Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33899991›Full record

ReviewJournal of applied microbiology2021

Toilet hygiene-review and research needs.

S E Abney, K R Bright, J McKinney, M Khalid Ijaz, C P Gerba

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of applied microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Exploring Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Positive Bacteria on Electronic Devices: A Comparative Experimental Study Based on the Gender of Healthcare and Nonhealthcare Workers.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S E AbneyDepartment of Environmental Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3413-1274
K R BrightDepartment of Environmental Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3249-006X
J McKinneyGlobal Research and Development for Lysol and Dettol, Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Montvale, NJ, USA.
M Khalid IjazGlobal Research and Development for Lysol and Dettol, Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Montvale, NJ, USA.
C P GerbaDepartment of Environmental Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
University of Arizona · USCity University of New York · USReckitt Benckiser (United States) · US

Funding

Sarah E. Abney NRT-INFEWS #1735173
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of good toilet hygiene is minimizing the potential for pathogen transmission. Control of odours is also socially important and believed to be a societal measure of cleanliness. Understanding the need for good cleaning and disinfecting is even more important today considering the potential spread of emerging pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 virus. While the flush toilet was a major advancement in achieving these objectives, exposure to pathogens can occur from failure to clean and disinfect areas within a restroom, as well as poor hand hygiene. The build-up of biofilm within a toilet bowl/urinal including sink can result in the persistence of pathogens and odours. During flushing, pathogens can be ejected from the toilet bowl/urinal/sink and be transmitted by inhalation and contaminated fomites. Use of automatic toilet bowl cleaners can reduce the number of microorganisms ejected during a flush. Salmonella bacteria can colonize the underside of the rim of toilets and persist up to 50 days. Pathogenic enteric bacteria appear in greater numbers in the biofilm found in toilets than in the water. Source tracking of bacteria in homes has demonstrated that during cleaning enteric bacteria are transferred from the toilet to the bathroom sinks and that these same bacteria colonize cleaning tools used in the restroom. Quantitative microbial risk assessment has shown that significant risks exist from both aerosols and fomites in restrooms. Cleaning with soaps and detergents without the use of disinfectants in public restrooms may spread bacteria and viruses throughout the restroom. Odours in restrooms are largely controlled by ventilation and flushing volume in toilet/urinals. However, this results in increased energy and water usage. Contamination of both the air and surfaces in restrooms is well documented. Better quantification of the risks of infection are needed as this will help determine what interventions will minimize these risks.

Indexed as

Bathroom EquipmentCOVID-19HumansHygieneSARS-CoV-2Toilet Facilitiesaerosolsdisinfectantshygieneodourspathogenstoilet

Identifiers

PMID33899991
PMCPMC9292268
OpenAlexW3157757605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.