Microbial Contamination of Mobile Phone Screens Among Clinical Laboratory Staff in Private Facilities in Tripoli, Libya: Prevalence, Bacterial Spectrum, and Infection Control Implications


Authors : Reyad Mohialdeen; Fouzi A. Ibrahim; Ahmed Al‐Madhoni

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 10 - October


Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3fxnj3x6

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/4tj99duf

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25oct129

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.


Abstract : Mobile phones (MPs) are frequently handled in clinical laboratories and can act as reservoirs for bacteria (1, 2). To estimate the prevalence and spectrum of bacterial contamination on MPs of laboratory staff in private facilities in Tripoli, Libya. We swabbed 60 phone screens using sterile saline-moistened swabs, cultured specimens on standard media, and identified isolates with routine bacteriological methods (3, 4). 51 of 60 phones (85.0%, 95% CI 73.9–91.9) yielded growth. Across 75 isolates, the leading organisms were Staphylococcus epidermidis (20, 26.7%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (16, 21.3%), Escherichia coli (14, 18.7%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (11, 14.7%), Staphylococcus aureus (8, 10.6%), Bacillus spp. (4, 5.3%), and Salmonella spp. (2, 2.7%). MPs used by laboratory personnel showed a high contamination burden, including clinically relevant pathogens. Structured phone-hygiene policies should complement hand hygiene in private-sector laboratories.

Keywords : Mobile Phones; Contamination; Laboratory Staff; Infection Prevention; Libya; Bacteria.

References :

  1. WHO. Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care. Geneva: WHO; 2009.
  2. Boyce JM, Pittet D. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002;51(RR-16):1–45.
  3. Cheesbrough M. District Laboratory Practice in Tropical Countries. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
  4. Forbes BA, et al. Bailey & Scott's Diagnostic Microbiology. 14th ed. Elsevier; 2017.
  5. Zenbaba D, et al. Infect Drug Resist. 2023;16:4701–4717.
  6. Otter JA, et al. J Hosp Infect. 2020;105:1–10.
  7. Brady RR, et al. J Hosp Infect. 2009;71(4):295–300.
  8. Jeske HC, et al. Anaesthesia. 2007;62(9):904–906.
  9. Tusabe F, et al. Pathog Glob Health. 2022;116(3):134–141.
  10. Asfaw T, et al. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2020;30(3):467–476.
  11. Badr RI, et al. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2012;87(3-4):73–78.
  12. Weber DJ, et al. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38(5 Suppl 1):S25–S33.
  13. Loveday HP, et al. J Hosp Infect. 2014;86:S1–S70.
  14. Faires MC, et al. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(9):710–712.
  15. Wilson AP, et al. J Hosp Infect. 2020;104(1):16–23.
  16. Mushabati NA, et al. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0255493.
  17. Pal S, et al. J Family Med Prim Care. 2015;4(3):399–403.
  18. Kuriyama A, et al. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21:1149.
  19. Selim HS, Abaza AF. GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2015;10:Doc03.
  20. Dhayhi N, et al. Microorganisms. 2023;11(8):1986.
  21. Ekrakene T, Igeleke CL. Niger J Microbiol. 2007;21(1):2947–2953.
  22. Ramesh J, et al. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2008;2(5):364–368.
  23. Abired A, et al. MINAR Journal. 2024;6(3).
  24. ISO 14698-1:2003. Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments—Biocontamination control—Part 1.
  25. CLSI. M100 Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 33rd ed. 2023.
  26. Winn W Jr, et al. Koneman’s Color Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology. 7th ed. Lippincott; 2017.
  27. Dean AG, et al. Epi Info™. CDC; 2022.
  28. Goldblatt JG, et al. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(5):344–346.

Mobile phones (MPs) are frequently handled in clinical laboratories and can act as reservoirs for bacteria (1, 2). To estimate the prevalence and spectrum of bacterial contamination on MPs of laboratory staff in private facilities in Tripoli, Libya. We swabbed 60 phone screens using sterile saline-moistened swabs, cultured specimens on standard media, and identified isolates with routine bacteriological methods (3, 4). 51 of 60 phones (85.0%, 95% CI 73.9–91.9) yielded growth. Across 75 isolates, the leading organisms were Staphylococcus epidermidis (20, 26.7%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (16, 21.3%), Escherichia coli (14, 18.7%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (11, 14.7%), Staphylococcus aureus (8, 10.6%), Bacillus spp. (4, 5.3%), and Salmonella spp. (2, 2.7%). MPs used by laboratory personnel showed a high contamination burden, including clinically relevant pathogens. Structured phone-hygiene policies should complement hand hygiene in private-sector laboratories.

Keywords : Mobile Phones; Contamination; Laboratory Staff; Infection Prevention; Libya; Bacteria.

CALL FOR PAPERS


Paper Submission Last Date
31 - December - 2025

Video Explanation for Published paper

Never miss an update from Papermashup

Get notified about the latest tutorials and downloads.

Subscribe by Email

Get alerts directly into your inbox after each post and stay updated.
Subscribe
OR

Subscribe by RSS

Add our RSS to your feedreader to get regular updates from us.
Subscribe