Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32847510›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2020

Did granny know best? Evaluating the antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral efficacy of acetic acid for home care procedures.

Marc-Kevin Zinn, Dirk Bockmühl

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. First Report ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Frontiers in insect science · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Identification of natural CTXM-15 inhibitors from aqueous extract of endophytic bacteria Cronobactersakazaki.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Laundry Hygiene and Odor Control: State of the Science.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marc-Kevin ZinnFaculty of Life Sciences, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Marie-Curie-Strasse 1, 47533, Kleve, Germany.
Dirk BockmühlFaculty of Life Sciences, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Marie-Curie-Strasse 1, 47533, Kleve, Germany. dirk.bockmuehl@hsrw.eu.ORCID 0000-0002-8158-521X
Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcetic acid has been used to clean and disinfect surfaces in the household for many decades. The antimicrobial efficacy of cleaning procedures can be considered particularly important for young, old, pregnant, immunocompromised people, but may also concern other groups, particularly with regards to the COVID-19 pandemics. This study aimed to show that acetic acid exhibit an antibacterial and antifungal activity when used for cleaning purposes and is able to destroy certain viruses. Furthermore, a disinfecting effect of laundry in a simulated washing cycle has been investigated.

resultsAt a concentration of 10% and in presence of 1.5% citric acid, acetic acid showed a reduction of > 5-log steps according to the specifications of DIN EN 1040 and DIN EN 1275 for the following microorganisms: P. aeruginosa, E. coli, S. aureus, L. monocytogenes, K. pneumoniae, E. hirae and A. brasiliensis. For MRSA a logarithmic reduction of 3.19 was obtained. Tests on surfaces according to DIN EN 13697 showed a complete reduction (> 5-log steps) for P. aeruginosa, E. coli, S. aureus, E. hirae, A. brasiliensis and C. albicans at an acetic acid concentration of already 5%. Virucidal efficacy tests according to DIN EN 14476 and DIN EN 16777 showed a reduction of ≥4-log-steps against the Modified Vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) for acetic acid concentrations of 5% or higher. The results suggest that acetic acid does not have a disinfecting effect on microorganisms in a dosage that is commonly used for cleaning. However, this can be achieved by increasing the concentration of acetic acid used, especially when combined with citric acid.

conclusionsOur results show a disinfecting effect of acetic acid in a concentration of 10% and in presence of 1.5% citric acid against a variety of microorganisms. A virucidal effect against enveloped viruses could also be proven. Furthermore, the results showed a considerable antimicrobial effect of acetic acid when used in domestic laundry procedures.

Indexed as

Acetic AcidAnti-Infective AgentsBacteriaBetacoronavirusCitric AcidCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19DisinfectantsDisinfectionFungiHumansNorovirusPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Acetic AcidAnti-Infective AgentsCitric AcidDisinfectantsAcetic acidAntifungalAntimicrobialAntiviralDomestic hygiene

Identifiers

PMID32847510
PMCPMC7447605
OpenAlexW3080115801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.