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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |