Close
today i learned (til)

Watch what you touch at airports

December 6, 2018

The temperature is cold as you wait in the security line at the airport. The line is going slowly and the TSA is constantly notifying the travelers about what to do when it is their turn to put their items in the bin and wait to be checked on. Finally, you get to the bins and grab one and put all items into their respective bins and wait for the agents to command you to walk through the detectors. As soon as you walk in, you go to the bins and grab your items and quickly get to your gate where you get on your plane and sit down and travel to your destination. Throughout this entire experience, you fail to realize how many people are traveling to and from the airport and how many people are touching everything and how many bacteria and viruses are spreading among these travelers.

Bacteria and viruses can easily spread to one person by different means, such as through the air, contact, exchange of bodily fluids, and improper hygiene (“Fast Facts About How Bacteria Spreads”, 2018). Airborne exchange is through the discharge of microbes by a person who is infected as they cough, sneeze, and laugh (Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention, 2018).

In the airport, different things are being handled by numerous individuals constantly. In 2014, a Today correspondent went to an airport and tested different surfaces for bacteria or viruses. In the test, the correspondent had positive results for the security bins to have traces of fecal matter (Rossen & Davis, 2016). The bins tend to be significantly revolting mainly due to the bins being handled constantly by individuals. In order to clean these bins immediately, it would be inefficient and possibly hold up passengers and slow the security clearance process.

During the travel process, other areas that may contain huge amounts of viruses or bacteria are within the airplane itself. When sitting in an airplane, an individual is accustomed are not only sitting next to many individuals where illnesses could spread easily, but the equipment or seating contains lots of the bacteria or viruses. In a study by TravelMath, there was a test of different places around an airplane and a sample from the tray table had way more bacteria on the table than the flush buttons in the airplane bathrooms (“Airline Hygiene Exposed”, 2015). When also in an airplane, the airport seat pocket is another dirty location for many reasons. On the seat-back pocket MRSA and bacteria E coli was found which lasted for long periods of time (Fottrell, 2018). MRSA is a type of staph bacteria which can cause many skin infections pneumonia or other health issues (“General Info about MRSA”, 2016). These surfaces are constantly being touch by hundreds of people with the bacteria being spread easily, but with certain safe measures, it will be easy to cope and prevent being ill from such. Typically, in airplanes, the seats are immediately cleaned after all passengers have left, but the cleaning completed is not proper. The cleaning is quick in order to seat the next batch of passengers. In the pockets, passengers usually store used napkins, diapers or other trash into these pockets during their flight and cleaning these locations are usually left alone. Based on a study from Auburn university, germs survive up to 7 days on the seat pocket cloth (Clardy, 2014). With these different sites for bacteria, they help the spread of many different diseases.

Different diseases are spread among different individuals with ease at airports due to the huge influx of people. In the airport, various items are constantly being touched by people, and the different viruses and/or bacteria are spread. In a 2018 study, researchers from Helsinki collected surface and air samples during peak season travel dates from Helsinki Airport and the samples tested positive for respiratory viruses such as Rhinovirus, Adenovirus, Influenza A, and many others (Ikonen ,2018). In airplanes and airports, people are always within close proximity with each other, and these various illnesses are easily spread through a simple cough or sneeze.

Different measures could be implemented by a traveler to prevent them from getting ill. A possible solution to such is to take disinfectant wipes along with you in a carry on or personal item that allows you to clean the surface of different places you could potentially touch such as the airport tray table or airport seat or whatever. Another solution would be to keep travel sized hand sanitizer to use once you have touched things such as the airport bins or other things. Lastly, try to be cautious on what you touch as it could be the cause of whether or not you could be getting sick.

References:

Airline Hygiene Exposed. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.travelmath.com/feature/airline-hygiene-exposed/

Clardy, M. (2014). Auburn researchers say harmful bacteria can survive for a week inside airliner cabins. Retrieved from http://ocm.auburn.edu/newsroom/featured_story/airliner.html#.XAA1GmhKiUk

Fast Facts About How Bacteria Spreads | Nova Biologicals. (2018, May 29). Retrieved from https://www.novatx.com/antimicrobial-testing/fast-facts-about-how-bacteria-spreads/

Fottrell, Q. (2018, April 15). Take this seat on an airplane to reduce your chances of getting sick. Retrieved from https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-germs-and-infectious-diseases-spread-on-airplanes-2018-03-20

Rossen, J., & Davis, J. (2016, October 14). Oh no! Filthy secrets about germ exposure during airline travel. Retrieved from https://www.today.com/news/oh-no-filthy-secrets-about-germ-exposure-during-airline-travel-1D79826980

Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention. (2018). Division of Disease Surveillance. Retrieved from https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/infectious-disease/epi/airborne/index.shtml

Niina Ikonen, Carita Savolainen-Kopra, Joanne E. Enstone, Ilpo Kulmala, Pertti Pasanen, Anniina Salmela, . . . Petri Ruutu. (2018, August 29). Deposition of respiratory virus pathogens on frequently touched surfaces at airports. Retrieved from https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-018-3150-5

Tags:
0Likes
Hamza Hamid
About Author

Hamza is a third year Computer Science major with threads in media and people. Hamza is involved with the Muslims Student Association at Georgia Tech. His passions include photography and videography.

You May Also Like

Funny Bone, today i learned (til)
Why the tiny arms?
today i learned (til)
Ghost Fishing – Small Action Big Impact
today i learned (til)
Children of the Night
today i learned (til)
The Joy of Humanity and Clothing: Growing Culture and Protecting Our Planet Earth

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.