A novel aromatic oil compound inhibits microbial overgrowth on feet: a case study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Athlete's Foot (Tinea pedis) is a form of ringworm associated with highly contagious yeast-fungi colonies, although they look like bacteria. Foot bacteria overgrowth produces a harmless pungent odor, however, uncontrolled proliferation of yeast-fungi produces small vesicles, fissures, scaling, and maceration with eroded areas between the toes and the plantar surface of the foot, resulting in intense itching, blisters, and cracking. Painful microbial foot infection may prevent athletic participation. Keeping the feet clean and dry with the toenails trimmed reduces the incidence of skin disease of the feet. Wearing sandals in locker and shower rooms prevents intimate contact with the infecting organisms and alleviates most foot-sensitive infections. Enclosing feet in socks and shoes generates a moisture-rich environment that stimulates overgrowth of pungent both aerobic bacteria and infectious yeast-fungi. Suppression of microbial growth may be accomplished by exposing the feet to air to enhance evaporation to reduce moistures' growth-stimulating effect and is often neglected. There is an association between yeast-fungi overgrowths and disabling foot infections. Potent agents virtually exterminate some microbial growth, but the inevitable presence of infection under the nails predicts future infection. Topical antibiotics present a potent approach with the ideal agent being one that removes moisture producing antibacterial-antifungal activity. Severe infection may require costly prescription drugs, salves, and repeated treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A 63-y female volunteered to enclose feet in shoes and socks for 48 hours. Aerobic bacteria and yeast-fungi counts were determined by swab sample incubation technique (1) after 48-hours feet enclosure, (2) after washing feet, and (3) after 8-hours socks-shoes exposure to a aromatic oil powder-compound consisting of <it>arrowroot, baking soda, basil oil, tea tree oil, sage oil, and clove oil</it>.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Application of this novel compound to the external surfaces of feet completely inhibited both aerobic bacteria and yeast-fungi-mold proliferation for 8-hours in spite of being in an enclosed environment compatible to microbial proliferation. Whether topical application of this compound prevents microbial infections in larger populations is not known. This calls for more research collected from subjects exposed to elements that may increase the risk of microbial-induced foot diseases.</p

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But does “excellence” actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of “excellence” do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate “excellence” as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hypercompetition that arises from the performance of “excellence” is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that “excellence” is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship

Funding Source and Research Report Quality in Nutrition Practice-Related Research

BACKGROUND: The source of funding is one of many possible causes of bias in scientific research. One method of detecting potential for bias is to evaluate the quality of research reports. Research exploring the relationship between funding source and nutrition-related research report quality is limited and in other disciplines the findings are mixed. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether types of funding sources of nutrition research are associated with differences in research report quality. DESIGN: A retrospective study of research reporting quality, research design and funding source was conducted on 2539 peer reviewed research articles from the American Dietetic Association's Evidence Analysis Library® database. RESULTS: Quality rating frequency distributions indicate 43.3% of research reports were rated as positive, 50.1% neutral, and 6.6% as negative. Multinomial logistic regression results showed that while both funding source and type of research design are significant predictors of quality ratings (χ2 = 118.99, p≤0.001), the model's usefulness in predicting overall research report quality is little better than chance. Compared to research reports with government funding, those not acknowledging any funding sources, followed by studies with University/hospital funding were more likely to receive neutral vs positive quality ratings, OR = 1.85, P <0.001 and OR = 1.54, P<0.001, respectively and those that did not report funding were more likely to receive negative quality ratings (OR = 4.97, P<0.001). After controlling for research design, industry funded research reports were no more likely to receive a neutral or negative quality rating than those funded by government sources. CONCLUSION: Research report quality cannot be accurately predicted from the funding source after controlling for research design. Continued vigilance to evaluate the quality of all research regardless of the funding source and to further understand other factors that affect quality ratings are warranted