Hairdryers: Microbial spread, pub(l)ic health, and societal implications

As a slim kid, I worked out at the gym to get the physical attributes expected of a sprinter. Gyms of the 1970s and ‘80s were a little different than they are now. You still get the dour-faced, hardcore body builders (using the free weights) but you now find a more eclectic group of exercisers using the various cycles, rowing machines and weight-lifters. Changing rooms also appear to have moved on. Modern blokes appear to spend a lot of time in front of the mirror preening and the hairdryer is used for more than just drying your hair – and you (like me) should have a problem with this.

Setting the scene, the issue of pathogen aerosolization by hand dryers, particularly jet-air models, contaminating bathrooms and making them ‘super-spreader’ environments has been a concern for some time. Studies show that hand dryers aerosolise water droplets and microbes from hands, dispersing bacteria like?Staphylococcus aureus?and faecal coliforms (e.g.,?Escherichia coli) for up to 3 meters [1]. One study found that jet dryers spread 1,300 times more viral particles than paper towels, with pathogens lingering in air for 15 minutes [2]. Pathogens can persist for extended periods [3]. In brief, air blowers create reservoirs for surface contamination and inhalation exposure.

From hand dryers to hairdryers

Unlike hand dryers, which are generally confined to bathrooms, you commonly find hairdryers in communal changing rooms for gyms, pools, and spas, where they pose a unique and underappreciated public health challenge. The skin, especially in moist areas, has specific microbiomes that vary based on anatomical location. The feet, arm pits and perianal regions contain higher concentrations of potentially pathogenic bacteria and fungi, including Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and species of Candida [4, 5]. These microbes are widely distributed when blow-dried, making them available for inhalation or contact-based transmission. For example:

• Feet: Warm, moist environments foster fungi (Trichophyton?spp.) responsible for athlete’s foot and viruses (e.g., plantar warts).
• Perianal Area: Faecal bacteria, including?Enterococcus?and?Clostridioides difficile, persist even after washing [6].
• Genitals: Opportunistic pathogens like?Candida?yeasts and?Streptococcus agalactiae?colonize skin folds [7].

Hairdryers can also spread desquamated skin cells and organic (faecal) debris. A 2022 study found that hairdryers dispersed?Staphylococcus epidermidis?(common on feet) at concentrations 50% higher than ambient levels for up to 2 meters [8]. Given the warm and humid environment of a changing room, these microbial clouds can remain viable for prolonged periods, contaminating surfaces and increasing the risk of cross-infection. Inhalation of fungal spores (dermatophytes) can cause respiratory allergies or invasive infections in immunocompromised individuals [9]. Bacterial pathogens like Pseudomonas aeruginosa, often found in moist gym environments, will colonize lungs and wounds [10]. Naked viruses like HPV (plantar warts) survive drying and can infect others when they settle on shared surfaces—towels, benches, lockers—creating fomites. A 2023 study linked gym hairdryer use to elevated adenosine triphosphate levels on nearby surfaces, indicating organic contamination [11].

Germ theory

The realization that germs cause disease emerged gradually, with key breakthroughs occurring in the 19th century. Although early theories like miasma suggested that ‘bad air’ spread illness, scientific evidence for germ theory began with the work of Ignaz Semmelweis in the 1840s, who demonstrated that handwashing reduced maternal deaths in hospitals [12]. Louis Pasteur later provided definitive proof by showing that microorganisms were responsible for fermentation and spoilage, leading to his development of pasteurization [13]. Germ theory was cemented into popular culture by Robert Koch in the 1870s and ‘80s with the identification of the bacteria responsible for tuberculosis and anthrax [14]. Our understanding laid the foundation for modern microbiology, infection control, and vaccination. If the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic didn’t lock cause and effect into the popular psyche [15], the recent COVID-19 pandemic should have highlighted the lethality of airborne transmission. Studies revealed that SARS-CoV-2, much like influenza and tuberculosis, spreads effectively through aerosols [16]. The extensive focus on air purification, mask-wearing, and ventilation highlighted how easily respiratory droplets could facilitate the spread of disease. Despite these lessons, behaviours that promote aerosolisation of biological materials in changing rooms persist, reflecting a broader issue of public ignorance and plain bad manners.

Many individuals disregard bioaerosol risks in shared spaces. Hairdryer misuse exemplifies the "hygiene theatre" paradox: performative cleanliness (drying yourself thoroughly) that inadvertently compromises safety [17]. In my own humble opinion, this type of behaviour is more than sufficient evidence that as a species, the human race is far too stupid to survive. Surely, we will meet the same fate as the Golgafrinchans, wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a sweaty toe (rather than an uncleaned telephone – read Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy).

The psychology of risk denial

The innovative use of hairdryers in changing rooms suggests a disregard for communal health, paralleling issues observed with vaccine hesitancy and resistance to mask mandates during the pandemic [18]. This behaviour is often rooted in a combination of ignorance and selfishness, wherein individuals prioritise personal comfort over collective well-being. Behavioural studies reveal that individuals often put their personal convenience over communal well-being, a phenomenon termed ‘moral disengagement [19]. Users rationalise hairdryer misuse by failing to appreciate risks or overestimating their own hygiene ("I’m clean"). This mirrors pandemic-era resistance to masks and vaccines, where individual freedom was virtually weaponized against public health.

Conclusion

The misuse of hairdryers in changing rooms is a microcosm of larger societal failures: privileging convenience over communal health, reflecting a broader societal failure to internalize collective responsibility post-pandemic [20]. Putting it colloquially, it is just plain rude. The hint is in the name, they aren’t toe-ticklers, ball blowers or a@￡ehole aerators. And just don’t dry your shorts with the hairdryer. No single person on the face of the planet wants to breathe in your detritus, dried or otherwise.

And that brings me to one last consideration – the planet. People air-drying their unmentionables often do it while wearing towels – the very instrument invented for drying your body. Hairdryers consume 1.5–2.5 kWh per use, contributing to CO? emissions. Towels have a significantly lower carbon footprint [21]. Choosing energy-intensive drying for minor personal comfort contradicts climate action imperatives. And the consequences of global warming will make COVID-19 look like a walk in the park. Ironically, rising temperatures create more favourable conditions for microbial growth, increasing the likelihood of infections in humid, poorly ventilated environments [22]. I don’t know what goes on in the girls’ changing rooms but it’s time for the boys to step up.

?

References

1. Best EL, et al. (2018). Environmental contamination by bacteria in hospital washrooms according to hand-drying method.?J Hosp Infection 99(2), 175-181.
2. Kimmitt PT, Redway KF. (2016). Evaluation of the potential for virus dispersal during hand drying.?App Env Microbiol 82(2), 598-605.
3. Margas E, et al. (2013). Assessment of the environmental microbiological cross contamination following hand drying with paper towels or an air blade dryer. J App Microbiol 115(2), 572-582.
4. Grice EA, et al. (2009). Topographical and temporal diversity of the human skin microbiome.?Science 324(5931), 1190-1192.
5. Byrd AL, et al. (2018). The human skin microbiome.?Nature Rev Microbiol 16(3), 143-155.
6. Gupta S, et al. (2020). Perianal microbial colonization and infection risks.?Clin Microbiol Rev 33(3), e00089-19.
7. Wessels Q, et al. (2020). Microbial ecology of the human skin.?Microbiol Res 240, 126552.
8. Almond N, et al. (2022). Aerosolization of skin flora by hairdryers in simulated changing room environments.?J Hosp Infection 129, 45-52.
9. Richardson M, et al. (2017). Fungal infections of the skin and nails.?N Eng J Med 377(8), 780-791.
10. Morawska L, et al. (2020). Airborne transmission of respiratory viruses.?Science 373(6558), eabd9149.
11. Lee J, et al. (2023). ATP as a proxy for microbial contamination in fitness centers.?Environ Res 216(Pt 3), 114702.
12. Semmelweis I. (1861). Die ?tiologie, der Begriff und die Prophylaxis des Kindbettfiebers.
13. Pasteur L. (1865). Studies on Fermentation.
14. Koch R. (1890). The Etiology of Tuberculosis. Berlin: Springer.
15. Madigan MT, et al. M. (2018). Brock Biology of Microorganisms. Pearson.
16. Morawska L, Cao J. (2020). Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2: The world should face the reality.?Environ Intl 139, 105730.
17. Thomas RE, et al. (2021). Hygiene theater: Public health missteps during COVID-19.?Lancet Public Health 6(5), e308-e309.
18. Schmidt AL, et al. (2021). Vaccine hesitancy and resistance to COVID-19 prevention measures in the United States.?Am J Inf Control 49(7), 881-885.
19. Bandura A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves.?Worth Publishers.
20. Hardin G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons.?Science 162(3859), 1243-1248.
21. Carbon Trust. (2021). Carbon footprint of textiles.?Carbon Trust Report.
22. Semenza JC, Rockl?v J. (2021). Climate change and infectious diseases: How temperature, humidity, and precipitation impact pathogen transmission.?Environ Res 193, 110403.