1000

[Evidence Inconclusive] Germ Blaster (mander.xyz)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

150 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Mannivu@feddit.it 112 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Unfortunately it is very much true.

Edit: here's a more recent source.

[-] daddy32@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is not hot air though, so the cited source does not apply.

Edit: but it does link to more relevant study towards the end, comparing different means of hand drying.

[-] Mannivu@feddit.it 34 points 1 week ago

You're right and I linked a fairly old study. I've edited my comment to add a more recent source.

[-] daddy32@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

Kudos.

[-] kautau@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

Findings: Air bacterial counts in close proximity to hand drying were 4.5-fold higher for the jet air dryer (70.7 cfu) compared with the warm air dryer (15.7 cfu) (P=0.001), and 27-fold higher compared with use of paper towels (2.6 cfu) (P<0.001).* Airborne counts were also significantly different during use of towel drying versus warm air dryer (P=0.001). A similar pattern was seen for bacterial counts at 1m away. Visualization experiments demonstrated that the jet air dryer caused the most droplet dispersal.

[-] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Isn't the point to get bacteria off your hands? Isn't it better to have them in the air than on your hands?

It's a lot more likely I'll eat something I touched than something that's been sitting in bathroom air.

[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

They used a jet air dryer, those are the shitty ones that spray everything everywhere. Of course it'll be worse. I'd like to see how a dyson air blade hold up under that kind of test.