Comparison of electric hand dryers and paper towels for hand hygiene: a critical review of the literature.

Numerous studies are published on the benefits of electric hand dryers vs paper towels (PT) for drying hands after washing. Data are conflicting and lacking key variables needed to assess infection risks. We provide a rapid scoping review on hand-drying methods relative to hygiene and health risks. Controlled vocabulary terms and keywords were used to search PubMed (1946-2018) and Embase (1947-2018). Multiple researchers independently screened abstracts for relevance using predetermined criteria and created a quality assessment scoring system for relative study comparisons. Of 293 papers, 23 were included in the final analysis. Five studies did not compare multiple methods; however, 2 generally favoured electric dryers (ED); 7 preferred PT; and 9 had mixed or statistically insignificant results (among these, 3 contained scenarios favourable to ED, 4 had results supporting PT, and the remaining studies had broadly conflicting results). Results were mixed among and within studies and many lacked consistent design or statistical analysis. The breadth of data does not favour one method as being more hygienic. However, some authors extended generalizable recommendations without sufficient scientific evidence. The use of tools in quantitative microbial risk assessment is suggested to evaluate health exposure potentials and risks relative to hand-drying methods. We found no data to support any human health claims associated with hand-drying methods. Inconclusive and conflicting results represent data gaps preventing the advancement of hand-drying policy or practice recommendations.

Effect of Optimal Alcohol-Based Hand Rub among Nurse Students Compared with Everyday Practice among Random Adults; Can Water-Based Hand Rub Combined with a Hand Dryer Machine Be an Alternative to Remove E. coli Contamination from Hands?

Efficient hand hygiene is essential for preventing the transmission of microorganisms. Alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) is a recommended method. We compared health personnel (skilled nurse students) with random adults to study the effect of an ABHR procedure. A water-based hand rub (WBHR) procedure, using running tap water and a hand-drying machine, was also investigated. The study included 27 nurse students and 26 random adults. Hands were contaminated with Escherichia coli, and concentrations of colony forming units (CFU/mL) were determined before and after ABHR or WBHR. Concentrations after ABHR were 1537 CFU/mL (nurse students) and 13,508 CFU/mL (random adults) (p < 0.001). One-third of participants reported skin irritation from daily ABHR. Concentrations after WBHR were 41 CFU/mL (nurse students) and 115 CFU/mL (random adults) (p < 0.011). The majority of participants (88.5%) preferred the WBHR method. Results from 50 air samples from filtered air from the hand dryer outlet showed no CFU in 47 samples. A significant difference between the two groups was shown for the ABHR method, indicating that training skills are important for efficient hand hygiene. Surprisingly, the WBHR method seemed to have a significant effect in largely removing transient bacteria from hands.

Blowing in the wind: Bacteria and fungi are spreading from public restroom hand dryers.

This study aimed to identify and quantify fungi and bacteria in the airflow of restroom hand dryers in public areas. Airflow from restroom hand dryers in 8 retail locations was tested using three types of culture media, followed by PCR and sequence analysis to identify microbial species. Both bacterial and fungal colonies were detected in all locations. The number of colonies did not vary significantly across different locations, suggesting a similar level of microbial spread by hand dryers between different types of commercial stores. Molecular analysis revealed 24 bacterial species and 40 fungal species. Of these species, 48% (31/64) have been reported to be implicated in various infections in humans, primarily those with underlying medical conditions. This study is the first to demonstrate the spread of fungi by the airflow of restroom hand dryers, and the first to show the prevalence of different fungal and bacterial species spread by restroom hand dryers in common public areas.

A survey of public restrooms microbial contamination in Tehran city, capital of Iran, during 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Daily use of public restrooms may have a significant impact on spreading infectious diseases. Human society could be affected by spreading of transitional infectious diseases through feces, urinary tract infection and poor personal hygiene. According to the World Health Organization reports, plenty of people's developed diseases caused by contaminated public restrooms that may result in severe health problems. METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on 7,482 samples that were collected randomly in 6 months (spring and summer 2019) in different regions of Tehran. The Data were obtained by analyzing 804 restroom's indoor and outdoor handles, 1062 toilet faucet, 826 washbasin taps, 1,062 toilet hoses, 804 flush tank levers, 643 soap dispenser bottoms, 643 liquid soaps, 99 bar soaps, 169 toilet papers and paper towels, and 50 hand dryer machines. Samples which were tested, based on bacteriology standard methods. RESULT: 7,482 samples were gathered of which 6,678 contaminated cases (89.25%) were observed and 804 cases (10.75%) were found non-contaminated. Escherichia coli with 28.48% and Pseudomonas with 0.39% were the most and the least common bacteria, respectively, in this study. CONCLUSION: The required tests to identify the bacteria that cause contamination through the use of public restrooms have been done. It is essential to inform the public of the mentioned items and teach how to prevent infectious diseases.

A comparative life cycle assessment of conventional hand dryer and roll paper towel as hand drying methods.

A comparative life cycle assessment, under a cradle to gate scope, was carried out between two hand drying methods namely conventional hand dryer use and dispenser issued roll paper towel use. The inventory analysis for this study was aided by the deconstruction of a hand dryer and dispenser unit besides additional data provided by the Physical Resources department, from the product system manufacturers and information from literature. The LCA software SimaPro, supported by the ecoinvent and US-EI databases, was used towards establishing the environmental impacts associated with the lifecycle stages of both the compared product systems. The Impact 2002+ method was used for classification and characterization of these environmental impacts. An uncertainty analysis addressing key input data and assumptions made, a sensitivity analysis covering the use intensity of the product systems and a scenario analysis looking at a US based use phase for the hand dryer were also conducted. Per functional unit, which is to achieve a pair of dried hands, the dispenser product system has a greater life cycle impact than the dryer product system across three of four endpoint impact categories. The use group of lifecycle stages for the dispenser product system, which represents the cradle to gate lifecycle stages associated with the paper towels, constitutes the major portion of this impact. For the dryer product system, the use group of lifecycle stages, which essentially covers the electricity consumption during dryer operation, constitutes the major stake in the impact categories. It is evident from the results of this study that per dry, for a use phase supplied by Ontario's grid (2010 grid mix scenario) and a United States based manufacturing scenario, the use of a conventional hand dryer (rated at 1800 W and under a 30s use intensity) has a lesser environmental impact than with using two paper towels (100% recycled content, unbleached and weighing 4 g) issued from a roll dispenser.