TYPE Original Research PUBLISHED 22 October 2025 DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1664322
Understanding the impact of different hand drying methods on viral aerosols formation and surface contamination in indoor environments
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY Heba Mohtady Ali, Zagazig University, Egypt
REVIEWED BY Kaisen Lin, Michigan State University, United States Ngozi Amaeze, Bell College, United Kingdom
*CORRESPONDENCE Mark H. Wilcox
Ines B. Moura 1 , Karen Bentley 1 , Kimrun Kaur 1 and Mark H. Wilcox 1,2 *
mark.wilcox@nhs.net
RECEIVED 11 July 2025 ACCEPTED 06 October 2025 PUBLISHED 22 October 2025 CORRECTED 06 November 2025 CITATION Moura IB, Bentley K, Kaur K and
1 Leeds Institute of Medical Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, 2 Department of Microbiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
Wilcox MH (2025) Understanding the impact of different hand drying methods on viral aerosols formation and surface contamination in indoor environments.
Background: As COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, compliance with good hygiene practices has declined. Hand drying can help remove microbes that remain on hands following poor hand washing. We looked at the potential of new electric hand dryer models to disperse microbial droplets and aerosolized particles during hand drying, to understand if there is a potential infection risk. Methods: We used both a food dye solution and a bacteriophage solution to visually and quantitively investigate the potential of electric hand dryers Airblade 9KJ (A9KJ), Airblade Wash & Dry (AW+D) and of paper towels (PT), to disperse water droplets in the washroom environment, potentially contaminating surfaces, the user, and a bystander. We also investigated whether microorganisms aerosolized during hand drying can contaminate facemasks of others sharing the same space, mimicking the risk of virus inhalation, up to 30 min post-hand drying. Results: The highest level of droplet contamination on the floor and walls was observed using the A9KJ hand dryer. Compared to PT, average wall contamination was 78 times higher with A9KJ, and 19 times higher with AW+D. Hand drying assays using bacteriophage showed significantly less splattering contamination of both masks and torso when using PT, compared with electric hand dryers’ use. Overall, person contamination was 100- to 1,000-fold lower at the hand dryer position when using PT. Mask contamination of participants standing at 1 m distance of the hand drying unit was 10-fold and 100-fold lower in assays using PT, compared to A9KJ hand dryer and AW+D wall hand dryer use, respectively. Conclusion: The potential for virus spread via droplets and aerosols was considerably higher following the use of electric hand dryers, suggesting users are more at risk of contact with viral particles via touching contaminated surfaces or inhalation when using electric hand dryers, compared with PT.
Front. Public Health 13:1664322. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1664322
COPYRIGHT © 2025 Moura, Bentley, Kaur and Wilcox. This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
KEYWORDS
hand drying, paper towels, electric hand dryer, viral contamination, aerosols
Frontiers in Public Health
01
frontiersin.org
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator