Computers are ubiquitous and have been shown to be contaminated with potentially pathogenic bacteria in some communities. There is no economical way to test all the keyboards and mouse out there, but there are common-sense ways to prevent bacterial contamination or eliminate it if it exists. In this study, swabs specimens were collected from surfaces of 250 computer keyboards and mouse and plated on different bacteriological media. Organisms growing on the media were purified and identified using microbiological standards. It was found that all the tested computer keyboards and mouse devices, were positive for microbial contamination. The percentages of isolated bacteria (Staphylococcus spp., Escherichia spp., Pseudomonas spp. and Bacillus spp.) were 43.3%, 40.9%, 30.7%, 34.1%, 18.3%, 18.2%, 7.7% and 6.8% for computer keyboards and mouse respectively. The isolated bacteria were tested against the 6 different disinfectants (Dettol, Isol, Izal, JIK, Purit and Septol®). Antibacterial effects of the disinfectants were also concentration dependent. The agar well diffusion technique for determining Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) was employed. The Killing rate (K) and Decimal Reduction Time (DRT) of the disinfectants on the organism were also determined. The overall result of this study showed that Dettol®, followed by JIK® was highly effective against all the bacterial isolates tested while Septol and Izal® were least effective. Isol and Purit® showed moderate antibacterial effects. Keyboards and mouse should be disinfected daily. However, it is recommended that heightened surveillance of the microbial examination of computer keyboards should be undertaken at predetermiant intervals.
| Published in | American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering (Volume 1, Issue 3) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.bio.20130103.11 |
| Page(s) | 36-43 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2013. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Bacteria, Disinfectants, Antibacterial Activity, MIC, DRT, Killing Rate
| [1] | Ravichandran D. Introduction to computers and communication. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, Inida, ISBN: 0-07-043565-0. 2006. P. 2. |
| [2] | Neely AN, Holder IA, Wiener-Kromsh JP & Sawa T. Passive anti-per V treatment protects burned mice against Pseudomonas aeruginosa challenge. Burns 2005, 31: 153-158. |
| [3] | Wilson AP, Hayman S, Folan P, Ostro PT & Birkett A.. Computer keyboards and the spread of MRSA. J. Hosp. Infect 2006, 62: 390-402. |
| [4] | Anderson G & Palombo, EA. Microbial contamination of computer keyboards in a university setting. Am J Infect Control 2009, 37: 507-509. |
| [5] | Neely AN, Weber JM, Daviau P, MacGregor A, Miranda C, Nell M, Bush P, Lighter D & Shriners Hospitals for Children task force. Computer equipment used in patient care within a multihospital system: recommendations for cleaning and disinfection. Am J Infect Control 2005, 33(4): 233-237. |
| [6] | Eguia JM & Chambers HF. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Epidemiology and potential virulence factors. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2003, 5: 459-466. |
| [7] | Eltablawy SY & Elhifnawi HN. Microbial contamination of some computer keyboards and mice in National Centre for Radiation Research and Technology. World Appl Sci J 2009, 6(2):162-7. |
| [8] | Siegmund K, Hübner, N, Heidecke CD, Brandenburg R & Rackow, K. Are laptop ventilation-blowers a potential source of nosocomial infections for patients? GMS Krankenhaushyg Interdiszip 2010, 5: 7-7. |
| [9] | Pancholi, P., M. Healy, T. Bittner, R. Webb and F. Wu et al., 2005. Molecular characterization of hand flora and environmental isolates in a community setting. J. Clin. Microbiol., 43: 5202-5207. |
| [10] | Stepanović S, Cirković I, Djukić S, Vuković D. & Svabić-Vlahović M. Public transport as a reservoir of methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Lett Appl Microbiol 2008, 47: 339-341. |
| [11] | Cheesbrough M. District Laboratory Practice in Tropical Countries. 2nd Edn., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN-10: 113944929X, 2006, pp: 440. |
| [12] | Awodele O, Emeka PM, Agbamuche HC & Akintonwa A. The antimicrobial activities of some commonly used disinfectants on Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans. Afr J Biotech 2007, 6: 987-990. |
| [13] | Iroha IR, Oji AE, Nwosu OK & Amadi ES. Antimicrobial activity of Savlon®, Izal® and Z-germicide® against clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from hospital wards. Eur J Dent Med 2011, 3: 32-35. |
| [14] | Schultz M, Gill J, Zubairi S, Huber R & Gordin F. Bacterial contamination of computer keyboards in a teaching hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003, 24: 302-313. |
| [15] | Hartmann B, Benson M, Junger A, Quinzio L & Rohrig R, Computer keyboard and mouse as a reservoir of pathogens in an intensive care unit. J Clin Monit 2004, 18: 7-12. |
| [16] | Rutala WA, White MS, Gergen MF & Weber DJ. Bacterial contamination of keyboards: Efficacy and functional impact of disinfectants. Infect. Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006, 27: 372-377. |
| [17] | Anastasiades P, Pratt TL, Rousseau LH, Steinberg WJ & Joubert G. Staphylococcus aureus on computer mice and keyboards in intensive care units of the Universitas Academic Hospital, Bloemfontein and ICU staff's knowledge of its hazards and cleaning practices. South Afr J Epidemiol Infect 2009, 24: 22-26. |
| [18] | Shen X. Investigation of the bacterial contamination of computer keyboard and mouse in the office. J. Environ. Occupat. Med 2010, LDYX201003017.htm |
| [19] | Tagoe DNA & Kumi-Ansah, F. Computer keyboard and mice: Potential sources of disease transmission and infections. Internet J. Public Health 2011, 10.5580/a19. |
| [20] | Miller LG & Diep BA. Colonization, fomites and virulence: Rethinking the pathogenesis of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin. Infect. Dis 2008, 465: 752-760. |
| [21] | Kluytmans J, Van-Belkum A. & Verbrugh H. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: Epidemiology, underlying mechanisms and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev 1997, 10: 505-550. |
| [22] | Rusin P, Maxwell S. & Gerba, C.. Comparative surface-to-hand and fingertip-to-mouth transfer efficiency of gram-positive bacteria, gramnegative bacteria and phage. J Appl Microbiol 2002, 93: 585-592. |
| [23] | Elliot, T., M. Hastings and U. Desselberger, 1997. Lecture Notes on Medical Microbiology. 3rd Edn., Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN-10: 0632024461, pp: 352. |
| [24] | Mandal BK, Wilkins EGL, Dunbar EM & Mayon-White R. Lecture Notes: Infectious Diseases. 6th Edn., Wiley, Oxford, ISBN-10: 1405108207, 2005, pp: 280. |
| [25] | Man GS, Olapoju M & and Chadwick MV. Bacterial contamination of ward-based computer terminals. J Hosp Infect 2002, 52: 314-318. |
| [26] | Neely AN & Sittig D.F. Basic microbiologic and infection control information to reduce the potential transmission of pathogens to patients via computer hardware. J Am Med Info Assoc 2002, 9: 500-508. |
| [27] | Kumar A & Srivastava M. Computer components in college and its surroundings encompass the pathogenic bacteria. J Applied Sci Environ Sanit 2012, 7: 43-47. |
| [28] | Noskin GA, Stosor V, Bednarz P. & Suriano T. Recovery of vancomycin-resistant Enterococci on fingertips and environmental surfaces. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995. 16: 577-581. |
| [29] | Das A, Kansal R., Asthana AK, Pandey A & Madan M. E-Fomites. Annals Biol Res 2011, 2: 111-115. |
| [30] | Olowe OA, Olayemi AB, Eniola KIT & Adeyeba AO. Anti bacterial activity of some selected disinfectants regularly used in hospitals. Afr J Clin Exp Microbiol 2004, 5: 126-130. |
| [31] | Heath RJ, White SW & Rock CO. Lipid biosynthesis as a target for antibacterial agents. Prog. Lipid. Res 2001, 40: 467-497. |
| [32] | Kaulfers PM, Karch H & Laufs R. Plasmid-mediated formaldehyde resistance in Serratia marcescens and Escherichia coli: Alterations in the cell surface. Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg A 1987, 226: 239-248. |
| [33] | Russell AD & Chopra I.. Understanding Antibacterial Action and Resistance. 2nd Edn., Ellis Horwood, Hemel Hempstead, ISBN-10: 0131248278, 1996, pp: 292. |
| [34] | Rutala WA, White MS, Gergen MF & Weberm DJ. Bacterial contamination of keyboards: Efficacy and functional impact of disinfectants. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006, 28: 372-377. |
| [35] | El-Mahmood AM & Doughari JH. Bacteriological examination of some diluted disinfectants routinely used in the Specialist Hospital Yola, Nigeria. Afr J Pharmacy Pharmacol 2009, 3: 185-1909. |
| [36] | Acheampong YB, El-Mahmood A & Olurinola PF. The antibacterial properties of the liquid antiseptic TCP. Ind J Pharm Sci 1988, 50: 183-186. |
| [37] | Esselen WB & Pflug IJ. Thermal resistance of putrefactive anaerobe no. 3679 spores in vegetables in the tempetature range of 250-290 F. Food Tech 1956, 10: 557-560. |
| [38] | Reed JM, Bohrer CW & Cameron EJ Spore destruction rate studies on organisms of significance in the processing of canned foods. Food Res 1951, 16: 383-408. |
| [39] | El-Bisi HM & Ordal ZS. The effect of certain sporulation conditions on the death rates of Bacillus coagulans var thermocidurans. J Bacteriol 1955, 71: 1-7. |
| [40] | Alwood MC & Hugo WB. The Leakage of Cations and Amino Acids from Staphylococcus aureus exposed to moist heat, phenol and dinitrophenol. J Applied Microbiol 1971, 34: 368-375. |
| [41] | Hugo WA & Bloomfield SF. Studies on the mode of action of phenolic antibacterial agent fenticlor against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli 1. Adsorption of fenticlor by the bacterial cell and its antibacterial activity. J Appl Bacteriol 1971, 34: 557-567. |
| [42] | Meynell GG & Meynell E. Theory and Practice in Experimental Bacteriology. 2nd Edn., CUP Archive, ISBN-10: 052107682X, 1970, pp: 346. |
| [43] | Cove JH & Holland KT. The effect of benzoyl peroxide on cutaneous micro-organisms in vitro. J Appl Bacteriol 1983, 54: 379-382. |
| [44] | Mazzola PG, Penna TCV & Martins AM. Determination of decimal reduction time (D-value) of chemical agents used in hospitals for disinfection purposes. BMC Infect Dis 2003, 3: 131-140. |
APA Style
Anyim Chukwudi, Ilang Donatus C, Okonkwo Eucharia C. (2013). Bacteriological Examination of Computer Keyboards and Mouse Devices and their Susceptibility Patterns to Disinfectants. American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 1(3), 36-43. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20130103.11
ACS Style
Anyim Chukwudi; Ilang Donatus C; Okonkwo Eucharia C. Bacteriological Examination of Computer Keyboards and Mouse Devices and their Susceptibility Patterns to Disinfectants. Am. J. BioSci. Bioeng. 2013, 1(3), 36-43. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.20130103.11
AMA Style
Anyim Chukwudi, Ilang Donatus C, Okonkwo Eucharia C. Bacteriological Examination of Computer Keyboards and Mouse Devices and their Susceptibility Patterns to Disinfectants. Am J BioSci Bioeng. 2013;1(3):36-43. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.20130103.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.bio.20130103.11,
author = {Anyim Chukwudi and Ilang Donatus C and Okonkwo Eucharia C.},
title = {Bacteriological Examination of Computer Keyboards and Mouse Devices and their Susceptibility Patterns to Disinfectants},
journal = {American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering},
volume = {1},
number = {3},
pages = {36-43},
doi = {10.11648/j.bio.20130103.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20130103.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.bio.20130103.11},
abstract = {Computers are ubiquitous and have been shown to be contaminated with potentially pathogenic bacteria in some communities. There is no economical way to test all the keyboards and mouse out there, but there are common-sense ways to prevent bacterial contamination or eliminate it if it exists. In this study, swabs specimens were collected from surfaces of 250 computer keyboards and mouse and plated on different bacteriological media. Organisms growing on the media were purified and identified using microbiological standards. It was found that all the tested computer keyboards and mouse devices, were positive for microbial contamination. The percentages of isolated bacteria (Staphylococcus spp., Escherichia spp., Pseudomonas spp. and Bacillus spp.) were 43.3%, 40.9%, 30.7%, 34.1%, 18.3%, 18.2%, 7.7% and 6.8% for computer keyboards and mouse respectively. The isolated bacteria were tested against the 6 different disinfectants (Dettol, Isol, Izal, JIK, Purit and Septol®). Antibacterial effects of the disinfectants were also concentration dependent. The agar well diffusion technique for determining Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) was employed. The Killing rate (K) and Decimal Reduction Time (DRT) of the disinfectants on the organism were also determined. The overall result of this study showed that Dettol®, followed by JIK® was highly effective against all the bacterial isolates tested while Septol and Izal® were least effective. Isol and Purit® showed moderate antibacterial effects. Keyboards and mouse should be disinfected daily. However, it is recommended that heightened surveillance of the microbial examination of computer keyboards should be undertaken at predetermiant intervals.},
year = {2013}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Bacteriological Examination of Computer Keyboards and Mouse Devices and their Susceptibility Patterns to Disinfectants AU - Anyim Chukwudi AU - Ilang Donatus C AU - Okonkwo Eucharia C. Y1 - 2013/06/30 PY - 2013 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20130103.11 DO - 10.11648/j.bio.20130103.11 T2 - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering JF - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering JO - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering SP - 36 EP - 43 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2328-5893 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20130103.11 AB - Computers are ubiquitous and have been shown to be contaminated with potentially pathogenic bacteria in some communities. There is no economical way to test all the keyboards and mouse out there, but there are common-sense ways to prevent bacterial contamination or eliminate it if it exists. In this study, swabs specimens were collected from surfaces of 250 computer keyboards and mouse and plated on different bacteriological media. Organisms growing on the media were purified and identified using microbiological standards. It was found that all the tested computer keyboards and mouse devices, were positive for microbial contamination. The percentages of isolated bacteria (Staphylococcus spp., Escherichia spp., Pseudomonas spp. and Bacillus spp.) were 43.3%, 40.9%, 30.7%, 34.1%, 18.3%, 18.2%, 7.7% and 6.8% for computer keyboards and mouse respectively. The isolated bacteria were tested against the 6 different disinfectants (Dettol, Isol, Izal, JIK, Purit and Septol®). Antibacterial effects of the disinfectants were also concentration dependent. The agar well diffusion technique for determining Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) was employed. The Killing rate (K) and Decimal Reduction Time (DRT) of the disinfectants on the organism were also determined. The overall result of this study showed that Dettol®, followed by JIK® was highly effective against all the bacterial isolates tested while Septol and Izal® were least effective. Isol and Purit® showed moderate antibacterial effects. Keyboards and mouse should be disinfected daily. However, it is recommended that heightened surveillance of the microbial examination of computer keyboards should be undertaken at predetermiant intervals. VL - 1 IS - 3 ER -
Email: