Are Microbes Everywhere?

By: Staesha Pitcher, Keesha Miller and Ashley de Sa

Abstract
We investigated which surfaces would produce the highest number of
colonies of using an aseptic technique. Sterile cotton swabs and Petri dishes
containing sterile nutrient ajar were used to culture the bacteria. The
different colors and shapes of the colonies indicated the amount of different
bacteria produced. Our results showed that even though other experiments
produced more bacteria, the money contained more different types of
colonies displaying at least three to the naked eye. Other surfaces that were
swabbed like the fish tank cultivated more colonies of the same type of
bacteria.
Introduction
Individual bacterial cells are microscopic so we are not able to see them with
the naked eye. However, using an aseptic technique to culture bacteria, we
are able to see the colonies that millions of them can form together.
Reproduction is what leads to variance among a species. Because bacteria
and microbes can reproduce by the millions, they are able to thrive and
survive anywhere. We can find them in places as common as a door knob or
in extreme conditioned environments like salt lakes (these are called
extremophiles). We wanted to investigate where different microbes would be
more likely to grow and were eager to learn firsthand about bacterias ability
to reproduce, vary, and survive anywhere.
Our independent variable was the surfaces that we chose to swab while our
dependent variable was the amount of colonies that grew from each
swabbed surface. In order to come to a conclusion we had to answer the
question of which surfaces would produce the highest number of colonies of
bacteria. In order to do this; each of us swabbed two surfaces and inoculated
them in to Petri dishes containing sterile nutrient ajar. We hypothesized that
if there was more activity from organisms on the surface, then the more
colonies of bacteria would grow. Our individual hypotheses on which of our
experiments would produce more colonies went as follows:
Keesha
Surface 1: inoculated bacteria from money

Surface 2: inoculated bacteria from the human mouth

Which one would produce more colonies? Our mouths are filled with
millions of different bacteria so I would expect at least two different cultures
to grow. Because of the amount of bacteria in the mouth I think that the
mouth will be able to generate more bacteria in the Petri dish. However,
because money is circulated all around the world and has been in so many
dirty places, I think that it would have more of a chance to become home to
more different species of bacteria. I think that the money will produce more
colonies/ different types of bacteria than the mouth would, even though the
mouth might be more prevalent in the number of bacteria produced.
Ashley
Surface 1: inoculated bacteria from doorknob
Surface 2: inoculated bacteria from fish tank glass
Which one would produce more colonies? Door knobs are a high traffic area
for bacteria since people are constantly touching doorknobs to enter and
leave a room. The doorknob is cleaned, so this means that we should find
fewer bacteria on it than would be expected had it not been cleaned.
However the fish tank was dirty. Water can contain a lot of bacteria and that
water would have splashed up against the glass. A moist environment is an
ideal place for bacteria; it is the perfect breeding ground. Since the fish tank
was bacteria welcoming I think it will result in more bacteria than the door
knob which has a lower chance of finding bacteria or a lot because it is
cleaned often.
Staesha
Surface 1: inoculated bacteria from a fish tank
Surface 2: inoculated bacteria from a handrail
Which one would produce more colonies? Many different things are found in
fish tank water other than fish, including bedding, artificial plants and gravel
or rock bedding and dcor. These varied items allow for organisms to grow,
mostly algae, and bacteria to be produced. Since its a closed environment,
not many variations of bacteria are likely to form. A handrail, however, is
open for use by anything. Since so many different things brush against the
handrail, whether it is a hand or a jacket or a person sitting on it, more
variations of bacteria should be found on a handrail. I think that more

colonies of bacteria will be found in a sample from the handrail than in a

sample from the fish tank water.
Materials and Methods
To begin our culturing experiment we each gathered two Petri dishes with
sterile agar and two packaged cotton swabs. We then decided on what areas
we would use as samples for our lab; Hallett Hall handrail, fish tank water
and glass (bio lab), the biology lab rooms doorknob, a ten dollar bill and the
mouth of a college student. In order to collect these samples, we took our
cotton swabs and Petri dishes to our selected areas and took the cotton swab
out of the package and dragged the cotton tip over the area. We then
opened the Petri dish, only enough for the tip of the cotton swab to enter in
order to prevent other bacteria from entering, and gently dragged the swab
over the surface of the agar in an s formation; closing the Petri dish directly
after. Our samples were then incubated for about 65 hours to allow for
cultures, if any, to grow. After the incubation period, we observed changes in
our Petri dish samples, looking for colonies and coverage, as well as textures
found in the samples that we collected.

Results
Fish Tank Water:
Approximately 85% coverage
Undulate Texture
3 of the same colonies

Hallett Hall Handrail:

Approximately 80% coverage
Lobate texture
About 5 of the same colonies

Colonies are mostly oval like or circular

Money:
Approximately 7% coverage
About 2 different colonies
(some were bright yellow, some were pasty white)
Colonies were clustered in almost perfect circles

Student Mouth:
Approximately 25% coverage
More than 1 species of bacteria
(Some yellow, others a paler yellow)
Colonies are mostly perfect circles
Irregular texture

Biology Lab Doorknob:

No results

Fish Tank Glass:

Approximately 75% coverage
Undulate texture

Discussion
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Coverage (%)
Colonies (#)

The data showed that Keeshas hypothesis was not supported because the
money had a small percentage of coverage while the students mouth had a
significantly higher percent of coverage. This could be because the money
had not been passed around as much as assumed and not gotten into
contact with a lot of bacteria. A mouth however has a lot of germs inside of
it. Also the swab may have not picked up the bacteria on the money as well
as it did in the mouth because the mouth is a moist environment and the
money is not. The hypothesis amount of colonies was supported by the data.
To improve the time and pressure to get the sample could be done at a
constant.
The data did not support Staeshas hypothesis because there was slightly
more coverage in the fish tank water than on the Hallett Hall handrail. This
may have been because the hand rail is cleaned more regularly than the fish
tank water. Her hypothesis was supported by the data though because
Hallett Hall handrail did have a greater variety of bacteria than the fish tank
water.
The data supported Ashleys hypothesis, although it was also found to be
false because there was no growth on the doorknob plate. This may be
because the cleaner had come recently and cleaned the door knob
thoroughly. To improve a swab of the door knob can be done before the
cleaner comes around. The fish tank did have a lot of coverage like
hypothesized.
Ways to improve the experiment is to swab a certain amount and keep that
constant as well as the pressure used when swabbing. Also the swab should
cover the same amount of the Petri dish when it inculcates it. Another thing
is the expose the swab and Petri dish to the least amount of contamination
as possible and this can be done by taking the swab out and immediately
taking the sample and immediately inculcating it on the Petri dish and
opening the Petri dish just enough to get the swab inside.