Anti Bacterial Studies of MaxHeal

at the University of Alabama

This lab report details the research that we have completed on a speculative compound called MaxHeal. The inventors have made claims that MaxHeal can kill a variety of microorganisms. However, there has been no research directed toward explaining the medicinal properties of Max Heal. Research has been done on MDEC-I (a compound similar to MaxHeal) by ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in Costa Mesa, California (Willis 1988). These researchers have investigated the susceptibility of several bacteria to MaxHeal. We attempted not only to replicate, but broaden the scope of their research by investigating additional microorganisms.

MaxHeal claims to work with the body's immune system to restore its natural negative charge when it is injured. The human body creates a natural negative charge because it continuously undergoes reduction and oxidation reactions. When the body is wounded, burnt, or cut an electropositive area is created around the damaged area. This type of environment permits optimal growth of microorganisms due to their negative charge. The body's immune system responds by sending in cells such as leukocytes, lymphocytes, and peptides to kill these microbes and restore the electronegative environment of a healthy body. MaxHeal maintains a negative charge due to the combination of electrolytes in its solution. This charge is used to destroy invading microorganisms as well as help restore the body's natural negative charge. 

We quantitatively and qualitatively measured the effectiveness of MaxHeal on a variety of microorganisms. We chose to use a range of microorganisms including Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria and a fungus. These organisms cause a variety of ailments such as: athlete's foot, thrush, jock itch, diaper rash, vaginal yeast infections, and skin infections. The inventors of MaxHeal claim these ailments are susceptible to the compound: complete lists of the microorganisms and the diseases each cause can be found in  Appendix A,B & C.











Materials and Methods

When we first designed our experiment we decided that we would test organisms, that in their virulent form, would cause some of the ailments that MaxHeal claims to have effective on. The strains of bacteria we experimented on were: Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, Pseudomonas aeroginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus aecium, Candida albicans and Neisseria catarrhalis. We purchased the organisms from Presque Isle Cultures as freeze-dried discs and agar slants. We grew the cultures of E. coli, S. typhimurium, P. aeruginosa, and S. aureus by transferring freeze-dried discs into nutrient broth and incubating them overnight at 37 degrees Celsius. The cultures of S. faecium, C. albicans and N. catarrhalis came prepared on agar slants. From these samples we transferred several loopfuls of culture to approximately 5 ml. of sterile water in order to create an aqueous solution. This gave us a stock culture to carry out our serial dilution (note-the solution of distilled water and organisms was used immediately after the solutions were made, then refrigerated immediately). Throughout the experiment the organisms were consistently grown on the same types of media. E. coli, S. typhimurium, P. aeroginosa, S. aureus, were grown 1 Yeast Agar plates. S. faecium and N. Catarrhalis were grown on Trypic Soy Agar plates. C. albicans was grown on Sabouraud Dextrose Agar plates.

Discussion

The zones of inhibition obtained from part one show us that MaxHeal has definite antibacterial properties. However, these results were not conclusive and did not allow us to accurately assess MaxHeal’s ability to kill bacteria. We were uncertain of the reason zones of inhibition were not present for all the organisms. For example, the S. aureus plate showed several colonies growing inside the zones of inhibition. The cause of this may have been the presence of a resistant strain of S. aureus. Another possible cause could be a far larger concentration of organisms than the quantity of MaxHeal was capable of killing. We therefore decided to take the quantitative approach of part two to obtain more precise and conclusive results.

We obtained conclusive quantitative data from part two of our experiment. C. albicans, E. coli, P. aeruginosa and S. typhimurium proved completely susceptible to MaxHeal. Through these results, we conclude that MaxHeal has antibacterial and antifungal properties.

N. catarrhalis gave us the largest zone of inhibition in part one. Therefore we can conclude the kill rate would be 100% for N. catarrhalis because organisms with zones of inhibition smaller than N. catarrhalis had a 100% kill rate.

According to the results obtained from part two, we drew the conclusion that the concentrations of organisms used in part one was too great for MaxHeal to destroy. This conclusion is justified by the 82% of better kill rate for organim reported in part two.

In our attempt to replicate the only known research conducted on MaxHeal, we obtained fairly similar results. E Coli and P. aeruginosa had 100% kill rates in the research conducted by ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as we found also. However, ICN's research had shown a 92% kill rate for S. aureus and a 100% kill rate for S. faecium, which was slightly different than our results.

Throughout this experiment we were constantly battling human error. We were transferring very small quantities material using pipettes. A single excess drop could impact the results drastically. This problem was very crucial during the transferring the 0.1 ml of organisms to agar plates. Since 0.1 ml is roughly two drops, an extra drop greatly increases the number of organisms added to the plate.

A second source of human error in part two of the experiment could be found in the timing during the organisms exposure MaxHeal. Because we used commercial watches to time the exposure, it is possible that some organisms had different exposure times. A final source of error in part two of the experiment may have resulted from the test tubes not being properly shaken before the sample was removed to be plated. This would create a solution where the organisms were not uniformly distributed. This creates error because an accurate count could not be achieved.

In concluding, our aim of replicating the only research done on MaxHeal was successful. Through our research we have broadened the range of organisms previously proven to be affected by MaxHeal.

These include Candida albicans, Salmonella typhimurium and Neisseria catarrhalis. As a group we unanimously agree that it would be beneficial that more research be done on this mysterious and exciting new product.

Literature Cited