Lab Report:

Determining the Efficiency of Various Sanitation Products

Nyssa N.

Abstract

The experiment presented refers to a predicament regarding the efficiency of various products
used to cleanse hands. It begins by posing the question of what particular product or method
would be the most cleansing subjects hands. From that question, a hypothesis was made on what
was perceived to be the best product, this case being hand sanitizer. An experiment is designed
using 4 experimental groups (2 soap brands and 2 hand sanitizer brands) and a control (water),
to which the products ability to cleanse are measured based on how many bacteria remains after
swabbing. The results of the experiment pointed at one hand sanitizer product, Purell, being the
most efficient. Said results were then proposed to be used to aid in maintaining a persons
hygiene and general health.

Introduction

This experiment was designed on the concept of utilizing the scientific method to conduct
methodical experiments to present a solution to any scientific problem. This method is
considered to be an effective approach at answering scientific questions, as it reduces variability
and error in results. Instead it increases reliability, creating for results that can be objectively
observed and analyzed in order to come to a consensus on whether the initial hypothesis can be
proven.

The experiment used known products (soaps, hand sanitizers, and water) and placed them in a
controlled setting in order to determine their efficiencies. The objective in this case will be to
determine the most efficient cleaning product given said conditions. To ensure reliability, the
experiment will use a quantifiable and observable method of analysis. Considering that bacteria
is an organism that is directly targeted by these products and one that can be counted and
observed, they provide the most practical approach at ensuring reliability.

Given the objective presented, it can be stated that if hands are cleansed with hand sanitizer, then
the hands will have its bacterial content decrease. This is due to the claim of several hand
sanitizer brands that their product can remove ...up to 99.99% of germs. Bacteria are
organisms that fall under the category of the term germs. Since this experiment will use
bacterial analysis to assess the effectiveness of various cleaning products/methods, it is possible
to either prove or disprove the initial hypothesis based on its results.
Methods
Below are the tools and products that were used:
Tap water
Up & Up hand soap
Dial antibacterial hand soap
Purell Advanced hand sanitizer
Source Advanced hand sanitizer
Plastic, clear petri dishes, 6
Marker, 1
Sterilized swabs, 6

Below are the procedures that were followed:

1. Check to see if all materials are present
2. Using a Sharpie marker, divide the petri dish in half
3. Label each petri dish with the name of the experimental condition (water, soap or
sanitizer), as well as the name of the group and the start date.
4. Determine the person from which the bacterial sample will be acquired. This will be
referred to as the test subject.
5. Each subject will shake hands for 5 seconds.
6. Test subject will apply 1 pump of 1 experimental condition to hands and wash/rub hands
for 20 seconds. Do not use paper towels- allow hands to air dry.
7. Using a sterile cotton swab, swab the palm of the test subjects hand and gently transfer
the swab to appropriate petri dish section.
8. Place cover on top of petri dish and turn upside down.
9. Repeat steps 5-8 for the remaining 4 experimental conditions.
10. Check petri dishes after 4 days. Collect data by counting the number of bacterial colonies
in each section.

Results

The experimental results below demonstrated a correlation between the type of product used and
the number of bacteria that remained on each test subjects hands. Experimental results were
done concurrently with several testing groups, each with varying numbers of bacteria after each
product use. (Note: The practice method seen in the 3 visuals below were simply test runs of
how to follow procedure. It does not reflect the results of the actual experiment.)
Table I. Number of Bacteria on Hand After Using Various Sanitation Methods (Single Group)
Sanitation Method Number of Bacteria

Dial Soap 1

Up & up soap 2

Purell Sanitizer 1

Source Sanitizer 0

Water 0

Practice 0

Table I depicts a test subject taken from one of several experimental groups. This particular test
subject showed relatively low numbers of bacteria after a 3 day period. The lowest of which can
be seen with the Source sanitizer method and water-only method, both of which had 0 bacteria
growing within the petri dish.

Table II. Number of Bacteria on Hand After Using Various Sanitation Methods (Class Groups)
Sanitation Number Number Number Number Number Average
Method of of of of of Number
Bacteria Bacteria Bacteria Bacteria Bacteria of
in Group in Group in Group in Group in Group Bacteria
1 2 3 4 5

Dial soap 0 1 4 0 1 1.2

Up & up 0 2 3 0 2 1.4
soap

Purell 0 1 1 0 2 0.8
Sanitizer

Source 1 0 12 0 1 2.8
Sanitizer

Water 0 0 6 0 2 1.6

Practice 1 0 50 15 25 18.2
Table II depicts test subjects from all 5 experimental groups and the number of bacteria found for
each test condition. Groups had varying results after the 3 day period, most notably in the
numbers seen with test group three. There was, however, a slight decrease across most groups in
regards to the number of bacteria used after applying either soap or sanitizer.

Graph I. Number of Bacteria on Hand After Using Various Sanitation Methods (Class Group)

Graph I demonstrates the information used in Table II in a pictorial format. Like the table it is
sourced from, groups had varying results, though it is more apparent in this visual. On average, it
appears that the product with the least bacteria came from the Purell brand of sanitizer.

Discussion

The results of this experiment are able to support the initial hypothesis presented. Results had
shown that there is some causation between the type of sanitation method used and the amount of
bacteria remained. In particular, the Purell hand sanitizer brand had yielded the least amount of
bacteria on average. As seen in the results in the experiment, the product that was the most
effective at removing bacteria was the Purell hand sanitizer. In comparison, the product least
effective at removing bacteria was the Source brand hand sanitizer. This points to a correlation
between price point and product effectiveness. As the Purell brand holds a retail price of $2.70,
Source holds a price of $1.30. Purell also exhibited on average, a bacterial count of 0.8, whilst
Source had an average of 2.8, demonstrating a skew in effectiveness towards the higher priced
brand. It is to note, however, that this causation may only be characteristic between the sanitizer
brands only, as both soap brands were of approximately the same price and similar effectiveness
with the averages differing by only 0.2 bacteria total.

While the experiment had yielded reliable results, there is still a chance that errors may have
been done during the experiment. A possible error could be the originating factor for the outlier
seen in Graph I and its corresponding table set . It is possible that subjects may have had more
bacteria present prior to the experiment, and while the sanitation methods had subtracted these
amounts, the amount left over may have still been of a substantial amount. This is not to say that
the amount of bacteria in the subject correlated specifically due to said outlier. It may have also
been due to the order of the cleaning methods used. Each experimental group may have used
different orders of the methods provided. A group that used products in order of decreasing
effectiveness (most effective to least effective) may have resulted in lesser bacteria over time
versus a group that used products in order of increasing effectiveness (least effective to most
effective). Additionally, for both errors it may be assumed that the there were differing
techniques of swabbing used. Subjects may have swabbed in different areas of the palm for each
test condition and may or may not have swirled the tip whilst swabbing. While the samples taken
may be varied, which is normal for an experiment of this type, the source of such variation may
have been from slightly different techniques, thus reducing its reliability.

Conclusion

Based on the results of this experiment, it can be concluded that the use of the scientific method
can be an effective method at providing an answer to a scientific problem. The experiment
demonstrated the effectiveness of various cleaning products and presented results that could be
analyzed for any trends and whether it supported the initial hypothesis. The experiment was also
carefully designed to create controlled conditions at which to simulate, thereby ensuring its
accuracy. Experiments of this nature are useful in that regard, especially in real world scenarios.
Specifically for this experiment, its results may be of use to persons in the general public. As it is
widely considered to be concerned over the cleanliness and health of the population, knowledge
of sanitation methods and their effectiveness can encourage persons to use said methods in their
daily hygienic routines.