This site uses cookies for learning about our traffic, we store no personal details. ACCEPT COOKIES DECLINE COOKIES What are cookies?
univerge site banner
Original Article | Open Access | Am. J. Pure Appl. Sci., 2020; 2(3), 94-103. | doi: 10.34104/ajpab.020.0940103

Molecular Identification and Characterization of Smartphone Screen Associated Pathogenic Bacteria

Shirmin Islam ,
Md. Moniruzzaman ,
Md. Joy Pramanik ,
Tabassum Jabin ,
Mst. Merina Mostari ,
Al-Imran ,
Jui Biswas ,
Md. Salah Uddin ,
Md. Abu Saleh* Mail Img ,
Shahriar Zaman

Abstract

Mobile phone is a device that keeps in contact with our sensitive body parts including faces, hands, nose, ears, and lips, etc. most of the time. Although we know many bad aspects of mobile phones; we are indifferent to their bacterial contamination. The smartphone screen is an endless reservoir of pathogenic bacteria and works as an object in spreading those bacteria. The purpose of the study was to identify pathogenic bacteria from smartphone screens and finding some common causes of bacterial contamination. So, a public survey was conducted among 100 students from the Dept. of Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology, the University of Rajshahi to know the uses pattern of their particular smartphone. Then, the lab-based work samples were collected from the smartphone screen of the students by sterile swabs moistened with normal saline water. Among the samples, four strains were selected based on bacterial concentration for further analysis. Out of four, two strains were gram-positive and two were gram-negative. Biochemical tests indicated that all of them were pathogenic and the selected gram-positive bacteria were coagulase-positive Staphylococcus species and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus species.16S-rRNA gene sequencing identified the selected two-gram negative strains as Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Klebsiella pneumoniae. The antibiotic sensitivity test referred that all the bacteria were multidrug-resistant and may be dangerous for compromised immune patients. 

INTRODUCTION

Mobile phone is a device that brings the whole world into our hands. Now it is impossible to think of a day without a mobile phone. In this twenty-first century about 3.5 billion people are using smartphones around the world (https://www.statista.com/ statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users world wide/). We use mobile phones for commercial, educational and personal purposes. The addiction of mobile phones is becoming the newest cigarette for the young stars (Vivekananda et al., 2017). Mobile phone screens are a potential source of nosocomial pathogenic bacteria (Bodena et al., 2019). A typical 

mobile phone is carrying over 25,000 bacteria per square inch which is much higher than toilet seats (https://info.debgroup.com/ blog/bid/290652/your-mobile-phone-is-dirtier-than-you-think). Continuous use of touch screen produces heat which provides favorable condition for bacteria to grow and multiply (Chauhan et al., 2018). Mobile keeps in touch with the close proximity of our face, nose, ears, hands (Morubagal et al., 2017). 

We use mobile phones in hospitals, markets, in public gatherings, while eating as well as washrooms, which are a common source of contamination. The pathogens can be transmitted easily through sharing personal phones with others and those pathogens can be dangerous for compromised immune patients and cause mild to moderate diseases (Koscova et al., 2018). We touch our phone screen more than other items on a single day and are not aware of cleaning the phone screen. 9 out of 10 cell phones contain germs that can cause flu and other diseases (http://sanimag.sanimarc.com/ shocking-statistics-on-cell-phones-andgerms). Com-mon bacteria found in phone screen were multidrug resistant Staphylococcus, coagulase negative Staphylococcus, E. coli, K. pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Acinetobacter species, Pseudomonas spp. and Enterococcus spp. etc (Pal et al., 2015). Generally those pathogens do not attack a healthy person but could pose catastrophic effects to a cancer patient or premature infant or any other immune compromised person as it settles into an incision (Koscova et al., 2018). 

The present research work deals with the isolation, characterization, antibiotic sensitivity testing and molecular identification of the bacteria isolated from the smartphone screen of the students of the Department of Genetic Engineering and Biotech-nology, University of Rajshahi and investigating the relationship between the bacterial contaminants present and the behavioral patterns of their smartphone as well as increasing awareness among people to maintain proper hygiene and healthy use of smartphone.

RESULTS

Public survey - According to the survey, 95% students used smartphones and only 5% used feature phones (Fig 1A). 75% of students knew that smartphone screens might contain bacteria (Fig 1B) but they were not aware of it. 92% of students took their phone to the bedside while sleeping (Fig 1C). Most of the students (84%) did not use headphones or others while talking. So, the phone remains in close contact with their faces most of the time (Fig 1D).  

Fig 1: Diverse uses of mobile phones. (A), Types of phone used; (B), Having knowledge of bacterial contamination; (C), Keeping phone while sleeping; (D), Use of headphones; (E), Presence of scratch on phone screen; (F). Sharing phones with others; (G), Using phone at hospital; (H), Uses of the phone when they are sick; 

Fig 2: Streaking of isolated bacteria on various selective media. Isolate 1 on MacConkey Agar; (A), isolate 2 on MacConkey Agar; (B), Isolate 3 and isolate 4 on Mannitol Salt Agar, where X indicating coagulase positive and Y indicating coagulase negative; (C), beta hemolytic activity of isolate 3 on Blood Agar; (D).

65% students phone screen had scratch, which provides potential growth space for bacteria to multiply (Fig 1E). Sharing phones with others were also observed in 71% students (Fig 1F). Hospital, which is a reservoir of pathogenic bacteria, in such a place 97% students carried their phone without any protection (Fig 1G). 88% of students used phones in compromised immune conditions (Fig 1H). Most of the students were careless about cleaning their phones, only 40% students cleaned their smartphone screen regularly (Fig 1I) and 10% used cleanser to clean it (Fig 1J).

Isolation of bacterial strains on selective media - Three selective media i.e. MacConkey agar medium, Mannitol salt agar medium and Blood agar medium were used for the isolation of bacteria. Isolate 1 and isolate 2 showed positive results on MacConkey agar medium. Isolate 1 produced colorless colony and isolate 2 produced pink colored colonies on Mac-Conkey agar. Isolate 3 and isolate 4 were MacConkey negative (Fig 2 and Table 2). 

On mannitol salt agar media, isolate 3 produced yellow colored colonies indicating coagulase positive Staphylococcus spp. and isolate 4 produced pink colored colonies indicating coagulase negative Staphylococcus spp. While isolate 1 and isolate 2 were MSA negative (Table 2). On blood agar media, only isolate 3 had beta hemolytic activity and others had gamma hemolytic activity (Table 2).

Morphological and biochemical tests - In grams staining test isolate 1 and isolate 2 showed rod shaped pink colored colonies under microscope indicating gram negative bacteria whereas isolate 3 and isolate 4 were cocci shaped purple colored colonies indicating gram positive (Table 3). 

Biochemical test results are summarized in Table 3. Except isolate 3, other three isolates were methyl red negative (Fig 3A). All the isolates were positive in catalase, starch agar test and EMB agar test (Fig 3B, Fig 4A, Fig 4B, and Table 3). Isolate 1 and isolate 2 were positive against Simmons citrate, TSI and BSA test (Fig 3C, Fig 3E, Fig 4C, and Table 3). In urea hydrolysis test, except isolate 1, all were positive (Fig 3D, and Table 3).

Antibiotic sensitivity test - The results are presented in Table 4. From this table it was seen that all of the four strains were resistant to Amoxicillin, Cefixime and Penicillin. On the contrary all the strains were susceptible to Gentamicin & Ciprofloxacin. Cefuroxime is resistant for isolate 1 and isolate 2 but susceptible for isolate 3 and isolate 4. Tetracycline is resistant for isolate 1, isolate 2 and isolate 3 but susceptible for isolate 4 (Table 4).

Molecular identification

The sequences (Fig 5) were blasted through NCBI blast tools. Isolated 1 (96.90% similarity) and isolate 2 (97.24% similarity) were identified as S. maltophilia (NC_010943.10.003) and K. pneumoniae (NC_015663.10.00081) respectively. Then for understanding the phylogenetic relationship among the bacteria isolated from mobile and related genera, a tree was constructed using neighbor joining algorithm with Clustal 

DISCUSSION

Smartphones are an integral part of our life, truly becoming our own personal assistant. Phone screen is the endless reservoir of bacteria which poses health risks that are not present in any of the items we use in our daily lives and work as a means of disease transmission (Shahaby et al., 2012). 

Students use mobile phones for their educational purposes as well as for their requirements. The research work was aimed to make people aware that their most useful smartphone can be a source of disease causing bacteria. So, personal hygiene and decontaminating smartphone screens are mandatory. Similar kind of work focusing on this purpose has not been attempted in Bangladesh before. In our work, a statistical survey was conducted among 100 students of the department of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Rajshahi. Although 95% of students use smartphones, they do not use it smartly. Being the students of biological science, 75% students know that it may be a source of bacteria but their using pattern is not reflecting it. They used smartphones in the hospitals, in the public gatherings as well as in the washroom also, which is the source of bacteria. Those bacteria can attack us when our immunity becomes weak, in such an immune compromised condition 88% students use smartphones. Only 40% students clean their phones regularly, among them only 10% use cleansers. 

Most of the persons used their phone without any protection thus causing more exposure to electromagnetic radiation and subsequently, increases the incidence of health complications. Different experimental data suggest that the various harmful components including  electromagnetic  radiation  from  cell  phones  can  create  life threatening  diseases  like  cancer (Needhidasan et  al., 2014). 

So, making people aware of its healthy use is mandatory. On contrary for lab based work 10 samples were collected from the students smartphone screen, 100% of the samples were contaminated. Among the samples 4 strains were isolated.  Morphological, biochemical and molecular analysis confirmed those isolates as S. matophilia, K. pneumoniae (According to 16S rRNA sequencing) and coagulase positive Staphylococcus spp. And coagulase negative Staphylococcus spp. (According to Bergeys Mannual of Determinative Bacteriology). K. pneumoniae, Staphylococcus spp. are common phone bacteria which were found by many researchers (Cerda et al., 2006; Al-Abdalall et al., 2010). 

But this is the first report of S.matophilia in smartphones. All of the bacteria are multi drug resistant and biofilm producing nosocomial bacteria. S. matophilia is an emerging global opportunistic pathogen, causing hospital-acquired infections, such as bacteremia, pneumonia, endocarditis, and meningitis, as well as urinary tract, ocular, bone and joint, skin, soft tissue, and gastrointestinal infections (Alqahtani et al., 2017). K. pneumoniae is also a common phone screen bacteria, which causes severe infections, and may serve as a vehicle for the spread of nosocomial pathogens (Karabay et al., 2007).  Coagulase positive and negative Staphylococcus are major human pathogen that causes a wide range of clinical infections such as bacteremia, infective endocarditis as well as osteo articular, skin and soft tissue infections, pleura pulmonary, and device-related infections and nosocomial infections (Yu et al., 2017).

CONCLUSION

The present work clearly indicated that smart phones could be contaminated with gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. Factors like irregular cleaning, presence of scratches, ages of phone and sharing mobile phones with others trends to alter the occurrence of different species of bacteria on the touch pad. Thus awareness should be made for the potential threats of mobile phones in harboring pathogens in order to reduce the risk of community-acquired infections.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We express our deepest gratitude and thanks to Almighty Allah and all those who have helped and supported us along the way. The authors received no funding from an external source. 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The author (s) declared no potential conflicts of the interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article. 

Article References:

  1. Al-Abdalall AHA. (2010). ‘Isolation and identification of microbes associated with mobile phones in Dammam in eastern Saudi Arabia, Journal of Family and Community Medicine, 17(1), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-1683.68783  
  2. Alqahtani JM. (2017). ‘Emergence of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia nosocomial isolates in a Saudi childrens hospital: risk factors and clinical characteristics, Saudi medical journal, 38(5), 521-527. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2017.5.16375  
  3. Bauer AW. (1966). ‘Antibiotic susceptibi-lity testing by a standardized single disc method, Am J clinpathol, 45, 149-158. PMID: 5325707
  4. Bodena D, Teklemariam, Z, Balakrishnan, S & Tesfa, T. (2019). ‘Bacterial conta-mination of mobile phones of health professionals in Eastern Ethiopia: antimic-robial susceptibility and associated factors, Tropical medicine and health, 47, pp. 15.https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0144-y 
  5. Chauhan A, Garg, S, & Ranjan, AA. (2018). ‘Prevalence of microbial contamin-ation of mobile cell phones in general population of Delhi, India, J Exp Clin Microbiol, 1(1), 12-15.
  6. Karabay O, Koçoglu, E & Tahtaci, M. (2007). ‘The role of mobile phones in the spread of bacteria associated with noso-comial infections, J Infect Dev Ctries, 1(1), 72-73.
  7. Koscova J, Hurnikova, Z & Pistl, J. (2018). Degree of bacterial contamination of mobile phone and computer keyboard surfaces and efficacy of disinfection with chlorhexidine digluconate and triclosan to its reduction, International j. of environmental research and public health, 15(10), pp. 2238. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102238 
  8. Morubagal RR, Shivappa, SG, Mahale, RP & Neelambike, SM. (2017). ‘Study of bacterial flora associated with mobile phones of healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers, Iranian journal of microbiology, 9(3), pp.143.
  9. PMCID: PMC5719508 
  10. Needhidasan S, Samuel, M & R Chidambaram, R.  (2014). ‘Electronic waste: an emerging threat to the environment of urban India, J. Env. H. Sci. Eng, 12: 36.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2052-336X-12-36  
  11. Pal S, Juyal, D, Adekhandi, S, Sharma, M, Prakash, R, Sharma, N & Parihar, A. (2015). ‘Mobile phones: Reservoirs for the transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Advanced biomedical research, 4, pp. 144.https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.161553  
  12. Patrick Boshell, (2013) ‘Your Mobile Phone Is Dirtier Than You Think debgroup,17 July, 2013.www.debgroup.com/blog/bid/290652/your-mobile-phone-is-dirtier-than-you-think/ 
  13. Rahman MA, Uddin ME, and Ahmed R. (2019). Isolation, identification and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of Salmonella spp. from locally isolated egg samples, Am. J. Pure Appl. Sci., 1(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.34104/ajpab.019.019111  
  14. S. ODea. (2020). “Number of smartphone users worldwide from 2016 to 2021” Statista 12 Mar, 2020.www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-usersworldwide/  
  15. Sani Marc (2017). “Shocking Statistics on Cell Phones and Germs” Sani Marc Group, 7 November, 2017.www.sanimag.sanimarc.com/shocking-statistics-on-cell-phones-and-germs/  
  16. Shahaby AF, Awad, NS, El-Tarras, AE & Bahobial, AS. (2012). ‘Mobile phone as potential reservoirs of bacterial pathogens, African Journal of Biotechnology, 11(92), 15896-15904. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB12.1836 
  17. Cerda B, Soto C, Albaladejo MD, Martinez P, Sanchez-Gascon F, Tomas Barberan F & Espin JC. (2006). ‘Pomegranate juice supplementation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a 5-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Europ J Clin Nutr, 60, 245-253.
  18. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602309 
  19. Vivekananda VA. (2017). ‘Isolation and identification of common bacterial contaminants in mobile phones owned by veterinary undergraduate students, Journal of Health, Medicine and Nursing, 35, 93-105. 
  20. Yu W, Kim, HK, Rauch, S, Schneewind, O & Missiakas, D. (2017). ‘Pathogenic conversion of coagulase-negative staphylococci, Microbes and infection, 19(2), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2016.12.002 

Article Info:

Md. Ekhlas Uddin Dipu, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Gono Bishwabidalay, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Received

May 9, 2020

Accepted

June 3, 2020

Published

June 17, 2020

Article DOI: 10.34104/ajpab.020.0940103

Corresponding author

Cite this article

Islam S, Moniruzzaman M, Pramanik MJ, Jabin T, Mostari MM, Biswas J, Al-Imran, Uddin MS, Saleh MA, ShahriarZaman. (2020). Molecular identification and characterization of smartphone screen associated pathogenic bacteria. Am. J. Pure Appl. Sci., 2(3), 94-103. https://doi.org/10.34104/ajpab.020.0940103 

Related Articles

Views
710
Download
1150
Citations
Badge Img
Share