Disease Vectors and Vintage Shaving brushes

todras

todras

est Français pour après-rasage
In Memoriam
2019 Charity Auction Winner
Menth Dealer
Joined
Jun 22, 2016
Location
Sydney
Quite an interesting article popped up on my of my FB (feeds or such like). Normally I ignore 99% of the 'science' that appears on my or anyone elses FB feeds as the platform is known for unsubstantiated, alarmist rubbish however this piece did cite a published paper and appears to be established as having some credibility.

The article is based on some historical research pertaining to Badger Brushes published on Live Science looking at a study that detected Bacillus anthracis (the bacteria that causes anthrax) in 78% of brushes they tested. The study itself, published in 1921 examined the link between 700 confirmed cases of anthrax in men and the cheap shaving brushes that tied them to the disease. Abstract Here

It is worth remembering, prior to anyone drawing any dire conclusions that the Anthrax detected was based on a study of brushes made from 1915-1921 and it looked at very cheap brushes that were not sterilized. Many modern badger brushes are sterilized for good reason.

However;

I have had a couple of private discussions with a couple of members here about the often very cheap, Chinese made badger knots that are appearing in ever increasing numbers and the idea that some of these may possibly be vectors for bacterium Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis) Tuberculosis.

I am not however a biologist, a doctor or in anyway qualified in relation to medicine or contagious diseases so obviously, without a lot more reading, learning and research I am unable to say whether indeed there is any possibility, or risk of humans contracting the disease (or any other animal disease) from an un-sterilized knot.

Certainly, I would be interested in hearing from anyone here who has any expertise in this area :)

I will continue reading and researching for my own education and knowledge, and will post anything that can be substantiated here. i.e. peer reviewed, published somewhere credible, obviously not completely bonkers.
 
If my memory serves me correctly this was the basis for brushes to be described as 'pure', not as a grade of hair but relating to claims of 'purity'. Similarly the prominence given to 'sterilised' on many older brushes.

I'm not worried though. I use APR post shave products which I'm sure are guaranteed to protect me from any and all ailments with regular use. ;)

OOPS, sorry. You wanted responses from people with expertise ...
 
Interestingly I'd be more worried about possible hepatitis A and e.coli infections from an untreated brush especially if washed/processed in contaminated water. Extreme temperatures, alcohol based/barbercides or time (dry) will remove or kill most things that can be transmitted.
More chance of getting something from a local bus trip especially those sweaty hand grips that hang from the ceiling and then touching a newly shaved face or rub your eyes.
Good wash in warm soapy water will remove most things that are bad. Sunlight/natural uv will also be a good sterilising method.

From a used brush you should be concerned about hepatitis B (more than HIV) and again a good wash, dry and time will remove it.
 
Science paper on surface contamination of various pathogens

Basically if dry and in storage ie snail mail these pathogens would die a natural death.
If in doubt use a basic disinfectant and wash the brush.
Personally happy with soap and warm water.
Again if you buy/trade or are given a recently used brush then I'd use a disinfectant/babercide and dry in sunlight.

Have studied biochemistry, neuroanatomy, biology, chemistry etc at University so can read and interpret scientific papers. Family & friends are medicos.
However I'm not an infectious diseases professional.
 
Last edited:
In the era of the study, microbiology was still full of unknowns. Since then, we've developed vaccines to eradicate diseases that used to kill millions of people. That study might have had credibility 100 years ago. Not now.

It also bears noting that the men living in military conditions in WWI had a lot of bacterial challenges; constant expose to wet, damp conditions saw soldiers infested with louses and parasites, and made many things rampant, like trenchfoot, Malaria, typhoid, dysentery, getting shot at. A dirty brush was probably well down the list of concerns.

Makers like Simpson putting Sterilised on the their brushes is a throwback to this era. Even cheap brushes today will be sterilised, because we all know you have to, and it's cheap and easy to do.
 
Drubbing said:
Makers like Simpson putting Sterilised on the their brushes is a throwback to this era. Even cheap brushes today will be sterilised, because we all know you have to, and it's cheap and easy to do.
Click to expand...

I agree - "cheap" brushes made by / for "western" manufacturers ... but what about "cheap" , "no-name" brushes made in China or elsewhere... would not be 100% certain of their attention to similar quality control measures...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
An area that may be of interest, is sterilisation utilising UV light.
http://www.drkarthikreddy.com/tag/methods-of-sterilization/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17017847

I leave my stuff on a north facing window sill for two good reasons.
  • to dry it out
  • to sterilise it
Most items of harm, to my limited knowledge, require moisture in varying degrees to survive, let alone replicate effectively enough to exist at a level harmful to humans.
HIV, or was it AIDS, never recall which, I once read in a paper, is killed within 5 minutes exposure to sunlight.

Food for thought :)
 
The anthrax papers as mentioned by @Drubbing are old and highlighted a vector for anthrax and interesting read. Only read a summary of one of them and it was noted later last century by other investigators that personal hygiene, local conditions and water quality were the issues.
One of the studies noted a higher ratio of US service men being inflicted and one can imagine the hygiene levels weren't great. Using cold dirty (shared by other animals) water on an unclean face with a brush that is stored wet in a dark place like a footlocker/pack is a breeding ground for everything!

@todras and back to the topic of M.bovis, I wouldn't be concerned by it. Even if the hairs on the brush were contaminated by M.bovis (non-spored) it would die in a dark dry environment as it was being shipped here let alone its previous time being stored locally in China (matter of weeks) as I mentioned above.

If you are still concerned, M.bovis is very sensitive to heat like most mycobacterium and are killed by exposure to 60 °C for 15 minutes.
Mycobacterium bovis is readily and quickly destroyed by heat at higher temperatures (hence pasturisation of milk) so a dip in boiling water is enough. Though not sure how that would affect the badger hair and it's performance.
Other ways are a 22.5% acetone solution effective by 24 hours, 1% ammonium hydroxide effective by 36 hours, and 0.5% chloroform, 17.5% ethyl (ethanol) alcohol and 3% xylene were each fully effective by 48 hours.
However it is destroyed by direct sunlight and artificial UV radiation quite quickly when dry as mentioned by @borked

Hope this was helpful
 
... and here I was hoping to die shaving ...
 
Appreciate the posts @Drubbing and @RustyBlade, the unique environmental factors (the trenches) were certainly unique @Drubbing and the age of the paper itself is a given as I mentioned and underlined in case people took it as an alarm, warning or otherwise..anyway, I found the paper interesting from a historical perspective, isolating the common factor to the hundreds of Anthrax patients and it being cheap brushes was very interesting.

As I said @RustyBlade I am not at all concerned per se (I'm not one for cheap badger brushes - then tend to shed, and the hair is generally very low grade) but just interested, particularly with the flood of very cheap badger knots hitting the market. Very much appreciate the microbial contribution and advice regarding the various compounds that can in effect sterilize the brush, or more accurately render any bacterial life next to non existent - appreciate the source material too, I will take a read.

The compounds you mention are not compounds I would use myself at home due to toxicity, it would be hard for the average person to obtain most of them now I think about it i.e. the xylene,chloroform and acetone in particular. Most brush sterilization in china is achieved by exposure to ozone (O3) which is a highly effective at oxidation, a small UV or VUV emitting fluro tube encased in ducting with a fan is used, the tube emits the gas and it is pumped into a cabinet where the knots or hair are hanging, the hair/knots are dosed for 24 hours or so. O3 treatment is common to a number of industries due to it's effectiveness. I would also suspect that most brushes of a reasonable grade are also treated chemically for lice, fleas, etc when manufactured in China - some however would not be so lucky.

Appreciate the contributions from both of you, an interesting piece I thought.
 
Basically the same issue at the same time occurred with horse hair brushes. Even to this day many on American forums bag certain brushes just "in case" they have anthrax.
 
Hehe yes chloroform is not accessible by most but the other four are readily available at the local hardware store. Totally forgot about ozone but those machines are not cheap either for general home users. What I didn't mention is that town supplied tap water in itself has basic anti-microbial properties as well due to the free chlorine ions added to purify the water for human consumption.
Great topic and one that I see come up all the time for brushes & razors.
Enjoyed the research and picking up my old skills again.
Until next time :woot:
 
Snooze said:
I agree - "cheap" brushes made by / for "western" manufacturers ... but what about "cheap" , "no-name" brushes made in China or elsewhere... would not be 100% certain of their attention to similar quality control measures...
Click to expand...

Can do it yourself for pennies, with any number of household products. Any concerns otherwise are simply xenophobic.
 
@RustyBlade is any particular wavelength in the UV band more effective?
For example, I know 365nm is preferred over 395mn for illumination of items that exercise fluorescence properties, as it doesn't emit a purple glow.
 
Below 310nm. Wikipedia to the rescue.
Explains what and how also links to relevant articles.
Chinese sites sell cosmetic UV led bench top units for a low cost.
Again sunlight, washing & drying is really all that is required.
If interested please note the safety warnings on these type of UV devices as it can pose a health risk and degrade wood and plastics. Staring at it in wonder is not a good idea :cry:
 
Drubbing said:
Can do it yourself for pennies, with any number of household products. Any concerns otherwise are simply xenophobic.
Click to expand...

Prior to initiating this thread for discussion I was talking privately to @Snooze about my reluctance to raise the issue of Chinese brush manufacture for the very reason that some pork chop would come along and derail a rational and objective discussion with a complete nonsense such as this, or alternatively sprout ugly racist drivel.

Chinese manufacture is recognised and notorious as being unregulated, of using dangerous and unapproved chemicals and of ignoring any and all compliance measures in process or in regards to environment in the area of manufacture. Thousands of published examples exist, saying so isn't xenophobic, it's a statement of fact.

I won't bother posting in this thread again, you have reduced it to a complete waste of time with your dismissive, ignorant garbage.

Well done.
 
I'll admit, I saw the dismissive subtext, but to me, that is part of the Drubbing method. Rather than feed it, I would be inclined to take one of @borked's witty one-liners, and disarm the situation.

I missed the ignorant bit though. Some Chinese manufacture can be unregulated as you say, but to tar the entire industry over there with the same brush is also wrong. As an importer of toys, we set strict requirements according to safety laws here, on our suppliers. They know that if they produce something below our standards, we will decline the finished product, which costs them. Stating what you want, along with what you don't want in a finished product, leaves no wiggle room, and manufacture is a smooth process. This is how Apple, Dell, Volkswagen, Chevrolet, Armani and so may others make crazy profits each year, without hideous recalls on every single product.

On topic... I use, and always have used a cheap badger brush, bought from a Chinese eBay seller. Apart from the noted shedding of fibres early on, it has been really good... far better than the old synthetic one I had for 20 years before it.

UV has been my steriliser of choice, via an open bathroom window. I always thought that glass blocked UV rays, to a large extent?
 
Arnold J Rimmer said:
UV has been my steriliser of choice, via an open bathroom window. I always thought that glass blocked UV rays, to a large extent?
Click to expand...

Yes to a point and type of glass in your window. Greatly reduced through laminated, tinted and coated glass etc and the ozone layer absorbs it too. Still enough to sterilize most things. If interested or anyone else search for SoDis method.
 
So from my readings, the best readily viable option is a portable water purifier UV lamp, which will also generate ozone, in a reflective sealed environment.
It is not a realistic long term option for anything that is not metal, as it will oxidise over time.

Am I missing anything here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top