DOWNLOAD the Paper Posting HTML Formating HELP SHEET!
We also have a GUIDE for depositing articles, images, data, etc in your research folders.
|
|
Dirty Business
Abstract:
For our NS1 student generated lab our group will be studying bacteria growth in the bathroom stalls of Peabody and Tappan Halls. We will be taking samples from each stall in both bathrooms, observing the bacteria samples as they grow and multiply, and eventually hoping to discover which stall produces the most germs. Whichever stall has produced the most bacteria by the end of the study will be considered the dirtiest. Through research we learned that the bathrooms stalls that are often most used are the inner stalls. It seems that the outer stalls are often skipped over in an attempt to gain privacy. Women especially feel less revealed when in between two stalls rather than exposed on one side. Through our research we hope to answer the following questions: How quickly does bathroom bacteria grow? Does all bathroom bacteria grow at the same rate regardless of what stall it comes from? Which stall has the most bacteria? Overall, are the bathrooms in Peabody Hall or Tappan Hall less contaminated?
Introduction:
Sitting in Alexander Dinning Hall one evening, the four of us were discussing possible ideas for our student-generated lab. We began talking about bacteria and cleanliness while eating, which then led to a conversation on hand washing. Our initial idea was to observe studentsÕ hand washing habits in the bathroom. We quickly decided, however, that this study would be difficult to objectively conduct, but we wanted to stick with the idea of cleanliness. To do this we modified our idea and came up with our present lab experiment. Our group will be studying the amount of germs that develop in the public toilet stalls of Tappan and Peabody Halls. Our research led us to the following facts. The dirtiest places in a bathroom are as follows: exterior of the sanitary disposal bin, floor around the toilet, sink and taps, toilet seat, and then the flush handle. Perhaps what is more revolting is knowing that the toilet is usually cleaner than many kitchen surfaces because public bathrooms are more frequently disinfected and thoroughly cleaned, while kitchen counters are usually just wiped off. With our information we began to form our hypothesis, keeping in mind that perhaps the toilet seats would not be as germ infested as we had originally thought. There was one other fact that helped us to form our hypothesis. It has now been established from research that the middle stalls in public restrooms are most commonly used and thus the most contaminated. Women especially will choose the inner-stalls in an attempt to distance themselves from other bathroom users to gain the most privacy. With all of our research in mind, we decided that the purpose of our research would be to determine which of the toilet stalls in Peabody and Tappan Halls are the most contaminated. The stall that is found to produce the most bacteria at the end of the study period will be considered the most contaminated stall. The bacteria will be studied and observed for amount, growth rate, and differences between the different stall samples. This process will be further commented on in the Materials and Methods section of this proposal. Our lab group is expecting to find that the bathroom stalls closest to the doors (the outer stalls) will produce the least amounts of bacteria, and the inner stalls will be the most contaminated. We will be running the experiment in two halls to have more samples, which will hopefully reduce the possibility for error.
Our lab group feels that this experiment is relevant to college life and could have great application for the future. All of us are new to the college life, which includes our first prolonged experience using public bathrooms for our private use. We are interested in finding out how germ-infested public bathrooms really are since we have to use them every day. Germs and bacteria are also something to be concerned with when living with a large group of people because they have the potential to spread so quickly. Determining which stall is the least contaminated, allows a person to attempt to reduce their exposure to disease causing bacteria and viruses, and thus lower their chance of getting themselves and those around them sick. If our results prove to be accurate, they could serve to raise awareness about personal hygiene, specifically proper hand washing to stay healthy.
Background Information:
Our experiment will be studying bacteria in the bathroom. For this reason, our group felt it necessary to educate us on the various bathroom bacteria and their possible health consequences. One reason bathrooms are conducive to bacteria is because the basic nature of a bathroom. There are120 viruses in feces, so when a toilet is flushed water particles with more than 25,000 virus particles and 600,000 bacteria are ejected from the toilet bowl and can settle on any surface as far as six feet away from the toilet. These particles will last several hours and have the potential, especially in public toilets, to cause disease. These water particles can contain bacteria like salmonella, E. coli, or streptococcus pygoenes. Although salmonella is most commonly thought of in relation to raw eggs, poultry, and eating cookie dough, it can also be transmitted by humans who do not wash their hands after coming in contact with infected feces. As disgusting as this is, there are people who do not properly wash their hands that use public bathrooms. Salmonellosis is the infection caused by the bacteria salmonella. The infection usually lasts 4-7 days and can cause diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. In some rare cases salmonella can be fatal if it spreads from the intestines to the blood stream. Those with an impaired immune system have a lesser chance of surviving such an infection. E. coli is the abbreviated name of the bacterium in the Family Enterobacteriaceae. Strangley enough, some of these bacteria are necessary and healthy in a personÕs intestines. It helps create vitamins that a body can absorb and then use. The bad form of these E. coli bacteria are unhealthy because they are a different strain from the E. coli our body needs to properly function. The bad strains of E. coli are dangerous because they produce harmful toxins that cause severe damage to intestinal epithelial cells that line the intestinal walls. These toxins result in a loss of the bodyÕs water and salt and cause sever bleeding and hemorrhaging. It can take several hours up to several days for the symptoms to occur, and the best way to reduce the risk of getting these symptoms if, of course, to thoroughly wash hands and forearms after using public restrooms. The other bacteria found in water particles from toilets is streptococcus pygoenes. It is what commonly cause sore throats or strep throat and is relevant to bathroom bacteria because it is found in throats and on skin. Usually it results in relatively mild illness, however, it can cause what is known as the flesh-eating bacteria (necrotizing fasciitis) streptococcal toxic shock syndrome. The contagiousness of this bacteria is eliminated after a 24 hour period of treatment with an antibiotic. As with almost all bacteria, washing hands after sneezing, blowing oneÕs nose, or going to the bathroom will reduce the risk of passing them on. It is also important to wash hands before eating and limiting physical contact when infected.
These are only three of the 600,000 possible bacteria that are ejected from the toilet bowl after one flush. I think it becomes apparent as to why a public bathroom is a breeding ground for bacteria and why it is imperative to wash oneÕs hands after using the toilet.
Relevance of Research Question:
Our lab group feels that this experiment is relevant to college life and could have great application for the future. All of us are new to the college life, which includes our first prolonged experience using public bathrooms for our private use. We are interested in finding out how germ-infested public bathrooms really are since we have to use them every day. Germs and bacteria are also something to be concerned with when living with a large group of people because they have the potential to spread so quickly. Determining which stall is the least contaminated allows a person to attempt to reduce her exposure to disease-causing bacteria and viruses, and thus lower her chance of getting herself and those around her sick. If our results prove to be accurate, they could serve to raise awareness about personal hygiene, specifically proper hand washing to stay healthy.
Materials and Methods:
The materials we need for our experiment include:
´ 40 Petri dishes ¨¢ four samples per stall; 4 stalls in Peabody Hall and 6 in Tappan Hall
´ Agar (bacteria food) to fill each Petri dish
´ Latex gloves for sanitary purposes
´ 40 cotton swabs to collect bacteria from seats
´ Paper and pencils for recording data and taking notes
´ Masking tape for labeling Petri dishes
´ Microscope for analyzing bacterial growth
´ Slides and cover slips for microscope evaluations
´ Bunsen burners to heat Agar gel
´ Cool, dark area to grow the bacteria
Procedures:
To set up our experiment, we will begin by boiling the Agar solution until it becomes clear; it will sit until it becomes thick, and then we will pour the solution into the Petri dishes. After this is ready, we can begin to collect our bacteria samples. We will take two samples from two places on the toilet in each stall; cotton swabs will be rubbed around the top of the toilet seat, while two will be rubbed underneath the toilet seat. The Petri dish will be quickly opened and the cotton swab will be swiped on the Agar solution. We will quickly close the lid so that outside elements do not taint our samples, seal the dishes, and label them for later observation. This will be repeated for each toilet stall in both bathrooms until weÕve collected 40 samples.
We will store the 40 samples in a cool, dark area in Boyd Hall, checking these samples every Tuesday and Thursday after class. When we check the samples, we will be observing mass, percentage of area covered by growth, color, and other characteristics of the colony. We will document our observations in a notebook, including drawn diagrams and perhaps digital photographs of the growth progress. One group member will be assigned to observe each one of these variables; in this way, we will have consistent documentation in each area.
Results:
Two days after taking samples of the bathroom bacteria the plates were examined and observations were noted. The first sample in each stall comes from the front, center of the toilet seat and referred to as Center. The other sample came from the very back of the seat and will be referred to as Back. The plates were examined for variations between the samples in growth color, size, and type. Pictures were also taken of each plate to more accurately and easily show what we have observed.
We were able to make several main generalizations and comparisons after observing the plates. Focusing first on the plates from Tappan Hall we discovered that Trial A seemed to be much less contaminated than Trial B. The ten plates from Trial A, two for each toilet stall, had a limited amount of color variation. Only three of the ten plates had other colors in addition to the milky white color that was found to be the color of the bacteria on every plate. The plates from Trial A also exhibited bacteria growths that were more regular in shape. Although the size of the growths varied from plate to plate and within each plate, the shape was very consistently circular. The bacteria growth on the plates from Trial B, however, have a wide range of color variation and shape. The Back plates from stalls 1, 4, and 5 have dark red and orange colored bacteria. The Back stall 2 has greenish bacteria and almost all the plates from Trial B have a more yellow tint to the bacteria growth than Trial A. The aforementioned plates also have growths that are fan-like, wispy, and irregularly shaped, which contrasts greatly to the shape of the bacteria in Trial A.
We contribute the differences in bacteria growth color and shape between Trials A and B to the bacteria type. Unfortunately, we were not able to identify or name the bacteria growing in the plates. Even with detailed descriptions of the size, shape and color of the colonies, one still does not have enough information to identify bacteria in any precise or accurate way. Despite this, we believe that because there are several distinct types of color that each one represents a different bacteria or bacteria strain. The page titled Bacteria Classifications lists all the various bacteria types we found throughout all the plate samples. It first appeared that the trials taken in Tappan Hall had much more variation, however, we soon discovered that the two trials done in Peabody Hall have almost as much variation. It is less obvious because Trial B for Tappan Hall was the only trial that contained type 6 bacteria. This bacteria is the most prevalent and malignant looking and the reason our initial observations were somewhat mistaken. For Peabody Hall the plates labeled 1-4 comprised Trial A, leaving stalls 5-8 making up Trial B. While Trial A exhibits type 5 bacteria, Trial B does not. In a similar manner Trial B exhibits type 7 bacteria while Trail A does not. These sorts of observations demonstrated that several samples were necessary for our experiment. If we were to do this experiment again it would probably be beneficial to do three or even four trials of each stall.
These qualitative observations were helpful at the very beginning but it became laborious and difficult to use the observations when working with our hypothesis. For this reason we decided on a quantitative method to determine which bathroom stall was the most contaminated. Using a grid of 1 cm2 boxes we were able to calculate the percent cover of bacteria for each plate. The results of our calculations are found in the following charts and graphs. For Trial A of Tappan Hall the outer stalls were stalls 1 and 5. Stall 5 was the least contaminated with 27% and 18% coverage for the center and back parts of the toilet seat. This would support our hypothesis that the outer stalls in a bathroom are less contaminated than the inner stalls. As suspected, the Back Stall 3 was the most contaminated with 67% coverage. Stall 1, however, did not support our hypothesis because it had 44% and 32% coverage, making it the second most contaminated stall in that trial. Trial BÕs plates, although they contain much worse looking bacteria, actually have less percent cover and are also inconsistent in terms of supporting or denying our hypothesis. There seems to be really no consistency between which stall or which area of the stall (back or center) is more contaminated. It is not impossible that the saline solution or another material could have been disrupted when doing Trial B, however, there is no explanation for the erratic results that our lab group could think of.
The percent cover for Trial A of Peabody Hall also varied and did not really support our hypothesis. Stall 1 had 42% and 21% cover for the center and back, making it the second most contaminated stall while Stall 4 had 24% and 3% for the center and back, making it the least contaminated. Although these findings do not support our hypothesis, we were able to find a trend in this trial. For every stall in Trial A the center position on the toilet seat had much more percent cover than the back portion of the seat. This is the only trail that consistently confirmed this trend, although most of the stalls from Trial B also follow a similar trend. Stall 4, the outer most stall from Trial B, is the least contaminated stall supporting our hypothesis, however, Stall 1 is not.
Bacteria Classifications
Type 1
Type 1a
Type 1b
Type 2
Type 2a
Type 2b
Type 3
Type 4
Type 5
Type 6
Type 7
Type 8
Type 9
Discussions and Conclusions:
The purpose of our experiment was to try and determine which stalls are most contaminated. We hypothesized that the outer stalls would be the least contaminated and, therefore, have the least amount of bacteria growth on the plate because they would be used less often. After calculating the percent cover for each plate, we realize that our results reject our hypothesis. Not one of the four trials in our experiment supported our hypothesis totally. Trials A and B of Peabody and Trial A of Tappan had at least one of the two outer stalls that were the least contaminated, however, never did both of the outer stalls end up the least contaminated.
If we were to carry out this experiment again there are several things we would consider revising in our hypothesis. Taking several samples in different areas on just one toilet seat would be much more efficient if we wanted to explore bacteria types more closely. In this case, the experiment would have perhaps a dozen trials over a longer period of time to closely observe the bacteria that grew on the plates. Observing just one hall of bathroom stalls probably would have been more accurate to determine if the outer stalls are least contaminated. Although it was excellent to be able to compare the results of one hall another, the plates were much more volatile than we would have ever expected. In addition to this, if one wanted to further explore the idea of which toilet stall is the least contaminated it would be more accurate to carry out the experiment in public restrooms instead of dorm bathrooms. Although dozens of people use any bathroom, it is the same people who consider the bathroom ÒtheirsÓ. For this reason many people have ÒtheirÓ stall that they always use. Having a more random and larger sampling of people who use a public bathroom would probably give more accurate results. For our experiment, however, comparing our own bathrooms was more interesting and convenient.
Because the results of our experiment were not consistent nor did they support our hypothesis we reflected on several factors that could have effected our experiment and its outcome. It is possible that in Tappan Hall, Trial B came out less contaminated and much different than Trial A because there are many uncontrollable factors that can occur in a public space. Although the two trials were done at the same time two days apart it is possible that the cleaning schedule was varied and the Trail A samples were taken sooner after the toilets were cleaned. There are also things to consider like the people and their personal hygiene that were using the stalls before the samples were taken. Other factors one must consider is the elapsed time period between when the toilet was last used and when the sample was taken, the contents of the toilet, and how well the toilets were cleaned. Peabody Hall was also susceptible to these uncontrolled variables, however, because the Trials from Peabody were more similar we thought of the variables when examining the plates from Tappan.
Although our results rejected our hypothesis we feel that we still learned a lot from our experiment. We all now know how to use the basic lab equipment involved in bacteria sampling and know how to take and preserve samples of bacteria. In addition to this, we began to realize the vast array of bacteria that most exist if such variation was found in the small samplings we took from the toilet seats. Finally, we realized how prevalent bacteria is in our daily lives, how important it is to wash oneÕs hands after using the restroom, and how easily bacteria can be transferred from one person to another.
Literature Cited:
Brown, John C. http://people.ku.edu/~jbrown/ecoli.html. ÒWhat the heck is an E. coli?Ó September 16, 1997.
Gerba, Chuck. http://www.HealthCentral.com. ÒHow Simple is Toliet Seat Sanitation?ÓSeptember, 251995.
Marston, Wendy. The HypochondriacÕs Handbook. Chronicle Book LLC, 1998.
Pickering, Nancy. http://www.worldtoliet.org/articles/wts2001/Paruresis. ÒParuresis: The secret Bathroom Phobia.
Sheff, Barbara. http://www.elibrary.com. ÒMicrobe of the Month: Streptococcus pygoenes.Ó January 1, 2002
http://www.iconnect.co.ke/health/260302.shtml. ÒWhat canÕt you catch?Ó Medical Health. October 27, 2003
http://content.health.msn.com. ÒWhat can you catch in restrooms?Ó WebMD Feature. June 10, 2002.
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu
IMPORTANT: For each Response, make sure the title of the response is different than previous titles shown above!
DOWNLOAD the Paper Posting HTML Formating HELP SHEET!
We also have a GUIDE for depositing articles, images, data, etc in your research folders.
Article complete. Click HERE to return to the Pre-Course Presentation Outline and Paper Posting Menu.
WEATHER & EARTH SCIENCE RESOURCES |
|
OTHER ACADEMIC COURSES, STUDENT RESEARCH, OTHER STUFF
|
|
TEACHING TOOLS & OTHER STUFF
 |
DOWNLOAD the Paper Posting HTML Formating HELP SHEET!
We also have a GUIDE for depositing articles, images, data, etc in your research folders.
Listen to a "Voice Navigation" Intro!
(Quicktime or