ArticleFrontiers in microbiomes2024
Balancing water conservation and health: do water-saving showerheads impact the microbes we breathe in during showering?
Article in Frontiers in microbiomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early detection of nosocomial pathogens in air and surfaces using an innovative genetic approach for surveillance in healthcare settings.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-flow showerheads offer consumers economic and water-saving benefits, yet their use may inadvertently affect the microbial content of produced water and water-associated aerosols. This study aimed to compare the abundance and microbial composition of bacteria in shower water and associated respirable aerosols produced by various low flow rate (1, 1.5, and 1.8 gpm) showerheads. Our findings indicate that the lowest-flow showerhead produces water with lower total microbial and opportunistic bacterial pathogen densities compared to higher low flow rate counterparts. However, microbiome analysis revealed that 1.8 gpm flow rate showerheads exhibit reduced abundance of Gram-negative organisms and common biofilm-forming organisms, suggesting potentially lower pathogenicity compared to 1 and 1.5 gpm low-flow showerheads. Additionally, the number of respirable aerosols produced by showerheads as well as the partitioning of certain microorganisms from the water to aerosol phases was negatively correlated with flow rate, suggesting that there may be increasing exposure potential to pathogenic bioaerosols when using a 1gpm showerhead compared to a 1.8 gpm showerhead. However, the 1.5 gpm showerhead seemed to balance microbial partitioning, aerosol generation, and water conservation. Moreover, the microbial composition of aerosols produced from shower water was more influenced by the age of the showerhead than the flow rate, highlighting the significance of biofilm formation on the microbial community. Overall, our findings underscore the importance of evaluating the microbial risk associated with low-flow showerheads using multiple metrics in both water and aerosols, and dynamically assessing this over time, to ensure accurate future risk assessment.
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.