gms | German Medical Science

GMS Hygiene and Infection Control

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Krankenhaushygiene (DGKH)

ISSN 2196-5226

Artikel

Artikel empfehlen

Review of microbial touchscreen contamination for the determination of reasonable ultraviolet disinfection doses

Literaturstudie zur mikrobiellen Touchscreen-Kontamination als Grundlage zur Abschätzung sinnvoller ultravioletter Bestrahlungsdosen

Review Article

Suche in Medline nach

  • corresponding author Martin Hessling - Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Institute of Medical Engineering and Mechatronics, Ulm, Germany
  • Robin Haag - Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Institute of Medical Engineering and Mechatronics, Ulm, Germany
  • Ben Sicks - Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Institute of Medical Engineering and Mechatronics, Ulm, Germany

GMS Hyg Infect Control 2021;16:Doc30

doi: 10.3205/dgkh000401, urn:nbn:de:0183-dgkh0004018

Veröffentlicht: 2. November 2021

© 2021 Hessling et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). Lizenz-Angaben siehe http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Abstract

Background: Touchscreens are usually microbially contaminated and can therefore act as fomites inside and outside healthcare environments. Due to the increasing use of such touchscreens and the growing awareness of infection risks, approaches that allow safe and automatic disinfection are desired. Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, with its known antimicrobial efficacy, could achieve this goal, but should be executed with limited touchscreen degradation, disinfection duration, and energy consumption. It should also pose as little harm as possible to humans even in case of failure.

Materials and methods: A literature search was performed first to identify the microorganisms most commonly found on touchscreens. Then, the 90% reduction doses (D90 doses) for the different relevant microorganisms and UV spectral ranges were determined from the literature, and irradiation doses are suggested that should reduce most of these important microorganisms by 5 log-levels.

Results: The most frequent microorganisms are staphylococci, bacilli, micrococci, enterococci, pseudomonads and E. coli with small differences between hospital and community environments, if antibiotic resistance properties are ignored. The determined irradiation doses for a 5 log-reduction of the most frequent microorganisms are about 40 mJ/cm2, 80 J/cm2, 500 J/cm2 and 50 mJ/cm2 for the UV spectral ranges UVC, UVB, UVA and far-UVC, respectively. These doses are also sufficient to inactivate all nosocomial ESKAPE pathogens on touchscreens by at least 99.999%.

Conclusion: Disinfection is achievable in all UV spectral ranges, with UVC being the most effective, enabling automatic disinfection within a minute or less. The much higher doses required in the UVB and UVA spectral range result in much longer disinfection durations, with the advantage of a reduced risk to humans. For all kinds of UV irradiation, the doses should be limited to reasonable values to avoid irradiating an already more or less sterile surface and to prevent degradation of touchscreen devices.

Keywords: touchscreen, contamination, staphylococci, ESKAPE pathogens, disinfection, ultraviolet radiation, UVC, UVB, UVA, far-UVC

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Touchscreens weisen meist mikrobielle Kontaminationen auf, die innerhalb und außerhalb von Gesundheitseinrichtungen zu Infektionen führen können. Aufgrund des zunehmenden Einsatzes von Touchscreens und des wachsenden Hygiene-Bewusstseins werden Ansätze gesucht, die eine sichere und möglichst automatische Desinfektion ermöglichen. Ultraviolette (UV) Bestrahlung mit ihrer bekannten antimikrobiellen Wirkung könnte dieses Desinfektionsziel erreichen, doch sollte dies mit einer sinnvollen Begrenzung der Touchscreen-Degradation, der Desinfektionsdauer und des Energieverbrauchs erfolgen und auch im Fehlerfall Menschen möglichst wenig schädigen.

Material und Methoden: Zunächst wird eine Literaturrecherche durchgeführt, um die am häufigsten auf Touchscreens vorkommenden Mikroorganismen zu identifizieren. Dann werden die 90%- Reduktionsdosen (D90-Dosen) für die verschiedenen Mikroorganismen und UV-Spektralbereiche aus der Literatur ermittelt und Bestrahlungsdosen vorgeschlagen, die die meisten der relevanten Mikroorganismen um 5 Log-Stufen reduzieren.

Ergebnisse: Die am häufigsten gefundenen Mikroorganismen sind Staphylokokken, Bazillen, Mikrokokken, Enterokokken, Pseudomonaden und E. coli mit geringen Unterschieden zwischen Gesundheitseinrichtungen und nicht-medizinischen Umgebungen, wenn Antibiotikaresistenzen nicht betrachtet werden. Die ermittelten Bestrahlungsdosen für eine 5 Log-Reduktion der häufigsten Mikroorganismen liegen bei etwa 40 mJ/cm2, 80 J/cm2, 500 J/cm2 und 50 mJ/cm2 für die UV-Spektralbereiche UVC, UVB, UVA bzw. Far-UVC. Diese Dosen reichen auch aus, um alle nosokomialen ESKAPE-Erreger auf Touchscreens um mindestens 99,999% zu inaktivieren.

Schlussfolgerung: Eine Desinfektion ist in allen UV-Spektralbereichen möglich, wobei UVC am wirksamsten ist und eine automatische Desinfektion innerhalb einer Minute oder weniger ermöglicht. Die viel höheren benötigten Dosen im UVB- und UVA-Spektralbereich führen zu einer deutlich längeren Desinfektionsdauer mit dem Vorteil eines geringeren Risikos für den Menschen. Bei allen Arten der UV-Bestrahlung sollten die Dosen auf vernünftige Werte begrenzt werden, um die Bestrahlung einer bereits mehr oder weniger sterilen Oberfläche zu vermeiden und um die Degradation von Touchscreen-Geräten zu minimieren.

Schlüsselwörter: Touchscreen, mikrobielle Kontamination, Staphylokokken, ESKAPE-Erreger, Desinfektion, ultraviolette Strahlung, UVC, UVB, UVA, far-UVC

Gliederung

Introduction

The corona pandemic has raised the awareness for hygiene, microbial contaminations and the importance of disinfection. However, it is not always easy to disinfect all objects and surfaces that are potentially contaminated. This is especially true with the increasing use of touchscreens in all areas of life. While 10 years ago only smartphones and tablet computers bore touchscreens, which were often used by a single person, there are now more or less public touchscreens, e.g., on photocopiers or coffee machines in companies and public ticket machines or ATMs that can be accessed by a large number of people in a short time.

Due to the necessary direct contact of human fingers with the touchscreen, the release and ingestion of microorganisms (including pathogens) is virtually unavoidable. Therefore, it is not surprising that various studies find microbial contamination on up to 100% of touchscreens and that there is concern that such screens are potential vectors of infection [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Consequently, touchscreen disinfection is recommended or even demanded [4], [9], [10], [11].

Chemical disinfectants such as ethanol, hypochlorite and chlorhexidine, as well as ultraviolet irradiation in the spectral range of 200–280 nm, are known to offer good antimicrobial properties [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Unfortunately, both techniques also suffer some significant drawbacks.

The application of chemical disinfectants is prohibited by some device manufacturers and typically requires manual execution, limiting potential applications [22], [23]. Muniz de Oliveira et al. fear that typical hospital disinfectants might damage devices like tablets and smartphones [21], although ethanol-impregnated wipes, for instance, are allowed at least for some touchscreen devices [24], [25]. They are successful against many bacteria [12], [13], [26], but not against Clostridioides difficile for instance and some viruses [12].

Ultraviolet radiation is divided into different ranges depending on the wavelength: UVA: 400–315 nm, UVB: 315–280 nm and UVC: 200–280 nm. UVC exhibits the strongest antimicrobial effect by damaging the DNA and RNA of all microorganisms without exception. Disinfection by ultraviolet radiation is a process that can be performed in minutes or even seconds given sufficient irradiance [8], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [27], [28]. Conceivable applications are those in which this could happen automatically even between two users, e.g., by irradiating the touchscreen from above or from the side, or scanning it as described by Alhmidi et al. [27].

Unfortunately, UVC does not only affect microorganisms, but can also be harmful to humans. However, within UVC. there is the spectral range of 200–230 nm, called far-UVC, which is assumed to be similarly effective as the 254 nm UVC radiation of the widely applied mercury vapor lamps, but poses a much lower risk to humans [29], [30]. Unfortunately, suitable radiation sources are still difficult to obtain and many properties of far-UVC have not yet been sufficiently investigated. UVA and UVB radiation also exhibit antimicrobial effects, but require much higher irradiation doses and thus generally longer irradiation durations compared to UVC. Nevertheless, UVA and UVB can also harm people and damage materials.

In a recent investigation by Khazova et al. [31], 48 commercial home-use UV disinfection devices were investigated for their coronavirus reduction potential and safety to skin and eye. Most of them contained UVC emitters, but also some UVA emitters or even visible light sources. Most of these commercial devices did not exhibit convincing disinfection properties, but posed a threat to humans.

Apart from the possible risk to humans, there are other reasons to limit the irradiation dose for touchscreens to a reasonable level. Touchscreens are technical devices in which, for example, plastics, adhesives or organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) are used. All these materials can degrade under UV irradiation and change their physical properties for the worse [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. Lastly, it should be mentioned that shorter irradiation durations are usually achieved faster and are more environmentally friendly, as less energy and fewer UVC lamps with toxic mercury are required.

Therefore, in the study presented here, the most relevant microorganisms on touchscreens were identified on the basis of scientific publications. With the help of published UV disinfection results, touchscreen irradiation doses for UVC, UVB, and UVA and Far-UVC were determined which result in a 5 log-reduction for the majority of the most frequent touchscreen microorganisms. The question of how often a touchscreen should be reasonably disinfected, especially in a community environment, was not addressed.

Gliederung

Materials and methods

The first step was to identify the most common microbial contaminants on touchscreens. With various combinations of the terms “touchscreen”, “touch display”, “information kiosk”, “electronic menu”, “e-tablet”, “tablet”, “teller machine”, “banking machine”, “computer kiosk”, “contamination”, “bacteria”, “pathogens”, “fungi”, “viruses”, “microorganisms”, “disinfection”, “reduction”, “inactivation”, and “photoinactivation”, a literature search was performed in Pubmed and Google Scholar. References in the retrieved literature were examined for their possible inclusion in this study, as were references citing the identified literature.

Cellphone studies were only included if the phones predominantly had touchscreens. In studies in which touchscreens and key pads were analyzed separately, only the touchscreen data was retrieved. To increase the clarity of this study, among the microorganisms and pathogens found in the individual studies, only those detected in at least 5% of the analyzed samples were considered.

The next step was to count how often the different microorganisms were mentioned in the individual studies. Only the most common ones, whose genera were mentioned at least 5 times (in about 10% of all studies), were included in the further analysis. It was noted whether the contamination studies were performed in a healthcare-related environment. This included touchscreens of healthcare workers, laboratory workers in hospitals, medical students and hospital inpatients. All these results were marked as “hospital” and all others as “community” studies.

For the most frequently mentioned microorganisms, UV irradiation doses for a 90% reduction (D90 dose) were searched in the literature. When multiple results were available, the median of the D90 doses for the genus was determined. This was performed separately for the spectral ranges UVC, UVB, UVA and far-UVC. Afterwards, for each of these ranges, a UV dose was determined which would lead to a 5-log reduction (99.999%) of the majority of the most important microorganisms.

Gliederung

Results

About 46 “hospital” and 24 “community” studies were retrieved that met the above mentioned criteria (see Attachment 1 [Attach. 1]). Most of these involved touchscreens of cell phones in a medical environment. Public touchscreens, such as those of cash dispensers, have been relatively rarely investigated.

Touchscreen contamination rates of 90% and higher were found in about half of the studies, and staphylococci were identified in virtually all of them. Neither of these findings is surprising, given that staphylococci commonly colonize skin and touchscreens are handled with fingers.

A list of the other most frequently mentioned microorganisms can be found in Table 1 [Tab. 1], which specifies all those whose genera were detected at least 5 times in the individual studies. The compilation of this table was somewhat complicated by non-specific determinations such as “gram-negative rods”, “diphtheroid”, “coliforms”, “enterobacteriaceae”, “yeast” and similar descriptions.

The frequency of detected microorganisms on touchscreens in descending order is Staphylococcus spp., Bacillus spp., Micrococcus spp., Pseudomonas spp., E. coli, Enterococcus spp., Klebsiella spp., Streptococcus spp., Corynebacterium spp., and Acinetobacter spp.

In some studies, the authors quantitatively reported contamination as colony forming units (CFU) per square centimeter or per device [11], [28], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. When these data are combined for analysis, assuming a smartphone touchscreen with an area of 100 cm2, a very inconsistent picture emerges. Typical total contamination levels are in the range of 1,000 CFU per device, but there are large outliers above and below this value, with a maximum of 60,000 CFU reported on a single public touchscreen [48].

For the microorganisms in Table 1 [Tab. 1], D90 doses for different UV spectral ranges were searched in the literature and presented in Table 2 [Tab. 2], together with suggestions for a reasonable irradiation dose. Surprisingly, although UV disinfection has been known for more than a hundred years, there is no published data for some combinations of relevant microorganisms and UV spectral ranges.

Each suggested irradiation dose was chosen to reduce all or as much as reasonably possible of the relevant microorganisms by 5 log-levels, which is facilitated by the fact that the most important microorganisms – staphylococci, bacilli, micrococci, pseudomonads, E. coli and enterococci – are quite UV sensitive. Taking roughly 5 times the D90 dose of the known least UV-sensitive microorganism should work for UVC, UVB and UVA. For far-UVC, the streptococci were ignored, because the high D90 value is based on a single study and streptococci are not among the most important microorganisms in this investigation. Additionally, the suggested dose is still sufficient for a 2.5 log-reduction of Streptococcus spp.

Gliederung

Discussion and conclusion

The relevant microorganisms identified here are largely consistent with previous studies [7], [53], [54], [55]. Among gram-positive bacteria, staphylococci, bacilli and micrococci are the most prevalent, and among the gram-negative bacteria, the most common are pseudomonads and E. coli. It is worth mentioning that in this analysis – which did not consider antibiotic resistances – there is no significant difference between the hospital and the community studies. However, there are two exceptions: E. coli is the second-most frequent microorganism in the community studies and Acinetobacter spp. do not play a significant role on community touchscreens. It is also worth noting that the most notorious nosocomial pathogens, the so-called ESKAPE pathogens Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and E. coli/ Enterobacter spp. [56], are among the microorganisms listed in Table 1 [Tab. 1].

So far, no infective coronaviruses have been found on touchscreens, but in the light of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, it may be surprising that only a few viruses and fungi have been observed at all. This does not necessarily mean that touchscreens are mostly free of viruses and fungi, but might be at least partly due to the fact that only a few of the individual touchscreen studies explicitly looked for viruses (5) and fungi (13). In almost all of these virus and fungi studies, viruses (or virus RNA) and fungi were actually found, so it can be assumed that a larger number of corresponding studies might also have detected more viruses and fungi.

The suggested irradiation dose should lead to at least a 5 log-reduction of the most frequent microorganisms. It should be mentioned that a 99.999% reduction is not only a widespread disinfection goal but also a very reasonable one in this application. Even the most highly contaminated device with 60,000 CFU [48] would have less than 1 surviving bacterium after applying the suggested irradiation. Higher doses would result in an unnecessary irradiation of an already more or less sterile touchscreen, consume time and energy, and accelerate degradation. It should be reiterated that all suggested UV irradiation doses are also effective against the notorious ESKAPE pathogens in the hospital/healthcare environment.

The suggested UVC irradiation dose of about 40 mJ/cm2 in Table 2 [Tab. 2] is in accordance with the international standard for drinking water disinfection, EN 14897, which requires at least 40 mJ/cm2 [57]. This UVC dose also roughly matches the 60 mJ/cm2 applied by Liebermann et al. [14].

The necessary or suggested far-UVC irradiation dose of approx. 50 mJ/cm2 is somewhat higher but in a range similar to that of the UVC dose, although far-UVC-D90 data does not yet exist for some microorganisms, including the relevant micrococci. However, this ratio between UVC and far-UVC doses for the selected microorganisms is also in agreement with our previous study, which included a larger number of microorganisms [30].

It should be noted that all UVC and far-UVC applications might fail in the presence of touchscreen scratches. The top glass layer is assumed to exhibit low transmission in the complete UVC region, and therefore microorganisms deep in a scratch are at least partially shielded against irradiation.

This undesirable effect due to scratching should be much less pronounced for UVB and UVA radiation, but here, irradiation doses of approx. 80 and 500 J/cm2 are necessary, which are higher than the UVC suggestions by a factor of 2,000 and 10,000, respectively. Since the power and irradiance of UVB and UVA cannot be arbitrarily increased, such doses are only possible with irradiation durations that are far above possible UVC disinfection times. Therefore, rapid disinfection in the range of minutes hardly seems technically feasible with UVB and UVA radiation, but there remains – especially for the UVA range – the advantage of a reduced hazard to humans.

Finally, we would like to emphasize that this investigation is about reasonable UV-disinfection doses in a hospital and community environment. The necessary frequencies of such disinfection procedures are probably much lower in a community setting than in a hospital, but a recommendation for UV irradiation frequencies was not determined in this study.

Gliederung

Notes

Competing interests

M. Hessling has filed a patent application on surface disinfection. B. Sicks and R. Haag have nothing to declare.

Acknowledgment

This work was financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology as part of the ZIM joint project “Clean Screen” (grant number KK5191602LU1).

Gliederung

References

1.
Brady RR, Verran J, Damani NN, Gibb AP. Review of mobile communication devices as potential reservoirs of nosocomial pathogens. J Hosp Infect. 2009 Apr;71(4):295-300. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2008.12.009 Externer Link
2.
Manning ML, Davis J, Sparnon E, Ballard RM. iPads, droids, and bugs: Infection prevention for mobile handheld devices at the point of care. Am J Infect Control. 2013 Nov;41(11):1073-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2013.03.304 Externer Link
3.
Hirsch EB, Raux BR, Lancaster JW, Mann RL, Leonard SN. Surface microbiology of the iPad tablet computer and the potential to serve as a fomite in both inpatient practice settings as well as outside of the hospital environment. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e111250. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111250 Externer Link
4.
Graveto JM, Costa PJ, Santos CI. Cell Phone Usage by Health Personnel – Preventive Strategies to Decrease Risk of Cross Infection in Clinical Context. Texto Contexto Enferm. 2018;25(1). DOI: 10.1590/0104-07072018005140016 Externer Link
5.
Corrin T, Lin J, MacNaughton C, Mahato S, Rajendiran A. The role of mobile communication devices in the spread of infections within a clinical setting. Environ. Health Rev. 2016;59:63–70. DOI: 10.5864/d2016-014 Externer Link
6.
Sadeeq T, Arikan A, Sanlidag T, Guler E, Suer K. Big Concern for Public Health: Microbial Contamination of Mobile Phones. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2021 Jun;15(6):798-804. DOI: 10.3855/jidc.13708 Externer Link
7.
Omran A, Taha MS. Bacterial contamination of mobile phones among health care workers: A meta-analysis study. J Med Sci Res. 2020;2020:87–94.
8.
Cremers-Pijpers S, van Rossum C, Dautzenberg M, Wertheim H, Tostmann A, Hopman J. Disinfecting handheld electronic devices with UV-C in a healthcare setting. Infect Prev Pract. 2021 Jun;3(2):100133. DOI: 10.1016/j.infpip.2021.100133 Externer Link
9.
Beckstrom AC, Cleman PE, Cassis-Ghavami FL, Kamitsuka MD. Surveillance study of bacterial contamination of the parent’s cell phone in the NICU and the effectiveness of an anti-microbial gel in reducing transmission to the hands. J Perinatol. 2013 Dec;33(12):960-3. DOI: 10.1038/jp.2013.108 Externer Link
10.
Viveka VA. Isolation and Identification of Common Bacterial Contaminants in Mobile Phones Owned by Veterinary Undergraduate Students. J Heal, Medi Nur. 2017;35:92-105.
11.
Jones M, Almeida G, Jones SL, Gibson KE. Prevalence and control of bacteria on single-user touchscreen mobile devices. Food Prot Trends. 2020;40:147-53.
12.
Howell V, Thoppil A, Mariyaselvam M, Jones R, Young H, Sharma S, Blunt M, Young P. Disinfecting the iPad: evaluating effective methods. J Hosp Infect. 2014 Jun;87(2):77-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.012 Externer Link
13.
Koscova J, Hurnikova Z, Pistl J. Degree of Bacterial Contamination of Mobile Phone and Computer Keyboard Surfaces and Efficacy of Disinfection with Chlorhexidine Digluconate and Triclosan to Its Reduction. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Oct;15(10). DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15102238 Externer Link
14.
Lieberman MT, Madden CM, Ma EJ, Fox JG. Evaluation of 6 Methods for Aerobic Bacterial Sanitization of Smartphones. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2018;57:24–9.
15.
Sriram S, Madan Kumar P, Swaminathan R, Venkatesh R, Menaka V. Effectiveness of isopropyl alcohol and ultraviolet-based sanitiser on decontamination of mobile phones used by dental personnel. J Patient Saf Infect Control. 2018;6:19. DOI: 10.4103/jpsic.jpsic_4_18 Externer Link
16.
Resendiz M, Horseman TS, Lustik MB, Nahid A, West GF. Comparative effectiveness of rapid-cycle ultraviolet decontamination to chemical decontamination on high-touch communication devices. Am J Infect Control. 2019 Sep;47(9):1135-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.02.022 Externer Link
17.
Huffman S, Webb C, Spina SP. Investigation into the cleaning methods of smartphones and wearables from infectious contamination in a patient care environment (I-SWIPE). Am J Infect Control. 2020 May;48(5):545-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.09.009 Externer Link
18.
Malhotra S, Wlodarczyk J, Kuo C, Ngo C, Glucoft M, Sumulong I, Smit MA, Bender JM. Shining a light on the pathogenicity of health care providers' mobile phones: Use of a novel ultraviolet-C wave disinfection device. Am J Infect Control. 2020 Nov;48(11):1370-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.05.040 Externer Link
19.
Allen EM, McTague MF, Bay CP, Esposito JG, von Keudell A, Weaver MJ. The effectiveness of germicidal wipes and ultraviolet irradiation in reducing bacterial loads on electronic tablet devices used to obtain patient information in orthopaedic clinics: evaluation of tablet cleaning methods. J Hosp Infect. 2020 Jun;105(2):200-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2020.04.014 Externer Link
20.
Mathew JI, Cadnum JL, Sankar T, Jencson AL, Kundrapu S, Donskey CJ. Evaluation of an enclosed ultraviolet-C radiation device for decontamination of mobile handheld devices. Am J Infect Control. 2016 Jun;44(6):724-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.12.043 Externer Link
21.
Muniz de Oliveira R, da Rosa Gioppo NM, Oliveira de Carvalho J, Carvalho Oliveira F, Webster TJ, Marciano FR, Oliveira Lobo A. Decontamination of mobile phones and electronic devices for health care professionals using a chlorhexidine/carbomer 940® gel. Front Chem Sci Eng. 2019;13:192–8. DOI: 10.1007/s11705-018-1728-5 Externer Link
22.
McGoldrick M. Preventing Contamination of Portable Computers. Home Healthc Now. 2016 Apr;34(4):221. DOI: 10.1097/NHH.0000000000000367 Externer Link
23.
McGoldrick M. Preventing the Transfer of Pathogenic Organisms From the Use of Mobile Phones. Home Healthc Now. 2016 Jan;34(1):45. DOI: 10.1097/NHH.0000000000000330 Externer Link
24.
Apple Inc. How to clean your Apple products. 2021 [Accessed 2021 Aug 5]. Available from: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204172 Externer Link
25.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Keep your Galaxy device clean. 2021 [Accessed 2021 Aug 5]. Available from: https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS00086342/ Externer Link
26.
Fontana CR, Song X, Polymeri A, Goodson JM, Wang X, Soukos NS. The effect of blue light on periodontal biofilm growth in vitro. Lasers Med Sci. 2015 Nov;30(8):2077-86. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-015-1724-7 Externer Link
27.
Alhmidi H, Cadnum JL, Piedrahita CT, John AR, Donskey CJ. Evaluation of an automated ultraviolet-C light disinfection device and patient hand hygiene for reduction of pathogen transfer from interactive touchscreen computer kiosks. Am J Infect Control. 2018 Apr;46(4):464-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.09.032 Externer Link
28.
Muzslay M, Yui S, Ali S, Wilson APR. Ultraviolet-C decontamination of hand-held tablet devices in the healthcare environment using the Codonics D6000™ disinfection system. J Hosp Infect. 2018 Nov;100(3):e60-e63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2018.04.002 Externer Link
29.
The International Ultraviolet Association. Far UV-C Radiation: Current State-of Knowledge (White Paper). Bethesda, MD: IUVA; 2021 May 11. Available from: https://www.iuva.org/UV-C-Radiation-White-Paper Externer Link
30.
Hessling M, Haag R, Sieber N, Vatter P. The impact of far-UVC radiation (200–230 nm) on pathogens, cells, skin, and eyes – a collection and analysis of a hundred years of data. GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2021;16:Doc07. DOI: 10.3205/DGKH000378 Externer Link
31.
Khazova M, Johnstone L, Naldzhiev D, O’Hagan JB. Survey of Home-Use UV Disinfection Products. Photochem Photobiol. 2021 May;97(3):560-5. DOI: 10.1111/php.13423 Externer Link
32.
Stephenson CV, Moses BC, Wilcox WS. Ultraviolet irradiation of plastics. I. Degradation of physical properties. J Polym Sci. 1961;55:451–64. DOI: 10.1002/pol.1961.1205516204 Externer Link
33.
Carrasco F, Pagès P, Pascual S, Colom X. Artificial aging of high-density polyethylene by ultraviolet irradiation. Euro Polymer J. 2001;37:1457–64. DOI: 10.1016/S0014-3057(00)00251-2 Externer Link
34.
Gu H. Degradation of glass fibre/polyester composites after ultraviolet radiation. Materials & Design. 2008;29:1476–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2007.07.010 Externer Link
35.
Boubakri A, Guermazi N, Elleuch K, Ayedi HF. Study of UV-aging of thermoplastic polyurethane material. Mat Sci Eng: A. 2010;527:1649–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2010.01.014 Externer Link
36.
Gomes de Castro Monsores K, Oliveira da Silva A, de Sant’ Ana Oliveira S, Passos Rodrigues JG, Pondé Weber R. Influence of ultraviolet radiation on polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). J Mat Res Tech. 2019;8:3713–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.06.023 Externer Link
37.
Fischer HR, Semprimoschnig C, Mooney C, Rohr T, van Eck ERH, Verkuijlen MHW. Degradation mechanism of silicone glues under UV irradiation and options for designing materials with increased stability. Polym Degr Stab. 2013;98:720–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.12.022 Externer Link
38.
Heil H, Andress G, Schmechel R, Seggern H von, Steiger J, Bonrad K, Sprengard R. Sunlight stability of organic light-emitting diodes. J App Phy. 2005;97:124501. DOI: 10.1063/1.1935130 Externer Link
39.
Askola J, Çalkin Y, Vaskuri A, Poikonen T, Ikonen E. Accelerated ageing of organic LED panels using ultraviolet exposure. Ligh Res Tech. 2019;51:1263–74. DOI: 10.1177/1477153518819654 Externer Link
40.
Kwon SK, Baek JH, Choi HC, Kim SK, Lampande R, Pode R, Kwon JH. Degradation of OLED performance by exposure to UV irradiation. RSC Adv. 2019;9:42561–8. DOI: 10.1039/C9RA09730A Externer Link
41.
Ovca A, Rednak B, Godič Torkar K, Jevšnik M, Bauer M. Students’ mobile phones – how clean are they? Sanitarno inženirstvo. 2012;6:6-18.
42.
Albrecht UV, von Jan U, Sedlacek L, Groos S, Suerbaum S, Vonberg RP. Standardized, App-based disinfection of iPads in a clinical and nonclinical setting: comparative analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug;15(8):e176. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2643 Externer Link
43.
Pal P, Roy A, Moore G, Muzslay M, Lee E, Alder S, Wilson P, Powles T, Wilson P, Kelly J. Keypad mobile phones are associated with a significant increased risk of microbial contamination compared to touchscreen phones. J Infect Prev. 2013;14:65-8. DOI: 10.1177/1757177413475903 Externer Link
44.
Egert M, Späth K, Weik K, Kunzelmann H, Horn C, Kohl M, Blessing F. Bacteria on smartphone touchscreens in a German university setting and evaluation of two popular cleaning methods using commercially available cleaning products. Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2015 Mar;60(2):159-64. DOI: 10.1007/s12223-014-0350-2 Externer Link
45.
Misgana G, Abdissa K, Abebe G. Bacterial contamination of mobile phones of health care workers at Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Jimma, South West Ethiopia. Int J Inf Cont. 2015;11:1–8.
46.
Selim HS, Abaza AF. Microbial contamination of mobile phones in a health care setting in Alexandria, Egypt. GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2015;10:Doc03. DOI: 10.3205/dgkh000246 Externer Link
47.
Murgier J, Coste JF, Cavaignac E, Bayle-Iniguez X, Chiron P, Bonnevialle P, Laffosse JM. Microbial flora on cell-phones in an orthopedic surgery room before and after decontamination. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 Dec;102(8):1093-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2016.09.014 Externer Link
48.
Gerba CP, Wuollet AL, Raisanen P, Lopez GU. Bacterial contamination of computer touch screens. Am J Infect Control. 2016 Mar;44(3):358-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.10.013 Externer Link
49.
Kõljalg S, Mändar R, Sõber T, Rööp T, Mändar R. High level bacterial contamination of secondary school students’ mobile phones. Germs. 2017 Jun;7(2):73-7. DOI: 10.18683/germs.2017.1111 Externer Link
50.
Di Lodovico S, Del Vecchio A, Cataldi V, Di Campli E, Di Bartolomeo S, Cellini L, Di Giulio M. Microbial Contamination of Smartphone Touchscreens of Italian University Students. Curr Microbiol. 2018 Mar;75(3):336-42. DOI: 10.1007/s00284-017-1385-9 Externer Link
51.
Cicciarella Modica D, Maurici M, D’Alò GL, Mozzetti C, Messina A, Distefano A, Pica F, De Filippis P. Taking Screenshots of the Invisible: A Study on Bacterial Contamination of Mobile Phones from University Students of Healthcare Professions in Rome, Italy. Microorganisms. 2020 Jul;8(7):1075. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8071075 Externer Link
52.
Osarenmwinda O, Ofure Blessing O. Quantification, Variability Assessment of Bacterial Pollution and Public Health Hazards Linked to Users of Automated Teller Machines in Ekpoma, Edo State-Nigeria. IJMB. 2020;5:34-40. DOI: 10.11648/j.ijmb.20200501.16 Externer Link
53.
Ulger F, Dilek A, Esen S, Sunbul M, Leblebicioglu H. Are healthcare workers’ mobile phones a potential source of nosocomial infections? Review of the literature. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2015 Oct;9(10):1046-53. DOI: 10.3855/jidc.6104 Externer Link
54.
Olsen M, Campos M, Lohning A, Jones P, Legget J, Bannach-Brown A, McKirdy S, Alghafri R, Tajouri L. Mobile phones represent a pathway for microbial transmission: A scoping review. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020 May-Jun;35:101704. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101704 Externer Link
55.
Mukhtar-Yola M, Andrew B. Are mobile phones of health care workers portals of pathogenic organisms causing hospital acquired infections in intensive care units? A mini systematic review. Nig. J. Paed. 2020;47:207-14. DOI: 10.4314/njp.v47i3.3 Externer Link
56.
Boucher HW, Talbot GH, Bradley JS, Edwards JE, Gilbert D, Rice LB, Scheld M, Spellberg B, Bartlett J. Bad bugs, no drugs: no ESKAPE! An update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jan;48(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1086/595011 Externer Link
57.
DIN EN 14897:2007-09 – Water conditioning equipment inside buildings – Devices using mercury low-pressure ultraviolet radiators – Requirements for performance, safety and testing. Berlin: Beuth; 2007.
58.
Akinyemi KO, Atapu AD, Adetona OO, Coker AO. The potential role of mobile phones in the spread of bacterial infections. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2009 Sep;3(8):628-32. DOI: 10.3855/jidc.556 Externer Link
59.
Brady RR, Hunt AC, Visvanathan A, Rodrigues MA, Graham C, Rae C, Kalima P, Paterson HM, Gibb AP. Mobile phone technology and hospitalized patients: a cross-sectional surveillance study of bacterial colonization, and patient opinions and behaviours. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011 Jun;17(6):830-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03493.x Externer Link
60.
Kiedrowski LM, Perisetti A, Loock MH, Khaitsa ML, Guerrero DM. Disinfection of iPad to reduce contamination with Clostridium difficile and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Infect Control. 2013 Nov;41(11):1136-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2013.01.030 Externer Link
61.
La Fauci V. The Possible Role of Mobile Phones in Spreading Microorganisms in Hospitals. J Microb Biochem Technol. 2014;6(6):334-6. DOI: 10.4172/1948-5948.1000164 Externer Link
62.
Meadow JF, Altrichter AE, Green JL. Mobile phones carry the personal microbiome of their owners. PeerJ. 2014;2:e447. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.447 Externer Link
63.
Mark D, Leonard C, Breen H, Graydon R, O’Gorman C, Kirk S. Mobile phones in clinical practice: reducing the risk of bacterial contamination. Int J Clin Pract. 2014 Sep;68(9):1060-4. DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.12448 Externer Link
64.
Danen P, Duarte A, Barroso H. Comparison of microflora present in mobile phones and in the hands of its owners: detection of antibiotic resistant bacteria. In: International Meeting in Forensic Sciences; 2014 May; Almada, Portugal. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263044335_International_Meeting_in_Forensic_Sciences_C_Comparison_of_microflora_present_in_mobile_phones_and_in_the_hands_of_its_owners_detection_of_antibiotic_resistant_bacteria Externer Link
65.
Koroglu M, Gunal S, Yildiz F, Savas M, Ozer A, Altindis M. Comparison of keypads and touch-screen mobile phones/devices as potential risk for microbial contamination. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2015 Dec;9(12):1308-14. DOI: 10.3855/jidc.6171 Externer Link
66.
Pal K, Chatterjee M, Sen P, Adhya S. Cell Phones of Health Care Professionals: A Silent Source of Bacteria. Nat J Lab Med. 2015;4:33-8.
67.
Elmanama A, Hassona I, Marouf A. Microbial Load of Touchscreen Mobile Phones Used by University Students and Healthcare Staff. JAAU. 2015;1:1–18. DOI: 10.12816/0020268 Externer Link
68.
Khan A, Rao A, Reyes-Sacin C, Hayakawa K, Szpunar S, Riederer K, Kaye K, Fishbain JT, Levine D. Use of portable electronic devices in a hospital setting and their potential for bacterial colonization. Am J Infect Control. 2015 Mar;43(3):286-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2014.11.013 Externer Link
69.
Pillet S, Berthelot P, Gagneux-Brunon A, Mory O, Gay C, Viallon A, Lucht F, Pozzetto B, Botelho-Nevers E. Contamination of healthcare workers’ mobile phones by epidemic viruses. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 May;22(5):456.e1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.12.008 Externer Link
70.
Thomas W, Oller A. Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas Isolated from Mobile Phones and Cheek and Ear Locales. BJMMR. 2016;11:1-8. DOI: 10.9734/BJMMR/2016/20616 Externer Link
71.
Cavari Y, Kaplan O, Zander A, Hazan G, Shemer-Avni Y, Borer A. Healthcare workers mobile phone usage: A potential risk for viral contamination. Surveillance pilot study. Infect Dis (Lond). 2016;48(6):432-5. DOI: 10.3109/23744235.2015.1133926 Externer Link
72.
Jalalmanesh S, Darvishi M, Rahimi M, Akhlaghdoust M. Contamination of Senior Medical Students’ Cell Phones by Nosocomial Infections – A Survey in a University-Affiliated Hospital in Tehran. Shiraz E-Med J. 2017. DOI: 10.5812/semj.43920 Externer Link
73.
Mohd R, Zaman Q, Refat N, Helmi M. Isolation of bacteria from mobile phones before and after decontamination: Study carried out at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2017;11:1371-8.
74.
Raza I, Raza A, Razaa SA, Sadar AB, Qureshi AU, Talib U, Chi G. Surface Microbiology of Smartphone Screen Protectors Among Healthcare Professionals. Cureus. 2017;9:e1989. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.1989 Externer Link
75.
Dakroub R, Nawas T. Vending machine buttons and touchscreens: A surface colonized by pathogenic bacteria. Int J Inn Appl Res. 2017;5:82-8.
76.
AL-Safaar MA. Prevalence of Methicilin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Mobile Phone of Healthcare Workers in Baghdad Teaching Hospital. J Med Sci Cli Res. 2017;05:17796-803. DOI: 10.18535/jmscr/v5i2.98 Externer Link
77.
Canales MB, Craig GC, Boyd Jr J, Markovic M, Chmielewski RA. Dissemination of Pathogens by Mobile Phones in a Single Hospital. ReconRev. 2017. DOI: 10.15438/rr.7.3.192 Externer Link
78.
Martínez-Gonzáles N, Solorzano-Ibarra F, Cabrera-Díaz E, Gutiérrez-González P, Martínez-Chávez L, Pérez-Montaño J, Martínez-Cárdenasa C. Microbial contamination on cell phones used by undergraduate students. Cana J Inf Cont. 2018;32:211-6.
79.
Almugadam BS, Ahmed HM, Osman MB, Omer S. Frequency of MRSA Isolates in Mobile Phones, Ears and Hands of Healthcare Workers. J Antimicrob Agents. 2018. DOI: 10.4172/2472-1212.1000161 Externer Link
80.
Ghatole KP. Mobile Phones – Do We Need Decontamination? jebmh. 2018;5:425-8. DOI: 10.18410/jebmh/2018/86 Externer Link
81.
Tamilpavai R, Rajendra Prasad B, Uma C, Sivagurunathan P, Muthulakshmi K. Incidence Of Nosocomial Pathogens On The Mobile Phones. Indo Am J Phar Sci. 2018;5:272-7. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1225106 Externer Link
82.
Khadka S, Adhikari S, Sapkota S, Shrestha P. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Associated with Mobile Phones. SOJMID. 2018;6:1-6. DOI: 10.15226/sojmid/6/1/00190 Externer Link
83.
Movahhed T, Dehghani M, Ghoddusi T. Evaluation of microbial contamination of mobile phones and computer mice and keyboards in a dental school. J Dental Mat Tech. 2018;7:78-82.
84.
Smith A, Matewele P. Poo found on every McDonald’s touchscreen tested. 2018 [Accessed 2021 Aug 5]. Aviable from: https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/28/poo-found-on-every-mcdonalds-touchscreen-tested-8178486/ Externer Link
85.
Mohammed TK, Jwad MA, Kamal O, Abbas AH, Alabbas AS. Isolation of Some Pathogenic Bacteria and Fungi From Student′s Mobile Phones (Part I). Indian J Public Health Res Dev. 2019;10(10):2108.
86.
Kawakib I. Bacterial contamination on mobile phone devices of undergraduate students in Al-Qurna Education College – Basrah University. World J Phar Res. 2019;8:1-12.
87.
Hadi OM, Fadel RH, Sayal RA, Khudhair SH. The role of mobile phones in the transmission of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among the students and staff of the College of Health and Medical Technology/ Kufa in Najaf, Iraq. J Glob Phar Tech. 2019;11:82-7.
88.
Taher N. Pathogenic Bacteria Isolated from Personal Cell Phones of Health Care Staff in Iraqi Hospitals. J Pure Appl Microbiol. 2019;13:1145-50. DOI: 10.22207/JPAM.13.2.53 Externer Link
89.
Chimbekujwo KI, Bashir M, Aishat M, Bilyaminu M. Prevalence of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Associated with Mobile Phone. Inter Res J Advan Engi Sci. 2019;4:270-2.
90.
Acharjee M, Akter T, Tabassum N, Rahaman MM, Noor R. Prevalence of Methicillin and Vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus on the touchscreen of automated teller machines in Dhaka city. Bangla. J. Microbiol. 2019;36:23-7. DOI: 10.3329/bjm.v36i1.44279 Externer Link
91.
Hikmah N’, Anuar TS. Mobile Phones: A Possible Vehicle of Bacterial Transmission in a Higher Learning Institution in Malaysia. Malays J Med Sci. 2020 Mar;27(2):151-8. DOI: 10.21315/mjms2020.27.2.15 Externer Link
92.
Campista-León S, Garcia-Guerrero JT, Olimón-Andalón V, Peinado-Guevara LI. Isolation of Gram-Positive, Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria from Tactile Mobile Phones in a Northwestern Mexican City. J Community Health. 2020 Oct;45(5):1050-60. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-020-00829-5 Externer Link
93.
Edrees WH, Sadeq Al-Awar M. Bacterial contamination of mobile phones of medical laboratory workers at Sana'a city, Yemen and their antimicrobial susceptibility. J Phar Pharmaco Res. 2020;8:591-9.
94.
Qureshi NQ, Mufarrih SH, Irfan S, Rashid RH, Zubairi AJ, Sadruddin A, Ahmed I, Noordin S. Mobile phones in the orthopedic operating room: Microbial colonization and antimicrobial resistance. World J Orthop. 2020 May;11(5):252-64. DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v11.i5.252 Externer Link
95.
Lam D, Moos M, Meldrum R. Surface microbiology of the electronic menu in all-you-can-eat sushi restaurants in Toronto, Ontario. Environ. Health Rev. 2020;63:14-20. DOI: 10.5864/d2020-003 Externer Link
96.
Gholipour S, Nikaeen M, Mohammadi Manesh R, Aboutalebian S, Shamsizadeh Z, Nasri E, Mirhendi H. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Contamination of High-touch Surfaces in Field Settings. Biomed Environ Sci. 2020;33:925-9. DOI: 10.3967/bes2020.126 Externer Link
97.
Shukla P, Khalid B, Yaqoob S, Ahmad S. Involvement of Mobile phones as a source for Nosocomial infections. Asian J Med Sci. 2021;12:126-9. DOI: 10.3126/ajms.v12i7.34788 Externer Link
98.
Mushabati NA, Samutela MT, Yamba K, Ngulube J, Nakazwe R, Nkhoma P, Kalonda A. Bacterial contamination of mobile phones of healthcare workers at the University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia. Infect Prev Pract. 2021 Jun;3(2):100126. DOI: 10.1016/j.infpip.2021.100126 Externer Link
99.
Kuriyama A, Fujii H, Hotta A, Asanuma R, Irie H. Prevalence of bacterial contamination of touchscreens and posterior surfaces of smartphones owned by healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Jul;21(1):681. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06379-y Externer Link
100.
da Silva SJR, do Nascimento JCF, dos Santos Reis WPM, da Silva CTA, da Silva PG, Germano Mendes RP, Mendonça AA, Rodrigues Santos BN, de Magalhães JJF, Kohl A, Pena L. Widespread Contamination of SARS-CoV-2 on Highly Touched Surfaces in Brazil During the Second Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic [Preprint]. medRxiv. 2021 Jan 01. DOI: 10.1101/2021.06.14.21258894 Externer Link
101.
Nelson A, Kassimatis J, Estoque J, Yang C, McKee G, Bryce E, Hoang L, Daly P, Lysyshyn M, Hayden AS, Harding J, Boraston S, Dawar M, Schwandt M. Environmental detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from medical equipment in long-term care facilities undergoing COVID-19 outbreaks. Am J Infect Control. 2021 Feb;49(2):265-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.07.001 Externer Link
102.
Dawodu OG, Akanbi RB. Isolation and identification of microorganisms associated with automated teller machines on Federal Polytechnic Ede campus. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0254658. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254658 Externer Link
103.
Kowalski W. Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation Handbook. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2009.
104.
Santos AL, Oliveira V, Baptista I, Henriques I, Gomes NC, Almeida A, Correia A, Cunha Â. Wavelength dependence of biological damage induced by UV radiation on bacteria. Arch Microbiol. 2013 Jan;195(1):63-74. DOI: 10.1007/s00203-012-0847-5 Externer Link
105.
Kelland LR, Moss SH, Davies DJ. An action spectrum for ultraviolet radiation-induced membrane damage in Escherichia coli K-12. Photochem Photobiol. 1983 Mar;37(3):301-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1983.tb04477.x Externer Link
106.
Yagi N, Mori M, Hamamoto A, Nakano M, Akutagawa M, Tachibana S, Takahashi A, Ikehara T, Kinouchi Y. Sterilization using 365 nm UV-LED. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;2007:5842-5. DOI: 10.1109/IEMBS.2007.4353676 Externer Link
107.
Lui GY, Roser D, Corkish R, Ashbolt NJ, Stuetz R. Point-of-use water disinfection using ultraviolet and visible light-emitting diodes. Sci Total Environ. 2016 May;553:626-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.039 Externer Link
108.
Takada A, Matsushita K, Horioka S, Furuichi Y, Sumi Y. Bactericidal effects of 310 nm ultraviolet light-emitting diode irradiation on oral bacteria. BMC Oral Health. 2017 Jun;17(1):96. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-017-0382-5 Externer Link
109.
Matafonova GG, Batoev VB, Astakhova SA, Gómez M, Christofi N. Efficiency of KrCl excilamp (222 nm) for inactivation of bacteria in suspension. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008 Dec;47(6):508-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02461.x Externer Link
Gliederung

Attachments

Anhang 1:
Detected microbial contaminations on touchscreens (Attachment1_dgkh000401.pdf, application/pdf, 155,11 kByte)