The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mode of action of hydrogen peroxide and other oxidizing agents: differences between liquid and gas forms
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Antimicrobials such as chlorine dioxide, peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)) share a basic mechanism of action (chemical oxidation of cellular components), but profound differences arise in their efficacy against microorganisms. Optimization of activity requires an understanding of their interaction with microbial targets and a clear differentiation between the chemical efficacies of each oxidative biocide. This study aimed to elucidate the biochemical mechanisms of action of oxidizing biocides at a macromolecular level, using amino acids, protein and an enzyme as model substrates for the action of each biocide. METHODS: The interactions of a number of oxidising agents (liquid and gaseous H(2)O(2), ClO(2), peracetic acid formulations) with amino acids, proteins (bovine serum albumin and aldolase) and enzymes were investigated by spectrophotometry, SDS-PAGE and alkaline phosphatase activity measurements. RESULTS: Biocide reactions yielded different types of oxidative structural change and different degrees of oxidation to amino acids and proteins, and differences in activity against a microbial enzyme. In particular there was a marked difference in the interactions of liquid H(2)O(2) and gaseous H(2)O(2) with the macromolecules, the latter causing greater oxidation; these results explain the dramatic differences in antimicrobial efficacy between liquid and gas peroxide. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide a comprehensive understanding of the differences in interactions between a number of oxidizing agents and macromolecules commonly found in microbial cells. Biochemical mechanistic differences between these oxidative biocides do exist and lead to differential effects on macromolecules. This in turn could provide an explanation as to their differences in biocidal activity, particularly between liquid and gas peroxide.
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
Microbiologically influenced corrosion and current mitigation strategies: A state of the art review
Jia, R., Unsal, T., Xu, D., Lekbach, Y., & Gu, T. (2019) · International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation · doi:10.1016/j.ibiod.2018.11.007 · Cited by 503
A review of the recent advances in antimicrobial coatings for urinary catheters
Singha, P., Locklin, J., & Handa, H. (2017) · Acta Biomaterialia · doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2016.11.070 · Cited by 448
Kahrilas, G. A., Blotevogel, J., Stewart, P. S., & Borch, T. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es503724k · Cited by 414
Modes of action of three disinfectant active substances: A review
Wessels, S., & Ingmer, H. (2013) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.09.006 · Cited by 297
Wang, L., Zhang, X., Yu, X., Gao, F., Shen, Z., Zhang, X., Ge, S., Liu, J., Gu, Z., & Chen, C. (2019) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.201901965 · Cited by 300
Metadata
- Authors
- Finnegan, M., Linley, E., Denyer, S. P., McDonnell, G., Simons, C., & Maillard, J.-Y.
- Venue
- Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-08-16
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2108-2115
- ISSN
- 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2091
- OpenAlex
- W2123218404
- Cited by
- 345
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Mode of action of hydrogen peroxide and other oxidizing agents: differences between liquid and gas forms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jac/dkq308
- The paper
- Finnegan, M., Linley, E., Denyer, S. P., McDonnell, G., Simons, C., & Maillard, J.-Y. (2010). Mode of action of hydrogen peroxide and other oxidizing agents: differences between liquid and gas forms. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkq308
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.