ArticleScientific reports2025
An enhanced, statistically repeatable method for screening antimicrobial formulations in laundry applications, an adaptation of BSI EN 17658.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is an increasing need for reliable methods to measure the reduction of microorganisms during the domestic laundering process. An enhanced throughput (ETP) methodology, an adaptation of the European standard BS EN 17658:2022, was developed as a screening tool for evaluating experimental laundry formulations with improved capacity and efficiency. The modifications include the replacement of a lab-scale tumbling device with a more compact and affordable instrument along with additional procedural modifications to simplify the test procedure without compromising the critical parameters such as mechanical action, bioburden, liquor ratio and soil. The ETP method was utilized to replicate the rinse cycle test from an international ring trial, where the participating laboratories assessed the efficacy of 0.04% Dodecyl dimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) as a benchmark standard. In addition, an experimental formulation was evaluated according to ETP and the full EN standard against the five required microorganisms including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus hirae and Candida albicans. Overall, the average log reduction values obtained with both the benchmark and experimental formulation did not differ between the two methods. Furthermore, based on the benchmark data, the ETP method consistently showed lower variability within a lab than the EN method, as evaluated in the ring trial. The advantages and weaknesses of ETP as a research screening tool are also discussed in this work.
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.