Hot air electric hand driers compared with paper towels for potential spread of airborne bacteria

Matthews, J.; Newsom, S.W.B.

doi:10.1016/0195-6701(87)90101-0

Cited by 29 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…62 Some studies indicated that electric air dryers are of inferior effectiveness when it comes to the issue of hygiene, 39,43,44 whereas others were of a firm opinion that they are a safe and effective means of hand drying. 47,48 The large discrepancy among studies may be partly explained by the differences in the experimental protocols used. The degree of wetness is an important factor in determining the number of bacteria detected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Hygienic Efficacy of Different Hand-Drying Methods: A Review of the Evidence

Huang

Stack³

2012

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

109

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transmission of bacteria is more likely to occur from wet skin than from dry skin; therefore, the proper drying of hands after washing should be an integral part of the hand hygiene process in health care. This article systematically reviews the research on the hygienic efficacy of different hand-drying methods. A literature search was conducted in April 2011 using the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Search terms used were hand dryer and hand drying. The search was limited to articles published in English from January 1970 through March 2011. Twelve studies were included in the review. Hand-drying effectiveness includes the speed of drying, degree of dryness, effective removal of bacteria, and prevention of cross-contamination. This review found little agreement regarding the relative effectiveness of electric air dryers. However, most studies suggest that paper towels can dry hands efficiently, remove bacteria effectively, and cause less contamination of the washroom environment. From a hygiene viewpoint, paper towels are superior to electric air dryers. Paper towels should be recommended in locations where hygiene is paramount, such as hospitals and clinics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Hygienic Efficacy of Different Hand-Drying Methods: A Review of the Evidence

Huang

Stack³

2012

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

109

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been relatively few studies evaluating the capacity for the different hand‐drying devices to aerosolize and disperse microbial contamination on the hands into the immediate environment and to other persons using a washroom. Matthews and Newsom () concluded that there was no significant difference between warm air dryers and paper towels in terms of aerosol liberation and that the former could be considered safe but Ngeow et al . () demonstrated the dispersal of marker bacteria within a radius of 1 m from a warm air dryer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the potential for virus dispersal during hand drying: a comparison of three methods

Kimmitt

Redway

2016

J Appl Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To use a MS2 bacteriophage model to compare three hand-drying methods, paper towels (PT), a warm air dryer (WAD) and a jet air dryer (JAD), for their potential to disperse viruses and contaminate the immediate environment during use. Methods and Results: Participants washed their gloved hands with a suspension of MS2 bacteriophage and hands were dried with one of the three hand-drying devices. The quantity of MS2 present in the areas around each device was determined using a plaque assay. Samples were collected from plates containing the indicator strain, placed at varying heights and distances and also from the air. Over a height range of 0Á15-1Á65 m, the JAD dispersed an average of >60 and >1300-fold more plaque-forming units (PFU) compared to the WAD and PT (P < 0Á0001), respectively. The JAD dispersed an average of >20 and >190-fold more PFU in total compared to WAD and PT at all distances tested up to 3 m (P < 0Á01) respectively. Air samples collected around each device 15 min after use indicated that the JAD dispersed an average of >50 and >100-fold more PFU compared to the WAD and PT (P < 0Á001), respectively. Conclusions: Use of the JAD lead to significantly greater and further dispersal of MS2 bacteriophage from artificially contaminated hands when compared to the WAD and PT. Significance and Impact of Study: The choice of hand-drying device should be considered carefully in areas where infection prevention concerns are paramount, such as healthcare settings and the food industry.

show abstract

“…1991) to paper towels for reducing numbers of micro‐organisms on the hands, concerns have been raised about their overall hygiene. There have been conflicting reports regarding dispersal of bacteria in the washroom environment via aerosols liberated from the machines (Matthews and Newsom 1987; Redway 1994; Redway and Knight 1998; Taylor et al. 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers

Snelling

Saville

Stevens

et al. 2010

Journal of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims:To compare an ultra-rapid hand dryer against warm air dryers, with regard to: (A) bacterial transfer after drying and (B) the impact on bacterial numbers of rubbing hands during dryer use.Methods and Results:The Airblade™ dryer (Dyson Ltd) uses two air ‘knives’ to strip water from still hands, whereas conventional dryers use warm air to evaporate moisture whilst hands are rubbed together. These approaches were compared using 14 volunteers; the Airblade™ and two types of warm air dryer. In study (A), hands were contaminated by handling meat and then washed in a standardized manner. After dryer use, fingers were pressed onto foil and transfer of residual bacteria enumerated. Transfers of 0–107 CFU per five fingers were observed. For a drying time of 10 s, the Airblade™ led to significantly less bacterial transfer than the other dryers (P<0·05; range 0·0003–0·0015). When the latter were used for 30–35 s, the trend was for the Airblade to still perform better, but differences were not significant (P>0·05, range 0·1317–0·4099). In study (B), drying was performed ± hand rubbing. Contact plates enumerated bacteria transferred from palms, fingers and fingertips before and after drying. When keeping hands still, there was no statistical difference between dryers, and reduction in the numbers released was almost as high as with paper towels. Rubbing when using the warm air dryers inhibited an overall reduction in bacterial numbers on the skin (P < 0·05).Conclusions:Effective hand drying is important for reducing transfer of commensals or remaining contaminants to surfaces. Rubbing hands during warm air drying can counteract the reduction in bacterial numbers accrued during handwashing.Significance and Impact of the Study:The Airblade™ was superior to the warm air dryers for reducing bacterial transfer. Its short, 10 s drying time should encourage greater compliance with hand drying and thus help reduce the spread of infectious agents via hands.

show abstract

Hot air electric hand driers compared with paper towels for potential spread of airborne bacteria

Cited by 29 publications

References 3 publications

The Hygienic Efficacy of Different Hand-Drying Methods: A Review of the Evidence

The Hygienic Efficacy of Different Hand-Drying Methods: A Review of the Evidence

Evaluation of the potential for virus dispersal during hand drying: a comparison of three methods

Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About