The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparative surface-to-hand and fingertip-to-mouth transfer efficiency of gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, and phage
Abstract
Aims: To determine the transfer efficiency of micro-organisms from fomites to hands and the subsequent transfer from the fingertip to the lip. Methods and Results: Volunteers hands were sampled after the normal usage of fomites seeded with a pooled culture of a Gram-positive bacterium (Micrococcus luteus), a Gram-negative bacterium (Serratia rubidea) and phage PRD-1 (Period A). Activities included wringing out a dishcloth/sponge, turning on/off a kitchen faucet, cutting up a carrot, making hamburger patties, holding a phone receiver, and removing laundry from the washing machine. Transfer efficiencies were 38·47% to 65·80% and 27·59% to 40·03% for the phone receiver and faucet, respectively. Transfer efficiencies from porous fomites were <0·01%. In most cases, M.luteus was transferred most efficiently, followed by phage PRD-1 and S. rubidea. When the volunteers' fingertips were inoculated with the pooled organisms and held to the lip area (Period B), transfer rates of 40·99%, 33·97%, and 33·90% occurred with M. luteus, S. rubidea, and PRD-1, respectively. Conclusions: The highest bacteral transfer rates from fomites to the hands were seen with the hard, non-porous surfaces. Even with low transfer rates, the numbers of bacteria transferred to the hands were still high (up to 106 cells). Transfer of bacteria from the fingertip to the lip is similar to that observed from hard surfaces to hands. Significance and Impact of the Study: Infectious doses of pathogens may be transferred to the mouth after handling an everyday contaminated household object.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Medgyesi, D. N., Brogan, J. M., Sewell, D. K., Creve-Coeur, J. P., Kwong, L. H., & Baker, K. K. (2018) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph15081646 · Cited by 39
Medgyesi, D., Sewell, D., Senesac, R., Cumming, O., Mumma, J., & Baker, K. K. (2019) · PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0007292 · Cited by 37
Evaluation of a Disinfectant Wipe Intervention on Fomite-to-Finger Microbial Transfer
Lopez, G. U., Kitajima, M., Havas, A., Gerba, C. P., & Reynolds, K. A. (2014) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.04235-13 · Cited by 34
Self-citationGretsch, S. R., Ampofo, J. A., Baker, K. K., Clennon, J., Null, C. A., Peprah, D., Reese, H., Robb, K., Teunis, P., Wellington, N., et al. (2016) · Journal of Water and Health · doi:10.2166/wh.2015.138 · Cited by 33
Cross-contamination in the kitchen: a model for quantitative microbiological risk assessment
Iulietto, M. F., & Evers, E. G. (2024) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.14232 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Rusin, P., Maxwell, S., & Gerba, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Microbiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-10-01
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 585-592
- ISSN
- 1364-5072 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2672
- OpenAlex
- W1971925202
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative surface-to-hand and fingertip-to-mouth transfer efficiency of gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, and phage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2002.01734.x
- The paper
- Rusin, P., Maxwell, S., & Gerba, C. (2002). Comparative surface-to-hand and fingertip-to-mouth transfer efficiency of gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, and phage. Journal of Applied Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2002.01734.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.