The since the two viruses are similar in shape,

The purpose of this lab is to answer the guiding question: How
does antibacterial solutions affect the number of bacteria swabbed from the
doorknob? The goal of the study is to find which bacterial disinfectant
has the most effect on removing the amount of bacteria found on doorknobs. In a
recent study conducted by researchers they found that one of the many diseases
found on doorknobs are bacteriophage MS-2, which is a surrogate for the human
norovirus. Norovirus is one of the most common causes of the stomach flu, since
the two viruses are similar in shape, size, and resistance to disinfectants.
Every year the norovirus causes millions of illnesses and thousands of
hospitalizations and up to hundreds of deaths. Touching surfaces or objects contaminated with
norovirus, and then touching your mouth, is a common source of infection. The Norovirus relates back
to the research question because the Norovirus could be present on the doorknob
in our classroom and it’s important to find which cleaning solution has the
most effect in our experiment to combat this disease.

For the procedure, the first step was to gather 5 Q-tips, 5 petri
dishes, tweezers, 250 ml Erlenmeyer flasks (Karter Scientific), cleaning
solutions (Purell, Lysol, Clorox, and water), scotch tape, and paper towels.
The second step was to use the Q-tips to swab the doorknob 5 times repeatedly.
The third step was to swab the contaminated Q-tip on each of the 5 petri
dishes. The fourth step was to obtain a sample of each of the cleaning
solutions. There was no specific amount we used, we poured the amount we
desired of each solution into the flasks. The fifth step was to cut three small
circles of the paper towel and dip it into the solution, with the exception of
lysol wipes because we cut the wipes into three small circles. The sixth step
was to use a tweezer to put all the paper towels soaked in the solutions into
the 4 petri dishes. The seventh step was to swab a Q-tip on Alex’s apple watch
for comparison to the door knob. Then, we repeated steps 4-6. The eighth step
was get a piece of scotch tape and write the name of the cleaning solution on
it and tape it on each of the petri dish. The eighth and final step was to
observe and analyze the results of the remaining amount of bacteria in the
petri dishes each day we would come to class. The reason why we used this
procedure was to test which cleaning solutions had the most effect on the
bacteria. We conducted this experiment on January 11- January 19 in our
classroom in room temperature over the span of 7 school days, but we only
collected samples twice on day 1 and day 5. The data we collected was the
remaining amount of bacteria growth in each petri dish. We collected this for
our data because we wanted to observe how the cleaning solutions would impact
the amount of bacteria daily. We used a table and graph down below to analyze
and record our results each time we came to class. The reason why the analysis
of the graph helped us answer the guiding question was that it showed which
cleaning solutions had the most effect on the growth of bacteria compared to
all the other samples. This will help us determine which cleaning solution
people should use for future purposes. The independent variable in this
experiment was the bacteria and we manipulated this by putting the paper towels
soaked in the cleaning solutions into the infected petri dish. The dependent
variables was the cleaning solutions and there was no direct way to measure
this, we used as much solution as we needed to soak the paper towels. The
control variable was the doorknob and we controlled this by using the same
doorknob each time and made sure no cleaning solution came into contact with
it, while we were conducting samples.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Studies have shown Purell hand-sanitizer has been the most
effective towards killing bacteria because it contains ethyl alcohol, which is
the main active ingredient. It is also one of the safest and most effective
antimicrobial ingredients known. Multiple studies have been done that proved
the safety and effectiveness of alcohol-based hand sanitizers. There was a
study done on the effectiveness of hand hygiene on illness rate among people in
universities. Results showed that the increase in hand hygiene behavior and
reduction in symptoms, absenteeism, and illness rates between the control and
product group was statistically significant. The total improvement in the rate
of illness was 20%. The product group has 43% less missed school/work days. In
this case, we can infer that it is true based on our hypothesis: if the least
amount of bacteria is present, then Purell is the cleaning solution used.

Our results for the experiments showed that the majority of the
samples were clear. The table and graph below shows that on day 1, no growth of
bacteria was shown on any of the petri dishes. It may have been due to not
having enough time for the bacteria to grow. On day 5, the results of the
bacteria were all clear except water. There was mold growing around the paper
towels. This proves that the cleaning solutions were effective in removing all
of the bacteria, with water being the only exception. We believe water was the
weakest cleaning solution because it was not strong enough and had no
antibacterial properties compared to all the other cleaning solutions. All of
our samples were clear and showed no sign of bacteria. However, for water on
day 5, we counted three colonies of bacteria/mold growing around the paper
towels. This showed water was not effective in removing all the bacteria from
the doorknob. According to our data, we can accept our claim to our guiding
question: if the least amount of bacteria is present, then Purell is the
cleaning solution used. Although the results from all of our samples were
clear, except water, Purell has been proven to be the most effective in
removing the most bacteria because it contains ethyl alcohol, and none of the
other cleaning solutions contain that active agent. This evidence is important
because it shows that by using Purell, it can prevent you from getting sick or
getting a disease, such as Norovirus.

An example of where you can see this happening is in the U.S. at
Yellowstone National Park during June 2013 because it was one of the worst
breakouts. An average person can experience Norovirus up to five times in their
life. It’s spread by direct contact with an individual who has Norovirus or
touching surfaces or objects contaminated with Norovirus on them and then
touching your face and mouth. One way the spread of Norovirus can be reduced is
disinfecting and cleaning contaminated surfaces. As well as using the Purell
hand-sanitizer frequently since it’s effective against Norovirus. My underlying
assumption for the justification of evidence is that the Norovirus infection is
highly contagious and occurs frequently in closed environments, such as
hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and day-care centers, which can cause
foodborne illness, as well as gastroenteritis. So, it is important to use
hand-sanitizer frequently to prevent illnesses in areas such as this.

There were no difficulties or complications that occurred when we
conducted this experiment. However, the only mistake that occurred was when
Elysia accidentally put the Lysol instead of water in the sample, but that did
not affect our results or data because we did not include that in our data for
comparison. As well as not checking on our samples daily because that affected
the results of the growth of bacteria for our graph and table.

Our experiment was one of the many experiments that our class
groups conducted in class. The claims made by other groups differed from ours
because they used soap as their antibacterial solution and claimed that
although they used different types of soap, but not all were able to kill the
bacteria completely. Their claim did not relate back to our claim because we
did not use soap as our antibacterial solution. I think they should’ve used a
different additional cleaning solution for comparison to their other cleaning
agents. In my opinion, they would have a better chance or possibility of having
a solution that removes all the bacteria. In addition, another study was
conducted that was very similar to our experiment. They used antibacterial
solutions and saw a major decrease in the growth of bacteria. They claimed that
the antibacterial solutions that they used, such as hand-sanitizer, Lysol, and
Clorox were effective in removing all the bacteria from surfaces, such as
doorknobs and phones. Their claim and results proved that these cleaning
solutions are effective in removing bacteria and shows that the public can
trust these products for cleaning and preventing illnesses.