Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Disinfectants – are we at the end of the road?

09 October 2020 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Supplied

SARS-CoV-2, an enveloped coronavirus, is susceptible to most disinfectants. Therefore, the majority of disinfectants, including those containing 70% ethanol, should be able to kill the virus fairly quickly.

Nevertheless, it was found that some bacteria are highly resistant to several commercially available disinfectants. These bacteria are currently still quite rare, and the work of the Veterinary Biotechnology group at the University of the Free State (UFS) aims to prevent the development of more highly resistant bacteria.

The research group in the Department of Microbial, Biochemical and Food Biotechnology is working on disinfectant resistance. They recently published an article, ‘Molecular basis of bacterial disinfectant resistance’.

Group members include: Prof Robert Bragg, professor in the department; Dr Charlotte Boucher, research associate; Samantha Mc Carlie, master’s student and laboratory manager; master’s students, Twyne Skein and Gunther Staats; honours students, Carlo Visser, Bernadette Belter, Boudine van der Walt, Jacky Huang, and Mart-Louise van Zyl; and an NRF intern, Gloria Kankam.

According to Mc Carlie, the work being done on disinfectant resistance is largely attributable to the major issues currently experienced with antibiotic resistance.

“Antibiotic resistance is becoming one of the biggest life-threatening challenges of our time – even overshadowing the current COVID-19 pandemic – as multidrug-resistant infections are becoming increasingly difficult to treat. Bacterial infections that are present in hospitals and agriculture are becoming unresponsive to many of the antibiotics currently in use, marking the start of a post-antibiotic era.”

It is predicted that by 2050, antimicrobial resistance could lead to as many deaths as cancer causes today and could account for between 10 million and 50 million deaths per year.

Lack of proper biosecurity

Mc Carlie says the resistance to antibiotics is spreading rapidly due to a lack of proper biosecurity measures in the food and agricultural industry as well as in the hospital environment, even if the COVID-19 pandemic has gone a long way towards increasing the awareness of hospital staff to the importance of good biosecurity. Millions of rands are lost every year due to multidrug-resistant infections in the dairy and poultry industries of South Africa, and superbugs are present in almost every major hospital in the country.

“Currently, the best viable protection we have against bacteria is biosecurity and disinfectants. Biosecurity relies heavily on the use of disinfectants to control bacterial growth. This makes it only more troubling that disinfectant resistance is emerging at an alarming rate.”

She believes it is important to understand the mechanisms of resistance in order to combat resistance to disinfectants. “Once the mechanisms are identified, possible solutions can be investigated.”

The research group is currently monitoring disinfectant resistance, looking at which microorganisms are resistant to which disinfectants. They take environmental samples and test the levels of disinfectant resistance to observe the development and spread thereof.

Once they have an understanding of the development of disinfectant resistance, the Veterinary Biotechnology group will be able to make recommendations to hospitals and the agricultural industry on how to prevent the development of these resistant microorganisms.

“As we learn more about these highly resistant isolates, it will direct day-to-day treatment of multidrug-resistant infections and hopefully aid in the fight against antibiotic and disinfectant resistance,” says Mc Carlie.

The dangers of over-prescribing

“Resistance to antimicrobials such as antibiotics and disinfectants is a natural occurrence. We did not invent antibiotics, we discovered them, and so bacterial resistance has been around for as long as antibiotics have – as a survival strategy.”

“However, the widespread use of antimicrobials creates selective pressure for those microorganisms that are resistant to the antimicrobial being used. Over-prescribing and improper use of antibiotics has led to widespread antibiotic resistance. We expect the same trend to be seen with disinfectant resistance in the near future,” says Mc Carlie.

She urges the public to take note that disease-causing microorganisms can become resistant to antibiotics and disinfectants if they are not used correctly. A course of antibiotics should always be taken at the correct time and until the last dose. In the same way, disinfectants should be used at the recommended level and not diluted below that level.

These resistant organisms are causing major issues in the agricultural and medical industries, but this effect has not been seen in households yet. As long as disinfectants are used correctly, most will be able to kill the novel coronavirus.

There is, however, a need to establish tests on the efficacy of the massive number of ‘hand sanitisers’ that are now suddenly available.

According to Prof Bragg, existing disinfectants and hand sanitisers have been specifically tested against SARS-CoV-2 and have been found to be effective. He says the undergraduate students in the department will be evaluating a wide range of different hand sanitisers as part of their practical training.

Mc Carlie adds that the excessive use of poor-quality disinfectants as hand sanitisers can result in bacteria developing resistance to these disinfectants. “It is therefore very important that reliable high-quality disinfectants are used as hand sanitisers during this COVID-19 crisis, otherwise we will be replacing one crisis with a potentially even bigger crisis.”

Mc Carlie believes there is a need to start looking at alternatives to control bacterial growth. “Disinfectants are currently the only viable option, and if these microorganisms become resistant to disinfectants as well, we will have nowhere else to turn,” she says.

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger

2007-11-26

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept