[HN Gopher] Home washing machines fail to remove important patho...
___________________________________________________________________
Home washing machines fail to remove important pathogens from
textiles
Author : bookmtn
Score : 116 points
Date : 2025-04-30 22:04 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (medicalxpress.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (medicalxpress.com)
| tuatoru wrote:
| Do hospitals seriously allow people to launder their own
| uniforms?
|
| That would never be allowed in the food industry.
| iaaan wrote:
| What do you mean? I've never heard of a restaurant that
| launders the employees' clothes for them.
| tacker2000 wrote:
| I would guess that most restaurants already have a laundry
| service for their tablecloths, etc... which would also take
| on the staff clothes?
|
| But i never worked in a restaurant, just guessing here.
| ender341341 wrote:
| they probably do aprons and stuff like that but even places
| with uniforms it's super rare that the restaurant would
| handle laundering clothing.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| restaurants have laundry service for kitchen pants, jackets,
| aprons, right along with all the towels, napkins, and
| tablecloths. They aren't the employees own clothes they got
| from walmart, they are provided by the laundry service like
| the towels.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| I have worked at sit down dining and fast food, and neither
| places did my laundry for me. Aprons, sure, but not the
| rest of the clothes. The clothes which I had to buy in the
| first place.
| bombcar wrote:
| Every place I've worked that had a uniform for the
| waitstaff and bussers had laundry service for the
| uniform.
|
| Probably helped it was a hotel ...
| hoten wrote:
| Lucky! Chilis had me washing my own aprons.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Now I'm wondering where you live because this is definitely
| not a thing in the overwhelming majority of restaurants in
| the continental US.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| A few different places in different cities in NY, Albany
| to Saratoga. Years ago though. Mostly just for the cooks
| not every dishwasher or waiter.
| closewith wrote:
| In most of the world, most healthcare workers launder their own
| scrubs and uniforms at home. I used to have a specific washing
| machine for it because I hated putting forgets uniforms with
| patient bodily fluids in my normal washing machine.
|
| Things like scrubs exchange machines and central laundries
| washing staff gear is rare even in hospitals in the developed
| world.
| nadir_ishiguro wrote:
| I was a bit surprised by that when I first learned that from
| a healthcare worker, but it's true.
|
| I think this should be taken care of by the employer.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| So should sane work hours and good pay but here we are.
| OJFord wrote:
| If you mean from the perspective of having to do it/pay for
| it, you can claim I think it's PS6/week for it in the UK if
| you don't have the option of getting it done at work (but
| hospitals in general do I believe).
| dylan604 wrote:
| After watching The Pitt, they have a mini-plot line around
| the scrubs exchange machine like it's a normal thing. It was
| the first I had ever seen one, but I don't work in the
| medical industry. It felt like something used just to allow
| for the script to work.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| After seeing that machine, the only way I could make sense
| of that machine being used is a corrupt hospital exec
| buying it from their cousin's company or something.
| jerlam wrote:
| They're probably more common in large hospital systems,
| especially in the OR or ER departments where scrubs are
| more likely to get contaminated. And where lawyers are
| afraid of liability.
| zabzonk wrote:
| I don't know about today, but when I worked in microbiology in
| the 70s & 80s all our lab coats and similar clothing were
| washed in central facilities - in most hospitals, the central
| laundry was (and still is) one of the biggest facilities in the
| hospital.
| danesparza wrote:
| Yes, but does the central laundry wash all nurse and med tech
| uniforms?
|
| I would be genuinely surprised if the answer was "yes".
|
| I'm willing to bet they launder bed linens almost
| exclusively. (And perhaps the food service uniforms) :-)
| zabzonk wrote:
| As I said, I don't know what the exact situation is today,
| but they certainly did. Would you want us to be sitting on
| a bus, contaminated with pathogens?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Nor firefighting PPE.
| c12 wrote:
| Yes. When I started working in hospitals it wasn't the case. We
| had an onsite laundry facility and tailor. You would obtain
| your uniform from the tailors, tailor made to fit, they would
| also repair any damaged uniform.
|
| You would place worn uniform in a bag labeled with your name
| and drop if off at the laundry to collect the next day.
|
| Then privatisation came, first they shut down the tailors and
| you were expected to both purchase your uniform and pay for
| alterations and repairs (costs you could claim back as a tax
| rebate if you knew how, how not being advertised.) Then they
| privatised the laundry, shutting down the one on site and
| shifting everything to a central location, by everything I mean
| just the bedding, you were now expected to wash your uniform at
| home.
|
| The only exception I am aware of is Surgical scrubs, those were
| provided in sterile wraps and were to be returned to a certain
| laundry bin for cleaning.
|
| You're right about the food industry, when I worked in kitchens
| that days uniform was provided, freshly cleaned and returned
| for laundering at the end of my shift.
| danesparza wrote:
| "Allow" is a funny word.
|
| "Require" might be more appropriate.
|
| And I agree - the medical industry (specifically in the United
| States) cares more about profit than care. It's nuts.
| OJFord wrote:
| In the UK I believe you're not supposed to, other than briefly
| during covid, but it's (still) common.
|
| Also though, you think people buying & wearing their own Figs
| scrubs would get them back if they put them in the hospital
| laundry service? And what about non-scrubs for that matter?
| lallysingh wrote:
| I'll wager the ones that do the poorest job in removing pathogens
| are also the most power and water efficient. Trade-offs matter.
| userbinator wrote:
| I'm not familiar with the machines in this article, but you can
| look up the specs on them and see what you find.
| wnissen wrote:
| Since less water would increase the detergent concentration, I
| was wondering if the opposite was the case. My family's old
| washer filled up the entire tub with water, so any detergent
| (and any pathogen, to be fair) would be quite diluted.
|
| Short cycle length certainly makes sense to be correlated with
| pathogens. The lousy LG "TurboWash" only takes 28 minutes to do
| a full load of laundry but certainly doesn't get very much
| clean in that time.
|
| I have to admit it was surprising that textiles have been
| identified as the source of hospital acquired infections. You'd
| think that even if the laundering didn't eliminate pathogens,
| it would greatly reduce them and make any clusters more
| diffuse.
| fwipsy wrote:
| As I understand, it's been identified as one possible vector,
| not conclusively proven to be the only (or even largest)
| source.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Remember the way VW had a digital deception built in to some of
| their cars that adjusted the emissions when it detected they
| were being monitored?
|
| Seems like I ended up with a software-controlled washer that is
| not very straightforward in its behavior and it may have
| something to do with energy rating.
|
| There's no setting to get a hot rinse, not even a warm rinse,
| as expected. All those were taken away decades ago on purely
| mechanical models anyway, but at least a "hot" wash is still
| there. A mainstream US washer uses the household hot water
| supply though, they do not self-heat the water. You have two
| separate water inlets to the machine, one for hot water, one
| for cold.
|
| You put in the laundry, start a hot cycle, and the drum starts
| to fill by opening only the hot water supply. It keeps filling
| whether the top lid is open or shut but it will not start
| agitating unless the lid is down.
|
| When the lid is open, you can feel how hot the water is as it
| pours in.
|
| As soon as you shut the lid, the cold water opens up too at
| full blast even though you just wanted hot. You can hear it and
| feel it for a second if you open the lid, but then that cuts
| off the cold and all you get is hot as long as it's open.
|
| Saves a lot of energy when things are not as hot as people
| think they are.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| Maybe use a long cycle for the washer.
| comrade1234 wrote:
| 60C held for 15+ minutes should be enough for sterilization. The
| research paper says they washed at 60C but that the quick cycle
| was especially poor at sterilization. Other than that I didn't
| read the paper closer to see if it was a temperature control
| problem or not enough time at 60C or something else.
| chewbacha wrote:
| A hot dry cycle will also help with this through desiccation
| but is more damaging to clothing. Should be fine for scrubs
| though.
| neodypsis wrote:
| Not true. It depends on the pathogen.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| It depends on what you're trying to do. Some bacteria and
| viruses will survive 60 degrees. There's a reason running a
| very hot wash (>60C) can quickly get rid of weird smells inside
| of a washing machine occasionally.
|
| Extra annoying: enabling eco mode (the one that is tested when
| generating the power usage stats on the sticker for these
| machines) on some machines will make it run "60 degree
| equivalent", which usually means "longer but at a lower
| temperature", which obviously doesn't work for sterilization at
| all.
|
| Of course, this is rarely an issue for consumers who don't need
| to sterilize their clothes (except when a family member is sick
| with some specific illness maybe?). But, for hospital workers,
| which this paper is about, that's a different story.
| blitzar wrote:
| > means "longer but at a lower temperature", which obviously
| doesn't work for sterilization at all
|
| Lower temperatures (e.g. 30-40 degrees C) may even provide a
| better environment for bateria and/or viruses to grow.
| switch007 wrote:
| Don't get me started on eco! Now with heat pump dryers barely
| heating to 45c only your washing machine can do the job now.
| And you need a specific function to hold a higher temperature
| as back in the olden days.
|
| The 90c cycle is the only one I fully trust to get proper hot
| but I can't wash everything at 90
| trebligdivad wrote:
| I think that they had at least one faulty machine. The 'full
| cycle' failed on only two machines, 'E' and 'G'; 'E' had an
| unusually low temperature of about 20c - so probably had a
| failed heater? (It was 9 years old) 'G' seems to have had the
| shortest hold time (about 5mins) - so again that might explain
| it; but why is it so short? Both E and G were Indesits; perhaps
| they need to build their machines to detect failures.
|
| Still, maybe a failed machine is still a valid test - how many
| hospital staffs machines are unknowingly faulty?
|
| A quick fix would be to swab staffs clean clothes every so
| often (or put a test patch in with their washes?) and check it.
| beejiu wrote:
| The study says none of the machines reached 60C, and 2 out of 6
| only heated up for 5-13 minutes. No doubt this is so
| manufacturers can get the Grade A "energy rating" mandated
| under EU/UK regulation. (It's even worse for "Eco 60" - that
| only heats up to about 30C).
| tehjoker wrote:
| Hard to know what to make of this when the types of detergent are
| not disclosed. I recall in 2022, Oxyclean was recommended for
| destroying MPOX virions.
| gpm wrote:
| For what it's worth the supplemental methods file has this to
| say about the detergents selected
|
| > Two commonly used UK washing detergents were selected for the
| assay: a non-biological liquid detergent (15-30%:Anionic
| surfactants; 5-15%:nonionic surfactants; <5%:phosphonate,
| perfume, soap, optical brighteners, methylisothiazolinone,
| octylisothiazolinone) and a non-biological powder detergent
| (5-15%: oxygen-based bleaching agents, anionic surfactants;
| <5%: nonionic surfactants, polycarboxylates, soap, perfume,
| phosphonates, optical brighteners, zeolites)
|
| This doesn't really mean anything to me, but maybe it means
| something to you?
|
| In some sense I think the real takeaway from the study is "we
| shouldn't be having healthcare workers wash their own
| patient/pathogen facing uniforms", and that takeaway seems
| robust against the hypothesis that only some detergents would
| solve the problem. As a population we can be sure that some of
| the healthcare workers are going to use the detergents that
| don't solve the problem.
| tehjoker wrote:
| The second one sounds similar to oxyclean.
| twic wrote:
| Interesting, the materials and methods says:
|
| > Each wash cycle was performed with either biological (14g
| per kilogram of fabric) or non-biological detergents (20g per
| wash).
|
| But your quoted passage describes two non-biological
| detergents. So did they use a biological detergent or not?
|
| Anyway, the first one sounds like Persil liquid:
|
| https://www.ocado.com/products/persil-laundry-washing-
| liquid...
|
| > 15-30%: Anionic surfactants. 5-15%: Nonionic surfactants.
| <5%: Perfume, Phosphonates, Soap, Optical brighteners,
| Methylisothiazolinone, Octylisothiazolinone
|
| And the second one sounds like Persil powder:
|
| https://www.ocado.com/products/persil-fabric-cleaning-
| washin...
|
| > 5-15%: Oxygen-based bleaching agents, Anionic surfactants.
| <5% Nonionic surfactants, Polycarboxylates, Soap, Perfume,
| Optical brighteners, Zeolites, Tetramethyl
| acetyloctahydronaphthelenes
|
| Not quite the same, but similar. Both are perfectly normal
| brand-name household laundry detergents.
| gpm wrote:
| > But your quoted passage describes two non-biological
| detergents. So did they use a biological detergent or not?
|
| It depends on what experiment in the paper you are looking
| at.
|
| The supplemental section is addressing the "Laundry
| detergent tolerance induction assay" (a heading you can
| ctrl-f for) where they only used the non-biological
| detergent, "as biological detergent contains enzymes and
| other potentially disruptive components that may influence
| the assay".
|
| If you go to the results section you will see results for
| both the biological and non-biological detergent under
| "Decontamination efficacy of domestic laundry machines" and
| so on. I didn't see anything specifying what biological
| detergents were used.
| userbinator wrote:
| The ones in this study are all relatively new front-loaders. I
| would've liked to see some much older and top-loader machines in
| there too, along with "traditional" TSP-based detergent.
| neodypsis wrote:
| You need to add sanitizer to the wash cycle, not just detergent.
| timrichard wrote:
| I agree... I add a capful of something like this if I think the
| wash needs it :
|
| https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/312705939
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| That's why you dry your clothes on the washing line in the sun?
| nemomarx wrote:
| Do a lot of apartments have access to a washing line? Also
| seems kinda slow?
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| This is fair - no it won't work in every situation, just
| didn't see good old air and sunshine mentioned in the thread
| anywhere.
|
| Surely the only scalable solution in a medical context is to
| get workers to change out of uniform at work and hand over to
| industrial laundry service, everything else relies on
| procedure outside the work environment which not everyone is
| going to do reliably and is difficult to supervise / QC.
| fwipsy wrote:
| If 90% of workers are able to effectively sterilize their
| uniforms, will that solve 90% of the problem? Less? More?
| pama wrote:
| Less because pathogens multiply again once they are back
| in the clinic.
| whiterock wrote:
| slow? much faster than hanging them up to dry inside
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Depends _a lot_ on the climate and season.
| kadoban wrote:
| It's slower than throwing them in a standard dryer, in both
| clock time and human effort time.
| positr0n wrote:
| A lot of people I know would be constantly sick from allergies
| if they did this.
| jerlam wrote:
| My HOA has decreed that clotheslines are prohibited.
|
| But my state has also made it illegal to prohibit the use of
| clotheslines, a "right to dry" law.
| saagarjha wrote:
| So, are you drying your clothes outside?
| Peanuts99 wrote:
| It seems insane to me that a group of people who live near
| you can tell you how you dry your washing. From a UK
| perspective, HOA's seem mad.
| freddie_mercury wrote:
| The UK also has homeowners associations and some of them
| ban outdoors clothes drying.
|
| I'm surprised you didn't know that.
| gambiting wrote:
| I live in the UK and I've never heard of that - do you
| have any examples? The one thing I could find is
| leasehold covenants prohitibing it, but that's almost
| always moot and ridiculously difficult to enforce.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| HOA rules and local ordinances are written by the most
| petty people who have the least other stuff going on and
| the strongest desire to use threat of violence to control
| other people.
|
| With selection bias like that it's not surprising what you
| get.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| HOA's are a death cult to keep the home values of all
| houses within them guaranteed to go up. The sad part is
| that it works - HOA neighborhoods have guarantees that
| things which (old white people) hate, like loud parties,
| will not happen.
|
| Stop buying HOA homes, and people will stop forming them.
| The market has spoken and a lot of Americans love them.
| jerlam wrote:
| I live in a condo and share a roof, walls, and driveways
| with my neighbors so an HOA or something like it is
| probably required. I am thankful that my HOA board is
| mostly hands-off, and many of the more petty rules are
| not enforced.
|
| If I had to buy a standalone home, I would probably have
| to pay considerably more and live in a worse part of the
| neighborhood.
| tasuki wrote:
| > My HOA has decreed that clotheslines are prohibited.
|
| Is there a reason for this? I'm struggling to come up with a
| sensible reason tbh...
| patja wrote:
| Many HOA rules are purely esthetic. Which can vary from
| person to person.
| PebblesRox wrote:
| "There's status in a neatly tended space that conveys a
| message of respectable conformity and leisure. There's
| also a strong cultural rejection of useful productive
| things because they're useful and productive.
|
| "My favorite example of this concept is the humble
| clothes line. Is it legal to dry your laundry in the sun
| where you live? In many parts of the country this is
| expressly forbidden by law and/or private binding
| agreement. This sort of activity is associated with rural
| peasants, impoverished slum dwellers, dirty hippies,
| white trash (or worse), and is at odds with the look and
| feel of a prosperous community. It might be a scorching
| day in August but everyone is compelled to operate a
| mechanical dryer in the house and crank up the air
| conditioning because anything else is shameful and
| verboten."
|
| https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/6/the-other-
| pitch...
| gambiting wrote:
| The thing that always surprises me about HOAs is that a
| country boldly calling itself "land of the free" is the one
| where people are willingly entering agreements telling them
| what they can or cannot do with their washing, how they can
| park their vehicle on their property, or how much and how
| often they can cut their own grass in their own garden. I
| don't see how these two are mutually compatible, I always
| expect a more boisterous "don't tell me what to do" attitude
| from Americans but it looks like a lot of them do in fact
| enjoy being told what to do(or they put up with it, at
| least).
|
| Obviously other countries have various regulations around
| this stuff too, but it's just not as aggressive and not as
| wide spread as HOAs are in the States.
| teeray wrote:
| > is the one where people are willingly entering agreements
|
| "Willingly" makes it sound like there's a lot more choice
| in the process than there is. Many municipalities want a
| free lunch when it comes to approving new developments--
| they want all the tax revenue without any of the pesky
| costs of road maintenance, trash removal, drainage
| maintenance, etc. The solution? Approve the development
| with an HOA--now that's the neighborhood's problem (tax
| bills are still due in full though!). They apply this
| playbook over and over until the large majority of houses
| coming on the market are in HOAs. Buyers in these markets
| severely limit their choices (in an already limited market)
| if they eliminate HOAs from their search.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| It's a regional thing. In my area on the West Coast, an HOA
| would be unthinkable.
| OJFord wrote:
| No, it's why you throw your scrubs in the hospital laundry.
|
| Article is about healthcare workers taking their laundry home,
| and the resulting sustained pathogens in a medical setting.
| m463 wrote:
| I like Dr Annie's laundry experiments:
|
| https://www.dranniesexperiments.com/laundry-experiments
| Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe wrote:
| Well c difficile is an exception rather than the rule in terms
| of resilience
| eth0up wrote:
| First, I neither have an eidetic memory or links to the patents
| nor lawsuit. However....
|
| I remember finding a lawsuit, if I remember correctly, between
| Samsung and a certain municipality of an unremembered state.
|
| The patent involved a lining within surfaces of the washing and
| drying systems for hospitals which impart silver particles. The
| marketing part suggested it would spare x amount of bleach and
| have equal or greater efficacy.
|
| The municipal water waste management objected based on the
| breakdown phase of the sewage relying on bacteria. The silver,
| they surmised, would obviously hinder this process and so on.
|
| Then, as a side note, you have products from waste management
| called eg Sludge, which is used as fertilizer. Supposedly it is
| forbidden on vegetable crops, but I once interviewed a cattle
| rancher who said his subsidies were dependent on his acceptance
| and use of Sludge.
|
| Further aside, the real problem here is the 'forever chemicals'
| that accompany these products. It tends to permanently compromise
| the land it's used on.
|
| I remember the rancher telling me he's seen his cows chewing on
| condoms.
| Ferret7446 wrote:
| For almost 100% of the history of washing textiles, sterilization
| was never even remotely a goal. In most cases, sterilization is
| undesirable and would likely contribute to the growing proportion
| of autoimmune deficiencies.
|
| Do you also sterilize your kitchenware? Well, given the
| population bias of HN, probably some of you do, but the vast
| majority of humankind do not. If you don't sterilize things you
| put into your mouth, I don't see why you'd expect this for
| clothes.
|
| So it is amazingly unsurprising that consumer washing machines
| don't sterilize clothes. Just as you need to take extra care to
| sterilize kitchenware when you're doing anything fermenty,
| hospitals shouldn't have been relying on home washing machines.
| kadoban wrote:
| Dishwashers get _quite_ hot for a long period of time, and
| there's relatively harsh chemicals in there too. Does anything
| realistically survive that anyway?
| lukan wrote:
| Some pathogens also survive hard radiation in space.
|
| Even desinfection does not kill everything.
|
| https://xkcd.com/1161/
|
| Also no need to, bacteri and virus are a normal thing. The
| problem is, if too many of the wrong type get in your system.
| So reducing them in general (and also normal washing machines
| do that) is mostly sufficient.
|
| (And dishwashers indeed kill microscopic life with heat and
| chemicals, but that is a side effect of cleaning)
| sct202 wrote:
| Sometimes a red/pink film will start to grow in my dishwasher
| especially under the filter grate. I use a dishwasher
| sanitizer to kill it.
| deeThrow94 wrote:
| Probably also a sign you're using too much detergent.
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| Pressure canning exists because botulism bacteria or spores
| can survive boiling temperatures, so you use pressure to get
| the food up to something like 240F for 30-120 minutes
| (depending on the food) to kill them. So I'd guess the answer
| is yes, though that doesn't account for any chemicals.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Technically correct but I really hope people are not
| encountering botulism on a daily basis.
| kadoban wrote:
| Especially on clean, dry dishes (botulism is anaerobic,
| and needs moisture).
| m3047 wrote:
| It was a few years ago, but potatoes baked in foil were
| the leading cause of food-borne botulism that year. I
| can't find a ranked list for a recent year, but it's
| still a recurring cause.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| really? I dont cook them that often in foil. I have never
| encountered it. Will keep it in mind
| m3047 wrote:
| It's not the cooking, it's leaving them tightly wrapped
| in the foil (anaerobic) and not refrigerated; and then
| not reheating them hot enough to destroy the toxin. The
| toxin is destroyed at less than 100C, but not the bug.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| I usually wash them off, poke them, lather in butter,
| wrap in foil then cook on the grill. Never been sick
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it is amazingly unsurprising that consumer washing machines
| don 't sterilize clothes_
|
| The article is about "health care workers who wash their
| uniforms at home."
| usrnm wrote:
| Hospitals, for the most part, are not sterile. Some parts of
| them are, like operating rooms, but the vast majority of the
| space is not and is not expected to be.
| wildzzz wrote:
| They make laundry sanitizer you can add to the fabric
| softener cup, it's just unscented Lysol. There's a big
| difference between clean, sanitized, disinfected, and
| sterilized. If you're working with plain soap and
| detergents, it's only going to come out clean. Anything
| beyond that requires a lot more heat and more chemicals.
| bluGill wrote:
| I sanitize my dishes by getting the things pathogens eat off.
| Then they sit in the cupboard overnight which is plenty of time
| for pathogens to die.
|
| resteraunts that reuse dishes several times need a better plan
| but not my house.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Restaurants have to run their industrial dishwashers at
| really high temperatures (180F), low temp (120F) w/ chemical
| sanitization, or the three sink setup for manual washing with
| chemicals and varying temps.
| myself248 wrote:
| My dishwasher gets to 159degF as measured by my Thermoworks
| DishTemp, so yes.
| TheBigSalad wrote:
| Doesn't washing your dishes with soap and water sterilize them?
| Certainly stainless steel silverware, right?
| quickthrowman wrote:
| If that was the case, surgical instruments would be
| sterilized with soap and water instead of in an autoclave.
| monster_truck wrote:
| Almost any decent modern dishwasher sterilizes kitchenware as
| an option.
|
| Likewise for washing machines. If you read the paper you will
| see they only tested 6 machines and chose 60C as a theshold for
| some reason. Every machine I've used with a sterilize function
| uses ~76C water.
| saagarjha wrote:
| I thought that was the point of the dryer? The washing machine
| just removes dirt.
| v1ne wrote:
| Well, it's a bold hypothesis that a household washing machine
| should sterilise clothes. It's a machine to reduce the load of
| microorganisms to a manageable level and to remove dirt, fat, and
| odours. I don't get how the authors arrive at their hypothesis.
| Before washing machines, people washed clothes with their hands.
| Cooking them in a pot was only viable with very robust fabrics
| made from cotton/hemp/flax. I seriously doubt that the microbial
| load would have been lower before the invention of washing
| machines. And with older washing machines, using those nasty
| aggressive washing agents: Maybe, but your clothes would not last
| that long (there's this difference between old US-style washing
| machines that just stir and don't heat and EU washing machines
| that have a drum that turns and always heat the water).
|
| And then, "potential pathogens" in the biofilm in the machine.
| Ah, well. My skin and mouth are also full of potential pathogens.
| I don't know what this study is trying to show. Washing machines
| are not sterile, I guess.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _don 't get how the authors arrive at their hypothesis_
|
| They didn't. The "health care workers who wash their uniforms
| at home" did.
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| >your clothes would not last that long
|
| Washing on cold or warm, gentle cycle, and then either tumble
| drying on low or hang drying will greatly extend the life of
| your clothes. Washing on hot with a more vigorous cycle and
| then drying on hot not only risks shrinkage in the short term
| but will cause your clothes to wear out and fall apart much
| faster.
| ajuc wrote:
| In Europe most people don't use cloth dryiers. You just hang
| the clothes on lines (usually on your balcony or in your
| bathroom if you live in a flat, or in your backyard if you
| live in a detached home). Clothes are dry the next day
| anyway, what's the rush?
|
| I wonder if the UV from sun vs the longer time to dry results
| in less bacteria overall.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Solar UV helps a little, but UVC (180-280 nm) is necessary
| to thoroughly kill many bacteria and viruses (including
| COVID) and UVC doesn't reach the Earth because the
| atmosphere absorbs it.
| altcognito wrote:
| UVB kills covid, and sunlight is a pretty good
| disinfectant in general.
|
| https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/214/5841129?lo
| gin...
|
| https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/study-reveals-
| ultravio...
|
| I think the idea that sunlight doesn't breakdown the
| virus comes from people trying to "cure" cases of
| covid-19 with sunshine, which yeah, that's not going ot
| work.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| UVB does work but it takes longer than UVC. So long that
| if you try to use it to disinfect skin, it's likely to
| give you sunburn before it kills much of the virus.
|
| https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-
| science/covid-19-...
|
| Contrast Far-UVC (200-235 nm), which kills the virus
| quickly and yet does _not_ seem to cause skin or corneal
| damage, despite being more energetic than UVB.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-UVC
| deeThrow94 wrote:
| Not to mention UV will break down the fabric itself.
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| This is how it was in the US too growing up in the 1970s
| and 1980s, everyone had a clothes line in their yard. But
| by the late 1980s it seemed everyone started getting
| clothes dryers.
| ghaff wrote:
| Clotheslines were not the norm in the 1970s US in my
| experience. Dryers, like dishwashers, took longer to be
| broadly adopted than other major appliances but they were
| hardly uncommon in the 1970s or even earlier.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Depends on where you lived. In rural areas, or in older
| city apartments, yes perhaps. My parents house was built
| in a subdivision in the 1960s and had an electric clothes
| dryer on day one.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| My mom still hangs clothes on clothesline. I used to hate
| it when she would hang towels on the line because they
| would get hard. I also grew up wearing cloth diapers. We
| grew up poor.
| HPsquared wrote:
| I'd expect a longer time spent "damp" probably increases
| bacterial growth.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| > In Europe most people don't use cloth dryiers. You just
| hang the clothes on lines (usually on your balcony or in
| your bathroom if you live in a flat, or in your backyard if
| you live in a detached home). Clothes are dry the next day
| anyway, what's the rush?
|
| Lived in the Czech Republic for two years and got to
| experience this. The result: my underwear felt like
| sandpaper compared to when I dried it with an actual dryer.
| MisterTea wrote:
| Yeah this is why line drying kinda sucks. Worse in the
| winter when you have dry skin and your stiff jeans are
| sanding your legs down. The solution is to tumble them in
| a dryer for 10 min on no heat or low to soften them up.
| If you dont have a dryer you can shake/tumble them by
| hand wrapped up in a bed sheet, laundry bag or basket. I
| did that a few times but it's laborious.
| zippyman55 wrote:
| What is the difference between your air dried underwear
| and sandpaper? Sandpaper has one smooth side.
| aaronbaugher wrote:
| I use a clothesline in good weather. If it's a
| particularly calm day without a breeze to sort of fluff
| the clothes up a bit, then after they're dry, I'll toss
| them in the dryer on an air (non-heated) cycle for a few
| minutes, which takes care of it.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Wait what? Who in the EU has the time to hang clothes out?
| That is like a 15x time difference between a dryer and
| hanging clothes out on a line.
| Symbiote wrote:
| People like you _and_ the GP, who generalize across a
| huge continent /trade block with a wide variety of
| climates, living arrangements and wealth.
| eptcyka wrote:
| People like us do what?
| MisterTea wrote:
| You plan by doing laundry ahead of time. When you have a
| washer and dryer you get spoiled with ~2hr wash and dry
| times allowing you to wash needed clothes on the day you
| need them. If you didn't have that luxury then you would
| plan ahead. I lived without a dryer for a few years and
| did exactly that, wash the day before and hang dry.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Sure, I still plan abead of time, but it still takes more
| time. I don't dry all of my washing in the dryer, the
| delicates are hung. But I do have better things to do
| than spend hours on laundry weekly.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > But I do have better things to do than spend hours on
| laundry weekly.
|
| You dont have to sit and watch the laundry dry, it does
| that on its own ;-) Cheekiness aside, it adds maybe 10-15
| minutes for hanging up but not hours unless you have to
| hike to some mountain top or whatever. You still have to
| fold so it adds little to that when taking them down from
| the line.
| eptcyka wrote:
| 15 minutes per wash is an hour, minute of transfering
| between one cylinder to the other one is 15x less.
| Multiply this by 4 washes, and we've spent an hour
| instead of 4 minutes.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Not in the EU, but I hang dry about 1/3 of my laundry
| because it's stuff I don't want in the drier. Wife's
| bras, cycling kit, wool, dress shirts (less wrinkly when
| hung vs machine dried). That said, it's just the two of
| us, when the kid was at home, I damn near needed a
| commercial drier to keep up with all the stinky sports
| stuff and whatnot.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| I do that, just hang it inside though
| ghaff wrote:
| I do use a clothes rack inside for some things like
| merino wool that dry easily and are relatively delicate.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| I hang dry my shirts right inside my closet, but humidity
| isn't a concern as it's low in the winter and controlled
| by A/C in the summer. It takes less time to hang dry
| since I don't need to put the shirts in the dryer and
| then take them out and hang them up.
|
| All other clothing is washed cold and tumble dried on
| low, towels and bedding is washed and dried on hot.
| antman wrote:
| Its not labor time. You put them out in the afternoon
| they are ready the next day, most seasons. If sun can see
| them might be a couple of hours, hang inside out so
| colours don't fade. Also quicker to iron.
| balfirevic wrote:
| > In Europe most people don't use cloth dryers
|
| As a European, to the extent that this is true, it's only
| because they don't know what they're missing.
| gessha wrote:
| As a European who currently lives in the US, washes and
| line dries his clothes, I don't think mainlanders are
| missing much. It IS convenient but I'd rather extend the
| clothes lifespan.
| danielbln wrote:
| German here, happy owner of a heat punp drier. To me it's
| the same as a dishwasher. Something you don't think you'd
| need until you have it.
|
| And once little people enter the equation, having a drier
| is a God's end. Modern driers are also gentler on the
| clothes than the hot air jets of yore.
| Tagbert wrote:
| I live in the US and during warm weather hang my laundry
| outside on a clothesline to dry. I live in a suburb and so
| have a backyard for this. Living in an apartment would make
| this unfeasible. The area I live in has quite a lot of cool
| or rainy days so that does limit it to about 1/3 of the
| year.
| energy123 wrote:
| Hang drying increases household dust. Clothes dryers'
| mechanical motion is great at removing lint from clothes as
| an unintended consequence.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > I don't know what this study is trying to show.
|
| That hospitals should clean their employee's uniforms to
| prevent the spread of antibacteria resistant strains in a
| hospital setting, in the UK and elsewhere.
| vintermann wrote:
| I thought they did that everywhere.
| poly2it wrote:
| This is new to me. I've never heard about healthcare
| employees bearing this responsibility anywhere within the EU.
| Who does this study cater to?
| akshayshah wrote:
| In the US, it's typical for hospitals to provide and
| launder scrubs used in sterile environments (especially
| surgical scrubs). However, scrubs are worn in many non-
| sterile environments too - and it's often the employee's
| responsibility to launder those scrubs. Sometimes, it's
| also the employee's responsibility to purchase non-sterile
| scrubs.
|
| IMO, this isn't as crazy as it may sound. It's reasonable
| to expect healthcare workers to be professionally dressed
| (so no gym shorts and tee shirts). It's also reasonable to
| want their clothing to be as washable as possible (no
| neckties, no infrequently-washed blazers or sweaters,
| fabrics made for harsher detergents and hotter wash water,
| etc.). Scrubs fit the bill and they're an improvement over
| the business casual attire that preceded them.
|
| So why not make everyone use hospital-owned, hospital-
| laundered scrubs? Because employees don't like them.
| Hospital scrubs are usually baggy, scratchy, inconsistently
| sized, and just plain ugly. I'm a man, but the fit problems
| seemed especially bad for women. For many people, it's not
| pleasant to spend every work day uncomfortable,
| dissatisfied with their appearance, and with their pants
| about to fall off.
|
| The methods in the article aren't super convincing, though
| the conclusion (wash everyone's scrubs in a commercial
| facility) has some intrinsic appeal. Accelerating the rate
| at which hospital bacteria acquire resistance to detergents
| is certainly bad - it's already quite hard to adequately
| clean healthcare facilities.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| As the second half of my post says, healthcare workers in
| the UK (and elsewhere). To quote the study's second
| sentence: " In the UK, domestic laundering machines (DLMs)
| are commonly used to clean healthcare worker uniforms,
| raising concerns about their effectiveness in microbial
| decontamination and role in AMR development"
| ukuina wrote:
| > Well, it's a bold hypothesis that a household washing machine
| should sterilise clothes.
|
| That's on the manufacturers for adding "sanitize" cycles:
| https://cdn.avbportal.com/magento-media/GrandBlog/mhw8630hc%...
| deeThrow94 wrote:
| I'm kind of ok with that functionality and advertisement. I'm
| more concerned with people who think that non-sterile
| clothing will get you sick (even though you're sitting in
| non-sterile clothing now).
| HPsquared wrote:
| Modern clothes, washed in modern machines with modern
| detergent, don't seem to last long at all.
|
| That's more a quality issue though, I think. The fabric itself
| seems weak.
| hoseyor wrote:
| > there's this difference between old US-style washing machines
| that just stir and don't heat and EU washing machines that have
| a drum that turns and always heat the water
|
| This is one reason this study seems rather dubious. In fact all
| the machines (they provide a table with model numbers, one of
| which is not correct, i.e., "00" should be "DD") are European
| front loaders, but what is more concerning is that a far as I
| could see, there seems to be no mention of whether or how the
| clothes were dried.
|
| The problem I could see with European style/model front loaders
| is that they usually and often proudly use little water, water
| which could rinse pathogens that were released from fabric by
| soaps, rather than allowing them to effectively reattach to
| fabric, but that is just my theory, yet a valid consideration
| altogether.
|
| Then there is the fact that three of the washer models are
| masher/dryer combos, which are not only notoriously bad at both
| functions but their performance and designs may have an impact
| on results too.
|
| Another huge hole in this research is that there is no clear
| mention of the brand of detergent used, only the type,
| biological vs non-biological (presumably only one of each).
| From other common testing, we very well know that different
| detergents perform very differently, especially across the
| types of stains, let alone between machines, not to mention
| types of machines. So we must conclude, assuming all other
| things being fine, this research would only even be relevant in
| the UK.
|
| But then there's also the matter of whether the detergent, the
| amount of detergent, and even the washing machines are
| representative of those used not only in the UK, but by
| hospital staff at all. Nothing indicates that there was some
| questioning, let alone observation of staff on their usage,
| equipment, or practices.
|
| Frankly, this research, even if it were only relevant to the UK
| is still full of huge holes, even some not mentioned that I
| won't bother going into detail about.
|
| It is the kind of research that grates me because it is such
| sophistry, has the appearance of science and the confidence in
| its conclusions, but in the details it just kind of falls apart
| as rather purely executed, assuming the best.
|
| I wouldn't even be surprised if someone did some digging and
| found conflicts of interest, even just indirect ones that the
| researchers are not even aware of. Backroom research, research
| for the purpose of driving a commercial agenda is far more
| common than people think. I know this for a fact because I've
| witnessed it in person many times, from the smallest levels
| mostly for personal "publishing" interests, to the highest
| multi-billion dollar expenditures that are basically little
| more than very elaborate, very orchestrated, very high level
| get rich con jobs.
| arp242 wrote:
| > it's a bold hypothesis that a household washing machine
| should sterilise clothes
|
| No such hypothesis was made.
| empath75 wrote:
| Others have said this more sarcastically, but the article is
| aimed at hospital workers who are exposed to dangerous
| pathogens at work on a regular basis, not the average person.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" I seriously doubt that the microbial load would have been
| lower before the invention of washing machines. And with older
| washing machines, using those nasty aggressive washing
| agents:..."_
|
| Nasty aggressive washing agents have a pretty devastating
| effect on bacteria, molds etc. especially bleaching
| percarbonates and such used for whiteners/stain removers.
| Surely then it's just a matter of increasing the amount of
| washing powder to achieve the desired sanitation level.
|
| A rule I use is that if soap suds aren't still present in
| reasonable quantity on top of water until the end of the wash
| cycle then there's not enough soap powder being used.
|
| Perhaps the trend towards minimizing the amount of cleaning
| agents used in washing has gone too far.
|
| Similarly, perhaps also we've gone too far by removing
| phosphorus (in the form of trisodium phosphate--aka TSP, etc.)
| from washing powders, which has been a trend in recent years
| through environmental concerns. TSP, Na3PO4, is remarkably good
| at removing heavily ingrained dirt. It's also highly alkaline
| and hostile to living organisms.
|
| That said, surprisingly TSP is not very toxic to humans--at
| least in small amounts. It's used as an acidity
| regulator/preservative in food, it's E339.
| bgro wrote:
| Are people perplexed by the prevalence of bacteria in residential
| washing machines? That's what the smell is when clothes are left
| wet for too long or the door is left open, preventing drying.
|
| Though I wonder what effect a standard load with bleach would
| have when used in a load or if that's simply what the article
| refers to as their disinfectant test.
| c12 wrote:
| I guess a lot of people don't leave the door open so the
| machine can dry between loads. None of my washing machines have
| had issue with smell but I also run a 90 degree boil wash once
| a month to clean things out.
|
| It's almost as though people forget these are machines that
| require maintenance _and_ cleaning.
| ndr42 wrote:
| We had bad smell with just drying all reachable areas and
| leaving open the door, cleaning everything that is easy
| disassembled (tubes, water outlet area of the pump) from tine
| to time.
|
| 2 months ago we discovered the boil wash. With some detergent
| containing bleach it stopped the smell, even if we leave the
| machine closed during the day.
|
| I our case it's not we have forgotten but never discovered
| this function.
| myself248 wrote:
| My Maytag Neptune retains so much water from the previous
| load, that leaving it open is absolutely ineffective. It
| molds after 3-4 days no matter what. I can spin the drum
| after leaving it open for 2 weeks, and it still makes a
| pronounced sloshing noise, there's still a ton of water left
| in there.
|
| I suspect this was meant to reduce the fill water used in the
| subsequent load, but that's only sensible if you're doing
| laundry every day or two. If you go longer between washing
| sessions, it's just making clothes stinky. Perhaps it's
| backwash from water left in the discharge hose after the pump
| shuts off?
|
| So for years, I just run the first cycle empty, hot, with a
| bunch of bleach. It wastes more water than this stupid
| measure could ever possibly save, but it keeps my clothes
| from being stinky.
|
| That machine was just damaged in a flood so I'm shopping for
| a replacement as I write this, and I cannot for the life of
| me find this information in any reviews. Does it drain fully?
| How much water is left behind?
|
| A friend pointed out that some machines have a little pigtail
| hose out the back with a manual drain valve on it, presumably
| meant to completely empty the machine before transport. Their
| theory is that I could put a solenoid valve on this and
| install my own tiny pump to finish draining the machine after
| a session, possibly a peristaltic pump which wouldn't be
| susceptible to backflow from the lift. But again, I can't
| find information in the reviews about whether any given new
| machine I might buy, has this little drain pigtail.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I too am very annoyed by the "save water" trend in
| appliances that then produce inferior results. Yes, I know
| there are parts of the world where this is a concern, but
| I'm in the great lakes region on a well that produces 20GPM
| of water and I do not have this concern. Water for me is
| copious and basically free and when I'm done with it it
| goes into my septic to reabsorb into the water table.
|
| We switched from a front loading washer back to a top-
| loading one hoping we'd get results similar to the top-
| loading washers from our youth. But nope. Funky smells,
| poor distribution of detergent, clothes that don't fully
| clean.
| User23 wrote:
| You want a Speed Queen. It's the closest you can get to
| an older washer.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| > We switched from a front loading washer back to a top-
| loading one hoping we'd get results similar to the top-
| loading washers from our youth. But nope.
|
| As sibling comment says, get yourself a Speed Queen, made
| with commercial parts and still washes the good old
| fashioned way [0].
|
| 0: https://speedqueen.com/speed-queen-
| difference/#classic-clean
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Doesn't look available in Canada, and I wouldn't buy from
| an American company now anyways.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| When I first switched to the front load washer I started
| getting a terrible smell pretty quickly.
|
| How I got rid of it.
|
| 1) do not use liquid detergents. powder only. My working
| theory is the medium used to make it gooey was sticking and
| giving the mold a good medium to live in.
|
| 2) do not use liquid fabric softeners. see #1. I use a
| fabric sheet on drying.
|
| 3) clean cycle once a month
|
| 4) washer tablet in with the wash clean cycle, I alternate
| with bleach every other month.
|
| 5) leave the door open between washes
|
| 6) drain out the water from the 'pigtail' once every 6
| months, or whatever the documentation recommends. It is not
| just for when you move it. It is meant for the next step.
|
| 7) clean out the lint trap. Many have this just before the
| drain out and before the pump. That thing can get really
| gunked up. especially with liquid detergents/softners. I
| use the same schedule as the drain out.
|
| #1 and #2 were the main sources for me. Took about 2-3
| weeks before the smell was gone.
|
| For my samsung I would say about a 1/4 gallon is left in
| the hoses.
| HPsquared wrote:
| I'm lucky enough in terms of layout that I can leave the
| door wide open AND the detergent drawer open when it's
| not in use. That allows a kind of "fresh air circulation"
| between the drawer and the door. That ventilates the
| whole system. I don't get any smells. I use powder
| detergent, no cleaning cycles except the occasional wash
| at 90 Celsius. This is a UK machine though, US may be
| different.
| mprev wrote:
| A note on liquid versus powder detergents. In the UK, at
| least, my understanding is that liquid detergents do not
| contain bleaching agents, whereas powders do. That is,
| unless you buy a colour-safe powder.
|
| If you're pouring bleach into your machine, it can erode
| the rubber seals. I use Dettol instead (I think it's
| called Lysol in the States), which seems to do the job.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| A bit of bleach once and awhile is ok. There is even a
| spot for it to be put in on the detergent tray. I do not
| use it all the time. I stick to the powder and a cup or
| so of bleach every now and then on a clean cycle (once or
| twice a year). Pretty sure it is a color safe powder I am
| using.
| myself248 wrote:
| Oooo, #1 is fascinating. I've always used liquid and
| never considered this. I always run with the extra rinse
| enabled and no softener, so the fabrics come out clean
| enough that they don't smear optics. I really don't think
| anything's left behind, but it's an interesting theory.
|
| 7: I'm 99% sure none of my washers have ever had an
| integrated lint trap. I ziptie a mesh-sock trap onto the
| drain hose so it doesn't clog the washtub drain, and the
| amount of stuff it accumulates means that any machine-
| internal lint trap would've been clogged solid in the
| first few months. There's no mention of one in the
| manual, either.
|
| I wonder if I didn't drain it upward into a washtub, but
| downward into a floor drain, if that would eliminate the
| water-left-in-hoses problem...
| sumtechguy wrote:
| It is not much of a 'trap' it is basically a plastic
| filter just before the drain out. Think it mostly is to
| keep big stuff out of the sump. But bits of cloth and
| hair can get stuck on it. You also probably do not want
| to totally drain it all the time. The sump as someone
| else pointed out needs to stay wet.
|
| On mine it is a circular item that you can twist out. If
| I do it before draining water comes dumping out of that.
| So I drain then clean that thing. Bit of hot water and a
| bit of scrubbing.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Powder detergent leaves residue also, because it doesn't
| ever fully dissolve.
|
| I think washers may leave a bit of water in the "sump" so
| that the pump doesn't run dry. Running dry is typically
| not good for pumps. Shouldn't need to be a lot though.
| _JamesA_ wrote:
| > 2) do not use liquid fabric softeners. see #1. I use a
| fabric sheet on drying.
|
| Have you tried vinegar in the wash and wool dryer balls?
| I pre-wash with vinegar and add an extra rinse cycle.
| It's way better than fabric sheets and the balls also
| speed up the drying process.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| I could but my wife has an intense hatred anything with
| vinegar in it. It makes her gag.
| _JamesA_ wrote:
| Me too. Luckily the smell doesn't persist.
| kerblang wrote:
| Vinegar is also good for dissolving lime, which builds up
| in the washer when you have "hard" water and will make it
| stink - not a mold stink, though, more some kind of
| bacteria that loves to live in lime. In this case it has
| nothing to do with residual water.
|
| And vinegar is a pretty good cleaning agent all by
| itself.
| dsego wrote:
| > there's still a ton of water left in there.
|
| Sounds like is not draining properly, is it clogged up?
| Should use some vinegar on an empty cycle to descale the
| heater and all the drain holes.
| tzs wrote:
| > I can spin the drum after leaving it open for 2 weeks,
| and it still makes a pronounced sloshing noise, there's
| still a ton of water left in there.
|
| Is it a top loader? If so double check to make sure you are
| really hearing left over washing water and not balancing
| water.
|
| Most top loaders have a sealed hollow ring around the drum,
| usually near the top but sometimes at the bottom, that is
| partly filled with water or a saline solution. The liquid
| in the ring redistributes itself around the drum during
| spin cycles in a way that counters an off balance load in
| the drum which reduces vibration and noise.
|
| If you spin the drum by hand the balancing liquid sloshes
| around and it can be quite noticeable on some washers. Next
| time you are at an appliance dealer try spinning the drums
| in some of the top loaders on display. It can sound like a
| surprisingly large amount of water.
| myself248 wrote:
| It's a front loader.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Very few washers in the USA have a heat/boil cycle. Hot tap
| water is the hottest you get.
|
| i think this is partly because in the USA, washing machines
| run on 120VAC. Heating the water would draw a lot of current.
| fkyoureadthedoc wrote:
| A lot now have various cycles that are hotter, but I'm not
| sure how hot.
|
| My current washer (Samsung) has: deep steam, allergen, and
| sanitize.
| stubish wrote:
| It depends on the climate, and I think the smell you are
| talking about is more likely mold or mildew. In the tropics I
| found anything left wet for more than an hour needed to be
| rewashed, as it was already smelling. In colder and drier
| climates it is much more forgiving (but we still leave lids and
| doors open to allow the machine to properly dry).
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Dna of a bacteria being in your machine surely doesn't mean there
| are live bacteria in the machine
| bob1029 wrote:
| Drying is far more destructive to pathogens. The "sanitize"
| option is on the dryer, not the washer.
|
| On my dryer, it says "sanitize with regular fabric selected (and
| manual time set to maximum)".
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| ? You dont cook the cloths in a auto-clave- you just move it in
| warm water with soap- and the soap dissolves the fatty hull of
| the pathogens. Of course you can still detect them- the dna is
| still there floating around.
| MarkMarine wrote:
| With the prevalence of vanity scrubs from figs now I doubt most
| nurses and doctors I've seen recently are throwing their fancy
| scrubs into the communal wash.
| tiahura wrote:
| What if you use that Lysol laundry disinfectant?
| osigurdson wrote:
| It's little suspicious that the paper was written by George
| Jefferson.
| endoblast wrote:
| Would adding Oxi Clean or somesuch powder to the wash help to
| sterilize clothing?
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Headline caveat: specifically for medical staff. I didn't realize
| they have to wash their own work clothes, I always assumed that
| was done by a professional company using high temperatures and
| specialized products, if it was even washed to begin with instead
| of incinerated. The more you know.
| piombisallow wrote:
| This is why I hate seeing all the medical people in their scrubs
| in the supermarket and coffeeshops around campus.
| knowitnone wrote:
| wait. nobody ever claimed washing machines killed bacterium. When
| I have a biohazard, I certainly don't throw it into a washing
| machine and certainly not with other clothing.
| tim333 wrote:
| I read another article testing this. The conclusion was similar
| in that all programs failed to get rid of all pathogens but all
| you had to do to achieve that was to put some bleach in the wash.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-01 23:02 UTC)