Antiviral Tissues?? - Journals

Science is Everywhere

Antiviral Tissues??
Sep 2, 2009 at 9:42 AM
By
- science_spot
Message Friend Invite
Comments (12) Total Views (953) Everyone can see this journal post.

Prev Next

I am always skeptical about products that claim to kill germs. In the lab we used bleach and ethanol to kill just about everything. So these advertisements for tissues that are being marketed to kill 99.9%* of virus within 15 minutes finally pushed me to find out if they really do. Now if I worked in the lab I might be tempter to test their claim by actually trying to grow some virus extracted from a 15 minute old snotty tissue. However, I do NOT recommend trying to do that, lest you accidentally grow something that could really hurt you!

Instead I decided to do a little research online, first on the company's website, then by contacting their tech support, and then by adding a little virology background information to the mix. In the wake of H1N1 flu season, I am providing this information to assist you in making your personal decisions for your family. This is part of a series of posts I am working on relating to H1N1 Swine Flu. You may be interested in these past posts, and keep on the lookout for more coming soon: H1N1 Vaccine and H1N1 FAQs.

So anyway, back to the tissues. This particular brand of tissues states on their website that the tissue is made of 3 layers. The two outer layers ar normal, soft tissues, but the inside layer has been treated with a combination of citric acid and sodium lauryl sulphate. These are pretty common components, and are found in many products already in use in American homes. This is part of what drives my skepticism. Citric acid is widely used in foods, both to provide flavor and asa preservative. In general preservatives either inhibit enzymes from breaking down the food, or inhibit growth of microrganisms (such as bacteria and virus). Sodium Lauryl Sulphate is a detergent used in many common household cleaners and soaps.

In my search for some scientific basis of these components in the tissues, I found some interesting papers. The first showed that sodium lauryl sulphate reduces the infectivity of HIV by inhibiting its ability to attach to the host cell. You can read the paper free online! I did find a few papers regarding the use of common household cleaners, including citric acid, including this one, to inactivate and lower viral titers. Neither paper uses the word "kill". So using this information as the basis, it seems the components can be effective in inhibiting virus, but I am not sure if "kill" is the right word to use on something that isn't even technically "alive" (that's another story I should tell at another time).

But having data to support the use of the components does not mean the tissues themselves are functional, since we don't know if the concentration used is significant. When I wrote to the manufacturer by email for more information, they provided a long message about how safe the product is, but really did not answer my question about if it really works. The did teach me that tissues are not meant to be used to treat any condition IN or ON the body, so it's use and labeling is not governed by the FDA. Instead, it is monitered by the EPA, and they assured me they are in compliance and the tissues do indeed live up to label claims. However, their proof that it works is confidential, they said.

So, upon reading more about disinfectants and viral inactivation (death) in general, I believe these tissues could work, but I am not convinced they are much different from ordinary tissues. Notice the * next to 99% in the first paragraph, because it leads us to read the fine print, which states flu virus (influenza types A & B), cold virus (rhinovirus type 1a & 2), and RSV. I needed to know more about the lifespan of the virus in an ordinary soft tissue, first. What I found is summarized on the chart below. Focus on the highlighted portion - it gives the period of time these viruses would be most infective on a soft surface such as a tissue.

I find it most interesting, that under normal circumstances, on a normal tissue, these viruses lose most of their infectivity after 15-20 minutes anyway. Of course, we don't have the original comparison data from the manufacturer to validate this hunch of mine, but I am guessing that if it was that significant, they would publish it. My guess is that these tissues do very little to enhance viral death, and the EPA is more concerned with proving the product is safe than proving it works, so even a tiny decrease in detectable virus is enough to market the claim on these tissues.

The major references I have used can be found here:

Survival of Influenza Virus on Environmental Surfaces.

The Spread of Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses: Complexities and Conjectures.

It is up to YOU to decide if a possible tiny decrease in the infectivity time of a virus is significant enough for you to buy these expensive "special" tissues. I think I'll pass. If you have any other product you would like to learn about from a scientist's perspective, message me. I would love to do more of this type of research!

Tonya

AKA sunmoonstars

The Science Spot

Add A Comment

Comments:

1-10 of 12 comments

12 next last »

Sep. 2, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Great post!

21stCenturyMom

Message Friend Invite

Sep. 2, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Haha. Funny.

I think it is important to just get it out of the body, and out of my house.

Momforhealth

Message Friend Invite

Sep. 2, 2009 at 1:33 PM

We've never bought these special tissues because they're pricier than the regular kind. I thought it was cheaper to be more vigilant about handwashing and other hygienic behaviors. I'll PM you about a product I use and have been curious about its claims and effectiveness.

arthistmom

Message Friend Invite

Sep. 2, 2009 at 2:32 PM

I wonder if they consider them "anti-viral" because the citric acid tastes so nasty that you don't want to come in contact with the same wet tissue more than once?

Or so wonders the mom who accidentally used one to wipe off her lipstick one day.

geminilove

Message Friend Invite

Sep. 2, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Very interesting, thank you for posting this one. My grandma actually brought me a box of these a few weeks ago and they weirded me out...they are sitting in the closet unopened, haha.

aurorabunny

Message Friend Invite

Sep. 2, 2009 at 9:44 PM

aurorabunny - I was thinking about you when I wrote this, because I had a feeling this is a product you would steer away from. So now since you know what is in them,you can give them away! I don't know why these companies feel that they have to add chemicals to basic things that are just fine the way they are!

science_spot

Message Friend Invite (Original Poster)

Sep. 2, 2009 at 10:57 PM

Seeing as how I tend to steer clear of "antibacterial this" and "antiviral that," you can bet I'm feeling pretty wary about this product. Isn't decent hygene a cheaper and at least as effective method of controlling the spread of bugs?

Oh, and if SLS makes my scalp break out with the most evil dandruff (I've experimented - shampoo with SLS plasters my scalp with plaques of dandruff, shampoo without leaves the scalp happy) one can imagine, I don't even want to think about what it would do to my poor little nose!