juice are observed to result in increased
antimicrobial efficacy.68,91,93 The difficulty in assessing
antimicrobial efficacy and narrow antimicrobial
spectrum of these alternative agents may limit their
applications as hard surface disinfectants.
Potential use for disinfection:
applicability and pertinent issues
Vinegar, lemon juice, and baking soda have the
advantage of being readily available, environmentally

10
friendly, low in toxicity, and natural. Although these
agents are commonly used to eliminate odours,
residual odour and taste on surfaces may be
unwanted in applications where public or occupational
exposure is undesirable, especially at concentrations
that exhibit antimicrobial activity. Organoleptic
properties of produce washed with AA or CA may also
be adversely affected (e.g., wilting or souring).90
Furthermore, like chlorine-based disinfectants, the
efficacy of organic acids (AA and CA) is drastically
reduced in the presence of organic matter. Potential
safety concerns are also noted with the use of
vinegar, lemon juice, and/or baking soda for sanitation
purposes. For example, if chlorine-based disinfectants
(e.g., bleach) are used simultaneously with vinegar
and/or lemon juice to sanitize hard surfaces, there is
potential for an increased risk of accidental mixing,
which may result in the formation of chlorine gas.
Designated containers (e.g., spray bottles or buckets)
with proper labelling would be necessary, as with all
chemical disinfectants, to indicate the contents and
reduce the chance of mixing incompatible chemicals.
The low pH of AA and CA can also make these
agents a potential eye, nose, and respiratory tract
irritant.
Overall, it is unlikely that vinegar, lemon juice or
baking soda, by themselves, will become mainstream
antimicrobial agents in commercial settings, but the
notable efficacy of vinegar and lemon juice may have
indications for their potential use as household
antimicrobial agents or in formulations of disinfectants.
Microfibre Cloths
Microfibres are extremely fine strands of fibres that
are less than 1 denier (i.e., a single strand weighs
≤ 1 gram per 9,000 metres). Due to the unique
structure of the fibres, micrometre diameters, and
electrostatic properties, the fabrics made from
microfibres have an ability to trap dust and microbes
more effectively than conventional cotton cloths or
mops; this is likely attributed to the high surface area
and capillary effect of microfibre fabrics.94,95
Depending on the weave and composition of the
fibres, properties of water absorption, permeability,
stain-resistance, and wrinkle-resistance can vary.
Antimicrobial efficacy
The fibres themselves have not been shown to be
microbicidal, but have been shown to demonstrate
considerable cleaning efficacy, by physical removal of
microbes and organic debris from surfaces.95-97 For
example, microfibre cloths (with water) have been
documented to reduce S. aureus, E. coli, and
Clostridium difficile spores on hard surfaces, by an
average of 1 to 3 logs.97,98 However, it is difficult to
make general statements regarding efficacy due to
the lack of standardized testing methods and
manufacturing parameters for microfibre cloths. Even
so, the application of microfiber cloths/fabrics for
cleaning may help maximize the effectiveness of
conventional antimicrobial products.
Potential use for cleaning:
applicability and pertinent issues
Although microfibre cloths are more expensive than
cotton cloths, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has a case study to demonstrate that the use
of microfibre mops, in place of conventional mops in
hospital cleaning programs, can be more economical
by saving on labour, chemical, water, and electrical
costs.99 However, the cleaning efficacy of microfibre is
reduced through damage that can be caused by high
heat (e.g., process temperatures of industrial washing
machines), some disinfectants (e.g., bleach), and
fabric softeners.95,98,99 In addition, studies have
emphasized that the lack of antimicrobial properties
allows for the potential for cross-contamination or re-
contamination of subsequently cleaned surfaces if
used with water alone (i.e., transmission of diseases
in institutional and food processing settings).88,96,100,101
Evidence Gaps
The emergence of new alternative antimicrobial
agents and their use for disinfection requires further
research and review. The current lack of standardized
evaluation criteria makes it difficult to compare
antimicrobial properties across different types of
alternative agents. In particular, more research is
required to better define the concentration, contact
time, and stability required for these agents to induce
antimicrobial effects, if any. In addition, defining the
composition of alternative agents will help with
comparison. If alternative agents are considered for
use on food contact surfaces, the need for a final
rinsing step must also be evaluated.
Further understanding of the antimicrobial
mechanisms of alternative agents may help to define
relevant properties for use as disinfectants. For
example, how are they affected by organic residues or
other chemicals? How can they be made or used

11
more effectively? Do they possess potential or
synergistic properties when combined with other
disinfectants? Do they exhibit unique properties that
are desirable (e.g., residual antimicrobial effects)?
Further research to explore their potential uses in
formulating novel disinfectants may help evaluate their
role, if any, in manufacturing disinfectant products with
desirable characteristics (e.g., lower toxicity,
economical, environmentally friendly).
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Luz Agana, Joanne Archer,
Alan Brown, Nelson Fok, and Karen Wong-Petrie for
their valuable input and review of the draft document,
and Michele Wiens for library assistance.
References
1. Barker J, Naeeni M, Bloomfield SF. The effects of
cleaning and disinfection in reducing Salmonella
contamination in a laboratory model kitchen. J Appl
Microbiol. 2003;95(6):1351-60.
2. Health Canada. Drug product database. Ottawa, ON:
Health Canada; 2010 [cited 2011 Jun 20]; Available from:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-
mps/prodpharma/databasdon/index-eng.php.
3. International Standards Organization. ISO 4730:2004. Oil
of Melaleuca, terpinen-4-ol type (Tea Tree oil).
4. Carson CF, Hammer KA, Riley TV. Melaleuca alternifolia
(tea tree) oil: A review of antimicrobial and other
medicinal properties. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006
Jan;19(1):50-62.
5. Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. Tea tree
oil. Stockton, CA: NMCD; 2011 [cited 2011 Jun 20];
Available from:
http://naturaldatabase.therapeuticresearch.com/nd/Searc
h.aspx?cs=&s=ND&fs=ND&pt=100&id=113.
6. Carson CF, Mee BJ, Riley TV. Mechanism of action of
Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil on Staphylococcus
aureus determined by time-kill, lysis, leakage, and salt
tolerance assays and electron microscopy. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother. 2002 Jun;46(6):1914-20.
7. Cox SD, Gustafson JE, Mann CM, Markham JL, Liew
YC, Hartland RP, et al. Tea tree oil causes K+ leakage
and inhibits respiration in Escherichia coli. Lett Appl
Microbiol. 1998 May;26(5):355-8.
8. Messager S, Hammer KA, Carson CF, Riley TV.
Assessment of the antibacterial activity of tea tree oil
using the European EN 1276 and EN 12054 standard
suspension tests. J Hosp Infect. 2005 Feb;59(2):113-25.
9. Carson CF, Hammer KA, Riley TV. Broth micro-dilution
method for determining the susceptibility of Escherichia
coli and Staphylococcus aureus to the essential oil of
Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree oil). Microbios.
1995;82(332):181-5.
10. Hammer KA, Carson CF, Riley TV, Nielsen JB. A review
of the toxicity of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil. Food
Chem Toxicol. 2006 May;44(5):616-25.
11. European Commmission - Health & Consumer Protection
Directorate-General. Scientific Committee on Consumer
Products. Opinion on tea tree oil. Brussels: EC; 2008
Dec. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/d
ocs/sccp_o_160.pdf.
12. Henley DV, Korach KS. Physiological effects and
mechanisms of action of endocrine disrupting chemicals
that alter estrogen signaling. Hormones. 2010 Jul-
Sep;9(3):191-205.
13. Henley DV, Lipson N, Korach KS, Bloch CA. Prepubertal
gynecomastia linked to lavender and tea tree oils. N Engl
J Med. 2007 Feb 1;356(5):479-85.
14. A.D.A.M. Medical Encyclopedia. Gynecomastia. Atlanta,
GA: A.D.A.M., Inc; 2009 [cited 2011 August 24];
Available from:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003165.h
tm.
15. Nielsen JB. What you see may not always be what you
get--bioavailability and extrapolation from in vitro tests.
Toxicol In Vitro. 2008 Jun;22(4):1038-42.
16. Burt S. Antibacterial activity of essential oils: potential
applications in food [PhD thesis]. Utrech: Utrecht
University; 2007. Available from: http://igitur-
archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2007-1129-
200539/full.pdf#page=55
17. Ultee A, Kets EP, Smid EJ. Mechanisms of action of
carvacrol on the food-borne pathogen Bacillus cereus.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Oct;65(10):4606-10.
18. Xu J, Zhou F, Ji BP, Pei RS, Xu N. The antibacterial
mechanism of carvacrol and thymol against Escherichia
coli. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008 Sep;47(3):174-9.

12
19. Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. Thyme.
Stockton, CA: NMCD; 2011 [cited 2011 Jul 7]; Available
from:
http://naturaldatabase.therapeuticresearch.com/nd/Searc
h.aspx?pt=100&sh=1&id=823.
20. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 Food and drugs,
Part 182. Substances generally recognized as safe.
Essential oils, oleoresins (solvent-free), and natural
extractives (including distillates), Subpart A--General
provisions. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.182.20
(1985). Available from:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=786bafc6f6343634fbf79fcdca7061e1&rgn
=div5&view=text&node=21:3.0.1.1.13&idno=21.
21. Friedman M, Henika PR, Mandrell RE. Bactericidal
activities of plant essential oils and some of their isolated
constituents against Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia
coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella enterica. J
Food Prot. 2002 Oct;65(10):1545-60.
22. Hammer KA, Carson CF, Riley TV. Antimicrobial activity
of essential oils and other plant extracts. J Appl Microbiol.
1999 Jun;86(6):985-90.
23. Mayaud L, Carricajo A, Zhiri A, Aubert G. Comparison of
bacteriostatic and bactericidal activity of 13 essential oils
against strains with varying sensitivity to antibiotics. Lett
Appl Microbiol. 2008 Sep;47(3):167-73.
24. U.S. Environmental Health Protection Agency. Minimum
risk pesticides under FIFRA section 25(b). Washington,
DC: EPA; 2011; Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/regtools/25b
_list.htm.
25. Sensible Life Products. Benefect - FAQ's. Brampton,
ON: Sensible Life Products; 2010; Available from:
http://www.benefect.com/CA_benefect/CAN_docs_faq.ph
p.
26. Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics.
[Exposure code lookup]: Thymol. [Display all
asthmagens]. Washington, DC: AOEC; 2011; Available
from: http://www.aoecdata.org/ExpCodeLookup.aspx.
27. Huang Y-R, Hung Y-C, Hsu S-Y, Huang Y-W, Hwang D-
F. Application of electrolyzed water in the food industry.
Food Control. 2008;19(4):329-45
28. Park H, Hung YC, Brackett RE. Antimicrobial effect of
electrolyzed water for inactivating Campylobacter jejuni
during poultry washing. Int J Food Microbiol. 2002 Jan
30;72(1-2):77-83.
29. Hricova D, Stephan R, Zweifel C. Electrolyzed water and
its application in the food industry. J Food Prot. 2008
Sep;71(9):1934-47.
30. Cao W, Zhu ZW, Shi ZX, Wang CY, Li BM. Efficiency of
slightly acidic electrolyzed water for inactivation of
Salmonella enteritidis and its contaminated shell eggs. Int
J Food Microbiol. 2009 Mar 31;130(2):88-93.
31. Bosilevac JM, Shackelford SD, Brichta DM, Koohmaraie
M. Efficacy of ozonated and electrolyzed oxidative waters
to decontaminate hides of cattle before slaughter. J Food
Prot. 2005 Jul;68(7):1393-8.
32. Al-Haq MI, Sugiyama J, Isobe S. Applications of
electrolyzed water in agriculture & food industries. Food
Sci Technol Res. 2005;11(2):135-50.
33. Venkitanarayanan KS, Ezeike GO, Hung YC, Doyle MP.
Efficacy of electrolyzed oxidizing water for inactivating
Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella enteritidis, and
Listeria monocytogenes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999
Sep;65(9):4276-9.
34. Vorobjeva NV, Vorobjeva LI, Khodjaev EY. The
bactericidal effects of electrolyzed oxidizing water on
bacterial strains involved in hospital infections. Artif
Organs. 2004 Jun;28(6):590-2.
35. Deza MA, Araujo M, Garrido MJ. Inactivation of
Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Pseudomonas
aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus on stainless steel
and glass surfaces by neutral electrolysed water. Lett
Appl Microbiol. 2005;40(5):341-6.
36. Ayebah B, Hung YC. Electrolyzed water and its
corrosiveness on various surface materials commonly
found in food processing facilities. J Food Process Eng.
2005;28:247-64.
37. Morita C, Nishida T, Ito K. Biological toxicity of acid
electrolyzed functional water: Effect of oral administration
on mouse digestive tract and changes in body weight.
Arch Oral Biol. 2010 Nov 23.
38. Park EJ, Alexander E, Taylor GA, Costa R, Kang DH.
Effects of organic matter on acidic electrolysed water for
reduction of foodborne pathogens on lettuce and
spinach. J Appl Microbiol. 2008 Dec;105(6):1802-9.
39. Koseki S, Yoshida K, Isobe S, Itoh K. Efficacy of acidic
electrolyzed water for microbial decontamination of
cucumbers and strawberries. J Food Prot. 2004
Jun;67(6):1247-51.
40. Rodgers SL, Cash JN, Siddiq M, Ryser ET. A
comparison of different chemical sanitizers for
inactivating Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria
monocytogenes in solution and on apples, lettuce,
strawberries, and cantaloupe. J Food Prot. 2004
Apr;67(4):721-31.
41. Beltran D, Selma MV, Marin A, Gil MI. Ozonated water
extends the shelf life of fresh-cut lettuce. J Agric Food
Chem. 2005 Jul 13;53(14):5654-63.
42. Guzel-Seydim ZB, Greene AK, Seydim AC. Use of ozone
in the food industry. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-
Technologie. 2004;37(4):453-60.
43. Akbas MY, Olmez H. Effectiveness of organic acid,
ozonated water and chlorine dippings on microbial
reduction and storage quality of fresh-cut iceberg lettuce.
J Sci Food Agric. 2007 Nov;87(14):2609-16.

13
44. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 Food and drugs,
Part 173. Secondary direct food additives permitted in
food for human consumption, final rule, Subpart D--
Specific usage additives. U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.173.368 Ozone (2001). Available from:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/C
FRSearch.cfm?fr=173.368.
45. NSF International. NSF nonfood compounds registration
and listing program: AGW-0500 Mobile Ozone Surface
Sanitation System. Ann Arbor, MI: NSF Int; 2002;
Available from:
http://www.nsf.org/usda/letters/123680.pdf.
46. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Reference listing of
accepted construction materials, packaging materials and
non-food chemical products. Ottawa, ON: CFIA; 2011;
Available from:
http://active.inspection.gc.ca/scripts/fssa/reference/refsea
rec.asp?lang=e&c=1.
47. Bialoszewski D, Bocian E, Bukowska B, Czajkowska M,
Sokol-Leszczynska B, Tyski S. Antimicrobial activity of
ozonated water. Med Sci Monit. 2010 Aug 7;16(9):MT71-
5.
48. Restaino L, Frampton EW, Hemphill JB, Palnikar P.
Efficacy of ozonated water against various food-related
microorganisms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995
Sep;61(9):3471-5.
49. Manitoba Agriculture Food and Rural Initiatives.
Ozonation in food applications. Winnipeg, MB:
Government of Manitoba; 2011; Available from:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/foodsafety/processor/cf
s02s139.html.
50. Chamakura K, Perez-Ballestero R, Luo Z, Bashir S, Liu J.
Comparison of bactericidal activities of silver
nanoparticles with common chemical disinfectants.
Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2011 May 1;84(1):88-96.
51. Cowan MM, Abshire KZ, Houk SL, Evans SM.
Antimicrobial efficacy of a silver-zeolite matrix coating on
stainless steel. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2003
Feb;30(2):102-6.
52. Silvestry-Rodriguez N, Sicairos-Ruelas EE, Gerba CP,
Bright KR. Silver as a disinfectant. Rev Environ Contam
Toxicol. 2007;191:23-45.
53. Health Canada. Summary Basis of Decision (SBD) for
Swish Silver Supreme. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada,
Health Products and Food Branch; 2010; Available from:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/sbd-
smd/drug-
med/sbd_smd_2010_swish_silver_supreme_121017-
eng.php.
54. Fernandez A, Picouet P, Lloret E. Cellulose-silver
nanoparticle hybrid materials to control spoilage-related
microflora in absorbent pads located in trays of fresh-cut
melon. Int J Food Microbiol. 2010 Aug 15;142(1-2):222-8.
55. Fernandez A, Picouet P, Lloret E. Reduction of the
spoilage-related microflora in absorbent pads by silver
nanotechnology during modified atmosphere packaging
of beef meat. J Food Prot. 2010 Dec;73(12):2263-9.
56. Cavanagh MH, Burrell RE, Nadworny PL. Evaluating
antimicrobial efficacy of new commercially available silver
dressings. Int Wound J. 2010 Oct;7(5):394-405.
57. Cowan ME, Allen J, Pilkington F. Small dishwashers for
hospital ward kitchens. J Hosp Infect. 1995;29(3):227-31.
58. Galeano B, Korff E, Nicholson WL. Inactivation of
vegetative cells, but not spores, of Bacillus anthracis, B.
cereus, and B. subtilis on stainless steel surfaces coated
with an antimicrobial silver- and zinc-containing zeolite
formulation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Jul;69(7):4329-
31.
59. Brady MJ, Lisay CM, Yurkovetskiy AV, Sawan SP.
Persistent silver disinfectant for the environmental control
of pathogenic bacteria. Am J Infect Control.
2003;31(4):208-14.
60. National Center for Complementary Alternative Medicine.
Colloidal silver products. Bethesda, MD: National
Institutes of Health; 2010; Available from:
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/silver/.
61. Kim Y, Suh HS, Cha HJ, Kim SH, Jeong KS, Kim DH. A
case of generalized argyria after ingestion of colloidal
silver solution. Am J Ind Med. 2009 Mar;52(3):246-50.
62. Lansdown AB. A pharmacological and toxicological
profile of silver as an antimicrobial agent in medical
devices. Adv Pharmacol Sci. 2010;2010:910686.
63. Green CJ, Ndegwa S. Nanotechnology: A review of
exposure, health risks, and recent regulatory
developments Vancouver, BC: National Collaborating
Centre for Environmental Health; 2011 Sept.
64. World Health Organization. Silver in drinking-water.
Background document for development of WHO
Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Geneva,
Switzerland: WHO; 2003. Available from:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemical
s/silver.pdf.
65. Silver S. Bacterial silver resistance: molecular biology
and uses and misuses of silver compounds. FEMS
Microbiol Rev. 2003 Jun;27(2-3):341-53.
66. Li WR, Xie XB, Shi QS, Duan SS, Ouyang YS, Chen YB.
Antibacterial effect of silver nanoparticles on
Staphylococcus aureus. Biometals. 2011 Feb;24(1):135-
41.
67. Chopra I. The increasing use of silver-based products as
antimicrobial agents: a useful development or a cause for
concern? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007 Apr;59(4):587-
90.
68. Yang H, Kendall PA, Medeiros L, Sofos JN. Inactivation
of Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7,
and Salmonella typhimurium with compounds available in
households. J Food Prot. 2009 Jun;72(6):1201-8.
69. Bjornsdottir K, Breidt F, Jr., McFeeters RF. Protective
effects of organic acids on survival of Escherichia coli
O157:H7 in acidic environments. Appl Environ Microbiol.
2006 Jan;72(1):660-4.

14
70. United Nations Environment Programme. Sodium
bicarbonate - CAS N°: 144-55-8. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP;
2002 Oct. Available from:
http://www.chem.unep.ch/irptc/sids/OECDSIDS/Sodium_
bicarbonate.pdf.
71. Arslan U, Ilhan K, Vardar C, Karabulut OA. Evaluation of
antifungal activity of food additives against soilborne
phytopathogenic fungi. World J Microbiol Biot.
2009;25(3):537-43.
72. Malik YS, Goyal SM. Virucidal efficacy of sodium
bicarbonate on a food contact surface against feline
calicivirus, a norovirus surrogate. Int J Food Microbiol.
2006 May 25;109(1-2):160-3.
73. Palou L, Smilanick JL, Crisosto CH. Evaluation of food
additives as alternative or complementary chemicals to
conventional fungicides for the control of major
postharvest diseases of stone fruit. J Food Prot.
2009;72(1037-1046).
74. Yao H, Tian S, Wang Y. Sodium bicarbonate enhances
biocontrol efficacy of yeasts on fungal spoilage of pears.
Int J Food Microbiol. 2004 Jun 15;93(3):297-304.
75. Hang YD, Woodams EE. Control of Fusarium oxysporum
by baking soda. LWT - Food Sci Technol 2003;36(8):803-
5.
76. Wan YK, Tian SP, Qin GZ. Enhancement of biocontrol
activity of yeasts by adding sodium bicarbonate or
ammonium molybdate to control postharvest disease of
jujube fruits. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2003;37(3):249-53.
77. Casals C, Teixidó N, Viñas I, Silvera E, Lamarca N, Usall
J. Combination of hot water, Bacillus subtilis CPA-8 and
sodium bicarbonate treatments to control postharvest
brown rot on peaches and nectarines. Eur J Plant Pathol.
2010;128(1):51-63.
78. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Chapter 3. Factors
that influence microbial growth. Silver Spring, MD: U.S.
FDA; 2001 [cited 2011 Nov]; Available from:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/ResearchAre
as/SafePracticesforFoodProcesses/ucm094145.htm.
79. Olson W, Vesley D, Bode M, Dubbel P, Bauer T. Hard
surface cleaning performance of six alternative
household cleaners under laboratory conditions. J
Environ Health. 1994;56(6):28-31.
80. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Evaluation and
definition of potentially hazardous foods Silver Spring,
MD: FDA; 2001; Available from:
http://www.fda.gov/food/scienceresearch/researchareas/s
afepracticesforfoodprocesses/ucm094145.htm.
81. Allende A, McEvoy J, Tao Y, Luo Y. Antimicrobial effect
of acidified sodium chlorite, sodium chlorite, sodium
hypochlorite, and citric acid on Escherichia coli O157:H7
and natural microflora of fresh-cut cilantro. Food Control.
2009;20:230-4.
82. Kişla D. Effectiveness of lemon juice in the elimination of
Salmonella Typhimurium in stuffed mussels. J Food Prot.
2007;70(12):2847-50.
83. McKee LH, Neish L, Pottenger A, Flores N, Weinbrenner
K, Remmenga M. Evaluation of consumable household
products for decontaminating retail skinless, boneless
chicken breasts. J Food Prot. 2005;68(3):534-7.
84. Yucel Sengun I, Karapinar M. Effectiveness of lemon
juice, vinegar and their mixture in the elimination of
Salmonella typhimurium on carrots (Daucus carota L.).
Int J Food Microbiol. 2004;96(3):301-5.
85. Yucel Sengun I, Karapinar M. Effectiveness of household
natural sanitizers in the elimination of Salmonella
typhimurium on rocket (Eruca sativa Miller) and spring
onion (Allium cepa L.). Int J Food Microbiol.
2005;98(3):319-23.
86. Bauer JM, Beronio CA, Rubino JR. Antibacterial activity
of environmentally “green” alternative products tested in
standard antimicrobial tests and a simulated in-use
assay. J Environ Health. 1995;57:13-8.
87. Chang J, Fang TJ. Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7
and Salmonella enterica serovars Typhimurium in
iceberg lettuce and the antimicrobial effect of rice vinegar
against E. coli O157:H7 Food Microbiol. 2007;24(7-
8):745-51.
88. Parnes CA. Efficacy of sodium hypochlorite bleach and
"alternative" products in preventing transfer of bacteria to
and from inanimate surfaces. J Environ Health.
1997;59(6):14-9.
89. Rutala WA, Barbee SL, Aguiar NC, Sobsey MD, Weber
DJ. Antimicrobial activity of home disinfectants and
natural products against potential human pathogens.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000 Jan;21(1):33-8.
90. Vijayakumar C, Wolf-Hall CE. Evaluation of household
sanitizers for reducing levels of Escherichia coli on
iceberg lettuce. J Food Prot. 2002 Oct;65(10):1646-50.
91. Wu FM, Doyle MP, Beuchat LR, Wells JG, Mintz ED,
Swaminathan B. Fate of Shigella sonnei on parsley and
methods of disinfection. J Food Prot. 2000
May;63(5):568-72.
92. Karapinar M, Gonul SA. Removal of Yersinia
enterocolitica from fresh parsley by washing with acetic
acid or vinegar. Int J Food Microbiol. 1992 Jul;16(3):261-
4.
93. Virto R, Sanz D, Alvarez I, Condon, Raso J. Inactivation
kinetics of Yersinia enterocolitica by citric and lactic acid
at different temperatures. Int J Food Microbiol. 2005 Sep
15;103(3):251-7.
94. Wren MWD, Rollins MSM, Jeanes A, Hall TJ, Coën PG,
Gant VA. Removing bacteria from hospital surfaces: a
laboratory comparison of ultramicrofibre and standard
cloths. J Hosp Infect. 2008;70(3):265-71.
95. Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Weber DJ. Microbiologic
evaluation of microfiber mops for surface disinfection. Am
J Infect Control. 2007;35(9):569-73.
96. Moore G, Griffith C. A laboratory evaluation of the
decontamination properties of microfibre cloths. J Hosp
Infect. 2006;64(4):379-85.

15
97. Smith DL, Gillanders S, Holah JT, Gush C. Assessing the
efficacy of different microfibre cloths at removing surface
micro-organisms associated with healthcare-associated
infections. J Hosp Infect. 2011 Jul;78(3):182-6.
98. Diab-Elschahawi M, Assadian O, Blacky A, Stadler M,
Pernicka E, Berger J, et al. Evaluation of the
decontamination efficacy of new and reprocessed
microfiber cleaning cloth compared with other commonly
used cleaning cloths in the hospital. Am J Infect Control.
2010;38(4):289-92.
99. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Using Microfiber
Mops in Hospitals. Washington, DC: EPA; 2002;
Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/region9/waste/p2/projects/hospital/m
ops.pdf.
100. Bergen LK, Meyer M, Hog M, Rubenhagen B, Andersen
LP. Spread of bacteria on surfaces when cleaning with
microfibre cloths. J Hosp Infect. 2009 Feb;71(2):132-7.
101. Lalla F, Dingle P, Cheong C. The antibacterial action of
cloths and sanitizers and the use of environmental
alternatives in food industries. J Environ Health.
2005;68(5):31-5.

16
Appendix A: Antimicrobial efficacy data of vinegar (acetic acid),
lemon juice (citric acid), and baking soda (sodium bicarbonate)
Organism Test conditions
Concentration (v/v, unless otherwise
indicated), contact time
(at 4 to 25°C unless otherwise indicated) Log reduction
(CFU/mL or g) Ref.
Aerobic plate
count Microflora on
lettuce Vinegar (1.9% acetic acid), 10 min w/ agitation 2.3 (Vijayakumar &
Wolf-Hall, 2002)90
Lemon juice (0.6% citric acid), 10 min w/
agitation 1.8
Microflora on
parsley 2 and 5% acetic acid solutions, 15 min 5 (Karapinar &
Gonul, 1992)92
Microflora on
cilantro Citric acid (0.6% prepared solution), 1 min <1 (Allende, 2009)81
Raw skinless/
boneless chicken
breast
Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 1 min w/ agitation 2.2 (McKee et al.,
2005)83
Baking soda (10% sodium bicarbonate
solution), 1 min w/ agitation 1.0
Escherichia coli
O157:H7 Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 5 min 2.4 (Rutala et al.,
2000)89
Baking Soda (8% sodium bicarbonate), 5 min 0.7
Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 1 min at 55°C >5.0 (Yang et al.,
2009)68
Citric acid (5% prepared solution), 10 min at
55°C >5.0
Baking Soda (11, 33, and 50% sodium
bicarbonate solution) <1
Inoculated lettuce Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 5 min 3.0 (Chang & Fang,
2007)87
Inoculated cilantro Citric acid (0.6% prepared solution), 1 min <1 (Allende, 2009)81
Escherichia coli
CDC1932
(nalidixic acid
resistant strain)
Inoculated
lettuce Vinegar (1.9% acetic acid), 10 min 5.4 (Vijayakumar &
Wolf-Hall, 2002)90
Lemon juice (0.6% citric acid), 10 min w/
agitation 2.1
Staphylococcus
aureus Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 5 min 0.3-2.3 (Rutala et al.,
2000)89
Baking Soda (8% sodium bicarbonate), 5 min 0.5
Salmonella
choleraesuis Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 0.5 min >6.0 (Rutala et al.,
2000)89
Baking Soda (8% sodium bicarbonate), 5 min 2.3
Salmonella
Typhimurium Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 1 min >5.0 (Yang et al.,
2009)68
Citric acid (5% prepared solution), 1 min at
55°C >5.0
Inoculated spring
onion and rocket
leaves
Lemon juice (4.2% citric acid), 15 min 2.95 (rocket
leaves), 1.70
(spring onion)
(Yucel Sengun &
Karapinar,
2005)85
Vinegar (3.95% acetic acid), 15 min 2.20 (rocket
leaves), 1.19
(spring onion)
(Yucel Sengun &
Karapinar,
2005)85

17
Organism Test conditions
Concentration (v/v, unless otherwise
indicated), contact time
(at 4 to 25°C unless otherwise indicated) Log reduction
(CFU/mL or g) Ref.
Inoculated carrots Vinegar (4.03% acetic acid), 15 min 1.87 (Yucel Sengun &
Karapinar,
2004)84
Lemon juice (4.46 citric acid), 15 min 2.68
Inoculated stuffed
mussels Lemon juice (5.88% citric acid), 15 min 0.56 (Kişla, 2007)82
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 0.5 min >5.8 (Rutala et al.,
2000)89
Baking Soda (8% sodium bicarbonate), 5 min 1.1
Listeria
monocytogenes Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 1 min at 55°C >5.0 (Yang et al.,
2009)68
Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 10 min at 25°C
Citric acid (5% prepared solution), 10 min at
55°C
Yersinia
enterocolitica Suspension Citric acid (5% prepared solution), 10 min at
4°C <1 (Virto et al.,
2005)93
Citric acid (5% prepared solution), 10 min at
20°C <1
Citric acid (5% prepared solution), 2 min at
40°C >4
Citric acid (10% prepared solution), 10 min at
4°C <1
Citric acid (10% prepared solution), 10 min at
20°C >4
Citric acid (10% prepared solution), 1 min at
40°C >4
Inoculated parsley Vinegar (1.96 and 2.45% acetic acid), 15 min 5 (Karapinar &
Gonul, 1992)92
Shigella sonnei Inoculated parsley Vinegar (5.2% acetic acid), 5 min w/ agitation >6.0 (Wu et al., 2000)91
Poliovirus Suspensions Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 5 min 0.32 (Rutala et al.,
2000)89
Baking soda (8% sodium bicarbonate), 5 min 0.42
Feline
calicivirus
(norovirus
surrogate)
Inoculated stainless
steel disks Baking soda (5% sodium bicarbonate), 1 min 4 (Malik & Goyal,
2006)
Appendix A Table (cont’d)

18
Appendix B. Search Methodology
Literature searches were conducted to locate articles
that support a brief review and discussion of the
mechanism of action, disinfection potential, pertinent
issues, and safety/toxicity concerns of each
alternative antimicrobial agent. Bibliographies of
retrieved articles were scanned to further retrieve
more extensive and detailed information on a
particular subject of interest. Any related articles and
suggested articles, appearing within the search
engine, were also considered for inclusion. This
process subsequently aided in refining search
terminology and finding additional and specific articles
of interest.
Inclusion of articles, with publishing dates from years
2001-2011, were preferable; articles were not
excluded by date if their material was of particular
interest or the date of publication did not adversely
impact the quality of evidence. Grey literature was
included for descriptive and illustrative purposes.
Search engines/databases for
sources of information
• University of British Columbia Library – ‘Summon’
Search (publisher list here)
• Pubmed
• ScienceDirect
• Ingentaconnect
• MedlinePlus.
Search terminology
Names of each antimicrobial agent, including any
alternative names or parts of names, were used by
themselves or in combination with:
•
Action
•
Disadvantage
• Activity • Disinfect*
•
Advantage
•
Effectiv*
•
Adverse
•
Efficac*
• Antimicrobial • Food
•
Applica*
•
Germicid*
•
Bacteri*
•
Health effect
•
Biocid*
•
Mechanism
•
Characteristic
•
Microbicid*
•
Potential
•
Safety
•
Propert*
•
Surface
•
Review
•
Toxic*
Each alternative agent was reviewed on the basis of
antimicrobial activity against microorganisms
significant to public health; the emphasis was on
comparisons with similar bacteria. Microorganisms
included:
• Escherichia coli O157: H7
• Staphyloccocus aureus
• Pseudomonas aeruginosa
• Salmonella spp.
• Campylobacter jejuni
• Listeria monocytogenes
• Shigella sonnei
• Yersinia enterocolitica
• Enterococcus hirae
• Norovirus surrogates (feline calicivirus)
• Aspergillus brasiliensis spores
• Clostridium difficile spores
• Candida albicans.

19
To provide feedback on this document, please visit www.ncceh.ca/en/document_feedback
www.ncceh.ca
This document was produced by the National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health in September 2011.
Permission is granted to reproduce this document in whole, but not in part.
Photo credits: WendellandCarolyn; licensed through iStockphoto
ISBN: 978-1-926933-23-8
Production of this document has been made possible through a financial contribution from the Public Health
Agency of Canada.
© National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health 2011
400 East Tower
555 W 12th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5Z 3X7
Tel.: 604-707-2445
Fax: 604-707-2444
contact@ncceh.ca