Cargando…

A view to a kill? – Ambient bacterial load of frames and lenses of spectacles and evaluation of different cleaning methods

Surfaces with regular contact with the human body are typically contaminated with microorganisms and might be considered as fomites. Despite spectacles being widespread across populations, little is known about their microbial contamination. Therefore, we swab-sampled 11 worn spectacles within a uni...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fritz, Birgit, Jenner, Anne, Wahl, Siegfried, Lappe, Christian, Zehender, Achim, Horn, Christian, Blessing, Frithjof, Kohl, Matthias, Ziemssen, Focke, Egert, Markus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6261565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30485312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207238
_version_ 1783374969091129344
author Fritz, Birgit
Jenner, Anne
Wahl, Siegfried
Lappe, Christian
Zehender, Achim
Horn, Christian
Blessing, Frithjof
Kohl, Matthias
Ziemssen, Focke
Egert, Markus
author_facet Fritz, Birgit
Jenner, Anne
Wahl, Siegfried
Lappe, Christian
Zehender, Achim
Horn, Christian
Blessing, Frithjof
Kohl, Matthias
Ziemssen, Focke
Egert, Markus
author_sort Fritz, Birgit
collection PubMed
description Surfaces with regular contact with the human body are typically contaminated with microorganisms and might be considered as fomites. Despite spectacles being widespread across populations, little is known about their microbial contamination. Therefore, we swab-sampled 11 worn spectacles within a university setting as well as 10 worn spectacles in a nursing home setting. The microbial load was determined by aerobic cultivation. All spectacles were found to be contaminated with bacteria, with nose pads and ear clips having the highest density, i.e. at sites with direct skin contact. Summed over all sites, the median microbial load of the university spectacles (1.4 ± 10.7 x 10(3) CFU cm(-2)) did not differ significantly from the spectacles tested in the nursing home (20.8 ± 39.9 x 10(3) CFU cm(-2)). 215 dominant bacterial morphotypes were analyzed by MALDI biotyping. 182 isolates could be assigned to 10 genera, with Staphylococcus being the most common. On genus-level, bacterial diversity was greater on nursing home spectacles (10 genera) compared to the university environment (2 genera). Four cleaning methods were investigated using lenses artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli, Micrococcus luteus, a 1:2 mixture of E. coli and M. luteus, and Staphylococcus epidermidis (the dominant isolate in our study), respectively. Best cleaning results (99% -100% median germ reduction) were obtained using impregnated wipes; dry cleaning was less effective (85% -90% median germ reduction). Finally, 10 additional worn university spectacles were cleaned with wipes impregnated with an alcohol-free cleaning solution before sampling. The average bacterial load was significantly lower (0.09 ± 0.49 x 10(3) CFU cm(-2)) compared to the uncleaned university spectacles previously investigated. Spectacles are significantly contaminated with bacteria of mostly human skin origin—including significant amounts of potentially pathogenic ones and may contribute to eye infections as well as fomites in clinical environments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6261565
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62615652018-12-19 A view to a kill? – Ambient bacterial load of frames and lenses of spectacles and evaluation of different cleaning methods Fritz, Birgit Jenner, Anne Wahl, Siegfried Lappe, Christian Zehender, Achim Horn, Christian Blessing, Frithjof Kohl, Matthias Ziemssen, Focke Egert, Markus PLoS One Research Article Surfaces with regular contact with the human body are typically contaminated with microorganisms and might be considered as fomites. Despite spectacles being widespread across populations, little is known about their microbial contamination. Therefore, we swab-sampled 11 worn spectacles within a university setting as well as 10 worn spectacles in a nursing home setting. The microbial load was determined by aerobic cultivation. All spectacles were found to be contaminated with bacteria, with nose pads and ear clips having the highest density, i.e. at sites with direct skin contact. Summed over all sites, the median microbial load of the university spectacles (1.4 ± 10.7 x 10(3) CFU cm(-2)) did not differ significantly from the spectacles tested in the nursing home (20.8 ± 39.9 x 10(3) CFU cm(-2)). 215 dominant bacterial morphotypes were analyzed by MALDI biotyping. 182 isolates could be assigned to 10 genera, with Staphylococcus being the most common. On genus-level, bacterial diversity was greater on nursing home spectacles (10 genera) compared to the university environment (2 genera). Four cleaning methods were investigated using lenses artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli, Micrococcus luteus, a 1:2 mixture of E. coli and M. luteus, and Staphylococcus epidermidis (the dominant isolate in our study), respectively. Best cleaning results (99% -100% median germ reduction) were obtained using impregnated wipes; dry cleaning was less effective (85% -90% median germ reduction). Finally, 10 additional worn university spectacles were cleaned with wipes impregnated with an alcohol-free cleaning solution before sampling. The average bacterial load was significantly lower (0.09 ± 0.49 x 10(3) CFU cm(-2)) compared to the uncleaned university spectacles previously investigated. Spectacles are significantly contaminated with bacteria of mostly human skin origin—including significant amounts of potentially pathogenic ones and may contribute to eye infections as well as fomites in clinical environments. Public Library of Science 2018-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6261565/ /pubmed/30485312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207238 Text en © 2018 Fritz et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Fritz, Birgit
Jenner, Anne
Wahl, Siegfried
Lappe, Christian
Zehender, Achim
Horn, Christian
Blessing, Frithjof
Kohl, Matthias
Ziemssen, Focke
Egert, Markus
A view to a kill? – Ambient bacterial load of frames and lenses of spectacles and evaluation of different cleaning methods
title A view to a kill? – Ambient bacterial load of frames and lenses of spectacles and evaluation of different cleaning methods
title_full A view to a kill? – Ambient bacterial load of frames and lenses of spectacles and evaluation of different cleaning methods
title_fullStr A view to a kill? – Ambient bacterial load of frames and lenses of spectacles and evaluation of different cleaning methods
title_full_unstemmed A view to a kill? – Ambient bacterial load of frames and lenses of spectacles and evaluation of different cleaning methods
title_short A view to a kill? – Ambient bacterial load of frames and lenses of spectacles and evaluation of different cleaning methods
title_sort view to a kill? – ambient bacterial load of frames and lenses of spectacles and evaluation of different cleaning methods
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6261565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30485312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207238
work_keys_str_mv AT fritzbirgit aviewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT jenneranne aviewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT wahlsiegfried aviewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT lappechristian aviewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT zehenderachim aviewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT hornchristian aviewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT blessingfrithjof aviewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT kohlmatthias aviewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT ziemssenfocke aviewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT egertmarkus aviewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT fritzbirgit viewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT jenneranne viewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT wahlsiegfried viewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT lappechristian viewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT zehenderachim viewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT hornchristian viewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT blessingfrithjof viewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT kohlmatthias viewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT ziemssenfocke viewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods
AT egertmarkus viewtoakillambientbacterialloadofframesandlensesofspectaclesandevaluationofdifferentcleaningmethods