The pH of Commonly Available Soaps, Liquid Cleansers, Detergents and Alcohol Gels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hydrogen ion concentration (pH) of a cleanser certainly has an impact on skin condition. Dermatologists always need to recommend a cleanser to patients with hand dermatitis or sensitive skin; particularly during the outbreak of swine (AH1N1 virus) influenza, frequent hand washing and alcohol gel cleansing were greatly recommended. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pH of various commonly available cleansers and alcohol gels on the market to assess patient comfort in using such products and to make good recommendations to our patients. METHODS: Multiple brands of liquid cleansers, dishwashing liquids, soaps, laundry detergents, and alcohol gels commonly available on the market were assessed for pH by using a pH meter and pH-indicator strips. The pH assessment imitated real-life conditions by diluting each cleanser with tap water and then comparing the changed pH. RESULTS: The pH levels of liquid cleansers, dishwashing liquids, a beauty bar, and alcohol gels were acidic to neutral and compatible with normal skin pH. Most bar soaps, baby soaps, and powdered laundry detergents had a pH in the alkali range. The pH of concentrated cleansers was slightly different from that of their dissolved forms. CONCLUSION: Regarding the antiseptic property and pH of the cleansers, alcohol gels with moisturizers appeared to be the best hand cleansers to recommend to our patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".