What’s better to fight coronavirus: antibacterial or plain soap?

Health experts have been saying for weeks that using soap and water is one of the best ways to ward off the fast-spreading coronavirus, but plain old soap isn’t the only option on the market.

So, what’s best: regular or antibacterial? And how effective is hand sanitizer compared to warm water and suds?

Antibacterial vs. regular

Antibacterial soap might sound like a silver bullet on the surface, but according to the Food and Drug Administration, there’s no evidence to suggest it’s any better at killing viruses than standard soap.

“Using these products might give people a false sense of security,” Theresa Michele, of the FDA’s Division of Nonprescription Drug Products, said. “If you use these products because you think they protect you more than soap and water, that’s not correct.”

The reason soap is so effective against viruses is that it tears them apart. Coronavirus, like many other viruses, is held together by a fatty shell, a lipid membrane. Soap, by its molecular nature, strips that protective fat layer away from the virus, Vox reported.

“Soap doesn’t really fail easily,” Palli Thordarson, University of New South Wales chemistry professor told the outlet. “As long as you give it a little bit of time, it will do its job.”

Hand sanitizer

While generally effective, hand sanitizer is still not the gold standard that soap and water is, according to the CDC, and is considered an acceptable alternative only if there is no access to soap and running water.

It’s not very good for cleaning hands covered in dirt, mud, or grease — the kinds of substances people will have on their hands in real world scenarios, that germs of all kind tend to cling to.

The CDC recommends hand sanitizers that are at least 60 percent alcohol.

This story was originally published March 16, 2020 at 11:24 AM with the headline "What’s better to fight coronavirus: antibacterial or plain soap?."