Cargando…

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 hand...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Snelling, AM, Saville, T, Stevens, D, Beggs, CB
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017747/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20887403
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04838.x
_version_ 1782195941691883520
author Snelling, AM
Saville, T
Stevens, D
Beggs, CB
author_facet Snelling, AM
Saville, T
Stevens, D
Beggs, CB
author_sort Snelling, AM
collection PubMed
description 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 0–10(7) 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.
format Text
id pubmed-3017747
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30177472011-01-19 Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers Snelling, AM Saville, T Stevens, D Beggs, CB J Appl Microbiol Original Articles 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 0–10(7) 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. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2011-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3017747/ /pubmed/20887403 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04838.x Text en Copyright © 2011 The Society for Applied Microbiology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Snelling, AM
Saville, T
Stevens, D
Beggs, CB
Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers
title Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers
title_full Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers
title_short Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers
title_sort comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra-rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017747/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20887403
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04838.x
work_keys_str_mv AT snellingam comparativeevaluationofthehygienicefficacyofanultrarapidhanddryervsconventionalwarmairhanddryers
AT savillet comparativeevaluationofthehygienicefficacyofanultrarapidhanddryervsconventionalwarmairhanddryers
AT stevensd comparativeevaluationofthehygienicefficacyofanultrarapidhanddryervsconventionalwarmairhanddryers
AT beggscb comparativeevaluationofthehygienicefficacyofanultrarapidhanddryervsconventionalwarmairhanddryers