The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Standardized comparison of antiseptic efficacy of triclosan, PVP-iodine, octenidine dihydrochloride, polyhexanide and chlorhexidine digluconate
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: This study presents a comparative investigation of the antimicrobial efficacy of the antiseptics PVP-iodine, triclosan, chlorhexidine, octenidine and polyhexanide used for pre-surgical antisepsis and antiseptic treatment of skin, wounds and mucous membranes based on internationally accepted standards. METHODS: MICs and MBCs were determined in accordance with DIN 58940-7 and 58940-8 using Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), Enterococcus faecalis (including vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus), Streptococcus pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Clostridium perfringens, Haemophilus influenzae and Candida albicans. The microbicidal efficacy was determined in accordance with DIN EN 1040 and 1275 using S. aureus, P. aeruginosa and C. albicans. RESULTS: For chlorhexidine, octenidine and polyhexanide, MIC(48) and MBC(24) ranged from 16 to 32 mg/L. Maximum values for triclosan ranged from 256 to 512 mg/L, with an efficacy gap against P. aeruginosa, while the maximum values of PVP-iodine were 1024 mg/L, with a gap against S. pneumoniae. Comparing the minimal effective concentrations, octenidine was most effective. After 1 min, only octenidine and PVP-iodine fulfil the requirements for antiseptics. CONCLUSIONS: Tests under standardized and harmonized conditions help to choose the most efficacious agent. When a prolonged contact time is feasible, ranking of agents would be polyhexanide = octenidine > chlorhexidine > triclosan > PVP-iodine. This is consistent with the recommendations for antisepsis of acute wounds. Polyhexanide seems to be preferable for chronic wounds due to its higher tolerability. If an immediate effect is required, ranking would be octenidine = PVP-iodine>> polyhexanide > chlorhexidine > triclosan.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection
Webster, J., & Osborne, S. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004985.pub5 · Cited by 521
Antibiotic resistance: What is so special about multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria?
Exner, M., Bhattacharya, S., Christiansen, B., Gebel, J., Goroncy‐Bermes, P., Hartemann, P., Heeg, P., Ilschner, C., Krämer, A., Larson, E., et al. (2017) · PubMed · doi:10.3205/dgkh000290 · Cited by 429
Biofilm-Innate Immune Interface: Contribution to Chronic Wound Formation
Versey, Z., da Cruz Nizer, W. S., Russell, E., Zigic, S., DeZeeuw, K. G., Marek, J. E., Overhage, J., & Cassol, E. (2021) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.648554 · Cited by 253
Severing, A.-L., Rembe, J.-D., Koester, V., & Stuermer, E. K. (2019) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dky432 · Cited by 120
Metadata
- Authors
- Koburger, T., Hubner, N. O., Braun, M., Siebert, J., & Kramer, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-06-15
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1712-1719
- ISSN
- 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2091
- OpenAlex
- W2109603174
- Cited by
- 372
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Standardized comparison of antiseptic efficacy of triclosan, PVP-iodine, octenidine dihydrochloride, polyhexanide and chlorhexidine digluconate. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jac/dkq212
- The paper
- Koburger, T., Hubner, N. O., Braun, M., Siebert, J., & Kramer, A. (2010). Standardized comparison of antiseptic efficacy of triclosan, PVP-iodine, octenidine dihydrochloride, polyhexanide and chlorhexidine digluconate. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkq212
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.