Hypothesis: (Maybe)
If there is not substantial strides to reducing the overuse of hand-sanitizers there will be a significant decline in the immune health of the world’s human population.
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1994425435?pq-origsite=summon
The above researches 10 different products on 10 different right- handed males. The language is difficult to understand as it is very scientific, this source may be useful but needs further investigation as to just what the study is saying.
https://www.nature.com/articles/508182a
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655313000217
https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/hand-hygiene/hand-hygiene-0?nck=1
Counterintuitive 
1. Your hypothesis is a good place to start.
2. It’s, however, clumsily phrased.
Its subject and verb disagree in number. And they contribute to wordiness.
You can make your recommendation about reducing the use of sanitizers as your proposal if your hypothesis turns out to be true.
LikeLike
This is a good collection of “get me started” sources. The Nature article
already contains conclusions, making it a bit dangerous.
The ICT source, geared to an audience of medical professionals, contains extremely valuable distinctions between anti-bacterials, anti-microbials, antibiotics, and antiseptics; also between household and hospital products.
The AJIF source is full of useful topics to consider and seems to be offering overall a risk/reward approach that would reduce infections at home without contributing to antibiotic resistance.
As for the ProQuest source that compares 10 sanitizers, its purpose appears to be specifically to rank them by effectiveness, and its recommendation is commercial, not scientific: Good brands need to be adopted and “wantonly marketed” ineffective brands should be discouraged or banned as fraudulent.
(On the plus side, those bad brands aren’t killing many bacteria, so they won’t contributed to resistance.)
LikeLike