Pansit Pansitan Research

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Study Early liquid hand soaps were made primarily for hospitals, restaurants and public facilities where regular hand washing was required. The original soaps were thicker and required a particular type of pump dispenser to deliver the product. The dispensers were expensive in spite of the fact that they clogged easily and were in constant need of repair or replacement. This combination of problems kept liquid soaps out of the household for many years.Eventually, consumer demand for a home version of liquid soap could not be ignored, nor could the additional qualities the customer wanted from the soap be overlooked. Some wanted soap that would soften hands. Some wanted one that soothed irritated skin. Others wanted the antibacterial qualities found in medical versions. This opened the floodgates for the wide variety of liquid hand soap products found in the marketplace today. Pansit- pansitan (Peperomia pellucida) is a herbal medicine also kno wn as Ulasiman- bato, olasiman- ihalas & tangon-tangon in the Philippines.Pansit- pansitan can be found wild on lightly shaded and damp areas such as nooks, walls, yards and even roofs. Pansit- pansitan has heart shaped leaves, succulent stems with tiny flowers on a spike. There has been a study that the mothanolic extract of the plant has anti microbial properties. The extract from Pansit- pansitan (Peperomia pellucida), the compound showed significant antibacterial activity against 3 Gram- negatice bacteria (E coli, Staphylococcus aureus, S thyphi. )The researchers expect that the hand soap, using Pansit- pansitan extract as an active ingredient, will be more efficient and less expensive than the commercial hand soaps. Statement of the Problem 1. Can Pansit- pansitan liquid hand soap be as good as the commercial liquid hand soap in terms of: 2. 1 total mean zone of inhibition? 2. 2 reactivity rating? 2. 3 inhibitory activity rating? 2. Is there a significant difference between Pansit-pansitan liquid hand soap and commercial liquid hand soap in terms of total mean zone of inhibition? . Is there a significant difference between the Pansit-pansitan liquid hand soap and commercial liquid hand soap in terms of reactivity rating? 4. Is there a significant difference between the Pansit-pansitan liquid hand soap and commercial liquid hand soap in terms of inhibitory activity? Hypotheses 1. Pansit- pansitan liquid hand soap cannot be as good as the commercial liquid hand soap in terms of: 1. 1 total mean zone of inhibition? 1. 2 reactivity rating? 1. 3 inhibitory activity rating? 2.There is no significant difference between the Pansit-pansitan liquid hand soap and commercial liquid hand soap in terms of total mean zone of inhibition. 3. There is no significant difference between the Pansit-pansitan liquid hand soap and commercial liquid hand soap in terms of reactivity. 4. There is no significant difference between the Pansit-pansitan liquid hand soap and commerc ial liquid hand soap in terms of inhibitory activity. Significance of the Study Hand is prone in bacteria and can be a vector in transmitting various pathogens that cause diseases.If the Pansit- pansitan hand soap will be effective in reducing bacteria then this can benefit different people in many ways. One example are the manufacturers of liquid hand soap. Instead of using chemicals which are harmful and hard to find, the manufacturer may have to use Pansit- pansitan extract as an additive ingredient for hand soap. The results of the study can be a reference for future researchers. Scope and Delimitations This study primarily focuses on the use of Pansit-pansitan liquid hand soap as an alternative in commercial liquid hand soap.The other components of making the liquid hand soap including triethanolamine gel solution, fragrance oil, polykleer, will be bought at Swiss Fragrance, located at Blk 2 Plot 1 April Extention Congressional Avenue, Quezon City. The researchers will be using 4 set-ups. The first 3 set-ups will be the experimental set-ups. They will be Set-ups A, B and C. Set-up A will contain 12. 5 mL of pansit- pansitan extract, 2. 5 mL of triethanolamine, 3. 75 mL of gel solution, 1. 25 mL of fragrance oil, 3. 75 mL of polykleer and 1. 25 mL of water. Set-up B will contain 18. 75 mL of pansit- pansitan extract, 1. 5 mL of triethanolamine, 1. 90 mL of gel solution, 0. 60 mL of fragrance oil, 1. 90 mL of polykleer and 0. 60 mL of water. Set-up C will contain 6. 50 mL of pansit- pansitan extract, 3. 75 mL of triethanolamine, 5. 60mL of gel solution, 1. 90 mL of fragrance oil, 5. 60 mL of polykleer, 1. 90 mL of water, Set- up D will be the commercial liquid hand soap which will be the control group. Only the anti-bacterial property of the Pansit-pansitan hand soap in terms of Total Mean Zone of Inhibition, Reactivity Rating and Inhibitory Activity Rating will be determined.To do this, all the samples will be submitted to the Department of Science and Tec hnology-Taguig (DOST-Taguig) for laboratory analysis. To analyze the results, they will be subjected to t-test. This will identify if there is a significant difference among the set-ups. Definition of Terms 1. Inhibitory Activity- the ability of a substance to resist the penetration of microorganisms such as bacteria. 2. Reactivity Rating- It specifies the rate at which the liquid hand soap reacts with the staphylococcus aureus. 3. Total Mean Zone of Inhibition- the region that resists the entry of microorganisms such as staphylococcus aureus.CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AND LITERATURE Related Studies A study about Pansit –pansitan was conducted by the Department of Pharmacy, University of Bangladesh. In this study, Patuloside A (3-? -D-glucopyranosyloxy-1,5,6-trihydroxy-9H-xanthene-9-one) is a xanthone glycoside isolated from Peperomia pellucida using chromatographic techniques (TLC, PTLC, GC) and the structure was confirmed on the basis of spectral data (liquid chro matography/electrospray-mass spectroscopy, 1H and 13C NMR including JMOD, COSY, NOESY, HMBC, HSQC).In vitro antibacterial, antifungal and cytotoxic activities of the compound were studied. Disc diffusion technique was used to determine in vitro antibacterial and antifungal activities. Cytotoxicity was determined against brine shrimp nauplii. In addition, minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined using serial dilution technique to find out antibacterial potency. The compound showed significant antibacterial activity against four Gram-positive bacteria (Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus megaterium, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus ? haemolyticus) and six Gram-negative bacteria (Escheichia coli, Shigella dysenteriae, Shigella sonnei, Shigella flexneri, Pseudomonus aeruginosa, Salmonella typhi). The MIC values against these bacteria were ranged from 8 to 64  µg/mL. The compound showed weak antifungal activities against Aspergillus flavus and Candida albicans. In cytotoxicity determination, LC50 of the compound against brine shrimp nauplii was 18. 24  µg/mL. (Retrieved from http://astonjournals. com/lsmr at 3:00 pm on January 21, 2012. )This study aims to check the antibacterial activity of various branded soaps against bacteria that are normally present in the environment. The proposed study includes selection of most common bacterial strains from the environment. Identification of bacterial strains was done by standard microbiological techniques, which include gram staining, biochemical testing and advanced identification by analytical profile index. Determination of minimal inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal activity of strains was performed by tube and micro titration method. Antibacterial soaps showed better MIC in comparison with beauty soaps.The most resistant bacterium to all the soaps is Klebsiella pneumonia and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It is obvious that antibacterial soaps have the antibacterial agents that can either kill or inhibit the bacterial cells. It might be possible that some bacterial strains become resistant which leads to their survival even at high concentrations of soaps. methyl red test, voges proskauer test, and nitrate reduction test following chesseborugh (Cheesbrough, 2001). For confirmation of gram negative bacteria, analytical profile index (biomereux) was performed according to manual instructions.The present study suggested that the choice of soap should be that which does not affect the facial tissues as well as effective against disease causing bacteria in a small amount. For the determination of MBC and MIC, soaps of daily use were employed Safeguard soap MBC is 250 mg/ml and its MIC was Safeguard is an antibacterial soap that has bactericidal observed at 125 mg/ml for Staphylococcus aureus. Safeguard is an antibacterial soap that has bacteric idalagents in it. For Pseudomonas aeroginosa (1) its MBC was at 500 mg/ml and MIC was at 250 mg/ml. If it is compared with the S. ureus i t clearly showed that it was killed at high concentration of soaps. The MBC of safeguard soap against strain of P. aeroginosa strain 2 was observed at 250 mg/ml and its MIC was observed at 25 mg/ml. For E. coli MBC was 125 mg/ml and its MIC was observed at 62. 5 mg/ml. Safeguard soap was used against Klebsiella pneumonia its MBC at 500 mg/ml and its MIC was observed at 250 mg/ml. The MBC of safeguard soap against this strain of Pseudomonas was observed at 250 mg/ml and its MIC was observed at 125mg/ml . If it is compared with the first strain of P. eroginosa two prominent differences were observed which showed that strain was more sensitive than the first one. Dettol soap showed MBC at 250 mg/ml and MIC was observed at 125 mg/ml against S. aureus. These values were compared to the values obtained from safeguard soap. These were almost equal to the values of safeguard. It might be estimated that the antibacterial activity of safeguard and dettol soap were almost the same against this organism. Lifebuoy red (antibacterial): This soap showed its MBC at 250 mg/ml and MIC was observed at 125 mg/ml against S. aureus.The comparison of safeguard, lifebuoy and dettol soaps revealed the equivalence of MBC and MIC values. It was also estimated that the organism might be sensitive to the antibacterial-soaps. -Lifebuoy-(Red)-is-also–an tibacterial soap, it showed its MBC against is Pseudomonas spp. At 350 mg/ml and MIC was seen at 175 mg/ml which much lower than safeguard and dettol soap. The antibacterial agents used in this soap showed more antibacterial activity in comparison with the above mentioned soaps. This soap showed its MBC at 250 mg/ml and MIC at 150mg/ml or close to it.For Escherichia coli and Klebsiella, this soap showed its MBC at 500 mg/ml and MIC was seen at 250 mg/ml which is very high concentration of the soap. These bacterial spp. showed resistance to the soap at a very low concentration and were killed at very high concentration. Staphylococcus epidermidis was killed at 175 mg/ml that is very low concentration of soap and it showed its MIC at 87. 5 mg/ml, the antibacterial agent proved to be efficient against this bacterium but this soap also killed other bacteria like Enterobacter, B. ubtilis at 350 mg/ml and there was no apparent growth observed on the nutrient agar plate. Lux is a beauty soap and was used against S. aureus to check its antibacterial activity. Lux contains Aloe vera which might have antibacterial activity. At 500 mg/ml, the Lux killed the bacterium but concentration was high as compared to the antibacterial soap. The MBC was observed at 500 mg/ml and MIC of the soap was 250 mg/ml. This revealed that Lux soap also showed antibacterial activity but not as much, than the other specific antibacterial soaps. It might also be possible that S. ureus was sensitive to the Lux soap. This soap showed its MBC at 700 mg/ml and it also showed its MIC at 350 mg/ml against Bacillus subtilis. This soap showed its MBC at 250 mg/ml and MIC at 125 mg/ml against Pseudomonas aeroginosa 1 that was almost equal to the Lifebuoy red, it might be possible that some natural ingredients such as extract of A. vera showed the antibacterial activity. The observation of Lux beauty soap revealed that these might posses’ germicidal activity. Palmolive beauty soap: It is beauty soap and was used against S. aureus.Although this was not an antibacterial soap but it showed it’s MBC at 500 mg/ml and its MIC was observed at 250 mg/ml. This showed Palmolive soap can kill bacteria. At 500 mg/ml the organism did not showed growth on the surface of the nutrient agar medium. This soap showed its MBC at 700 mg/ml and MIC was observed at 350 mg/ml against Bacillus subtilis this is equal or almost equal to the Lux beauty soap but it is very high in comparison to the Lifebuoy both red and white this might be possible that due to lack of specific antibacterial agent it did not showits MBC and MIC at low concentration. Lifebuoy white: It also showed the MBC at 350 mg/ml and MIC at 175mg/ml against B. subtilis. These values were equal or almost equal to the Lifebuoy red soap and lower than theDettol and Safeguard soap at 350 mg/ml there was complete absence of bacterial growth on the agar plates and at 175 mg/ml there was no growth. After 24 h of incubation, few colonies were observed. The MBC of soap against E. coli was observed at 125 mg/ml and MIC was 62. 5 mg/ml that is very low concentration of soap. The E. coli showed sensitivity for this antibacterial soap as it was killed at very low concentration.The antibacterial agent of Lifebuoy white soap might be efficient in killing the cells. For Pseudomonas and K. pneumoniae, the soap showed its MBC at 250 mg/ml and MIC was observed at 125 mg/ml. As this soap showed the MBC at 250 mg/ml and at this concentration no growth of the bacteria was observed. So, the soap is efficient in killing the bacterium at this concentration. For K. pneumoniae, Enter obacter spp. and B. subtilis, theMBC was seen at 350 mg/ml and MIC was observed at 175 mg/ml. Lifebuoy showed its MBC for S. epidermidis at 700 mg/ml and MIC was seen at 350 mg/ml.The organism was isolated from human skin and found Gram positive but it was killed at 750 mg/ml concentration of soap that was very high. Retreived from http://www. academicjournals. org/AJB at 3:10 pm January 21, 2012. Studies have examined the purported benefits of antibacterial soap without clear consensus about the results. Some studies have concluded that simply washing thoroughly with plain  soap  is sufficient to reduce bacteria and, further, is effective against viruses. Other studies have found that soaps containing  antimicrobial  active ingredients remove more bacteria than simply washing with plain soap and  water. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration  published reports that questions the use of antibacterial soap and  hand sanitizers  saying that it found no medical studies t hat showed a link between a specific consumer antibacterial product and a decline in infection rates. At one  conference, Dr. Stuart Levy, a  microbiologist  at  Tufts University, cites these studies to compare antibacterial action with  antibiotic resistance: â€Å"Dousing everything we touch with antibacterial soaps and taking antibiotic medications at the first sign of a cold can upset the natural balance of  microorganisms  in and around us, leaving behind only the ‘superbugs'.It has since been shown that the laboratory method used by Dr. Levy was not effective in predicting bacterial resistance for  biocides  like triclosan. [5]  At least seven  peer-reviewed  and published studies have been conducted demonstrating that triclosan is not significantly associated with bacterial resistance over the short term, including one study coauthored by Dr. Levy. Retrieved from   Ã¢â‚¬Å"The Dirt on Clean: Antibacterial Soap v. Regular Soap†. CBC. ca. R etrieved 2011-03-30; ^  Lucet, JC; Rigaud MP, Mentre F, Kassis N, Deblangy C, Andremont A, Bouvet E (April 2002). Hand contamination before and after different hand hygiene techniques: a randomized clinical trial†. Journal of Hospital Infection  50  (4): 276–280. doi:10. 1053/jhin. 2002. 1202. PMID  12014900. ^  Gibson, LL; Rose JB, Haas CN, Gerba CP, Rusin PA (May 2002). Related Literature Pansit-pansitan (Peperomia pellucida Linn)  is a common fleshy shallow rooted herb that grows to about 15 to 45 cm in height in damp and lightly shaded areas. Pansit-pansitan has been used as food item as well as a medicinal herb for its analgesic, anti-arthritic, diuretic activity.The entire plant is edible both cooked or raw. Pansit-pansitan plant can grow wild but also grown as ornamental foliage. Pansit-pansitan is characterized by its shiny heart shaped leaves about 4 cm in length, growing from an erect translucent green stalks. Pansit-pansitan has tiny dot-like flow ers that grow from erect and slender green spikes that turn brown when matured. The fruits are also very small, round to oblong, ridged, first green later black. Tiny seeds drop off that grows easily in groups.Antibacterial soap  is any cleaning product to which active antibacterial ingredients have been added. These chemicals kill  bacteria  and  microbes, but are no more effective at deactivating  viruses  than any other kind of soap or detergent, and they also kill nonpathogenic bacteria. Most liquid hand and body soaps contain antibacterial chemicals. Triclosan  is a common ingredient. Since there is a great variety of bacteria, effectiveness against any given type of bacterium does not ensure that it is effective against unrelated types.These are generally only contained at preservative levels unless the product is marked antibacterial, antiseptic, or germicidal. Triclosan, Triclocarban/Trichlorocarbamide and PCMX/Chloroxylenol  are commonly used for antibacteri al and deodorant effect in consumer products. Some soaps contain  tetrasodium EDTA  which is a  chelating  agent that sequesters metals that the bacteria require in order to grow. Othermicrobes  also require metals and so it is actually an anti-microbial agent that is widely used even as a  preservative.It appears to be fairly harmless in the environment. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Research Design The study employed the experimental/ comparative study design since its focus is on the comparison of the antibacterial property of Pansit- pansitan liquid hand soap and commercial liquid hand soap. Procedure Table 1. Set-ups and Proportion of Pansit- pansitan Extract and Other Components Group| Set-up| Pansit-pansitan extract (mL) : Other components (mL)| Experimental| A| 12. 5: 12. 5| | B| 18. 75 : 6. 25| | C| 6. 25 : 18. 75| Controlled| D| Controlled set- up|The researchers prepared 4 set-ups. Set-up A is produced by combining 12. 5 mL of pansit- pansitan extract, 2. 5 mL of tr iethanolamine, 3. 75 mL of gel solution, 1. 25 mL of fragrance oil, 3. 75 mL of polykleer and 1. 25 mL of water. Set-up B is a combination of 18. 75 mL of pansit- pansitan extract, 1. 25 mL of triethanolamine, 1. 90 mL of gel solution, 0. 60 mL of fragrance oil, 1. 90 mL of polykleer, 0. 60 mL of water, Set-up C is prepared by mixing 6. 50 mL of pansit- pansitan extract, 3. 75 mL of triethanolamine, 5. 60mL of gel solution, 1. 0 mL of fragrance oil, 5. 60 mL of polykleer, 1. 90 mL of water, Set- up D was the commercial liquid hand soap which is assign as a controlled set-up. The researchers designed the formulations which designated the specific amounts of the extract and other ingredients to be added in a certain set-up. The researchers converted the percentage to volumes. Set-up A had 50% Pansit-pansitan extract and 50% other liquid hand soap components. Set-up B had 75% is to 25% and Set-up C had 25% is to 75%. The Pansit-pansitan plant was pounded using the mortar and pestle.The pounded Pansit-pansitan plant was filtered using a piece of cloth which is sterilized first before using to get the extract. After that, the components of the liquid hand soap such as triethanolamine, gel solution, fragrance oil, and polykleer were mixed together in a beaker following the proportions found in table 1. The mixture were placed in a canister and then brought to the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Taguig for the anti-bacterial testing. The laboratory test conducted was the Disc Agar Diffusion Method using the bacterial strain of Staphylococcus aureus.Data obtained were recorded accordingly for each set-up. Statistical Treatment The statistical treatment used in this study is t- test for total mean zone of inhibition and reactivity rating and Modal measure of central tendency for the inhibitory activity. The researchers used T- test because the data collected were classified as independent samples and under the normal distribution. The t- test will provide more accurate values. Since the inhibitory rating does not have an equivalent numerical value, the researchers used the Modal measure of central tendency.The researchers did not include the f-test for the experimental set-ups because the results from the laboratory testing showed that the three parameters have the same values. Gathering of materials from Metrobank Garden and Swiss Fragrance Partition a pansit- pansitan plant and Gathering the extract Application of safety precautions and Preparing of lab gowns, hair nets, and shoe socks Formulation of compositions in different set-ups (A and B) Preparation of laboratory apparatus and chemicals needed Measuring of the chemicals according to the designated amountsCombination all the ingredients together based on the formulation given Segregation of different Set-ups into different plastics, named A and B Figure 1. Methodology and Process flow CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Table 2. Comparison of the Experimental and Control Set-up in Terms of Total Mean Zone of Inhibition Group | Set-up| Component Ratio of each Set-up| Average total mean zone of inhibition per set-up| Average total mean zone per group | Experimental| A| 50:50| 10mm| 10| | B| 75:25| 10mm| | | C| 25:75| 10mm| | Control| D| control| 11. 1mm| 11. 71| As shown in Table 2, the total mean zone of inhibition (the region that resists the entry of microorganisms such as staphylococcus aureus) of the experimental set-up A, B and C is 10 mm while in the control set-up, the total mean zone of inhibition is 11. 71. Group| Mean| Standard Deviation| t-value| Experimental| 10mm| 0| -2. 09| Control| 11. 71mm| 0| | Table 3. Summary of t-test for Total Mean Zone of Inhibition Table 3 displays the summary of t-test for total mean inhibition. Since the obtained t value of – 2. 9 is greater than the t critical value of -2. 13 at 0. 01 level, this means that the null hypothesis must be rejected. This means that there is a significant difference between the e xperimental group and the control group. Table 4. Comparison of the Experimental and Control Set-up in Terms of Reactivity Set-up| A| B| C| Average| Experimental| 2| 2| 2| 2| Control| 2| 2| 2| 2| Table 4 displays that all the set- ups including the experimental and control set- up are rated as 2 which verify that the zone of inhibition is limited under the specimen.Table 5. Summary of t-test for Reactivity Rating Group| Mean| Standard Deviation| t-value| Experimental| 2| 0| 0| Control| 2| 0| | Table 5 displays the summary of t-test for total mean inhibition. Since the obtained t value is 0, this means that the null hypothesis must be accepted. This means that there is no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Table 6. Comparison of the Experimental and Control Set-up in Terms of Inhibitory Activity Set-up| A| B| C| Experimental| +++| +++| +++| Control| ++| ++| ++|Table 6 prospects that the inhibitory activity rating for the experimental group is complete symbolized as (+++) and the inhibitory activity rating of the control group is partial (++). The average zone of inhibition (the region where microorganisms such as bacteria cannot penetrate within) of control set-up is 11. 71. Since the inhibitory activity (the ability of substance to avoid the penetration of microorganisms such as bacteria with respect to a specific area) is partial (symbolized as ++) this implies that the bacteria cannot penetrate within the zone of inhibition.Even though the area of inhibition of control set-up is bigger in diameter, the rating for its inhibitory activity is only partial while in the experimental group is complete even if its zone of inhibition is smaller. Furthermore, the reactivity rating 2, verifies that the zone is limited under the specimen. All interpretations were based on the guidelines given by the laboratory: Reactivity Rating: (It specifies the rate at which the liquid hand soap reacts with the staphylococcus aureus. 0- None (No detectable zone around or under specimen) – Slight (Some malformed or degenerated cells under the specimen) 2- Mild (Zone limited under the specimen) 3- Moderate (Zone extends 5 to 10 mm beyond specimen) 4- Severe ( Zone extends greater than 10 mm beyond specimen) Since all the replicates showed that the reactivity rating is 2, it means that the zone is limited under the specimen. Based on the United States Pharmacopoeia 30-NF 25, 2007 <87> Biological Reactivity Test; the Inhibitory Activity Rating are classified as: (+++) complete; (++) partial; (+) slight, and (-) negative.CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Findings After the experimentation and the analysis of the data, the researchers led to the following findings: 1. The total mean zone of inhibition for the experimental group including Set-ups A, B and C is 10 millimeters. 2. The total mean zone of inhibition for Set-up D or the control set-up is 11. 71 millimeters. 3. All the set-ups includ ing experimental and control groups have a reactivity rating of 2, which means that the zone is limited under the specimen. . The inhibitory rating for the experimental group is complete (+++) which means that it inhibited all the staphylococcus aureus within the zone of inhibition while the control set-up has partial (++) for it does not resist the entry of all the staphylococcus aureus within the zone of inhibition. 5. For the Total Mean Zone of Inhibition, the obtained t- value, -2. 09 is greater than t- critical value, -2. 13 at 0. 01 level. This means that the null hypothesis must be rejected.This means that there is a significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. 6. For the Reactivity Rating, the obtained value is 0, this means that the null hypothesis must be accepted. This means that there is no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusions 1. Pansit- pansitan liquid hand soap is somehow better than th e Commercial liquid hand soap in terms of total mean zone of inhibition and inhibitory activity and it is as good as the commercial liquid hand soap in terms of the Reactivity Rating. . There is a significant difference between the Pansit- pansitan liquid hand soap and commercial liquid hand soap in terms total mean zone of inhibition therefore the Pansit-pansitan liquid hand soap is somehow better than the commercial hand soap in terms of the said parameter. 3. There is no significant difference between the Pansit- pansitan liquid hand soap and commercial liquid hand soap in terms of reactivity rating therefore the two liquid hand soaps is as good with each other in terms of the said parameter. 4.There is a significant difference between the Pansit- pansitan liquid hand soap and commercial liquid hand soap in terms of inhibitory activity therefore the Pansit-pansitan liquid hand soap is somehow better than the commercial hand soap in terms of the said parameter. 5. The variation of the amount of Pansit-pansitan extract showed no significant difference since the data gathered from the laboratory analysis in terms of Total mean zone of inhibition and Reactivity rating are of the same values which is 2 and 10 mm respectively. Recommendations Based on the conclusions, the researchers led to the following recommendation: 1.Future researchers may consider other parameters aside from the total mean zone of inhibition, reactivity rating and inhibitory activity. 2. Try to consider other plants which can be found in the backyard . 3. Determine the shelf life of the home- made liquid hand soap so as the users will be aware of the expiration date. 4. The usage of other statistical methods of obtaining data such as surveys, which may in turn, help support the outcome of the whole study. The survey must be done without bias, and as much as possible with the least discrepancy, to make it authentic and credible. Appendix A COMPUTATIONS Table 7.Total Mean Zone of Inhibition ( Experimental Group) XE(mm)| XE (mm)| (XE-XE)2| 10| 10| 0| 10| 10| 0| 10| 10| 0| | | (XE-XE)2=0| Table 8. Total Mean Zone of Inhibition (Control Group) XC (mm)| XC (mm)| (XC-XC)2| 11. 71| 11. 71| 0| 11. 71| 11. 71| 0| 11. 71| 11. 71| 0| | | (XC-XC)2=0| SDE= (XE-XE)2N-1 SDE= 03-1 SDE=0 General Formula for t-test: t=XE-XCn1-1SDE2+(n2-1)SDC2nE+nC-21nE+1nC SDC= (XC-XC)2N-1 SDC=03-1 SDC=0 Since the t-computed value is greater that t-tabulated value which is -2. 13, we should reject the H0. Table 9. Reactivity Rating (Experimental Group) XE| XE| (XE-XE)2| 2| 2| 0| 2| 2| 0| 2| 2| 0| | | (XE-XE)2=0|Table 10. Reactivity Rating (Control Group) XC| XC| (XC-XC)2| 2| 2| 0| 2| 2| 0| 2| 2| 0| | | (XC-XC)2=0| SDE= (XE-XE)2N-1 SDE= 03-1 SDE=0 SDC= (XC-XC)2N-1 SDC=03-1 SDC=0 t=XE-XCn1-1SDE2+(n2-1)SDC2nE+nC-21nE+1nC t=2-23-1(0)2+(3-1)(0)23+3-213+13 t=02+24(0. 81649658) t=0(0. 81649658) t= 0 Since the t-computed value is equal to zero, it shows that there is no significant difference between the reactiv ity of experimental and control group. Table 11. Inhibitory Activity | A| B| C| Experimental| +++| +++| +++| Control| ++| ++| ++| Modal is the statistical treatment to be used in the inhibitory activity of the Set-ups.The data is nominal, therefore the most suitable test for it is modal. Modal is the class that has the highest value. Based on observation, the Experimental Set-ups A, B, & C have the highest rating, +++ which means that the inhibitory activity is complete. In connection to the results, there is a significant difference between the Experimental Set-ups and the Control Set-ups. Appendix B (Photos of the Experimental Procedures) Figure 2. The image shows how the researchers pounded the Pansit- pansitan plant using the mortar and pestle Figure 3. The image shows how the extract from the Pansit- pansitan plant was filter Figure 4.The image shows the residue of the Pansit- pansitan plant after the filtration Figure 5. The photo shows the manual mixing of the Pansit- pan sitan extract and other components of liquid hand soap Figure 6. The photo shows the actual measurement of the gel solution Figure 7. The above photo shows the disc diffusion method done by the DOST laboratory Appendix C (Laboratory Results) BIBLIOGRAPHY http://www. academicjournals. org/AJB Life Sciences and Medicine Research, Volume 2010: LSMR- â€Å"Isolation and Bioactivity of a Xanthone Glycoside from Peperomia pellucida† , (January 21, 2012, 3:10 pm) â€Å"The Dirt on Clean: Antibacterial Soap v.Regular Soap†. CBC. ca. Retrieved 2011-03-30; ^  Lucet, JC; Rigaud MP, Mentre F, Kassis N, Deblangy C, Andremont A, Bouvet E (April 2002). â€Å"Hand contamination before and after different hand hygiene techniques: a randomized clinical trial†. Journal of Hospital Infection  50  (4): 276–280. doi:10. 1053/jhin. 2002. 1202. PMID  12014900. ^  Gibson, LL; Rose JB, Haas CN, Gerba CP, Rusin PA (May 2002). â€Å"Quantitative assessment of risk reducti on from hand washing with antibacterial soaps†. Journal of Applied Microbiology  92: 136S–143S. doi:10. 1046/j. 1365-2672. 92. 5s1. 17. x. PMID  12000622: Retrieved 2012-01-21, 3:40 pm. ttp://www. medicalhealthguide. com/articles/pansitpansitan. htm. www. medicalhealthguide. com , (January 21, 2012, 3:25 pm) http://www. statsoft. com/textbook/basic-statistics/#t-test for independent samples . Retrieved 2012-02-27, 9:00 pm. http://www. staff. vu. edu. au/mcaonline/units/statistics/statistics. html Retrieved 2012-02-27, 9:20 pm. Contact Persons * Department of Science and Technology (Standards and Testing Division) Mr. Marlon SA. Aguinaldo- Tel no. 837-20-71 to 82 local 2188, 2189 * Swiss Fragrance- Tel no. 927-59-74 * Ferissa B. Ablola- Tel no. 472-43-30