Wearing watches and rings has been shown to increase the hand carriage of potential pathogens [1]. Hygiene practice is very essential for preventing transmission of infectious agent in every sector including food industry, health care instituctions, household works and other sectors in the community [1-4]. Bacteria found on hands could be categorized as either resident or transient microbiota [5,6]. A number of medical researchers reported that the jewelry may have different microorganisms. But in 2009, the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) and World Health Organization (WHO) never put any recommendation about the role of jewelry and watches in microbial disease transmission [7] because this subject need more studies and investigations.After 2009, the Microbiologists have reported and proven that bracelets, watches and rings wore pathogenic bacteria and fungi of poor +persons or have hygiene and this studied with fluorescent trail [8]. ln Spanish hospital, 93% of those worn watches and bracelets were missed lines or areas on the wrist [9].

In the first, each swab sample, was mixed gently with 10ml of a sterile distilled water [10]. The number of bacteria that suspected present in each sample had numerated with standard plate count method [11]. After that the 1ml of each diluted sample was poured in a sterile petri dish and then 20ml of sterile nutrient agar was added, mixed and left to solidify in room temperature. The plates incubated aerobically at 37⁰C for 18 -24 hours, and then the bacterial colonies were identified macroscopically and microscopically [12,13].

The second step, each swab mixed with 10ml of Brain Heart infusion broth to enhance the bacterial growth before culturing on other enriched, selective and differential culture media. Blood agar, MacConkey agar, Nutrient agar and Mannitol salt agar were incubated with Brain heart infusion. All the plates were incubated at 37⁰C for 18 -24 hours. The identification of isolated bacteria was done by examined the morphology of colonies, gram stained, coagulase, catalase tests and other biochemical tests to identify the particular bacteria [14].

120 swabs were taken from the wristwatch of participants. 53 (44.2%) had bacteria while 67(55.8%) had no bacteria isolated from it. Table 3 indicated the total number of bacteria isolated and the type of bacteria organisms found on the wristwatches. The bacteria are: Staphylococcus epidemidis 18(15%) Streptococcus species 13 (11%) Staphylococcus aureus 11 (9%) Pseudomonas aeruginosa 8 (7%) and Escherichia coli 3 (2.5%). Table 1 illustrates the age bracket involved in the study and the number of male and female that participated. 68 (56.7%) were male and 52 (43.3%) were female.15 -20 years were the highest number involved in the study while the least aged number 46 -50years.

Table 2 shows the type of wristwatch used for the study.The chain wristwatch had the highest number of participants 50 (41.7%) followed by leather wristwatch 40 (33.3%), rubber wristwatch 24 (20%) and the least wristwatch used was gold wristwatch 6 (5%).

The aim of the study is to isolate bacteria present in the wristwatch of students and staff of the university to ensure safety measure are mounted to prevent transmission of bacterial infection. This study was not in agreement with report of [13] that 95% of Norwegian healthcare workers who wore wristwatch had bacteria associated with Enterobacteriaceae in addition to Staphylococcus aureus on rings and their hands. Similarly, not in agreement with [9] that 84.3% of medical staff in hospitals found their rings, necklaces and watches were contaminated with bacteria. Although this study was on students and staff of a university which reported 56.7% were male and 43.3% female which was not as high as reported by the researchers. We cannot categorically ascribe the high increase of the subjects the researchers reported as peculiar to healthcare workers other factors could also be responsible and contributed to it, but that will be unraveled in the next study. However, it is crystal clear that bacteria were incriminated by the researchers report which also was identified and isolated in our study. Studies on watches and rings were well carried out in hospitals or health related facilities but not much was conducted in the universities therefore the current study is apt to showcase it foray in the university expecially in Southwest Nigeria. In contrast the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have not developed any laws or recommendations on wearing rings and watches while entering operating theaters [9].

Table 1: Samples of male and females                                    

Table 2: Type of wristwatch used by different ages

Table 3: indicated the total number of bacteria isolated and the type of bacteria organisms found on the wristwatches

The study revealed that wristwatches can be potential source and harbinger for dissemination of contamination and bacterial infection by the wearers. The need to practice hand hygiene regularly by the students and staff of the university is the right step to curtail it prevalence. 

Acknowledgement

l wish to thank all the member of staff of the university expecialy volunteers for their cooperation and support also laboratory staff are highly commended.

Conflict of Interest

lnformed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. 

1. Trick, W.E. et al. “The Impact of Ring Wearing on Hand Contamination and the Comparison of Hand Hygiene in a Hospital.” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 36, 2003, pp. 1383–1390.

2. Aiello, A.E., and E.L. Larson. “What Is the Evidence for a Causal Link between Hygiene and Infection?” The Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 2, 2002, pp. 103–110.

3. Curtis, V., and S. Cairncross. “Effect of Washing Hands with Soap on Diarrhea Risk in the Community: A Systematic Review.” The Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 3, 2003, pp. 275–281.

4. Larson, E.L. et al. “Microbial Flora of the Hands of Homemakers.” American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 31, 2003, pp. 72–79.

5. Yildrum, I. et al. “Prospective Comparative Study of Relationship between Different Types of Ring and Microbial Hand Colonization among Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Nurses.” International Nursing Studies, vol. 45, 2008, pp. 1572–1576.

6. Boyce, J.M., and D. Pittet. “Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: Recommendation of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force.” MMWR Recommendations and Reports, vol. 51, 2002, pp. 1–45.

7. World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Healthcare: First Global Patient Safety Challenge – Clean Care Is Safer Care. WHO, 2009.

8. Hautemaniere, A. et al. “Factors Determining Poor Practice in Alcoholic Gel Hand Rub Technique in Hospital Workers.” Journal of Infection and Public Health, vol. 3, no. 1, 2010, pp. 25–34.

9. Ramon-Canton, C. et al. “Evaluation of a Hand Hygiene Technique in Healthcare Workers.” Revista de Calidad Asistencial, vol. 26, no. 6, 2011, pp. 376–379.

10. Khudhur, T.M. et al. “Isolation of Some Pathogenic Bacteria and Fungi from Students’ Mobile Phones.” Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development, vol. 10, 2019, pp. 75.

11. Coke, J.K., and W. Marr. Practical Medical Microbiology, 14th ed., Churchill Livingstone, 1996, pp. 113–129.

12. Sharmin, M. et al. “Microbiological Profiling and Demonstration In Vitro Antibacterial Traits of the Major Oral Herbal Medicine Used in Dhaka Metropolis.” SpringerPlus, vol. 3, 2014, p. 739.

13. Fagermes, M., and E. Lingaas. “Factors Interfering with the Microflora in Hands: A Regression Analysis of Samples from 465 Health Care Workers.” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 67, no. 2, 2010, pp. 297–307.

14. Cheesebrough, M. District Laboratory Practice in Tropical Countries, Part 2. Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 624–635.