5 ms·

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 leve

by v1ne 1y ago

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 1y ago
> don't get how the authors arrive at their hypothesis They didn't. The “health care workers who wash their uniforms at home" did.
- avereveard 1y ago
  Why would Healthcare worker do laundry at home with potentially contaminated uniform? Probably that is the thing to address first.
DebtDeflation 1y ago
>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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      UVB kills covid, and sunlight is a pretty good disinfectant in general. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/214/5841129?login=false https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/214/5841129?login... https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/study-reveals-ultraviolet-light-exposure-has-antiviral-effects-on-covid-19-variants/ 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 1y ago
        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-does-ultraviolet-light-kill-the-coronavirus 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-UVC
        deleted 1y ago
HWR_14 1y ago
> 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 1y ago
  I thought they did that everywhere.
- poly2it 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    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.
  - 1y ago
ukuina 1y ago
> 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%20control%20panel%20with%20sanitize%20option.JPG https://cdn.avbportal.com/magento-media/GrandBlog/mhw8630hc%...
- deeThrow94 1y ago
  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).
- Tijdreiziger 1y ago
  > The request could not be satisfied. The Amazon CloudFront distribution is configured to block access from your country.
  - ukuina 1y ago
    Try this? https://i.imgur.com/WukGwvs.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/WukGwvs.jpeg
HPsquared 1y ago
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.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  I wear my clothes for a day and then wash them, they last about 100 washing cycles before they fray and or discolour too much. That's not bad IMO. All good quality cotton though. I only wear cotton, except underwear and socks.
  - Doxin 1y ago
    I have clothes that have survived decades of wear and are still structurally completely intact. Any new clothes I buy will last one season at best before the fabric just disintegrates. There's a definite change in fabric quality going on.
hoseyor 1y ago
> 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 1y ago
> it's a bold hypothesis that a household washing machine should sterilise clothes No such hypothesis was made.
empath75 1y ago
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 1y ago
"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.
- ghssds 1y ago
  TSP can be bought at an hardware store and then added as needed in your cloth washing machine and your dishwasher.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    Yeah, I know. My hardware shop sells packs of 2kg of TSP for less than $10 and I use it for many things—cleaning paint surfaces, removing mold (small concentrations left on surfaces even prevent mold from forming), softening surfactants including washing powders, etc. Those of us with some chemistry knowledge do such things but those people referred to in the story are unlikely to even know about TSP let alone add it or anything else to washing except perhaps fabric softener. I found the story lacking detail so I went to the source paper† and whilst detailed in parts I also found it quite unsatisfactory. For example, during the test only 14g of 'unspecified' detergent was added. That little amount added to my wash certainly wouldn't remove dirt or oily stains let alone blood stains (which you'd expect to find on dirty medical workers clothes). Moreover, whilst the paper mentions there are differences between liquid and powder detergents (including rhise with enzyme) little else is said about them. (Surely one should know the exact nature of one's bactericide before one commences.) Quote extract from paper's conclusion: "It is however difficult to determine the antimicrobial efficacy of the detergent itself from this study investigations.…" Why? Again, you'd reckon that would be prerequisite and part of the controls (i.e.: take a fresh concentration of 14g detergent in the equivalent of a washing machine load of clean water and test it then increase the concentration in steps until 99.99% of the bugs died (that level of kill is required of an effective bactericide). "Several studies have showed that the HAI organisms MRSA and A. baumanii and other Gram-negative bacteria can survive washes performed under 60°C without detergent…." "without detergent" — for heaven's sake, that's hardly relevant. Who would wash clothing without detergent? None I'd suggest let alone medical workers. When one actually reads some of these papers one can only conclude that some conclusions are questionable. Perhaps we've a case of bullshit baffling brains (here I mean those funding the research). Had I been on the funding committee I'd have not been happy with this paper. BTW, those conducting the research are all from a school of pharmacy, you'd reckon they'd know enough chemistry and quantitative analysis to conduct a more exhaustive test. *†https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0321467&utm_source=pr&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=plos006 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
wkat4242 1y ago
I always do my stuff at 90C (bedding, towels) or 60C (clothes), both should be pretty sterilised, right? Everything I have is cotton which is very resistant to such high temps.

by v1ne 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> don't get how the authors arrive at their hypothesis They didn't. The “health care workers who wash their uniforms at home" did.

avereveard 1y ago
Why would Healthcare worker do laundry at home with potentially contaminated uniform? Probably that is the thing to address first.

DebtDeflation 1y ago

>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 1y ago
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 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    UVB kills covid, and sunlight is a pretty good disinfectant in general. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/214/5841129?login=false https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/2/214/5841129?login... https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/study-reveals-ultraviolet-light-exposure-has-antiviral-effects-on-covid-19-variants/ 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 1y ago
      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-does-ultraviolet-light-kill-the-coronavirus 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-UVC
      - deleted 1y ago

HWR_14 1y ago

> 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 1y ago
I thought they did that everywhere.
poly2it 1y ago
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 1y ago
  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.
- 1y ago

ukuina 1y ago

> 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%20control%20panel%20with%20sanitize%20option.JPG https://cdn.avbportal.com/magento-media/GrandBlog/mhw8630hc%...

deeThrow94 1y ago
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).
Tijdreiziger 1y ago
> The request could not be satisfied. The Amazon CloudFront distribution is configured to block access from your country.
- ukuina 1y ago
  Try this? https://i.imgur.com/WukGwvs.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/WukGwvs.jpeg

HPsquared 1y ago

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.

wkat4242 1y ago
I wear my clothes for a day and then wash them, they last about 100 washing cycles before they fray and or discolour too much. That's not bad IMO. All good quality cotton though. I only wear cotton, except underwear and socks.
- Doxin 1y ago
  I have clothes that have survived decades of wear and are still structurally completely intact. Any new clothes I buy will last one season at best before the fabric just disintegrates. There's a definite change in fabric quality going on.

hoseyor 1y ago

> 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 1y ago

> it's a bold hypothesis that a household washing machine should sterilise clothes No such hypothesis was made.

empath75 1y ago

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 1y ago

"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.

ghssds 1y ago
TSP can be bought at an hardware store and then added as needed in your cloth washing machine and your dishwasher.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  Yeah, I know. My hardware shop sells packs of 2kg of TSP for less than $10 and I use it for many things—cleaning paint surfaces, removing mold (small concentrations left on surfaces even prevent mold from forming), softening surfactants including washing powders, etc. Those of us with some chemistry knowledge do such things but those people referred to in the story are unlikely to even know about TSP let alone add it or anything else to washing except perhaps fabric softener. I found the story lacking detail so I went to the source paper† and whilst detailed in parts I also found it quite unsatisfactory. For example, during the test only 14g of 'unspecified' detergent was added. That little amount added to my wash certainly wouldn't remove dirt or oily stains let alone blood stains (which you'd expect to find on dirty medical workers clothes). Moreover, whilst the paper mentions there are differences between liquid and powder detergents (including rhise with enzyme) little else is said about them. (Surely one should know the exact nature of one's bactericide before one commences.) Quote extract from paper's conclusion: "It is however difficult to determine the antimicrobial efficacy of the detergent itself from this study investigations.…" Why? Again, you'd reckon that would be prerequisite and part of the controls (i.e.: take a fresh concentration of 14g detergent in the equivalent of a washing machine load of clean water and test it then increase the concentration in steps until 99.99% of the bugs died (that level of kill is required of an effective bactericide). "Several studies have showed that the HAI organisms MRSA and A. baumanii and other Gram-negative bacteria can survive washes performed under 60°C without detergent…." "without detergent" — for heaven's sake, that's hardly relevant. Who would wash clothing without detergent? None I'd suggest let alone medical workers. When one actually reads some of these papers one can only conclude that some conclusions are questionable. Perhaps we've a case of bullshit baffling brains (here I mean those funding the research). Had I been on the funding committee I'd have not been happy with this paper. BTW, those conducting the research are all from a school of pharmacy, you'd reckon they'd know enough chemistry and quantitative analysis to conduct a more exhaustive test. *†https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0321467&utm_source=pr&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=plos006 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

wkat4242 1y ago

I always do my stuff at 90C (bedding, towels) or 60C (clothes), both should be pretty sterilised, right? Everything I have is cotton which is very resistant to such high temps.