[v1ne]

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.

[HWR_14]

> 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.

[rmah]

Hospitals in the US already use specialized washing machines that use much higher heat levels under OSHA and FDA guidelines. There are also special procedures for what gets washed with what and when.

[poly2it]

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?

[vintermann]

I thought they did that everywhere.

[DebtDeflation]

>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]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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]

Why would Healthcare worker do laundry at home with potentially contaminated uniform?

Probably that is the thing to address first.

[ukuina]

> 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]

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]

> The request could not be satisfied. The Amazon CloudFront distribution is configured to block access from your country.

[hilbert42]

"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]

TSP can be bought at an hardware store and then added as needed in your cloth washing machine and your dishwasher.

[HPsquared]

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]

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.

[arp242]

> it's a bold hypothesis that a household washing machine should sterilise clothes

No such hypothesis was made.

[empath75]

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.

[wkat4242]

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.

[hoseyor]

> 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.