TEXTILES HAVING ANTIMICROBIAL PROPERTIES AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING THE SAME

Abstract

A method for inhibiting the spread of nosocomial infections in institutional health care settings comprises treating outer garments, worn indoors by employed staff of the institution, to impart antimicrobial properties to those garments by immersing the garments in a solution of glyxol, eugenol and water, squeezing the solution out of the garments, curing the wetted garments under heat, and drying the cured garments; and thereafter requiring employed staff to wear the treated garments while working at the institution; laundering the garments after being worn by the staff, for further wear by the staff, and requiring employed staff to wear the treated garments after the garments have been laundered for so long as the garments retain their antimicrobial properties.

Claims

1) The following is claimed: 1) A method for inhibiting the spread of nosocomial infections in institutional health care settings comprising: a) treating outer garments, worn indoors by employed staff of the institution, to impart antimicrobial properties to those garments by: i) immersing the garments in a solution of glyxol, eugenol and water; ii) squeezing the solution out of the garments; iii) curing the wetted garments under heat; and iv) drying the cured garments; b) requiring employed staff to wear the treated garments while working at the institution; c) laundering the garments after being worn by the staff, for further wear by the staff; and d) requiring employed staff to wear the treated garments after the garments have been laundered for so long as the garments retain their antimicrobial properties.

2) The method of claim 1 wherein the solution comprises ethanol.

3) The method of claim 1 wherein the solution comprises ethyl acetate.

4) The method of claim 1 wherein individual garments comprise cotton and polyester.

5) The method of claim 1 wherein the garments are made of a fabric that is a blend of cotton and polyester.

6) The method of claim 5 wherein the blend is 75% polyester.

7) The method of claim 5 wherein the blend is 50% polyester.

8) The method of claim 1 wherein the solution comprises about 10 grams of glyxol per liter of solution, and about 1 gram of eugenol per liter of solution.

9) The method of claim 1 wherein ethanol is present in an amount of about 10 percent of the water by volume.

10) The method of claim 1 wherein the ethyl acetate is present in an amount of about 10 percent of the water by volume.

11) The method of claim 1 wherein the solution comprises polyvinyl alcohol.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

[0054] FIG. 1 depicts the Difference in Tearing Strength Performance as Between Samples Treated in Accordance with the Invention and Untreated Samples

[0055] FIG. 2 depicts the Difference in Breaking Strength Performance as Between Samples Treated in Accordance with the Invention and Untreated Samples

[0056] FIG. 3 is a Graph of Tensile Strain at Maximum Loads for Untreated Rinsed Samples and Treated, Rinsed Samples; Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples; and Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples.

[0057] FIG. 4 is a photgraph of Five (5) Petrie dishes used in the Quantitative Evaluation of M. smegmatis.

[0058] FIG. 5 is a graph of the Quantitative Evaluation data for S. aureus colonies versus fabric treatment for a Untreated Rinsed Sample and a Treated, Rinsed Sample; a Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Sample and a Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Sample; and a Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Sample and a Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Sample.

[0059] FIG. 6 is a graph of the Quantitative Evaluation data for M. smegmatis colonies versus fabric treatment for a Untreated Rinsed Sample and a Treated, Rinsed Sample; a Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Sample and a Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Sample; and a Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Sample and a Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Sample.

[0060] FIG. 7 is a graph of Surface Evaluation MIU Values for Untreated Rinsed Samples and Treated, Rinsed Samples; Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples; and Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples.

[0061] FIG. 8 is a graph of Surface Evaluation MMD Values for Untreated Rinsed Samples and Treated, Rinsed Samples; Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples; and Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples.

[0062] FIG. 9 is a graph of Surface Evaluation SMD Values for Untreated Rinsed Samples and Treated, Rinsed Samples; Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples; and Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples.

[0063] FIG. 10 is a graph of Compression LC Values for Untreated Rinsed Samples and Treated, Rinsed Samples; Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples; and Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples.

[0064] FIG. 11 is a graph of Compression RC Values for Untreated Rinsed Samples and Treated, Rinsed Samples; Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples; and Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples.

[0065] FIG. 12 is a graph of Original Thickness for Untreated Rinsed Samples and Treated, Rinsed Samples; Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples; and Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0066] The following are used in practicing various aspects of the present invention:

[0067] Lab Coats

META Labwear white lab coats distributed by White Swan brands
Fiber Content65/35 polyester/cotton

Weave StylePoplin

[0068] Fabric Weight188.04 g/m.sup.2, 482 grams per size XLarge lab coat

Ends per Centimeter40

Picks per Centimeter20

[0069] Chemicals

Naturally derived antimicrobial and associated fixative agents
Tap water

Tide Institutional Formula, Powder Soap

[0070] Test Microbes

Staphylococcus aureusClinical Isolate from skin
Bacillus cereusWard's Natural Science
Mycobacterium smegmatisWard's Natural Science

[0071] Antimicrobial Assessment Materials

Nutrient BrothWard's Natural Science

AgarWard's Natural Science

Petri DishesWard's Natural Science

Eppendorf TipsWard's Natural Science

Puritan Sterile Cotton Tipped ApplicatorsThomas Scientific

[0072] Equipment

Whirlpool Fabric Sense System Washing Machine type 111
Maytag Neptune Dryer model # MDE5500AYW
Industrial Laboratory Equip. Co., Inc. ILE/Sauter Scale model # RE2012

Instron 5543A CRE Breaking Strength Tester

Instron 5543A CRE Tearing Strength Tester

SDL International Martindale M235 Abrasion Resistance Tester

Pure Bending TesterKawabata's Evaluation System2

Surface TesterKawabata's Evaluation System4

Compression TesterKawabata's Evaluation System3

Tensile & Shearing TesterKawabata's Evaluation System1

[0073] In one aspect of this invention, cotton/polyester blend lab coats were treated largely in accordance with the teachings of U.S. patent publication 2011/0236448 A1 but using modified formulae. Specifically, the laboratory coats were treated with a modified formula respecting the aforementioned United States patent publication, with a modified solution of glyxol, eugenol, water and in most cases, polyvinyl alcohol. The coats were treated by immersing the coats in the solution, squeezing the solution out the coats, and curing the wetted coats under heating and drying. In the most preferable practice, the solution included 10 parts by volume of polyvinyl alcohol and 10 parts by volume of glyxol to 100 parts of water. The ratio of the amount of solution to the lab coats on a mass basis was 5 mass parts of solution to 1 mass part of lab coat. The amount of eugenol used can be as low as 1% by weight of the solution, but 10% by weight is the preferred amount of eugenol for use in the course of practice of this invention. Further details regarding kinds and appropriate amounts of the reagents and inclusion or exclusion of the same may be found in the United States patent publications incorporated by reference as set forth above.

[0074] All treated and untreated test specimens were conditioned at standard conditions of 27 degrees Celsius and 65 percent relative humidity for at least twenty-four hours prior to testing.

[0075] Samples that were tested included those that were untreated and rinsed; untreated, rinsed and laundered five times; untreated and rinsed with ten launderings; as well as treated and rinsed; treated, rinsed and laundered five times; and treated, rinsed with ten launderings.

[0076] Repeating and rinses, untreated and treated samples were rinsed separately as to not cross contaminate the untreated samples. The rinse cycle was carried out with a Whirlpool Fabric Sense System washing machine in a small load with cold water, normal agitation on the rinse cycle, and no detergent. The fabrics were then dried in the Maytag Neptune dryer on low heat for thirty minutes. All samples were kept separate to avoid possible contamination. The rinse cycle was performed to remove any unbonded chemicals from the antimicrobial finish process. For consistency among all test specimens, the untreated samples were also rinsed.

[0077] Repeating washing and drying, the untreated and treated samples were washed and dried separately to eliminate any possible cross contamination to the untreated samples. The washing was performed with a Whirlpool Fabric Sense System washing machine. The lab coats were washed in accordance with the care tag; warm water on the permanent press cycle and regular soil in a small load with one ounce of Tide Powder laundry detergent. The lab coats were then dried in the Maytag Neptune dryer as directed by the care label; tumble dry on medium heat for twenty minutes. This was done five consecutive times for the samples that are identified as rinsed and laundered five times, and ten consecutive times for the samples that are identified as rinsed and laundered ten times.

[0078] Weight was determined using the Standard Test Method for Mass per Unit Area (Weight) of FabricASTM D 3776

[0079] Sample Size was 7.62 centimeters7.62 centimeters (5 test specimens)

[0080] As respecting sample preparation, five test specimens were cut from each sample (untreated and rinsed; untreated, rinsed and laundered five times; untreated, rinsed with ten launderings; as well as treated and rinsed; treated, rinsed and laundered five times; and treated, rinsed and laundered ten times) including five samples cut from a lab coat prior to any treatment or rinsing (to determine the original weight of the lab coats).

[0081] ProcedureTest specimens were weighed individually on a Sauter Model RE2012 scale to determine mass in grams. The average of each sample of five test specimens was calculated and the weight was converted to g/m.sup.2.

[0082] Breaking StrengthStandard Test Method for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (Grab Test) ASTM D5034

[0083] Sample Size10 centimeters15 centimeters (5 test specimens)

[0084] Sample PreparationFive test specimens were cut from each sample with the 15 centimeter measurement parallel to the length of the lab coats.

[0085] ProcedureTest specimens were mounted individually in the jaws of the Instron 5543A CRE with the 15 centimeter length in the direction of the test (vertical). As per ASTM D5034 the loading rate was 30010 millimeters per minute and the force was applied until the test specimen broke. Values for the breaking force and tensile strain of the test specimen were automatically processed by the computer interfaced with the testing machine and printed out in charts and graphs.

[0086] Tearing StrengthStandard Test Method for Tearing Strength of Fabrics by the Tongue (Single Rip) Procedure (Constant-Rate-of-Extension Tensile Testing Machine) ASTM D2261

[0087] Sample Size7.5 centimeters20 centimeters (5 test specimens)

[0088] Sample PreparationFive test specimens were cut from each sample with the 7.5 centimeter measurement parallel to the length of the lab coats. A 7.5 centimeter long preliminary cut was then made at the center of the 7.5 centimeter width to form a two-tongued (trouser shaped) specimen.

[0089] ProcedureOne tongue of the test specimen was gripped in the upper jaw of the Instron 5543A CRE machine and the other tongue was gripped in the lower jaw of the same machine with the slit edge of each tongue centered in such a manner that the cut edges of the tongues form a straight line. The top jaw moved at a rate of 50 millimeters per minute away from the lower jaw that remained stationary to propagate a tear. The average of the five highest peaks over a tearing distance of 76 millimeters was averaged and reported as the tearing force. The computer set up with the testing interface recorded the tearing force and produced a print out of the data.

[0090] Abrasion ResistanceStandard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Textile Fabrics (Martindale Abrasion Tester Method) ASTM D4966

[0091] Sample Size5 centimeters5 centimeters (4 test specimens)

[0092] Sample PreparationFour test specimens were cut from each sample. A circular template with a diameter of 3.81 centimeters was used to cut the test specimens into the appropriate size and shape.

[0093] ProcedureThe four test specimens were mounted on the Martindale Abrasion Tester in the four holders such that the face of the lab coat was abraded. Abrasion testing was run with the four test specimens from one sample (i.e. all four untreated rinsed samples were run first, next all four treated rinsed samples were run, etc.). Because the fabric had a mass less than 498.4 g/m.sup.2 a 3.8 centimeter disk of polyurethane foam was placed between the test specimen and the metal insert. The standard abradent fabric, a plain weave worsted wool fabric was used as the abradent and was changed after each sample was tested (after ten thousand cycles). Ten thousand cycles were run removing one sample after every two thousand five hundred cycles (i.e. 2,500, 5,000, 7,500, and 10,000). This test method was used to visually evaluate the abrasion resistance of the untreated and treated fabrics.

[0094] Assessment of Fabric Mechanical Properties Relating to HandKawabata Evaluation System (KES)

[0095] Sample Size20 centimeters20 centimeters (3 test specimens)

[0096] Sample PreparationThree test specimens were cut from each sample.

[0097] ProcedurePure Bending TestThe test specimen was mounted in the Pure Bending Tester, Kawabata Evaluation System2, with the length of the lab coat, (for this research, considered the warp direction) parallel to the direction of the test. Once the test specimen was mounted the bending tester rotated counter-clockwise, then rotated clockwise through the starting point of the test, and finally rotated counter-clockwise to return to the original position, for a total bending assessment of 250 degrees. The computer set up with the testing interface was used to administer the test, as well as collect and evaluate the data. The procedure was then replicated to assess the specimens in a direction perpendicular to the length of the coat (for this research, considered the weft direction). Resistance to bending, or bending rigidity (B), as well as hysteresis, or recovery from bending (2HB) was measured.

[0098] Surface TestTest specimens were mounted face up in the Surface Tester, Kawabata Evaluation System4, with the warp parallel to the direction of the test. The measuring apparatus, that evaluates surface roughness, was lowered into place with ten grams of force applied to the test specimen. The detachable gauge, that evaluates friction, was mounted in place with a fifty gram weight to provide the appropriate force. The computer was used to run the test as well as gather and assess the data. The process was then replicated to evaluate the specimens in the weft direction. Coefficient of friction (MIU), mean deviation from the coefficient of friction (MMD), and surface roughness (SMD) were measured.

[0099] Compression TestThe test specimens were mounted face up in the Compression Tester, Kawabata Evaluation System3. A maximum load of fifty grams per square centimeter was applied to the test specimen. Linearity of compression (LC), work of compression (WC), recovery from compression (RC), as well as original thickness (T0) and thickness under maximum compression (TM), was measured. The computer with the testing system was used to control the test as well as collect and analyze the data.

[0100] Shear TestTest specimens were mounted in the Shear Tester, Kawabata Evaluation System1, face up with the warp parallel to the direction of the test. A standard 200 gram weight was placed on the unsecured end of the fabric to ensure the specimen was mounted evenly. Once the specimen was properly mounted the fabric was sheared eight degrees to the right, the fabric then passed through the starting point to be sheared eight degrees to the left, and was finally returned to the original position. Shear stiffness (G) and hysteresis of shear (2HG and 2HG5) were measured. The computer with the testing interface ran the test and collected as well as evaluated the data. The procedure was then replicated to evaluate the specimens in the weft direction.

[0101] Tensile TestThe test specimens were mounted in the Tensile Tester, Kawabata Evaluation System1, face up with the warp parallel to the direction of the test. A standard 200 gram weight was placed on the unsecured end of the fabric to ensure the specimen was mounted evenly. The screws were tightened with a wrench to guarantee that the fabric did not move during the test. Once the specimen was properly mounted the fabric was subjected to a load of 500 grams force per centimeter width. Linearity of the tensile load (LT), work of the tensile force (WT), tensile resilience (RT), and the extensibility (EMT) were measured. The data was collected and analyzed by the computer with the testing interface. The procedure was then replicated to assess the specimens in the weft direction.

[0102] Assessment of Antibacterial Finishes on Textile MaterialsAATCC 147/AATCC 100

[0103] Sample Size7.62 centimeters7.62 centimeters (2-3 test specimens)

[0104] Sample PreparationThree test specimens were cut from the treated samples as well as two test specimens from the treated lab coat prior to rinsing, and two test specimens from the untreated unrinsed sample to act as a control.

[0105] Test OrganismsStaphylococcus aureus, gram positive organism, Bacillus cereus, (an analog for anthrax) gram positive organism, and Mycobacterium smegmatis, (a model for tuberculosis) gram positive organism.

[0106] ProcedureAATCC 147A pure culture of test microbe was applied to the entire surface of a clear nutrient agar plate which was then overlaid with small pieces of the test specimens. After a twenty-four hour incubation period at thirty-seven degrees Celsius, the test specimens were evaluated. A clear zone of no growth greater than or equal to three millimeters is considered indicative of antimicrobial activity. Fabrics that performed desirably for the qualitative method were then further analyzed quantitatively for their ability to reduce microbial growth.

[0107] AATCC 1000.5 grams of the test specimens, cut into strips, were added to a microbial suspension of approximately 110 .sup.5 colony forming units (CFU) per milliliter. As soon as possible after inoculation (0 contact time), the first set of samples to be evaluated were plated. Serial dilutions were made for each test specimen and plated on clear nutrient agar plates. The remaining test specimens were left to incubate at thirty-seven degrees Celsius for twenty-four hours. After the twenty-four hour incubation time serial dilutions were made for each test specimen which were then plated on clear nutrient agar plates. Finally all plates were incubated for forty-eight hours at thirty-seven degrees Celsius. The percent reduction of bacteria was determined using the equation 100(BA)/B=R where R is the percent reduction of bacteria by the specimen treatments, A is the number of bacteria recovered from the microbial suspension at the end of the experiment after the twenty-four hour incubation period, and B is the number of bacteria recovered from the microbial suspension at the beginning of the experiment.

[0108] There was slight variation in the mass per unit area of the samples that were tested. The variation was both within a set of test specimens as well as between the test specimens. The most notable difference was the mass per unit area of the untreated rinsed sample (189.4 g/m.sup.2) in comparison to the treated rinsed sample (184.9 g/m.sup.2), with a 2.36 percent difference, as depicted in tables three and four, as well as figure seven. A t-test was utilized to evaluate the significance of the differences between the samples as shown in tables five, six, and seven. The results of the tests showed that the differences between the untreated, and untreated, rinsed, with five launderings and their treated counterparts are significant. The variation within and between the samples can be accounted for by normal variation of the lab coats. Both the untreated and treated lab coats demonstrate a reduction in mass per unit area between the rinsed samples and the samples that were laundered ten times which can be attributed to the normal loss of fibers due to the laundering cycle. Overall it can be concluded that the antimicrobial treatment does not negatively impact the mass per unit area of the lab coats.

[0109] The difference between the untreated rinsed samples and the treated rinsed samples was 10.96 percent, with the untreated samples being the superior performer of the two as shown in Table 2 and FIG. 1. That disparity can be attributed to variation within the lab coats themselves rather than the treatment, because upon further consideration it is clear that the considerable difference is not a trend. The untreated samples with five and ten launderings exhibited lower tearing strength than their treated counterparts. There was approximately a five percent difference between the untreated and treated samples that had been laundered five times. There was a lower percent difference between the untreated and treated samples that had been laundered ten times, approximately three percent. There is a trend in the loss of tearing strength among washes. The untreated sample that had been rinsed and put through ten laundering cycles displayed roughly twenty percent less tearing strength than the untreated sample that had only been rinsed. Likewise, the treated sample that had been rinsed and laundered ten times had approximately seven percent lower resistance to tearing. Based on the data from the t-tests, as depicted in Tables 3, 4, and 5, the significant differences are between the untreated rinsed samples, and the untreated, rinsed, and laundered five times samples, and their treated counterparts. The tearing strength decreases over the course of laundering, due to the shrinking of the fabric which leads to the yarn's inability to shift to avoid the tearing force. Overall the treatment appears to have no adverse effect on the tearing strength of the lab coats, and it is possible that the treatment contributes to preventing further reduction in tear strength after multiple launderings, however further research would be needed to confirm this.

[0110] The variation in breaking strength and strain between the samples is minimal, as depicted in Tables 6 and 7 and FIGS. 2 and 3. The only difference larger than two percent between samples was the tensile strain of the untreated rinsed sample that was laundered five times and the treated sample that was rinsed and laundered five times. The sample that was treated and rinsed and put through five laundering cycles had 8.3 percent greater tensile strain at the maximum load. Overall the treated samples exhibited the ability to withstand a larger maximum load. Based on two tailed t-tests, as shown in Tables 8, 9, and 10, the only significant difference is between the untreated sample that had been rinsed and laundered five times, and its treated counterpart. It is possible that the variation in breaking strength and strain at the maximum load is related to the inherent variation between the lab coats rather than being influenced by the antimicrobial treatment.

[0111] All of the untreated samples as well as the treated samples (rinsed and laundered), upon visual inspection, appeared to be minimally affected by abrasion. Broken fibers created a slightly fuzzier surface on the face on all abraded samples, but variation in the state of the samples between the cycles (2,500, 5,000, 7,500, and 10,000) was undetectable, as was variation between the untreated and treated samples. Based on this abrasion test, the antimicrobial treatment has no negative effect on the lab coats. The fabric-to-fabric abrasion that would occur during daily wear would be no more noticeable on the treated lab coats than it would be on an untreated lab coat.

[0112] The antimicrobial treatment is extremely effective against S. aureus, B. cereus, and M. smegmatis. The qualitative antimicrobial assessment (AATCC 147) for all treated samples exhibited a three to six millimeter zone of inhibition when visually evaluated. The data gathered by the qualitative evaluation against S. aureus for each sample is depicted in Table 11. All treated samples (treated, unrinsed; treated, rinsed; treated, rinsed, laundered five times; and treated, rinsed, laundered ten times) were evaluated against S. aureus. Tables 12 and 14 depict the data gathered for the qualitative evaluations against B. cereus and M. smegmatis, respectively. Only the treated unrinsed and treated rinsed samples were tested. The quantitative data (AATCC 100) for all test organisms verified that the antimicrobial treatment is 99.99 percent effective with four and five log reductions of each test organism. The efficacy of the antimicrobial treatment remains remarkably effective up to ten laundering cycles with a 99.99 percent reduction of the S. aureus test organism as can be seen in table eighteen. Tables 12 and 14 depict the qualitative evaluation of the coats against different microorganisms. It is clearly evident that the treated coats are much more effective in limiting growth of microorganisms than the untreated coats. Although there appears to be a difference between the treated unrinsed and treated rinsed coats, this difference is minor. Due to time constraints, only the treated unrinsed and treated rinsed samples were evaluated quantitatively against B. cereus and M. smegmatis. Tables 13 and 15 depict the results gathered from the quantitative evaluations against B. cereus and M. smegmatis, respectively. FIGS. 5 and 6 have no control depicted on the graph due to it lying outside the reasonable limits that were able to be depicted graphically.

[0113] FIG. 4 depicts the quantitative evaluation of M. smegmatis. The top left plate is the control growth after twenty four hours at a 10.sup.12 dilution of the growth medium. The top middle plate is the untreated unrinsed sample, and the top right is the untreated rinsed sample. The left plate in the bottom row is the treated unrinsed sample and the right plate in the bottom row is the treated and rinsed sample. (The quantitative data is obtained using a 10.sup.8 dilution of the nutrient broth i.e. 4 logs lower than the control.)

[0114] The Kawabata Evaluation System bending measurement analyzes the resistance to bending (B), a factor influencing ease of movement and comfort of a garment, and the recovery from bending (2HB), which influences the appearance retention of a garment. The lower the value for B, the greater the ease of movement and thus comfort of the garment. The lower the value for 2HB, the better the recovery from bending of the fabric and therefore the better the appearance retention. A difference of less than ten percent is often considered to be non-significant. Table 23 displays the data gathered from the bending evaluation. The B values for the treated samples (rinsed, rinsed and laundered five times, and rinsed and laundered ten times) are a significant percentage (significant being greater than ten percent) lower than their untreated counterparts, 12.4 percent, 14.5 percent, and 11.6 percent, respectively. The samples with the antimicrobial treatment also achieved better results in the recovery portion of the test with the rinsed, rinsed that had been laundered five times, and rinsed that had been laundered ten times, 22.6 percent, 5.6 percent and 10.4 percent , respectively, lower than the untreated samples. The results indicate that the antimicrobial treatment has no negative impact on the lab coats.

[0115] The Kawabata Evaluation System surface test measures the surface friction (MIU), the mean deviation of the surface friction (MMD), and the surface roughness (SMD). The treated samples had lower values for the MIU and SMD evaluations, but the percent differences were not significant (significant being ten percent and higher). The MIU and SMD data can be seen graphically in FIGS. 7 and 9, respectively. The largest difference was found in the surface roughness (SMD) which had a six percent difference between the untreated sample that was rinsed and laundered ten times and its treated counterpart.

[0116] Small differences in the mean deviation of the coefficient of friction (MMD) can sometimes be perceived by individuals, even though there is only a slight difference in the surface friction between materials. The MMD values are significantly higher in the treated samples that were rinsed, and the treated samples that were rinsed and laundered five times having 35.7 percent and 30.7 percent greater values respectively, than their untreated counter parts, as can be seen in Table 16 as well as graphically in FIG. 8. After the treated and rinsed samples were laundered ten times the difference compared to the untreated rinsed and ten launderings is much less significant at 1.6 percent with the treated samples still having the greater MMD values. The data suggests that an individual would be able to recognize a difference in the smoothness of the untreated lab coats versus the treated lab coats, perceiving the untreated lab coats as smoother. However the only way to confirm this would be to have human subjects handle the coats and evaluate them. It is possible that, although the percent difference seems significant, the sensitivity could be minimal and the added benefit of the antimicrobial treatment would outweigh any alleged lack of smoothness. Lab coats are worn over regular apparel, so it is possible that users may not notice much of a difference in actual use.

[0117] Compliance of compression (LC), which corresponds to perception of comfort, the work of compression (WC), the compression energy, the recovery from compression (RC), the fabric's ability to regain thickness after the force is removed, as well as the original fabric thickness under 0.5 g/cm.sup.2 (T0) and the fabric thickness under the maximum compression of 50 g/cm.sup.2 (TM) are evaluated in the compression test of the Kawabata Evaluation System. There is a slight difference in the original fabric thickness (T0) of the untreated samples compared to the treated samples. The differences can be seen graphically in FIG. 12. The untreated rinsed and untreated rinsed with five launderings samples were two percent thicker than their treated counterparts. The untreated rinsed sample that had been through ten laundering cycles was approximately five percent thicker than the treated rinsed sample that had been through the same number of launderings. The variation in the original thickness can be associated with the antimicrobial treatment process. A similar trend was noticed for the thickness under maximum pressure (TM), however the percent difference is lower, with a difference of 1.6, 0.4, and 2 percent for the rinsed; rinsed with five launderings; and rinsed with ten laundering samples respectively; the untreated samples being thicker than the treated.

[0118] Graphical representation of the compliance of pressure values can be seen in FIG. 10. The treated samples that were rinsed and rinsed with ten launderings had higher values for compliance of pressure (LC), however with differences of four percent and three percent, respectively, to the untreated counterparts, it is not a significant difference (significant being greater than ten percent). The treated sample that had been rinsed and laundered five times performed slightly better in the LC category with a 7.8 percent lower value than its untreated equivalent. A lower value for the compliance of pressure (LC) indicates compliance with pressure which corresponds to the perception of comfort. The recovery from compression (RC) values are greater for the treated, rinsed; and treated, rinsed, and laundered ten times samples, as compared to their untreated counterparts with 17.4 and 13 percent greater values respectively. Higher values for recovery from compression indicate improved appearance retention. The treated sample that had been rinsed and laundered five times exhibited an approximately 5 percent lower value compared to its untreated counterpart in the RC category. The recovery from compression values can be seen graphically in FIG. 11. The untreated rinsed samples that were laundered five and ten times had greater values in the work of compression evaluation. Higher values for the work of compression (WC) evaluation indicate better compliance. A significantly greater value (12.3 percent) was achieved by the untreated rinsed sample that had undergone five laundering cycles compared to its treated counterpart. Human evaluation is needed to determine if a difference of that magnitude is actually perceivable. From the data collected by the compression testing performed by the Kawabata Evaluation System it can be concluded that the antimicrobial treatment does not have a negative effect on the fabrics.

[0119] The Kawabata Evaluation System evaluates shear with the following parameters; G, which indicates a fabric's resistance to shear, as well as 2HG and 2HG5, which are both indicative of a fabrics ability to recover from shearing at 0.5 and 5 degrees, respectively. Lower values for each parameter are desirable. A lower value for the resistance to shear indicates less resistance and greater ease of movement, and lower values for recovery from shear at both 0.5 and 5 degrees indicate good appearance retention. The treated samples had lower values for each of the parameters. A significant difference (significant being greater than ten percent) of 10.8 percent was exhibited between the untreated sample that had been rinsed and laundered five times and its treated equivalent for the G parameter. The untreated rinsed sample value was 28.4 percent greater than its treated counterpart for the 2HG parameter, and the untreated, rinsed sample was 12.5 percent greater than the treated and rinsed sample for the 2HG5 parameter. From the data gathered the antimicrobial treatment has no negative impact on the shear properties of the fabric, and may in fact contribute to the fabric's improved shear performance.

[0120] The Kawabata Evaluation Systems tensile test evaluates tensile properties based on the fabric's linearity of tension (LT), the work or compliance of the fabric to the tensile force (WT), the work of recovery (RT), and the extension of the fabric at maximum tensile force (EMT). The treated samples exhibited lower values for the linearity of tension parameter compared to the untreated samples for the rinsed; rinsed and laundered five times; and rinsed and laundered ten times, with values 5, 7.4, and 0.75 percent, respectively, lower. The differences are not significant (significant being greater than ten percent), but the data proves that the antimicrobial treatment does not negatively affect the ability of the fabric to yield under tension; therefore it does not take away from the comfort of the lab coat.

[0121] There are three instances of significant difference in the tensile properties of the untreated versus treated samples. The value for the compliance (WT) of the treated sample that had been rinsed and laundered ten times is 16.8 percent greater than its untreated counterpart. Greater values for the WT parameter indicate better compliance with tensile force. The untreated, rinsed; and untreated, rinsed with five launderings had values slightly higher, 6.5 and 5.2 percent respectively, than their treated counterparts. The second significant difference is found within the evaluation of the fabric ability to recover. The untreated sample that had been rinsed and laundered ten times had a twelve percent greater value than its treated equivalent; however the treated samples had values 8.4 and 0.81 percent greater than the untreated, rinsed; and untreated, rinsed, and laundered five times, respectively. Greater values for the RT parameter indicate better fit and comfort.

[0122] Finally, the EMT value which indicates the fabric ability for greater extension, which corresponds to improved comfort and ease of movement, was 17.1 percent greater for the treated, rinsed and laundered ten times sample than the untreated sample that was rinsed and laundered ten times. The treated sample that was rinsed and laundered five times also exhibited a greater value than its untreated counterpart, but only by three percent. The untreated, rinsed sample had a value that was slightly greater, 1.6 percent, than the treated rinsed sample. Overall the antimicrobial treatment had no adverse effect on the tensile properties of the lab coats. Thus the fit and comfort of the treated lab coats would be no different than that of the untreated lab coats.

[0123] The naturally derived antimicrobial treatment demonstrated exceptional results in its antimicrobial efficacy proving to be bacteriocidal against S. aureus, B. cereus, and M. smegmatis, and durable up to ten laundering cycles. Due to the antimicrobial treatment's exceptional results and durability to laundering, it is possible that the treatment could reduce the amount of laundry additives required in the washing of textile products for hospitals and similar institutions. The mechanical property tests indicated that overall the antimicrobial treatment has no adverse effects on the fabric. In some instances it is possible that the antimicrobial treatment contributes to the improved performance and prevention of reduction in some properties after multiple laundering cycles, for example, the deterrence of further reduction in tear strength after multiple launderings. The treated lab coat's performance in the breaking strength test demonstrated larger maximum loads than the untreated samples. It is possible that lab coats treated with the naturally derived antimicrobial could have a longer lifespan than untreated lab coats due to the improved breaking strength and prevention of the decline in tearing strength after multiple laundering cycles. Although it was not a recorded experiment, the handling of the samples treated with the naturally derived antimicrobial did not cause any skin sensitivity or discomfort.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Synthetic Antimicrobial Toxicity & Interactions Biocide Toxicity Fiber Interactions/Side Effects Triclosan Breaks down into toxic Large amount needed; bacterial dioxin resistance Halamines Moderate to highly toxic Needs regeneration; odor from residual chlorine. QACs Moderate to highly toxic Covalent bonding; durable; possible bacterial resistance. PHMB Moderate acute aquatic Large amount needed; potential toxicity bacterial resistance.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Tearing Strength (Difference in Performance as Between Samples Treated in Accordance with the Invention and Untreated Samples) Standard Individual Load Average Load Deviation Sample (kgf) (kgf) (kgf) Untreated Rinsed 2.04 2.19 0.170 2.44 2.26 2.03 2.19 Untreated Rinsed with 2.09 1.99 0.056 5 Laundering Cycles 1.98 1.95 1.96 1.96 Untreated Rinsed with 1.75 1.76 0.054 10 Laundering Cycles 1.72 1.83 1.80 1.70 Treated Rinsed 2.00 1.95 0.053 2.01 1.94 1.94 1.88 Treated Rinsed with 2.10 2.10 0.086 5 Laundering Cycles 2.00 2.21 2.03 2.14 Treated Rinsed with 1.78 1.81 0.051 10 Laundering Cycles 1.83 1.82 1.74 1.87

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances (Difference in Performance between Untreated Rinsed Samples and Treated, Rinsed Samples) Untreated Rinsed Treated Rinsed Mean 2.192 1.954 Variance 0.02887 0.00278 Observations 5 5 Pooled Variance 0.015825 Hypothesized Mean 0 Difference DF 8 t Stat 2.99140422 P (T <= t) one-tail 0.008648434 t Critical one-tail 1.859548033 P (T <= t) two-tail 0.017296867 t Critical two-tail 2.306004133

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances (Difference in Performance between Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples) Untreated Rinsed + 5 Wash Treated Rinsed + 5 Wash Mean 1.988 2.096 Variance 0.00337 0.00713 Observations 5 5 Pooled Variance 0.00525 Hypothesized Mean 0 Difference DF 8 t Stat 2.356753215 P (T <= t) one-tail 0.023095869 t Critical one-tail 1.859548033 P (T <= t) two-tail 0.046191738 t Critical two-tail 2.306004133

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances (Difference in Performance between Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples) Untreated Rinsed + 10 Treated Rinsed + 10 Wash Wash Mean 1.76 1.808 Variance 0.00295 0.00247 Observations 5 5 Pooled Variance 0.00271 Hypothesized Mean 0 Difference DF 8 t Stat 1.457896174 P (T <= t) one-tail 0.091489147 t Critical one-tail 1.859548033 P (T <= t) two-tail 0.182978295 t Critical two-tail 2.306004133

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Breaking Strength (Untreated Samples) Individual Average Standard Load Load Deviation Sample (kgf) (kgf) (kgf) Untreated Max. Load 54.87 54.70 1.34 Rinsed (kgf) 56.32 52.63 54.59 55.21 Tensile Strain at 36.42 37.74 0.87 Max. Load (%) 38.06 37.41 38.72 38.06 Untreated Max. Load 49.85 51.38 2.36 Rinsed with 5 (kgf) 53.26 Laundering 48.98 Cycles 50.34 54.46 Tensile Strain at 36.42 36.29 1.65 Max. Load (%) 38.72 35.77 34.13 36.42 Untreated Max. Load 49.46 50.91 1.57 Rinsed with 10 (kgf) 51.24 Laundering 53.47 Cycles 49.97 50.43 Tensile Strain at 37.41 38.26 0.89 Max. Load (%) 38.39 39.70 37.74 38.06

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Breaking Strength (Treated Samples) Individual Standard Load Average Load Deviation Sample (kgf) (kgf) (kgf) Treated Rinsed Max. Load 53.71 55.35 1.68 (kgf) 53.34 56.62 56.48 56.61 Tensile Strain 36.75 38.06 0.77 at Max. Load 38.39 (%) 38.06 38.39 38.72 Treated Rinsed Max. Load 51.41 52.11 1.53 with 5 (kgf) 52.69 Laundering 53.72 Cycles 52.90 49.82 Tensile Strain 38.39 39.57 0.76 at Max. Load 40.03 (%) 40.36 39.70 39.38 Treated Rinsed Max. Load 48.90 51.03 1.89 with 10 (kgf) 53.01 Laundering 53.03 Cycles 50.37 49.82 Tensile Strain 36.75 37.54 1.10 at Max. Load 39.05 (%) 38.39 36.75 36.75

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances (Untreated Rinsed and Treated Rinsed Samples) Untreated Rinsed Treated Rinsed Mean 37.734 38.062 Variance 0.75408 0.59237 Observations 5 5 Pooled Variance 0.673225 Hypothesized Mean 0 Difference DF 8 t Stat 0.632067894 P (T <= t) one-tail 0.272489017 t Critical one-tail 1.859548033 P (T <= t) two-tail 0.544978034 t Critical two-tail 2.306004133

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances (Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed and Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples) Untreated Treated Rinsed + 5 Wash Rinsed + 5 Wash Mean 36.292 39.572 Variance 2.71867 0.57027 Observations 5 5 Pooled Variance 1.64447 Hypothesized Mean 0 Difference DF 8 t Stat 4.044183663 P (T <= t) one-tail 0.001857046 t Critical one-tail 1.859548033 P (T <= t) two-tail 0.003714092 t Critical two-tail 2.306004133

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances (Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed and Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples) Untreated Rinsed + 10 Treated Rinsed + 10 Wash Wash Mean 38.26 37.538 Variance 0.78085 1.21872 Observations 5 5 Pooled Variance 0.999785 Hypothesized Mean 0 Difference DF 8 t Stat 1.141704975 P (T <= t) one-tail 0.143298021 t Critical one-tail 1.859548033 P (T <= t) two-tail 0.286596041 t Critical two-tail 2.306004133

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 Qualitative Evaluation against S. aureus (Treated and Untreated, Rinsed and Unrinsed, and Washed and Unwashed Samples) Sample Diameter of Inhibition (mm) Untreated Unrinsed 0 Untreated Rinsed 1 Treated Unrinsed 4 Treated Rinsed 3 Treated Rinsed + 5 Wash 3 Treated Rinsed + 10 Wash 3

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Qualitative Evaluation against B. cereus (Treated and Untreated, Rinsed and UnrinsedSamples) Diameter of Inhibition Sample (mm) Untreated Unrinsed 1 Untreated Rinsed 2 Treated Unrinsed 3 Treated Rinsed 6

TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 Quantitative Evaluation against B. cereus (Control and for Treated and Untreated, and for Rinsed and Unrinsed Samples) Percent Sample T0 T24 Reduction from Control Control 2.3 10.sup.8 2.0 10.sup.14 Untreated Unrinsed 1.7 10.sup.8 3.1 10.sup.13 85% (1 logs) Untreated Rinsed 1.5 10.sup.8 2.9 10.sup.13 85% (1 logs) Treated Unrinsed 2.0 10.sup.8 1.12 10.sup.10 99.99% (4 logs) Treated Rinsed 2.1 10.sup.8 1.0 10.sup.9 99.99% (5 logs)

TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 Qualitative Evaluation against M. smegmatis (Treated and Untreated, and for Rinsed and Unrinsed Samples) Diameter of Inhibition Sample (mm) Untreated Unrinsed 2 Untreated Rinsed 1 Treated Unrinsed 3 Treated Rinsed 5

TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 15 Quantitative Evaluation against M. smegmatis (Control and for Treated and Untreated, and for Rinsed and Unrinsed Samples) Percent Reduction Sample T0 T24 from Control Control 2.5 10.sup.8 1.64 10.sup.14 Untreated Unrinsed 1.9 10.sup.8 1.5 10.sup.11 99% (3 logs) Untreated Rinsed 1.6 10.sup.8 2.8 10.sup.12 83% (2 logs) Treated Unrinsed 2.1 10.sup.8 3.0 10.sup.10 99.99% (4 logs) Treated Rinsed 2.3 10.sup.8 3.0 10.sup.9 99.99% (5 logs)

TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 16 Kawabata Evaluation System - Surface (MIU, MMD and SMD for Untreated Rinsed Samples and Treated, Rinsed Samples; Five (5) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Five (5) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples; and Ten (10) Times Washed Untreated Rinsed Samples and Ten (10) Times Washed Treated Rinsed Samples) Sample MIU MMD SMD Untreated Rinsed 0.187 0.0470 6.729 Untreated Rinsed with 5 0.214 0.0543 6.795 Laundering Cycles Untreated Rinsed with 10 0.212 0.0665 7.377 Laundering Cycles Treated Rinsed 0.186 0.0731 6.707 Treated Rinsed with 5 0.212 0.0784 6.791 Laundering Cycles Treated Rinsed with 10 0.203 0.0676 6.933 Laundering Cycles