At Atlantik Body Care, our mission has always been to create gentle yet effective skincare solutions. Over the last six months, we partnered with Shannon ABC, one of Ireland's top biotech research centers, to test our 100% natural body wash, Body Armour, against some of the most common bacteria and fungi that contribute to persistent skin issues.
In this study, Body Armour was evaluated for its effectiveness in inhibiting the growth of two bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and disrupting the formation of their biofilms. Additionally, it was tested for its ability to inhibit the growth of the fungus Trichophyton rubrum, which is responsible for several common fungal infections. The performance of Body Armour was compared to an industry-leading synthetic antimicrobial body wash, an over-the-counter antimicrobial drug, and an over-the-counter antifungal drug. Here’s what we discovered.
A. Bacteria Tested: Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
These two bacteria are notorious for causing a range of skin conditions, particularly when their biofilms form, making them harder to treat. Some common skin issues linked to these bacteria include:
1. Acne: Often associated with Staphylococcus aureus.
2. Impetigo: A highly contagious bacterial infection that leads to red sores on the skin.
3. Folliculitis: Inflammation of hair follicles caused by Staphylococcus aureus.
4. Wound Infections: Particularly involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which can cause more serious infections in open wounds.
We tested Body Armour against both an industry-leading synthetic antimicrobial body wash and a popular over-the-counter (OTC) antimicrobial drug. The results were eye-opening:
|
*At 100% concentration, Body Armour inhibited 0.7 mm of Staphylococcus aureus growth. In comparison, the synthetic body wash inhibited 0.6 mm, and the OTC drug inhibited 0.6 mm. |
The ability of Body Armour to reduce bacterial growth was promising, showing comparable and in certain instances even better results than synthetic alternatives.
B. Bacteria Biofilms Tested: Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Biofilms are resilient communities of bacteria that form protective layers, making infections harder to treat. Once bacteria establish these biofilms, they become significantly more resistant to antibiotics and disinfectants, posing a challenge in both medical and everyday environments.
We tested Body Armour, the international leading synthetic antimicrobial body wash and the over the counter anti fungal solution against both bacteria to see how effectively they could inhibit biofilm formation. The results were revealing:
| *Body Armour demonstrated significant reductions in biofilm formation for both bacteria. Notably, it showed strong inhibition of S. aureus biofilm at 100% concentration, outperforming untreated controls. When tested against P. aeruginosa, Body Armour, especially at lower concentrations, showed incredible activity against even medical-grade antiseptics, showing promise as an effective everyday product in combating biofilms. |
C. Fungus Tested: Trichophyton Rubrum
Fungal infections are common, especially among athletes, and can be tough to eliminate. Trichophyton rubrum is the primary fungus behind:
1. Athlete's Foot (Tinea Pedis): A fungal infection between the toes or on the feet.
2. Ringworm (Tinea Corporis): A skin infection causing ring-like, itchy patches.
3. Jock Itch (Tinea Cruris): A fungal infection in the groin area, common among athletes.
In our tests, Body Armour was pitted against the same synthetic body wash and an industry-leading antifungal drug. What we found was that at various concentrations, Body Armour demonstrated comparable, and at times better antifungal action, than both the synthetic body wash and the leading antifungal drug.
This means that Body Armour showed potential in inhibiting the growth of this stubborn fungus across a range of concentrations.
A Word of Caution
While these findings are exciting, it’s important to remember that Body Armour is not a drug. As a cosmetic product, the primary purpose of our body wash is to cleanse and moisturize the skin. These antimicrobial and antifungal effects are secondary benefits that stem from the natural ingredients in the formulation.
In the skincare world, cosmetic brands like ours are limited by strict regulations regarding what we can claim. While the study results are promising, we must be cautious in how we communicate them.
Visual Results: Petri Dish Comparisons (see below)
To visually represent these findings, we’ve displayed select images of Petri dishes, tables and graphs showing the bacterial and fungal inhibition zones. While we refrain from making strong claims, these results suggest that Body Armour holds potential in inhibiting harmful microbes, even when compared to industry-leading synthetic alternatives.
Conclusion: A Gentle Yet Effective Skincare Solution
What this study suggests is that Body Armour may offer more than just a refreshing and moisturizing wash. Its ability to inhibit the growth of bacteria and fungi adds an extra layer of benefit for those dealing with common skin issues or conditions. But again, we stress that this is not a pharmaceutical product, and its primary purpose remains to be a gentle, nourishing body wash.
Figure 1: Zones of inhibition for S. aureus Vs. various concentrations of Body Armour (AB), Industry Leading Synthetic Antimicrobial Body Wash (SBW), and Industry Leading Over the Counter Antimicrobial Drug (OTC).
Figure 2: Zones of Inhibition for ranges of Body Armour (AB) and ), Industry Leading Synthetic Antimicrobial Body Wash (SBW) concentrations, positive control 0.02% Industry Leading Over the Counter Antimicrobial Drug (OTC) and negative control TSA 1% against S. aureus ATCC 29213.
Note – The larger the zone of inhibition the better.
Figure 3: Biofilm formation of S. aureus ATCC 29123 when challenged with Body Armour (AB), Industry Leading Synthetic Antimicrobial Body Wash (SBW), positive (OTC) and negative control. Experiments were carried out in triplicate. Asterix indicate level of statistical significance when compared to negative control untreated control S. aureus.
Figure 4: Biofilm formation of P. aeruginosa NCTC10662 when challenged with Body Armour (AB), Industry Leading Synthetic Antimicrobial Body Wash (SBW), positive (OTC) and negative control. Experiments were carried out in triplicate. Asterix indicate level of statistical significance when compared to negative control untreated P. aeruginosa.
Table 1: Compares Body Armour (Atlantik Body Care) and an Industry Leading Synthetic Antimicrobial Body Wash (SBW) using the well diffusion assay. Both products demonstrated antifungal activity, confirming their potency. An industry leading over the counter antifungal solution (OTC) served as the positive control, while SDB was used as the negative control.
