Warm Air Dryer Research Articles

Microbiological Assessment of the Different Hand Drying Methods and Washroom Environment Cross-Contamination

Proper hand drying is a fundamental part of the hand hygiene process looking at optimizing the elimination of potentially pathogenic microbes. This research compared the effectiveness of three different hand drying methods—paper towels, the use of warm air dryers in stationary hands position, and the use of air drying while hand rubbing—and their potential for cross-contamination of other users and the surrounding environment. One hundred sixty samples were collected from finger pads and palms, before and after drying. The outlet of the air dryers, air current emitted from the air dryers, and washroom environment air were also tested. The study reported that paper towels were more successful in eliminating bacteria and lead to less contamination to the washroom environment compared to the air dryers. The average number of bacteria obtained from volunteers using hand air dryer while hand rubbing was significantly higher than drying with air dryer while holding hands stationary. Plates exposed to the turned-off dryer for 5 minutes gave an average of only 25 colonies/plate, while plates exposed to the air outlet of the turned-on warm air dryers provided 292 colonies/plate. Placing Petri dishes at least one meter away from the dryer in the washroom for 30 minutes gave 72.5 colonies/plate. The current research also documented frequent contamination of public washroom environments and showed dissemination of potential pathogens, including Escherichia coli (E. coli), Klebsiella species, Bacillus cereus (B. cereus), Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), and coagulase-negative Staphylococci. Over 70.0% of Staphylococci were resistant to at least three antibiotics and 50.0% revealed coresistance to at least four antibiotics including penicillin, erythromycin, clindamycin, and co-trimoxazole. The method of hand drying may serve as a risk factor of cross-contamination from users to the environment and subsequent users and as reservoirs of drug-resistant bacteria in public washrooms.

Microbiological evaluation of different hand drying methods for removing bacteria from washed hands

Proper drying of hands after washing is an integral part of hand hygiene. An experimental study on 30 subjects using multiple comparisons of six hand drying methods including 1) drying on own clothes, 2) drying with one paper towel, 3) drying with two paper towels, 4) drying with a warm air dryer while holding hands stationary for 20 s, 5) drying with a warm air dryer while hand rubbing for 20 s, and 6) drying with a jet air dryer until complete dryness was achieved. It aimed to determine the effectiveness of different hand drying methods for removing bacteria from washed hands, so as to identify the optimum method using minimum resources. Our study demonstrated that the use of jet air dryers is the best method to eliminate bacteria on hands, whereas drying hands on one’s own clothes is the least effective. Drying hands in a stationary position could remove more bacteria than rubbing hands when using a warm air dryer for 20 s, which mimics people’s usual hand-drying practice. No significant difference in bacteria reduction was detected between the use of one or two paper towels for hand drying; therefore, using fewer resources is recommended to maintain environmental sustainability.

The contribution of hand drying in prevention of transmission of microorganisms: Comparison of the efficacy of three hand drying methods in the removal and distribution of microorganisms.

Hand hygiene is a key tool in infection control. While methods of hand washing have been widely researched, there have been fewer studies investigating the effectiveness of available ways to dry hands in public areas. This study compared the efficacy of using paper towels (PT), warm air dryers (WAD) and jet air dryers (JAD) after hand washing in terms of microbiological effectiveness and potential for dispersal of pathogens. Microbial flora on palms and fingertips of 30 subjects were sampled on nutrient agar plates before washing hands and after drying with PTs, WADs and JADs. Total colony forming units (cfus) were recorded. Walls in the vicinity of a PT dispenser, WAD and JAD in female and male washrooms were sampled for the presence of viable microorganisms. Mean cfu significantly reduced after drying with PTs (palms t= 2.67, p <0.05; fingertips t=4.44, p<0.01) significantly increased after using WADs (palms t=3.11, p<0.01; fingertips t=2.06, p<0.05), but there was no difference with JAD (palms t= 1.85, p>0.05; fingertips t=0.97, p>0.05). Some dispersal of organisms was detected on the washroom walls, with the least distribution around PT dispensers and unusual opportunistic pathogens isolated from the JAD units. PTs are more effective at drying hands than WADs and JADs, they are more likely to be used appropriately and lead to minimal dispersal of microorganisms from wet hands.

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

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. 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 0·15-1·65 m, the JAD dispersed an average of >60 and >1300-fold more plaque-forming units (PFU) compared to the WAD and PT (P < 0·0001), 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 < 0·01) 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 < 0·001), respectively. 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. 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.

Comparison of virus dispersal and aerosolization by different hand-drying devices

Background World Health Organization and EU hand hygiene guidelines state that if electric hand dryers are used, they should not aerosolize pathogens. Previous studies have investigated the dispersal by different hand-drying devices of chemical indicators, fungi and bacteria on the hands. This study assessed the aerosolization and dispersal of virus on the hands to determine any differences between hand-drying devices in their potential to contaminate other occupants of public washrooms and the washroom environment. Methods A suspension of MS2, an Escherichia coli bacteriophage virus, was used to artificially contaminate the hands of participants prior to using three different hand-drying devices: jet air dryer, warm air dryer, paper towel dispenser. Virus was detected by plaque formation on agar plates layered with the host bacterium. Vertical dispersal of virus was assessed at a fixed distance (0.4 m) and over a range of different heights (0.0 – 1.8 m) from the floor. Horizontal dispersal was assessed at different distances of up to three metres from the hand-drying devices. Virus aerosolization and dispersal was also assessed at different times up to 15 minutes after use by means of air sampling at two distances (0.1 and 1.0 m) and at a distance behind and offset from each of the hand-drying devices. Results Over a range of heights, the jet air dryer was shown to produce over 60 times greater vertical dispersal of virus from the hands than a warm air dryer and over 1300 times greater than paper towels; the maximum being detected between 0.6 and 1.2 metres from the floor. Horizontal dispersal of virus by the jet air dryer was over 20 times greater than a warm air dryer and over 190 times greater than paper towels; virus being detected at distances of up to three metres. Air sampling at three different positions from the hand-drying devices 15 minutes after use showed that the jet air dryer produced over 50-times greater viral contamination of the air than a warm air dryer and over 110-times greater than paper towels. Conclusions Due to their high air speed, jet air dryers aerosolize and disperse more virus over a range of heights, greater distances, and for longer times than other hand drying devices. If hands are inadequately washed, they have a greater potential to contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment. Main messages: Jet air dryers with claimed air speeds of over 600 kph have a greater potential than warm air dryers or paper towels to aerosolize and disperse viruses on the hands of users. The choice of hand-drying device should be carefully considered. Jet air dryers may increase the risk of transmission of human viruses, such as norovirus, particularly if hand washing is inadequate.

Assessment of the bacterial contamination of hand air dryer in washrooms

The present study was carried out, using standard techniques, to identify and count the bacterial contamination of hand air dryers, used in washrooms. Bacteria were isolated from the air flow, outlet nozzle of warm air dryers in fifteen air dryers used in these washrooms. Bacteria were found to be relatively numerous in the air flows. Bacterially contaminated air was found to be emitted whenever a warm air dryer was running, even when not being used for hand drying. Our investigation shows that Staphylococcus haemolyticus, Micrococcus luteus, Pseudomonas alcaligenes, Bacillus cereus and Brevundimonad diminuta/vesicularis were emitted from all of the dryers sampled, with 95% showing evidence of the presence of the potential pathogen S. haemolyticus. It is concluded that hot air dryers can deposit pathogenic bacteria onto the hands and body of users. Bacteria are distributed into the general environment whenever dryers are running and could be inhaled by users and none-users alike. The results provide an evidence base for the development and enhancement of hygienic hand drying practices.

Paper Towels Best for Drying Hands

According to this study: * Jet-air and warm-air hand dryers increased the number of airborne bacteria in the bathroom environment and may not be suitable for use in health care settings. * Visualization tests also showed that droplet dispersal was greatest with the jet-air dryer.

Comparison of different hand-drying methods: the potential for airborne microbe dispersal and contamination

Efficient washing and drying of hands is important in prevention of the transfer of micro-organisms. However, knowledge surrounding the potential for microbial contamination according to hand-drying methods is limited. This study assessed the potential for airborne microbe dispersal during hand drying by four methods (paper towels, roller towel, warm air and jet air dryer) using three different models. The jet air dryer dispersed liquid from users' hands further and over a greater range (up to 1.5m) than the other drying methods (up to 0.75 m), demonstrating the differing potential risks for airborne microbe dissemination, particularly if handwashing is suboptimal.

Microbiological comparison of hand-drying methods: the potential for contamination of the environment, user, and bystander

The efficiency of hand drying is important in preventing pathogen spread, but knowledge surrounding which drying methods contribute least towards contamination of the environment and users is limited. To compare the propensity of three common hand-drying methods (jet air, warm air dryers, and paper towels) to contaminate the environment, users, and bystanders. Hands were coated in lactobacilli to simulate poorly washed, contaminated hands, and dried. The investigation comprised 120 air-sampling tests (60 tests and 60 controls), divided into close and 1m proximity from the drying process. Separate tests used hands coated in paint to visualize droplet dispersal. Air bacterial counts in close proximity to hand drying were 4.5-fold higher for the jet air dryer (70.7 cfu) compared with the warm air dryer (15.7 cfu) (P=0.001), and 27-fold higher compared with use of paper towels (2.6 cfu) (P<0.001). Airborne counts were also significantly different during use of towel drying versus warm air dryer (P=0.001). A similar pattern was seen for bacterial counts at 1m away. Visualization experiments demonstrated that the jet air dryer caused the most droplet dispersal. Jet air and warm air dryers result in increased bacterial aerosolization when drying hands. These results suggest that air dryers may be unsuitable for use in healthcare settings, as they may facilitate microbial cross-contamination via airborne dissemination to the environment or bathroom visitors.

Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 9. Washing and drying of hands to reduce microbial contamination.

During various daily activities at home and work, hands quickly become contaminated. Some activities increase the risk of finger contamination by pathogens more than others, such as the use of toilet paper to clean up following a diarrheal episode, changing the diaper of a sick infant, blowing a nose, or touching raw food materials. Many foodborne outbreak investigation reports have identified the hands of food workers as the source of pathogens in the implicated food. The most convenient and efficient way of removing pathogens from hands is through hand washing. Important components of hand washing are potable water for rinsing and soaps to loosen microbes from the skin. Hand washing should occur after any activity that soils hands and certainly before preparing, serving, or eating food. Antimicrobial soaps are marginally more effective than plain soaps, but constant use results in a buildup of the antimicrobial compound on the skin. The time taken to wash hands and the degree of friction generated during lathering are more important than water temperature for removing soil and microorganisms. However, excessive washing and scrubbing can cause skin damage and infections. Drying hands with a towel removes pathogens first by friction during rubbing with the drying material and then by wicking away the moisture into that material. Paper rather than cloth towels should be encouraged, although single-use cloth towels are present in the washrooms of higher class hotels and restaurants. Warm air dryers remove moisture and any surface microorganisms loosened by washing from hands by evaporation while the hands are rubbed together vigorously; however, these dryers take too long for efficient use. The newer dryers with high-speed air blades can achieve dryness in 10 to 15 s without hand rubbing.

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

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.

New Products

Holmstrands have introduced a high efficiency Push &amp; Pull Warm Air Dryer for drying bare printed circuit boards after wet processing. The unit works with three separate blowing systems:

Relationship Between Color Evaluation and Chlorophyllian Pigment Content in Dried Parsley Leaves

ABSTRACTTristimulus calorimetry was used as an analytical method for evaluating the color of different dehydrated parsley samples. The trichromatic data were expressed in the two CIE systems: X, Y, Z, and L* a* b*. The hue function tan−1 b*/a* was highly correlated with visual ranking (r =+0.979) and residual chlorophyll content (r =+0.973). Relating X, Y, and 2 to visual score and pigment determination through simple and multiple regressions also demonstrated good correlations, X and Y being preponderant variables. These correlations provide a fast method to measure the degree of chlorophyll degradation and color quality of parsley leaves during drying and storage. Simple linear regression equations were used to estimate the color of 13 samples of fresh parsley, previously dehydrated in a pilot warm air dryer under different conditions.

Vitamins B1 and B2 in Tissues of Normal and Experimental Rats

The relative concentration of Vitamins B1 and B2 in normal and experimental rats was determined by feeding dried rat tissue as the source of these vitamins. “Normal rat tissue” was prepared from stock rats, 200-300 gm. in weight. The rats were decapitated, the carcasses (except skin, feet, tail, and intestines) were hashed in a meat grinder and the hashed material was dried in a warm air dryer (50°C.). In the same manner “B1 rat tissue” was prepared from 20 rats after 30 days on the Evans and Burr diet supplemented with cod liver oil and tikitiki. The average starting and final weights of this group were 186 gm. and 172 gm. respectively, indicating cessation of growth and a loss of weight during the 30-day period on the diet deficient in B2. “B2 rat tissue” was similarly prepared from 20 rats after 30 days on the Evans and Burr diet supplemented with cod liver oil and autoclaved liver. The average starting and final weights of this group were 184 gm. and 148 gm. respectively, indicating cessation of growt...