ArticleJournal of applied microbiology2022
Quantifying pathogen infection risks from household laundry practices.
Article in Journal of applied microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Antimicrobials Against Enveloped and Non-Enveloped Viruses on Porous Materials: A Review.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Antimicrobial resistance in foodborneVeterinary world · 2025Review
- Demonstration of a Home Laundering Method for Cloth Facepieces to Achieve Hygienic and Sustainable Reuse.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2025Article
- A risk-risk tradeoff approach for incorporating the public's risk perceptions into quantitative microbial risk assessment.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2025Article
- Microbial cross contamination in household laundering and microbial ecology of household washing machines.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Research gaps and priorities for quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA).Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2024Article
- Applications of Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment to Respiratory Pathogens and Implications for Uptake in Policy: A State-of-the-Science Review.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Review
- A critical evaluation of parametric models for predicting faecal indicator bacteria concentrations in greywater.Microbial risk analysis · 2024Article
- Virucidal efficacy of laundry sanitizers against SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses and influenza viruses.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Quantifying pathogen infection risks from household laundry practices.Journal of applied microbiology · 2022Article
- Influence of Hydrogen Peroxide on Disinfection and Soil Removal during Low-Temperature Household Laundry.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsContaminated laundry can spread infections. However, current directives for safe laundering are limited to healthcare settings and not reflective of domestic conditions. We aimed to use quantitative microbial risk assessment to evaluate household laundering practices (e.g., detergent selection, washing and drying temperatures, and sanitizer use) relative to log METHODS AND
resultsUsing published data, we characterized laundry infection risks for respiratory and enteric pathogens relative to a single user contact scenario and a 1.0 × 10 SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Conclusions provide guidance for household laundry practices to achieve targeted risk reductions, given a single user contact scenario. A key finding was that hand hygiene implemented at critical control points in the laundering process was the most significant driver of infection prevention, additionally reducing infection risks by up to 6 log
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.