A study discovered that wristbands made from rubber and plastic had a greater bacterial presence than those made of metal, according to Alex Dolce at Florida Atlantic University.
This new research delves into how various wristband materials can be a breeding ground for harmful pathogenic bacteria.
The global COVID-19 crisis heightened our attention on sanitation methods, but recent findings on a commonly used object indicate that we should maintain our watchfulness.
A team from Florida Atlantic University’s Charles E. Schmidt College of Science embarked on a study of wristbands made from different materials to evaluate their likelihood of holding potentially harmful bacteria. Despite frequent wear, regular cleaning of wristbands is often neglected.
In their analysis, the scientists tested wristbands of plastic, rubber, cloth, leather, and metal (including gold and silver) to explore the relationship between material and bacterial presence. They studied the cleanliness of these wristbands, worn by physically active people, and determined the best methods to sanitize them properly.
Utilizing standard microbiology tests, they examined bacterial quantities, species, and locations on the wristbands. They also tested the efficacy of three different disinfectant solutions: Lysol™ Disinfectant Spray; 70 percent ethanol, often used in hospitals; and a natural alternative, apple cider vinegar.
Credit: Florida Atlantic University
The findings, published in Advances in Infectious Diseases, hint that when buying a wristband, you might want to opt for gold or silver. Almost all (95 percent) of the wristbands were tainted, but rubber and plastic had more bacteria, while metal, particularly gold and silver, had little to none.
Senior author and Professor Nwadiuto Esiobu, Ph.D., noted that plastic and rubber wristbands might be more suitable for bacterial colonization, given their porous and static surfaces.
Material texture and wearer’s hygiene were the main factors in determining bacterial content, with no significant gender difference in bacterial types or distribution.
The study identified bacteria such as Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas, and Escherichia, including E. coli. Among the wristbands, 85 percent had Staphylococcus, 30 percent had Pseudomonas, and 60 percent had E. coli, commonly associated with infections starting through fecal-oral routes.
The research emphasized the need for sanitizing wristbands after strenuous activities like gym workouts.
The study also included insights into types of bacteria like Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas spp., and Enterobacteria, including well-known pathogens like E. coli and Salmonella.
Esiobu highlighted the need for regular cleaning of these wristbands, especially for healthcare workers and others in hospital environments, due to the significant public health implications.
The study found that Lysol™ Disinfectant Spray and 70 percent ethanol were very effective, with a 99.99 percent kill rate within 30 seconds. Apple cider vinegar was less powerful, needing two minutes to decrease bacterial levels. Different active ingredients in disinfectants worked in various ways to kill bacteria.
Esiobu suggested that similar studies on other potential sources of bacterial transmission, like earbuds or cell phones, should be considered.
Reference: “Prevalence and Disinfection of Bacteria Associated with Various Types of Wristbands” by Joseph Mendonca et al., June 2023, Advances in Infectious Diseases. DOI: 10.4236/aid.2023.132018
Table of Contents
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about fokus keyword wristbands
What materials of wristbands were found to harbor the most bacteria?
Rubber and plastic wristbands were found to harbor the most bacteria, with higher bacterial counts than metal ones, particularly gold and silver.
What were the disinfectants used in the study to test their effectiveness on wristbands?
The disinfectants used were Lysol™ Disinfectant Spray, 70 percent ethanol, commonly used in hospitals and alcohol wipes, and a natural alternative, apple cider vinegar.
What percentage of the wristbands were contaminated with bacteria?
95 percent of the wristbands were found to be contaminated with bacteria, with rubber and plastic wristbands having higher bacterial counts.
Who conducted the research and where was it published?
The research was conducted by scientists from Florida Atlantic University’s Charles E. Schmidt College of Science and was published in the journal Advances in Infectious Diseases.
What types of bacteria were commonly found on the wristbands?
Bacteria found on the wristbands were common skin residents like Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas, and intestinal organisms like Escherichia, specifically E. coli.
What does the study suggest about the need for cleaning wristbands?
The study emphasizes the need for regular sanitation of wristbands, as even at relatively low numbers, the bacteria they carry can be of public health significance, especially for healthcare workers and those in hospital environments.
What recommendation does the study make regarding wristband material for future purchases?
The study suggests that metal wristbands, especially gold and silver, are less prone to bacterial contamination and may be a better choice for future purchases.
What was the most effective disinfection method against the bacteria on wristbands?
Lysol™ Disinfectant Spray and 70 percent ethanol were found to be highly effective with a 99.99 percent kill rate within 30 seconds, whereas apple cider vinegar required a full two-minute exposure.
More about fokus keyword wristbands
- Advances in Infectious Diseases Journal
- Florida Atlantic University’s Charles E. Schmidt College of Science
- Lysol™ Disinfectant Spray
