ArticlePloS one2020
In vitro and ex vivo testing of alternative disinfectants to currently used more harmful substances in footbaths against Dichelobacter nodosus.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Field Validation of a Non-carcinogenic and Eco-Friendly Disinfectant in a Stand-In Footbath for Treatment of Footrot Associated WithFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Comparative effectiveness of interventions for treating interdigital necrobacillosis in cattle: A network meta-analysis.Veterinarni medicina · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A footbath-based control program for ovine footrot, a contagious disease caused by Dichelobacter nodosus, will be implemented in Switzerland. The currently used footbath disinfectants formaldehyde, zinc sulfate and copper sulfate are carcinogenic or environmental pollutants. Hence, the aim of this study was to identify alternative disinfectants, which are highly effective, non-carcinogenic, environmentally acceptable, inexpensive, available as concentrate and suitable for licensing. The antimicrobial effect of a series of potential chemicals such as lactic acid, propionic acid, hydrogen peroxide, sodium hypochlorite, octenidine dihydrochloride, chlorocresol, Ampholyt 20 and the registered biocide DESINTEC® Hoof Care Special D (Desintec) were investigated by culture based in vitro testing. The microcidal effect of various Desintec concentrations were then compared against routinely used 4% formaldehyde and 10% zinc sulfate in ex vivo assays on sheep feet from slaughter. For this purpose a newly established PMA (propidium monoazid) real-time PCR using the improved dye PMAxx™ was applied that allows discrimination of viable and dead D. nodosus. In the ex vivo experiments, 4% formaldehyde was significantly more effective than 10% zinc sulfate and was chosen as positive control for assessing the new disinfectant. The disinfectant effect of Desintec in a minimal concentration of 6% was equally effective as 4% formaldehyde, meaning that it offers a comparable antimicrobial effect against virulent D. nodosus. In conclusion, Desintec is a promising disinfectant for replacing formaldehyde, copper sulfate and zinc sulfate in footbaths against footrot.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.