Differing methodologies to measure microbe dispersal during hand drying

Background: Having previously investigated the dispersal by different hand drying methods of a chemical indicator, fungi and bacteria on the hands of users, this new study assessed the potential for viral dispersal. Aims/Objectives: To determine differences between hand drying methods in their capacity to disperse viruses on the hands of users to other occupants of public washrooms and into the washroom environment. Method: A harmless 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). Viral dispersal was assessed at different heights and distances from the hand drying devices and also at different times after use by means of an air sampler. Results: The jet air dryer was shown to produce significantly more dispersal of virus than the warm air dryer or paper towels. After use of the jet air dryer, high numbers of virus were detected at a range of heights with maximum numbers between 0.61 and 1.22 metres. Virus was also detected at distances of up to 3 metres from the jet air dryer and in the air for up to 15 minutes after its use. The warm air dryer and paper towel dispenser produced low or zero viral counts at different heights, different distances and times after use. Conclusion: Jet air dryers have a greater potential than other hand drying methods to disperse viruses on the hands and contaminate other occupants of a public washroom and the washroom environment.

A quantitative evaluation of three hand drying methods and the potential for dissemination of virus particles into the environment

The importance of hand hygiene in reducing the spread of pathogens has been long established and this has been highlighted recently in initiatives such as the NHS’s ‘clean your hands’ campaign. However, much of the focus on hand hygiene has concerned effective hand washing; there has been less emphasis on hand drying and its role in hygienic practices. This study aimed to compare three hand drying methods namely paper towels, a warm air dryer and a jet air dryer for their relative ability to disseminate virus particles into the washroom environment during hand drying. A bacteriophage model was used to compare these methods; hands were artificially contaminated with MS2 phage and dried using each device. Both air sampling and contact plates were assessed and a plaque assay was used to quantify virus dissemination. Samples were collected at set times, heights, angles and distances around each device. Both air sampling and contact plate results indicated that the jet air dryer produced significantly more virus dispersal than either paper towels or the warm air dryer in terms of quantity, distance travelled and the time spent circulating in the air around the device and potentially in the washroom environment.

The risk of viral dispersal and aerosolization by different hand-drying methods

Background World Health Organization 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 handdrying 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.

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

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 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 minutes 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. 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.

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.

Production of Polyhydroxyalkanoates by Pseudomonas mendocina using vegetable oils and their characterisation

Synthesis of Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) by Pseudomonas mendocina, using different vegetable oils such as, coconut oil, groundnut oil, corn oil and olive oil, as the sole carbon source was investigated for the first time. The PHA yield obtained was compared with that obtained during the production of PHAs using sodium octanoate as the sole carbon source. The fermentation profiles at shaken flask and bioreactor levels revealed that vegetable oils supported the growth of Pseudomonas mendocina and PHA accumulation in this organism. Moreover, when vegetable oil (coconut oil) was used as the sole carbon source, fermentation profiles showed better growth and polymer production as compared to conditions when sodium octanoate was used as the carbon source. In addition, comparison of PHA accumulation at shaken flask and fermenter level confirmed the higher PHA yield at shaken flask level production. The highest cell mass found using sodium octanoate was 1.8 g/L, whereas cell mass as high as 5.1 g/L was observed when coconut oil was used as the feedstock at flask level production. Moreover, the maximum PHA yield of 60.5% dry cell weight (dcw) was achieved at shaken flask level using coconut oil as compared to the PHA yield of 35.1% dcw obtained using sodium octanoate as the sole carbon source. Characterisations of the chemical, physical, mechanical, surface and biocompatibility properties of the polymers produced have been carried out by performing different analyses as described in the second chapter of this study. Chemical analysis using GC and FTIR investigations showed medium chain length (MCL) PHA production in all conditions. GC-MS analysis revealed a unique terpolymer production, containing 3-hydroxyoctanoic acid, 3-hydroxydecanoic acid and 3-hydroxydodecanoic acid when coconut oil, groundnut oil, olive oil, and corn oil were used as the carbon source. Whereas production of the homopolymer containing 3-hydroxyoctanoic acid was observed when sodium octanoate was used as the carbon source. MCL-PHAs produced in this study using sodium octanoate, coconut oil, and olive oil exhibited melting transitions, indicating that each of the PHA was crystalline or semi-crystalline polymer. In contrast, the thermal properties of PHAs produced from groundnut and corn oils showed no melting transition, indicating that they were completely amorphous or semi-crystalline, which was also confirmed by the X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) results obtained in this study. Mechanical analysis of the polymers produced showed higher stiffness of the polymer produced from coconut oil than the polymer from sodium octanoate. Surface characterisation of the polymers using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) revealed a rough surface topography and surface contact angle measurement revealed their hydrophobic nature. Moreover, to investigate the potential applicability of the produced polymers as the scaffold materials for dental pulp regeneration, multipotent human Mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) were cultured onto the polymer films. Results indicated that these polymers are not cytotoxic towards the hMSCs and could support their attachment and proliferation. Highest cell growth was observed on the polymer samples produced from corn oil, followed by the polymer produced using coconut oil. In conclusion, this work established, for the first time, that vegetable oils are a good economical source of carbon for production of MCL-PHA copolymers effectively by Pseudomonas mendocina. Moreover, biocompatibility studies suggest that the produced polymers may have potential for dental tissue engineering application.