Designgeek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2004
- Messages
- 865
This topic will be dealing with the question of bacterial persistance on laundry. Don't read this if you're highly-squeamish about poop and suchlike.
---
In another topic, Launderess said:
Post# 53375-1/13/2005-20:53 ||| Launderess (United States)
Tide With Bleach
Read the fine print on the box and you will see that particular version of Tide is effective against a small list of bacteria. The most commonly found bacteria found on laundry, E Coli is NOT listed, and it is all over everyone's wash.
Normal laundering methods; hot water, mechanical action, change of water temsp (hot to cold), and chemicals contained within modern laundry detergents do a pretty good job of killing bacteria. If you want to take things furhter, there is always chlorine bleach (still the most effective and wide spectrum disenfectant available widely), or very hot wash temps for an extended period of time.
Launderess
---
Okay, first issue: Whence come all the e.coli in the wash...?
If I'm not mistaken, e.coli is fecal coliform bacteria.
That suggests it comes from underwear. Even someone who's fastidious about wiping their bottom when they poop could have e.coli present on the skin in the region, which can't be removed by the toilet paper. So then, the e.coli would transfer to their underwear invisibly. Is that approximately right? You'd change your underwear daily, it would never have a visible trace of poop or anything, but it would still have picked up the e.coli from your bottom. And then it would sit in the laundry basket for a few days before making the fateful trip to the washer.
This has implications for dirty laundry storage: to not use traditional baskets with their open mesh sides (bacteria could escape onto the bedroom floor), but instead use baskets that have solid sides and bottoms, without perforations. And also, to never use the same basket to carry the clean clothes back from the laundry room, as was used to carry the dirty clothes to the laundry room (I'll have to admit I've been guilty as h*ll of this one.)
To complicate matters slightly, if the e.coli are transferring invisibly from one's bottom to one's underwear, could they also transfer through the cloth of the underwear, to the cloth of the outer garment worn over the underwear?
So, even if you have two separate laundry baskets, one for whites, the other for colors, your dark pants (e.g. blue jeans) have already picked up e.coli and it's now in both laundry baskets, right? (Oh lovely!)
This gets us to the key question: what procedures can be used to kill the e.coli or reduce it to a safe level without growing resistant strains?
For example, wash all whites in hot water. Okay, but it takes 160 degrees Fahrenheit for at least 5 minutes, to kill 100% of bacteria in food, so it would seem to be the same requirement for laundry. However, the plastic tubs & components of many modern washers aren't rated to that temperature. And household water supplies aren't set that high.
So now you add bleach to the whites. Okay, how much bleach? What I'm looking for here is a ratio of bleach to clothing, or bleach to water in the washtub, so the quantity can be adjusted to various load sizes and washer sizes. Assume liquid bleach e.g. Clorox or its generic equivalents of the same strength.
This has implications for users of twin-tubs and suds-return machines: never recycle water from a load of underwear into a load of outer garments.
Also, for anyone, for all washers generally, wash outer garments first, then wash the underwear/whites load, handle colored socks separately, and after the last load, wipe down the interior surfaces of the washer with a dilute bleach/water solution and leave the lid open to allow fresh air circulation. Is that right, or have I missed something?
Another implication, is that this might be a serious reason to buy one of those "micro-washers" such as the Cyclone or its Sears equivalent, just for the purpose of handling socks as a segregated load, to keep those pesky foot-bugs from transferring to other garments.
(And I also have to admit I've always done mixed loads in cold water, yow!)
Then comes the drying cycle. To what extent do modern dryers get clothes up to 160 degrees and above? Seems to me that would be the point at which all the water has been removed from the garments i.e. when they are bone-dry, and then the drying is continued in order to raise the temperature to the appropriate level. At this point however, it wouldn't seem terribly urgent to separate the garments by color aside from fabric care issues, if all of it is going to get nuked at 160 degrees.
Alternately, are all of the possible segregated-washing procedures unnecessary as long as all the clothing is nuked at 160 degrees in the dryer? (I always do this step and have thought it was sufficient by itself.)
All of this may sound like so much anti-germ paranoia, but the fact remains that we are presently seeing the emergence of many new and resistant bugs. Antibiotics are starting to fail to a degree that has public health physicians pulling the proverbial fire alarm. Therefore, once again, sanitation becomes the first line of defense against potentially serious illnesses.
We're all aware of the need to wash hands after using the bathroom, before preparing or eating food, and upon coming home from public places such as work, school, or shopping. However, most people (in America at least) probably aren't fully aware of the public health implications of the way they do their laundry. I get the impression that this needs to change.
---
In another topic, Launderess said:
Post# 53375-1/13/2005-20:53 ||| Launderess (United States)
Tide With Bleach
Read the fine print on the box and you will see that particular version of Tide is effective against a small list of bacteria. The most commonly found bacteria found on laundry, E Coli is NOT listed, and it is all over everyone's wash.
Normal laundering methods; hot water, mechanical action, change of water temsp (hot to cold), and chemicals contained within modern laundry detergents do a pretty good job of killing bacteria. If you want to take things furhter, there is always chlorine bleach (still the most effective and wide spectrum disenfectant available widely), or very hot wash temps for an extended period of time.
Launderess
---
Okay, first issue: Whence come all the e.coli in the wash...?
If I'm not mistaken, e.coli is fecal coliform bacteria.
That suggests it comes from underwear. Even someone who's fastidious about wiping their bottom when they poop could have e.coli present on the skin in the region, which can't be removed by the toilet paper. So then, the e.coli would transfer to their underwear invisibly. Is that approximately right? You'd change your underwear daily, it would never have a visible trace of poop or anything, but it would still have picked up the e.coli from your bottom. And then it would sit in the laundry basket for a few days before making the fateful trip to the washer.
This has implications for dirty laundry storage: to not use traditional baskets with their open mesh sides (bacteria could escape onto the bedroom floor), but instead use baskets that have solid sides and bottoms, without perforations. And also, to never use the same basket to carry the clean clothes back from the laundry room, as was used to carry the dirty clothes to the laundry room (I'll have to admit I've been guilty as h*ll of this one.)
To complicate matters slightly, if the e.coli are transferring invisibly from one's bottom to one's underwear, could they also transfer through the cloth of the underwear, to the cloth of the outer garment worn over the underwear?
So, even if you have two separate laundry baskets, one for whites, the other for colors, your dark pants (e.g. blue jeans) have already picked up e.coli and it's now in both laundry baskets, right? (Oh lovely!)
This gets us to the key question: what procedures can be used to kill the e.coli or reduce it to a safe level without growing resistant strains?
For example, wash all whites in hot water. Okay, but it takes 160 degrees Fahrenheit for at least 5 minutes, to kill 100% of bacteria in food, so it would seem to be the same requirement for laundry. However, the plastic tubs & components of many modern washers aren't rated to that temperature. And household water supplies aren't set that high.
So now you add bleach to the whites. Okay, how much bleach? What I'm looking for here is a ratio of bleach to clothing, or bleach to water in the washtub, so the quantity can be adjusted to various load sizes and washer sizes. Assume liquid bleach e.g. Clorox or its generic equivalents of the same strength.
This has implications for users of twin-tubs and suds-return machines: never recycle water from a load of underwear into a load of outer garments.
Also, for anyone, for all washers generally, wash outer garments first, then wash the underwear/whites load, handle colored socks separately, and after the last load, wipe down the interior surfaces of the washer with a dilute bleach/water solution and leave the lid open to allow fresh air circulation. Is that right, or have I missed something?
Another implication, is that this might be a serious reason to buy one of those "micro-washers" such as the Cyclone or its Sears equivalent, just for the purpose of handling socks as a segregated load, to keep those pesky foot-bugs from transferring to other garments.
(And I also have to admit I've always done mixed loads in cold water, yow!)
Then comes the drying cycle. To what extent do modern dryers get clothes up to 160 degrees and above? Seems to me that would be the point at which all the water has been removed from the garments i.e. when they are bone-dry, and then the drying is continued in order to raise the temperature to the appropriate level. At this point however, it wouldn't seem terribly urgent to separate the garments by color aside from fabric care issues, if all of it is going to get nuked at 160 degrees.
Alternately, are all of the possible segregated-washing procedures unnecessary as long as all the clothing is nuked at 160 degrees in the dryer? (I always do this step and have thought it was sufficient by itself.)
All of this may sound like so much anti-germ paranoia, but the fact remains that we are presently seeing the emergence of many new and resistant bugs. Antibiotics are starting to fail to a degree that has public health physicians pulling the proverbial fire alarm. Therefore, once again, sanitation becomes the first line of defense against potentially serious illnesses.
We're all aware of the need to wash hands after using the bathroom, before preparing or eating food, and upon coming home from public places such as work, school, or shopping. However, most people (in America at least) probably aren't fully aware of the public health implications of the way they do their laundry. I get the impression that this needs to change.
