research on paper towels

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Comparison of electric hand dryers and paper towels for hand hygiene: a critical review of the literature

Ka reynolds, dj mcclelland.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Correspondence , Kelly A. Reynolds, Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, 1295 N. Martin Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA. E‐mail: [email protected]

Corresponding author.

Received 2020 Apr 22; Revised 2020 Jun 30; Accepted 2020 Jul 9; Issue date 2021 Jan.

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Numerous studies are published on the benefits of electric hand dryers vs paper towels (PT) for drying hands after washing. Data are conflicting and lacking key variables needed to assess infection risks. We provide a rapid scoping review on hand‐drying methods relative to hygiene and health risks. Controlled vocabulary terms and keywords were used to search PubMed (1946–2018) and Embase (1947–2018). Multiple researchers independently screened abstracts for relevance using predetermined criteria and created a quality assessment scoring system for relative study comparisons. Of 293 papers, 23 were included in the final analysis. Five studies did not compare multiple methods; however, 2 generally favoured electric dryers (ED); 7 preferred PT; and 9 had mixed or statistically insignificant results (among these, 3 contained scenarios favourable to ED, 4 had results supporting PT, and the remaining studies had broadly conflicting results). Results were mixed among and within studies and many lacked consistent design or statistical analysis. The breadth of data does not favour one method as being more hygienic. However, some authors extended generalizable recommendations without sufficient scientific evidence. The use of tools in quantitative microbial risk assessment is suggested to evaluate health exposure potentials and risks relative to hand‐drying methods. We found no data to support any human health claims associated with hand‐drying methods. Inconclusive and conflicting results represent data gaps preventing the advancement of hand‐drying policy or practice recommendations.

Keywords: air dryer, hand dryer, electric dryer, hand hygiene, paper towel

Introduction

The term hygiene has a complex set of meanings but is generally associated with ‘conditions and practices that help to maintain health and prevent the spread of disease’ (World Health Organization n .d.). Effective hand hygiene is well recognized as a primary defence against communicable diseases in both clinical and nonclinical environments (Bolon 2016 ; Zivich et al . 2018 ). Agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have published extensive guidelines on recommended wash times and protocols for hand hygiene practices in medical, food preparation and other environments (Boyce and Pittet 2002 ; World Health Organization 2009 ; FDA 2017 ). CDC guidelines suggest scrubbing hands for at least 20 s with soap and water, which has been shown to reduce approximately 1·5 log CFU per hand (Jensen et al . 2015 ). A 30 s wash resulted in a 2·42 log CFU reduction in another study (Todd et al . 2010 ).

In addition to handwashing, effective hand drying is important in reducing the level of bacterial contamination present on hands and available for transfer from skin to other surfaces, including skin, food and fomites. Several studies have shown more efficient transfer of bacteria to surfaces from wet compared to dry hands or in high‐humidity environments (Patrick et al . 1997 ; Todd et al . 2010 ; Lopez et al . 2013 ; Gerba et al . 2016 ; Kimmitt and Redway 2016 ). Patrick et al . ( 1997 ) found that hand drying reduced transfer by up to 99·8%.

Numerous studies have been published with the objective to evaluate the ‘best’ method for hand drying, with the two most common categories being electric hand dryers and towels. Electric hand dryers include both warm air and jet air designs, while towel drying includes disposable paper and cloth products. Some studies also evaluated evaporation or wiping of hands on clothing as a means of drying hands.

Variables considered include bacterial removal efficacy, environmental contamination potentials, ecological or cost benefits, noise and overall hygiene comparisons. Reports in the literature are mixed in terms of which method is more hygienic and consensus has not been found across studies as to which method is the most preferred. However, publications in both the peer‐reviewed and grey literature have made recommendations relative to hygiene and health concerns generally favouring disposable towels over dryers despite a lack of evidence or experiments to appropriately evaluate health outcomes. Most studies have been sponsored by industries with potentially biased interests and have been conducted under a wide range of scenarios with inconsistent study design variables, making it difficult to compare study results.

The objective of this paper is to provide a scoping review of the current scientific peer‐reviewed publications comparing the use of paper towels (PT) vs electric dryers (ED) and their impact on environmental health using a standardized set of criteria. Our focus was to categorize, and quantitatively prioritize, the papers relative to scientific rigor in the study design and compare statistically significant results across defined categories of hand‐drying methods. We also examined statistically significant results relative to paper conclusions and the impact of these studies on public perception (as determined by media posts and other grey literature) and provided recommendations for future studies.

Materials and methods

Scoping reviews are a preferred approach to explore emerging research areas, allowing for a broader view of the depth and breadth of available literature (Grant and Booth 2009 ). A scoping review typically does not utilize a formal quality assessment in the initial screening, allowing for characterization of the quantity and quality of the literature as part of the data extraction process.

In order to determine next steps towards improved exposure and risk assessments relative to hand hygiene practices, we were interested in a rapid (<6 month) assessment of the current body of literature aimed at identifying gaps in existing research (Khalil et al . 2016 ). This approach allowed us to consider a broad range of publication types and furnish as comprehensive an overview of the topic as time allowed. We followed a previously published methodology consisting of five steps: (i) identifying the research question; (ii) identifying relevant studies; (iii) selecting studies; (iv) charting the data; and (v) collating, summarizing and reporting the results (Arksey and O’Malley 2005 ; Levac et al . 2010 ).

Identifying the research question

Data relative to the most effective methods for hand hygiene (i.e. handwashing and drying) are highly varied. Many studies have evaluated the efficacy of various soap products and formulation, water temperature, duration and frequency of washing, as well as drying methods. After reading several conflicting reports from the grey literature (i.e. media reports and internet blogs) (Astor 2018 ; Dean 2018 ), with some recommending avoidance of air dryers for certain environments (Hafner 2018 ), we sought to conduct a scoping review of the peer‐reviewed literature to answer the research question: Are hand dryers more hygienic than paper towels? Given the implication that improved hygiene is correlated with health, we also sought to answer the question: Are PT safer than hand dryers relative to human infection risks?

Identifying relevant studies

Controlled terms (e.g. MeSH and Emtree) and keywords were used to search PubMed (1946–2018) and Embase (1947–2018) (Table  1 ). Literature searches were completed on 23 October 2018. No limits were applied to the searches (e.g. publication date, language). Relevant items (articles/reports) identified through Google Scholar were also included for screening. Articles published after the initial search date and up to February 2019 were included if they met the inclusion criteria.

Scoping review search terms

Discovered papers were uploaded into Covidence software (Covidence.org), which provided a standard platform for organizing, screening and de‐duping articles. Remaining articles were randomly assigned and reviewed by at least two of our three‐member team (KAR, AN and JDS). Two authors (KAR and JDS) independently screened full‐text articles for relevance. In cases of disagreement, the third author (AN) discussed the criteria with each reviewer and made a final inclusion decision.

Full‐text articles and reports were selected if they met the following inclusion criteria: (i) involved quantitative assessments; (ii) utilized sampling for environmental microbes or tracers; (iii) evaluated one or more hand‐drying methods; and (iv) published in peer‐reviewed literature. Case studies, reviews, systematic reviews and opinion articles were excluded from the quantitative synthesis but may have been included in the summary of grey literature. Articles were not excluded due to poor quality but rather a process of assessment was utilized during data extraction to detail and compare study design and analytical rigor with reported conclusions to identify gaps and future research needs.

Extraction of results

Results were extracted from individual papers using a standardized questionnaire formatted using the Qualtrics online survey software (Qualtrics.com). Extracted data included: author, year, study design, drying method, tracer, environment, sampling site, results, study duration, major findings, strengths, limitations, country, funding source and other notes/comments.

Results and discussion

Search results.

The initial search returned 287 studies. Further review led to the identification of 6 more papers of interest, for a total of 293 studies. Of the 229 articles that remained after duplicates were removed, 191 were excluded after title and abstract screening because of irrelevance to the topic. Inclusion criteria, as outlined above, were applied to the full text of 38 articles. Of these, 23 met the full set of criteria and were included in the final review.

Major study findings

The majority of studies selected for final data extraction included a comparison of multiple drying methods to determine which drying method was the ‘best’. Table  2 provides detailed information on citations, funding, study design and major findings of extracted papers. In most instances, the chosen best method resulted in comparatively less contamination of the environment (surfaces, air, clothing, hands). Papers targeting economic or ecological impacts of drying methods were excluded from the formal data extraction.

Summaries of included hand drying articles

PT, paper towels; CT, cloth towel; JD, jet air dryer; WD, warm air dryer; EV, evaporation; CL, clothing.

Observational = field study; simulation = Lab study; intervention = pre‐post study design.

Private funding.

Public funding.

Included articles either evaluated one hand‐drying method or compared the use of hand towels (paper or cloth) with ED (jet or warm air). Studies frequently utilized laboratory simulations targeting indigenous microbiomes of the environment and hands, or microbial tracers, to determine which hand‐drying method correlated with the least amount of hand, air or surface contamination. Two studies used nonmicrobial aerosol tracers (i.e. acid droplets or paint) to assess travel distances following specific drying behaviours and one study used a risk model approach to estimate probabilities of hand contamination.

A greater number of studies favoured the use of PT over air dryers based on comparisons of bacterial count trends on surfaces or in the air. Some studies found higher counts on PT dispensers. Even hands‐free towel dispensers were reportedly contaminated due to frequent contact with dispenser exit surfaces. Levels varied with malfunction frequency and user height (Harrison et al . 2003 ).

One study recommended a combined approach using towels followed by warm air‐drying to minimize bacterial transfer rates and maximize drying efficacy (Patrick et al . 1997 ). Given that wet hands transfer more bacteria between surfaces, improved efficacy of air dryers was an identified benefit in some studies. Rubbing with PT resulted in fewer bacterial counts likely due to the transfer of indigenous bacteria to the towel. No discussion was given to how this phenomenon relates to health. Little is known about the role of skin microbiota but authors suggested a beneficial function to these commensal organisms (Cogen et al . 2008 ).

Interpretation of the validity of study conclusions is complicated by variable experimental designs and fluctuating results between and within studies. Commonly referenced hand‐drying studies showed distinctly variable results. Some studies concluded that PT were more hygienic than dryers (Blackmore 1989 ; Ngeow et al . 1989a ; Knights et al . 1993 ), while others found air dryers improved air quality (Ansari et al . 1991 ; Yamamoto et al . 2005 ). Several studies found no significant difference between the two (Matthews and Newsom 1987 ; Gustafson et al . 2000 ; Taylor et al . 2000 ).

A more recent study included a multi‐site, multi‐variable design and found that contamination levels in bathrooms with PT were generally lower than those with jet dryers (Best et al . 2018 ). However, many variables were identified that could have confounding effects and data trends were not always significant. Even for statistically significant scenario comparisons, questionable is the health risk associated with low contamination levels (i.e. 1 vs 2 MSSA organisms; 7 vs 21 MRSA organisms) when pathogenic bacteria infectious doses may be 5 or more orders of magnitude higher (Rose and Haas 1999 ). To our knowledge, high levels of baseline pathogenic bacteria concentrations have not been reported in real‐world bathroom or hand‐drying comparisons.

Best et al . ( 2018 ) found significant differences with colony counts of Enterobacter and enterococci where zero colonies compared to 1–2 log concentrations were reported in bathrooms using towels vs dryers, respectively. Both Enterobacter and enterococci are widespread in the environment and used to evaluate water or surface treatment interventions. While each can cause infections, including urinary tract infections, they are more commonly considered harmless commensals in the human gut and do not indicate a direct human health risk when detected in the environment.

For data to be meaningful in terms of a potential health risk associated with drying methods or environmental contamination levels, more research is needed to evaluate hazard prevalence and virulence; exposure routes, frequency and duration; dose–response potentials following exposure; and an overall characterization of risk. Epidemiological studies, particularly those assessing low levels of disease incidence, often require a large sample for an appropriately powered study. Such studies can be cost prohibitive and lack the sensitivity needed to assess low‐dose, low‐risk events. Previously developed tools in quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) have been used to evaluate health outcomes related to pathogen exposures from environmental surfaces (Beamer et al . 2015 ; Wilson et al . 2018 ; Canales et al . 2019 ). Such computational tools could be applied to characterize surface contamination levels associated with various handwashing and hand‐drying methods, assess exposure potentials and forecast risk probabilities. Despite inferring health risks, none of the papers published to date considered a quantitative exposure or risk assessment approach to relate environmental contamination levels with human health outcomes. Furthermore, information is lacking relating seeded tracer concentrations with real‐world pathogen exposure levels. Extending risk estimates from tracer bacteria concentrations overestimates risk, as most of these starting concentrations do not represent expected pathogen levels (Ryan et al . 2014 ; Wilson et al . 2019 ). Consideration of pathogen transmission and environmental exposure potentials is needed for adequate assessment of exposures risks. For example, contamination of toilet seats and floors may not be a high‐risk event if they are not part of the exposure route leading to infection. In comparison, potentially lower contamination on a towel dispenser handle in direct and frequent contact with the hand may result in a greater risk of exposure to the mouth or other orifices. Exposure and activity data are critical to linking environmental contamination with risk and should be considered, along with handwashing efficacy, as a precursor to drying efficacy.

Strengths and weaknesses

Of the 23 studies evaluated, all had a varying degree of scientific rigor, strengths and weaknesses (Table  3 ). These strengths and weaknesses were considered when assessing the validity of study conclusions. Performing a statistical analysis on the data generated from the experiment was considered a positive study attribute. Of the 23 scientifically reviewed studies, 22 were experimentally based (non‐computer simulations) and 17 of those conducted a statistical analysis. Studies that employed a statistical analysis plan sometimes favoured PT (PT) or electric (jet and warm air) dryers (ED) (Taylor et al . 2000 ; Yamamoto et al . 2005 ), or in some cases neither (Matthews and Newsom 1987 ; Gustafson et al . 2000 ; Yamamoto et al . 2005 ; Margas et al . 2013 ; Kimmitt and Redway 2016 ; Wilcox et al . 2017 ). In cases where statistics were not utilized, conclusions were the result of trend analysis, which can be misleading, especially in cases of large data variability or low contamination levels with a questionable relationship to significant health risks.

Strengths and weaknesses of included hand drying articles

In addition to a lack of statistical analysis, results often lacked information on data distributions and summary statistics. Detailed summary statistics are helpful in analysing study power and data outliers that could be contributing to erroneous conclusions. Without this information, it is difficult to verify statistical methods, compare results across studies or utilize data to inform a QMRA model.

Sample size was also assessed and ranged from a few participants to >100. Larger sample sizes often led to application of statistical testing and thus were considered a stronger attribute compared to studies with smaller sample sizes. A large sample size is especially imperative in studies with large data variability in subjects, test organisms or environmental characteristics. Subject participation varied throughout the studies. In some cases, participants were required to dry their hands using only one method, while other studies reduced uncertainty between subjects by evaluating the same volunteers across multiple methods. In cases where participants utilized multiple drying methods, more weight was given to studies that randomized the drying method order to reduce participant bias.

Types of target organisms were also considered either a study strength or weakness. Targeting multiple organisms (i.e. HPC and faecal coliforms), instead of single tracer types, was considered a strength. Targeting one organism can result in bias, especially for naturally occurring skin bacteria that could be over/under‐represented based on handwashing practice and efficacy. The use of microbial tracers was preferred over indigenous skin microbes as a more consistent representation of baseline concentration. A few studies looked at chemical tracers, such as paint, to evaluate the spread of contamination. While providing useful information on the direct contamination around dryers, these methods do not necessarily correlate with microbial transfer, pathogen survival, exposure potentials or health outcomes.

Tracer application to hands also affected data variability. Many studies relied on natural contamination of the hands and environments. Other studies inoculated hands at either exaggerated concentrations or levels indicative of real‐world conditions. The hand/microbe interface is complex and impacted by friction, soap/hand sanitizer use, human cell–microbe interaction or adhesion factors, and the presence of organic matter. Some studies seeded gloved hands to minimize cell–microbe interactions. Such unrealistic conditions were considered a study weakness as they create uncertainty relative to the effect of surface interactions on pathogen transfer.

Study location was another source of uncertainty, ranging from biosafety hoods to laboratory washrooms to fully functioning bathrooms. Studies completed in biosafety hoods and laboratory washrooms did not take into consideration real‐world effects of human traffic and behaviours. This should be considered when evaluating conclusions or comparing results across studies. Studies utilizing fully functioning bathrooms often did not provide a detailed description of the bathroom layout, which makes it difficult to compare results to other studies given room influences on microbe dispersion due to airflow, room size, and placement of walls and hand‐drying dispensers.

Included studies ranged from the 1980s to present day. In this ~40‐year time span, air dryer and PT dispenser technology evolved. For example, automated towel dispensers reduced hand contact with potentially contaminated handle surfaces but did not eliminate this exposure route completely due to frequent malfunctions (Harrison et al . 2003 ). Jet dryer technology reduced dry times to approximately 10 s compared to 30 s with warm air dryers but was associated with increased concentrations and dispersion rates of indigenous microbes and tracers in several studies.

All studies agreed on the importance of effective hand drying but consumer preference ranged across methods and consideration of hygiene perceptions, speed and drying efficacy with 63% of 2008 survey respondents preferring PT to warm air dryers (28%) or cloth towels (10%) (Todd et al . 2010 ). Given that the survey, and much of the historical research on hand‐drying hygiene and efficacy, was completed prior to some of the later hand‐drying innovations (i.e. automated towel dispensers, jet dryers or HEPA‐filtered dryer air) perceptions and data analysis today may be different.

Variable applications and technologies complicated comparisons between studies in our analysis. In some studies, detailed information regarding dryer or towel dispenser technology was included, while others only list general descriptions. Few studies evaluated newer drying innovations such as hands‐free PT dispensers or HEPA filtered air dryers on tracer or microbial concentrations, which could have an impact on the overall conclusions of technology comparisons.

Data summary of major findings and study rigor

Table  4 is a semi‐quantitative characterization of major study findings and some highly referenced grey literature, sorted relative to descending rigor. Light grey boxes indicate qualitative and quantitative study strengths (i.e. large sample size, statistical significance, controlled variables, advanced statistics) and were assigned a value of two. Minus signs (dark grey boxes) indicate weaknesses relative to variable consistency, methodology, realistic conditions, data quality and other parameters (i.e. result inconsistencies) and were assigned a value of zero. White boxes were assigned a value of one relative to neutral assessments of defined qualitative and quantitative parameters (i.e. determined to be neither a strength nor weakness). An evaluation of the scenario indicates whether study conclusions generally favoured ED, PT or both equally. A scenario category of ‘N/A’ was assigned for studies that did not compare hand dryers to PT. The studies with the highest relative rigor scores (11 and 10) favoured ED or neither method; however, studies with a relative score equal to or above a six ( n  = 11) favoured PT ( n  = 4), ED ( n  = 2), mixed results ( n  = 3) or did not compare multiple methods ( n  = 2).

Quantitative study rigor assessment of hand drying studies

ED, electric dryer; PT, paper towels; N/A, comparisons between PT and ED not performed; neutral = one; positive (+) = two.

All boxes with a score of 2 should have a lighter gray shade.

All boxes with a score of zero should have a darker gray shade.

All boxes with a score of 1 should have no shading.

Listed in descending order according to rigor score.

Method favoured varied over changing scenarios.

Funding source not reported.

Study rigor scoring key: negative (−) = zero.

Electric dryers favoured

Of the 23 papers of determined relevance, 7 had results supporting the use of ED over PT. Reasons for this conclusion ranged from observations of less bacterial counts in the environment or on external device surfaces (Matthews and Newsom 1987 ; Ansari et al . 1991 ; Gustafson et al . 2000 ; Taylor et al . 2000 ; Yamamoto et al . 2005 ; Mutters and Warnes 2019 ) or less concentration of liquid droplets on surfaces near towel or dryer devices (Margas et al . 2013 ). However, most of the studies favouring ED over PT showed mixed results in terms of statistically significant data depending on which variables were evaluated. Often, within the same study, conditions favoured ED under certain scenarios and PT in others (Margas et al . 2013 ). Others evaluated results statistically but found no significant difference between hand‐drying methods (Gustafson et al . 2000 ; Taylor et al . 2000 ; Margas et al . 2013 ). Four studies favouring ED were funded in part by private sources (Gustafson et al . 2000 ; Taylor et al . 2000 ; Margas et al . 2013 ; Mutters and Warnes 2019 ), the remaining three were funded by what appeared to be independent or public sources (Matthews and Newsom 1987 ; Ansari et al . 1991 ; Yamamoto et al . 2005 ).

Paper towels favoured

Thirteen papers generally favoured PT use over ED and seven of these studies showed statistically significant differences (Blackmore 1989 ; Yamamoto et al . 2005 ; Snelling et al . 2011 ; Best et al . 2014 , 2018 ; Kimmitt and Redway 2016 ; Pitt et al . 2018 ). Five of the 13 studies were funded by The European Tissue Symposium (Best et al . 2014 , 2018 ; Best and Redway 2015 ; Kimmitt and Redway 2016 ; Wilcox et al . 2017 ) and 4 were conducted by the same research collaborators. Five additional studies that generally supported PT use over ED were sponsored by other private funding sources (Blackmore 1989 ; Hanna et al . 1996 ; Montville et al . 2002 ; Snelling et al . 2011 ; Margas et al . 2013 ). Two others were funded what appeared to be independent or public sources (Ngeow et al . 1989b ; Yamamoto et al . 2005 ). One study reportedly received no funding (Pitt et al . 2018 ).

Paper towels equal to electric dryers

Eight papers found, at least in part, that PT were equally favoured as ED (Matthews and Newsom 1987 ; Gustafson et al . 2000 ; Taylor et al . 2000 ; Snelling et al . 2011 ; Margas et al . 2013 ; Kimmitt and Redway 2016 ; Wilcox et al . 2017 ; Best et al . 2018 ). At least three of these studies conducted statistical analysis but found no difference between variables regardless of drying method used. Specifically, Taylor et al . ( 2000 ) found no significant difference in microbial aerosols created from ED compared to PT. Others also found that PT and ED were not significantly different in terms of contamination potentials from microbial aerosols under a variety of test conditions (Gustafson et al . 2000 ; Margas et al . 2013 ; Kimmitt and Redway 2016 ; Wilcox et al . 2017 ; Best et al . 2018 ).

Miscellaneous study results

Five papers failed to evaluate PT and ED in the same study (Patrick et al . 1997 ; Harrison et al . 2003 ; Gendron et al . 2012 ; Jensen et al . 2015 ; Huesca‐Espitia et al . 2018 ). These studies provided useful background information relative to other variables of potential interest. For example, Gendron et al . ( 2012 ) focused on the potential for PT to add bacteria to the environment. Sources include indigenous organisms found on the product post‐manufacturing but pre‐use, particularly with recycled pulp products, and further contamination potentials during transport to dispensers (Gendron et al . 2012 ).

Impact of study rigor

A common observation in our analysis is that most of the studies, regardless of conclusion, lacked sufficient rigor to form defensible conclusions. Some utilized small sample sizes (Kimmitt and Redway 2016 ; Wilcox et al . 2017 ) or unrealistic conditions, such as evaluating how paint spreads (Best et al . 2014 ), which may have no relationship to bacterial transmission. Others did not consider either handwashing or soap use before drying (Snelling et al . 2011 ; Best and Redway 2015 ; Jensen et al . 2015 ), which may exaggerate results given that washing is an expected drying precursor for contaminated hands. Furthermore, highly variable results within and between scenarios was a common effect (Taylor et al . 2000 ; Yamamoto et al . 2005 ; Margas et al . 2013 ; Best and Redway 2015 ; Jensen et al . 2015 ). Several authors made conclusions on the safety of different hand‐drying methods that were not supported by the data (Ngeow et al . 1989a ; Gould 1994 ; Kimmitt and Redway 2016 ). Regardless of scenario, most studies lacked objective statistical significance testing or failed to define test criteria (Ngeow et al . 1989a ; Best et al . 2014 ; Kimmitt and Redway 2016 ).

Grey literature summary

In 2018, there was a resurgence of news interest on the topic of PT vs hand dryers due to newer published research (Best et al . 2014 , 2018 ; Best and Redway 2015 ; Kimmitt and Redway 2016 ; Huesca‐Espitia et al . 2018 ). In addition, several grey literature reports went ‘viral’ on the Internet, such as the photo of a Petri dish placed in a jet air dryer as part of a small class experiment (Astor 2018 ). Grey literature includes materials (i.e. research, white papers, media and industry reports, government documents, surveys, theses and dissertations, data summaries, etc.) produced by individuals or organizations outside the traditional peer review process. While the classification of information as grey literature does not necessarily mean the data is not scientifically valid, there may be less oversight and review of the content. Here we included a review of the grey literature using the top Google results when searching ‘PT air dryers’. We also included sources disqualified during the scoping review, such as papers that did not contain original research or were not peer‐reviewed (Gould 1994 ; Lee 1994 ; Huang et al . 2012 ; Haynes 2014 ).

To extract information from the grey literature, we initially reviewed known popular sources, including Dr. Oz, MythBusters, the New York Times, Washington Post, Snopes.com and Oprah.com. Most of these reports feature headlines suggesting there may be a more hygienic way to dry hands (Table  5 ). The majority of these outlets favoured PT based on cited research from peer‐reviewed or other grey literature sources but often stated that data was inconclusive relative to safety concerns. Some media outlets performed their own small‐scale experiments, or simply cited personal preference.

Media headlines related to hand‐drying methods

Some of the data in the grey literature misconstrued research results. For example, multiple online articles about the Huesca‐Espitia et al . ( 2018 ) study state that PT are a better drying option and that dryers blow faecal matter on hands, which is not completely reflective of the authors’ conclusions. The Huesca‐Espitia et al . ( 2018 ) study did not evaluate PT or run any comparative tests between dryers and towels. The paper does voice concern over dryers potentially blowing pathogens around bathroom environments but also reports very low counts of microbes and was favourable towards warm air dryers with HEPA filters that reduced counts by fourfold.

Few of the grey literature reports provide citations or links to publications referenced. Many of the findings were overgeneralized and included unsubstantiated claims, Internet rumours and inaccurate information reported as fact. According to Snopes.com, a popular fact‐checking website, an email was circulated in 2009 claiming schools and universities were required to replace all hand dryers with towel dispensers in response to the H1N1 outbreak ('FACT CHECK: Do Hot Air Hand Dryers in Restrooms Spread Disease?' 2018). In its analysis, Snopes rates the claim as ‘unproven’.

One of the concerns with the grey literature reviewed in our study is the potential bias in the reporting. Some of the top‐ranking articles in our Google search were white papers authored or sponsored by paper companies (Vitali n .d.; Lee 1994 ). Additionally, media reports frequently used sensationalized headlines. While such headlines may increase traffic, they sometimes overgeneralize or exaggerate study results. Consumers may only read headlines which can influence public opinion towards biased or erroneous conclusions (Ecker et al . 2014 ). Ecker et al . also found that readers are more likely to recall details of the article relative to expectations set by inferences in the headline and not by what the article actually says.

The objective of our study was to provide a scoping review of the current scientific peer‐reviewed publications comparing the use of PT vs ED and their impact on environmental and human health using standardized criteria. Our focus was to categorize the papers relative to scientific rigor in the study design and compare statistically significant results across defined categories of hand‐drying methods. We also examined statistically significant results relative to paper conclusions and the impact of these studies on public perception (as determined by media posts and other grey literature). Study categories were scored quantitatively as positive/+, neutral or negative/−, using a scoring system of 2, 1 and 0 respectively. While it is important to review each study holistically, providing a study rigor score to each reviewed paper adds context to our assessment, which should be read in full for a broader perspective.

The most prevalent conclusion from our scoping review is that the breadth of scientific data does not support a uniform conclusion as to which drying method is safer or more hygienic. Some studies showed a statistically significant reduction of contaminants within certain scenarios but not all‐ whether studies involved large sample sizes or were small pilot studies, the differences between drying methods were not consistently clear. Many studies reported no statistical significance and used either low concentrations representing low‐risk scenarios or high concentrations that are not representative of pathogen levels on hands or bathroom surfaces.

Overall, the large discrepancy in results is likely due to the wide range of experimental conditions implemented. Variables include: baseline concentrations, target organisms, population and sample sizes, drying times, number of towels used, dispenser designs, rubbing behaviours, microbial assay methods, Hawthorne effects, behavioural reproducibility, handwashing product types and efficacy, skin integrity, residual moisture levels, ambient air movement and more.

Methodological differences compounded these uncertainties. Mixed results favouring one drying method over another between, and even within studies, was common. None of the studies in the published literature related environmental contamination differentials of any drying method with health outcomes. However, several studies and highly referenced reviews and reports have made recommendations as to which methods to use, or avoid, based on qualitative safety or health claims, examples include:

‘There seems to be no particular microbiological danger to use of hot air hand dryers’. (Matthews and Newsom 1987 )

‘Hot air dryers are generally not recommended for use in health care settings because such dryers are relatively slow and noisy and their hygiene performance is questionable’ (Blackmore 1989 )

‘…associated infection risks…make [air dryers] unsuitable for use in critical patient care areas’ (Ngeow et al . 1989a ).

‘…the use of paper towels is safer than hot air hand‐dryers in busy wards’ (Gould 1994 ).

‘Risk reduction strategies should aim to achieve a level of risk as low as practically possible’ (Harrison et al . 2003 ).

‘The health and safety aspects of jet air dryers where hygiene is paramount should still be carefully examined by the scientific community’ (Redway and Fawdar 2008 ).

‘…a diverse community of culturable bacteria contaminates unused paper towels…some of these bacterial strains may be toxin producers…This may be significant for some clinical and industrial settings as well as for immunocompromised individuals…’ (Gendron et al . 2012 ).

‘From a hygiene standpoint, paper towels are superior to air dryers’ (Huang et al . 2012 ).

‘These results suggest that air dryers may be unsuitable for use in healthcare settings as they may facilitate microbial cross‐contamination via airborne dissemination to the environment or bathroom visitors’ (Best et al . 2014 ).

‘…in locations where hygiene and cross‐infection considerations are paramount, such as healthcare settings and the food industry, the choice of hand‐drying method should be considered carefully’ (Kimmitt and Redway 2016 ).

‘Electric hand dryers are not suited to clinical settings… Infection control building guidance needs to be amended and strengthened’ (Best et al . 2018 ).

Some studies stated concerns relative to the use of air dryers in healthcare settings. It is important to note, however, that the most effective, promoted and commonly practiced hand hygiene method in hospitals and other healthcare settings involves the use of an alcohol‐based hand rub (Vermeil et al . 2019 ). In healthcare settings, alcohol‐based hand rubs require less time, are more effective than washing with soap and water, are more accessible than sinks and naturally exclude the use of hand‐drying protocols (Boyce and Pittet 2002 ; World Health Organization 2009 ).

Increased bacterial counts in the environment do not necessarily indicate increased health risks. To date, no study has shown a correlation between hand‐drying methods and health outcomes using empirically derived or QMRA model simulations. Thus, conclusions as to the safety of PT vs air dryer use relative to health outcomes are unsubstantiated and premature. Consideration of infective doses, transmission pathways, handwashing and drying efficacy, transfer rates and other exposure variables is critical before a recommendation can be made based on health outcomes.

Not all surfaces are equal contributors to exposure pathways. While floors may be more contaminated in air dryer bathrooms, their relevance in terms of an exposure or risk scenario has not been evaluated. The most direct exposure potential is from contaminated hands and thus drying methods resulting in fewer microbes on the hand are likely to be associated with lower risk potentials. Therefore, contaminated dryer or PT dispenser buttons may represent the highest risk in practice. Conversely, new technologies such as automated dryer and towel dispenser designs may largely eliminate this transmission route.

Our scoping review identified broad analysis of the research question: ‘Are hand dryers more hygienic than PT?’ but with collectively inconclusive results. Studies were conducted by a variety of private and independent research groups spanning at least nine countries. Fifteen of the 23 studies were funded by private, or a combination of private and public, sponsors. Although independent funding is preferred, federal or state funding agencies are unlikely to sponsor such special interest projects‐ particularly when current research does not indicate a significant health concern.

The second question we sought to answer is ‘Are PT safer than hand dryers relative to human infection risks?’ We found no data to support any human health claims relative to hand dryers vs PT use. Inconclusive results in the current body of research and a lack of data to support health claims represent data gaps preventing the advancement of policy or practice recommendations relative to hand‐drying protocols. Of notable importance is the need to evaluate risks from hand‐drying activities in consideration of handwashing scenarios, given that the greatest uncertainty in hand contamination is associated with the handwashing method, and not the drying method.

Future study recommendations

Future studies are needed to examine the relationship between contamination that occurs due to hand‐drying methods and human health outcomes. This can be accomplished by utilizing a real‐world scenario while still controlling for certain variables. Ideally, the study should be done in multiple functioning bathrooms that have different characteristics, such as single stall and multiple stall bathrooms. A microbial tracer should be applied to participants’ ungloved hands at a concentration that would be representative of what is expected on hands after a handwashing event. The hands of the participants and surfaces that participants would encounter after drying their hands should be targeted for sampling as well as air. Samples should be collected after single and multiple drying events to see the effects over a variety of usage conditions. Results from the study can then be used to inform mathematical models to evaluate human health outcomes expected for each type of drying event. Sensitivity analysis should be performed to rank which exposure variables drive risk outcomes.

In summary, needed are long‐term observational studies and/or health impact related evaluations/simulations. Gaps in the research include:

Evaluation of contamination potentials with current technologies and standardized methodology.

Consistent variable assessment representing real‐world exposure potentials (i.e. consideration of baseline contamination values, handwashing and drying efficacy, pathogen dose response, and correlation between indigenous microbiome or tracer concentrations to predicted pathogen levels).

An exposure assessment and sensitivity analysis considering surfaces of increased probability to impact exposure.

A risk assessment relating relevant exposure scenarios to health outcomes.

A relative risk assessment comparing different contamination levels from other bathroom sources (i.e. toilet aerosols or human behaviours) and organism infectivity with acceptable risk targets.

Although numerous studies have been published evaluating the ‘best’ method for hand drying, ‘best’ has been defined in a variety of ways relative to bacterial removal efficacy, environmental contamination potentials, ecological or cost benefits, noise and more. No study to date has examined the ‘best’ drying method relative to health outcomes.

As reported repeatedly throughout this study, the wide range of data variability makes it difficult to draw finite conclusions about any particular hand‐drying method. We agree with the conclusions of Wilcox et al . ( 2017 ) who state that studies to determine the risks associated with hand‐drying methods have not been conducted but are warranted to determine whether adverse infection consequences occur.

Funding support

This study was supported, in part, by an unrestricted grant from Excel Dryer, Inc. The funding source played no role in study design, data acquisition, analysis or decision to report these data.

Conflicts of Interest

K.A. Reynolds has received research funds from Excel Dryer, Inc.

• Ansari, S.A. , Springthorpe, V.S. , Sattar, S.A. , Tostowaryk, W. and Wells, G.A. (1991) Comparison of cloth, paper, and warm air drying in eliminating viruses and bacteria from washed hands. Am J Infect Control 19, 243–249. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arksey, H. and O’Malley, L. (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8, 19–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Astor, M. (2018) Are Hand Dryers Actually Full of Bacteria? A Viral Photo Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story. New York Times. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beamer, P.I. , Plotkin, K.R. , Gerba, C.P. , Sifuentes, L.Y. , Koenig, D.W. and Reynolds, K.A. (2015) Modeling of human viruses on hands and risk of infection in an office workplace using micro‐activity data. J Occup Environ Hyg 12, 266–275. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Best, E. , Parnell, P. , Couturier, J. , Barbut, F. , Le Bozec, A. , Arnoldo, L. , Madia, A. , Brusaferro, S. et al (2018) Environmental contamination by bacteria in hospital washrooms according to hand‐drying method: a multi‐centre study. J Hosp Infect 100, 469–475. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Best, E.L. , Parnell, P. and Wilcox, M.H. (2014) Microbiological comparison of hand‐drying methods: the potential for contamination of the environment, user, and bystander. J Hosp Infect 88, 199–206. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Best, E.L. and Redway, K. (2015) Comparison of different hand‐drying methods: the potential for airborne microbe dispersal and contamination. J Hosp Infect 89, 215–217. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Best Way To Wash Hands in Public (2015) Oprah.com. Available at: http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/best‐way‐to‐wash‐hands‐in‐public .
• Blackmore, M. (1989) A comparison of hand drying methods. Cater Health 1, 189–198. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolon, M.K. (2016) Hand hygiene: an update. Infect Dis Clin North Am 30, 591–607. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyce, J.M. and Pittet, D. (2002) Guideline for hand hygiene in health‐care settings: recommendations of the healthcare infection control practices advisory committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA hand hygiene task force. Am J Infect Control 30, S1–S46. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brueck, H. (2018) Hand Dryers Can Blow Fecal Bacteria onto Your Hands, A Study Found — and the Researchers are Now Switching to Paper Towels. Business Insider; Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/bathroom‐hand‐dryers‐or‐paper‐towels‐which‐carries‐more‐bacteria‐2018‐4 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Canales, R.A. , Reynolds, K.A. , Wilson, A.M. , Fankem, S.L.M. , Weir, M.H. , Rose, J.B. , Abd‐Elmaksoud, S. and Gerba, C.P. (2019) Modeling the role of fomites in a norovirus outbreak. J Occup Environ Hyg 16, 16–26. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cogen, A.L. , Nizet, V. and Gallo, R.L. (2008) Skin microbiota: a source of disease or defence? Br J Dermatol 158, 442–455. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dean, S. (2018) Don’t Let The Internet Scare You With That Hand Dryer Petri Dish. Science Alert. Available at: https://www.sciencealert.com/hand‐dryer‐petri‐dish‐experiment‐facebook‐viral‐photo‐scary . [ Google Scholar ]
• Donsky, A. (2018) There’s poop in bathroom hand dryers. Available at: https://www.care2.com/greenliving/theres‐poop‐in‐bathroom‐hand‐dryers.html .
• Ecker, U.K.H. , Lewandowsky, S. , Chang, E.P. and Pillai, R. (2014) The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. J Exp Psychol Appl 20, 323–325. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snopes (2018) FACT Check: Do Hot Air Hand Dryers in Restrooms Spread Disease? Available at: https://www.snopes.com/fact‐check/blowing‐hard‐2/ . [ Google Scholar ]
• FDA (2017) FDA Food Code 2017. College Park, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gendron, L.M. , Trudel, L. , Moineau, S. and Duchaine, C. (2012) Evaluation of bacterial contaminants found on unused paper towels and possible postcontamination after handwashing: a pilot study. Am J Infect Control 40, e5–e9. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerba, C.P. , Lopez, G.U. and Ikner, L.A. (2016) Distribution of bacteria in dental offices and the impact of hydrogen peroxide disinfecting wipes. J Dent Hyg JDH 90. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gould, D. (1994) The significance of hand‐drying in the prevention of infection. Nurs Times 33–35. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant, M.J. and Booth, A. (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Heal Inf Libr J 26, 91–108. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gustafson, D.R. , Vetter, E.A. , Larson, D.R. , Ilstrup, D.M. , Maker, M.D. , Thompson, R.L. and Cockerill, F.R. (2000) Effects of 4 hand‐drying methods for removing bacteria from washed hands: a randomized trial. Mayo Clin Proc 75, 705–708. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hafner, J. (2018) Ban jet air hand dryers? Scientists urge hospitals to avoid them, citing increased germs. USA Today. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanna, P.J. , Richardson, B.J. and Marshall, M. (1996) A comparison of the cleaning efficiency of three common hand drying methods. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 11, 37–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrison, W.A. , Griffith, C.J. , Ayers, T. and Michaels, B. (2003) Bacterial transfer and cross‐contamination potential associated with paper‐towel dispensing. Am J Infect Control 31, 387–391. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haynes, A. (2014) Paper towels versus hot air hand dryers — which is more hygienic? Pharmaceut J. Available at: https://www.pharmaceutical‐journal.com/opinion/blogs/paper‐towels‐versus‐hot‐air‐hand‐dryers‐which‐is‐more‐hygienic/20067412.blog . [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang, C. , Ma, W. and Stack, S. (2012) The hygienic efficacy of different hand‐drying methods: a review of the evidence. Mayo Clin Proc 87, 791–798. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huesca‐Espitia, L.C. , Aslanzadeh, J. , Feinn, R. , Joseph, G. , Murray, T.S. and Setlow, P. (2018) Deposition of bacteria and bacterial spores by bathroom hot‐air hand dryers. Appl Environ Microbiol 84, e00044‐18. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen, D.A. , Danyluk, M.D. , Harris, L.J. and Schaffner, D.W. (2015) Quantifying the effect of hand wash duration, soap use, ground beef debris, and drying methods on the removal of Enterobacter aerogenes on hands. J Food Prot 78, 685–690. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khalil, H. , Peters, M. , Godfrey, C.M. , McInerney, P. , Soares, C.B. and Parker, D. (2016) An evidence‐based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews Evid‐Based Nurs 13, 118–123. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimmitt, P.T. and Redway, K.F. (2016) Evaluation of the potential for virus dispersal during hand drying: a comparison of three methods. J Appl Microbiol 120, 478–486. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knights, B. , Evans, C. , Barrass, S. and McHardy, B. (1993) Hand Drying: Assessment of Efficiency and Hygiene of Different Methods (pp. 1–16). London: Survey by the Applied Ecology Research Group at the University of Westminster. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kovner, A. (2018) Hand Dryers Spread Bacteria So Dramatically That Scientists Think They’re A Public Health Threat. IFLScience; Available at: https://www.iflscience.com/health‐and‐medicine/hand‐dryers‐spread‐bacteria‐so‐dramatically‐that‐scientists‐think‐theyre‐a‐public‐health‐threat/ . [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, M. (1994) Paper and cloth towels found to be more hygienic than air dryers. Health Facil Manage 7, 114–116. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levac, D. , Colquhoun, H. and O’Brien, K.K. (2010) Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 5, 69. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopez, G.U. , Gerba, C.P. , Tamimi, A.H. , Kitajima, M. , Maxwell, S.L. and Rose, J.B. (2013) Transfer efficiency of bacteria and viruses from porous and nonporous fomites to fingers under different relative humidity conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 79, 5728–5734. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Margas, E. , Maguire, E. , Berland, C.R. , Welander, F. and Holah, J.T. (2013) Assessment of the environmental microbiological cross contamination following hand drying with paper hand towels or an air blade dryer. J Appl Microbiol 115, 572–582. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthews, J.A. and Newsom, S.W.B. (1987) Hot air electric hand driers compared with paper towels for potential spread of airborne bacteria. J Hosp Infect 9, 85–88. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Montville, R. , Chen, Y. and Schaffner, D.W. (2002) Risk assessment of hand washing efficacy using literature and experimental data. Int J Food Microbiol 73, 305–313. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mutters, R. and Warnes, S.L. (2019) The method used to dry washed hands affects the number and type of transient and residential bacteria remaining on the skin. J Hosp Infect 101, 408–413. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MythBusters Episode 199: Down and Dirty, Earthquake Survival (2013) MythBusters Results. Available at: https://mythresults.com/down‐dirty‐earthquake‐survival . [ Google Scholar ]
• Ngeow, Y.F. , Ong, H.W. and Tan, P. (1989a) Dispersal of bacteria by an electric air hand dryer. Malays J Pathol 11, 53–56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paper Towels Prove Most Hygienic in Restroom Study (2009) Convenience Store Decisions. Available at: https://cstoredecisions.com/2009/06/08/paper‐towels‐prove‐most‐hygienic‐in‐restroom‐study/ . [ Google Scholar ]
• Patrick, D.R. , Findon, G. and Miller, T.E. (1997) Residual moisture determines the level of touch‐contact‐associated bacterial transfer following hand washing. Epidemiol Infect 119, 319–325. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitt, S.J. , Crockett, S.L. and Andreou, G.M. (2018) The contribution of hand drying in prevention of transmission of microorganisms: comparison of the efficacy of three hand drying methods in the removal and distribution of microorganisms. J Infect Prev 19, 310–317. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Redway, K. and Fawdar, S. (2008) A comparative study of three different hand drying methods: paper towel, warm air dryer, jet air dryer. University of Westminster, London. Available at: http://www.europeantissue.com/pdfs
• Rose, J.B. and Haas, C.N. (1999) A risk assessment framework for the evaluation of skin infections and the potential impact of antibacterial soap washing. Am J Infect Control 27, S26–S33. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, M.O. , Haas, C.N. , Gurian, P.L. , Gerba, C.P. , Panzl, B.M. and Rose, J.B. (2014) Application of quantitative microbial risk assessment for selection of microbial reduction targets for hard surface disinfectants. Am J Infect Control 42, 1165–1172. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snelling, A.M. , Saville, T. , Stevens, D. and Beggs, C.B. (2011) Comparative evaluation of the hygienic efficacy of an ultra‐rapid hand dryer vs conventional warm air hand dryers. J Appl Microbiol 110, 19–26. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor, J.H. , Brown, K.L. , Toivenen, J. and Holah, J.T. (2000) A microbiological evaluation of warm air hand driers with respect to hand hygiene and the washroom environment. J Appl Microbiol 89, 910–919. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Dr. Oz Show (2017) The Hygienic Way to Dry Your Hands. Available at: https://www.doctoroz.com/episode/i‐told‐ya‐so‐dr‐oz‐and‐his‐wife‐lisa‐debate‐biggest‐everyday‐health‐myths?video_id=5423222426001 . [ Google Scholar ]
• The Dr. Oz Show (2018). How Dirty Are Hand Dryers? Available at: https://www.doctoroz.com/episode/dirty‐hand‐dryers‐are‐they‐germ‐breeding‐machines . [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd, E.C.D. , Michaels, B.S. , Smith, D. , Greig, J.D. and Bartleson, C.A. (2010) Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 9. washing and drying of hands to reduce microbial contamination. J Food Prot 73, 1937–1955. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vermeil, T. , Peters, A. , Kilpatrick, C. , Pires, D. , Allegranzi, B. and Pittet, D. (2019) Hand hygiene in hospitals: anatomy of a revolution. J Hosp Infect 101, 383–392. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vitali, F. (n.d.) The great debate: paper towels vs. air dryers. Facility Management. Available at: http://facilitymanagement.com/restroom‐paper‐towels‐air‐dryers/
• Restroom Direct (n.d.) Which is better in a commercial restroom? Hand dryers or paper towels? Available at: https://www.restroomdirect.com/hand‐dryers‐vs‐paper‐towels.aspx .
• Wilcox, M.H. , Best, E.L. and Parnell, P. (2017) Pilot study to determine whether microbial contamination levels in hospital washrooms are associated with hand‐drying method. J Hosp Infect 97, 201–203. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson, A.M. , Reynolds, K.A. and Canales, R.A. (2018) Predicting viral infection risks and optimizing hygiene protocols using a modeling approach. Am J Infect Control 46, S42–S43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson, A.M. , Reynolds, K.A. , Verhougstraete, M.P. and Canales, R.A. (2019) Validation of a stochastic discrete event model predicting virus concentration on nurse hands. Risk Anal 39, 1812–1824. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization (2009) WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient Safety Challenge Clean Care is Safer Care. Geneva: WHO Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization (n.d.) Hygiene. Available at: http://www.who.int/topics/hygiene/en/
• Yamamoto, Y. , Ugai, K. and Takahashi, Y. (2005) Efficiency of hand drying for removing bacteria from washed hands: comparison of paper towel drying with warm air drying. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 26, 316–320. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zivich, P.N. , Gancz, A.S. and Aiello, A.E. (2018) Effect of hand hygiene on infectious diseases in the office workplace: a systematic review. Am J Infect Control 46, 448–455. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (183.9 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Kids' Science Projects >

Paper Towel Experiment

Which is the most absorbent.

The Paper Towel Experiment is a project about which type of paper can absorb more water.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Kids' Science Projects
• Salt Water Egg
• Fruit Battery

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Kids' Science Projects
• 2 How to Conduct Science Experiments
• 3.1 Mold Bread
• 3.2 Popcorn
• 3.3 Salt Water Egg
• 3.4 Corrosiveness of Soda
• 3.5 Egg in a Bottle
• 3.6 Fruit Battery
• 4.1 Pendulum
• 4.2 Paper Towel
• 4.3 Paper Airplane
• 4.4 Charge a Light Bulb
• 4.5 Lifting Ice Cube
• 4.6 Magic Egg
• 4.7 Magic Jumping Coin
• 4.8 Invisible Ink
• 4.9 Making-a-Rainbow
• 4.10 Oil Spill
• 4.11 Balloon Rocket Car
• 4.12 Build an Electromagnet
• 4.13 Create a Heat Detector
• 4.14 Creating a Volcano
• 4.15 Home-Made Glue
• 4.16 Home-Made Stethoscope
• 4.17 Magic Balloon
• 4.18 Make a Matchbox Guitar
• 4.19 Make Your Own Slime
• 5.1 Heron’s Aeolipile
• 5.2 Make an Archimedes Screw
• 5.3 Build an Astrolabe
• 5.4 Archimedes Displacement
• 5.5 Make Heron’s Fountain
• 5.6 Create a Sundial

In every store, big or small, there are numerous brands of paper towels available, each claiming to be the best, the most absorbent or the cheapest. How do we prove or disprove these claims? How do we work out which paper towels are truly great and which are almost entirely useless?

We have all seen advertisements where two brands of paper towels are compared by observing how quickly or thoroughly they suck up a mysterious blue liquid or by wiping up some muddy footprints from their kitchen floor.

This, as we know, is not very scientific - there are no figures, no proof and little truth.

Here we are going to show you how to conduct an experiment to test one of these claims: the absorbency of paper towels.

Some Facts About Kitchen Towel

• Paper towels were invented by Arthur Scott in Philadelphia, USA, in around 1900. From humble beginnings, paper kitchen towels have become a billion dollar industry.
• Paper towels are often made from post consumer recycled paper fiber, requiring fewer trees being cut down and using up to 50% less energy.

Performing the Paper Towel Experiment

“More expensive brands of paper towel are more absorbent.”

What You Will Need for the Paper Towel Experiment

• At least four brands of absorbent paper towel
• A stopwatch
• A graduated cylinder
• Fill the beaker up with exactly 200 ml of water
• Take a sheet of the first brand of towel.
• Fold and insert into the water. As you dip the towel into the water, start your stopwatch.
• After 20 seconds, remove the towel from the beaker and squeeze as much water as you can out of the towel in to the graduated cylinder using the funnel. Make a note of the volume extracted
• Repeat 5 times for each brand and note the results in your data table. You must make sure that each sheet is folded in exactly the same way for the experiment to be constant and correct.
• Write down the results for each brand in your notebook.

Work out an average for each result and write down in a table.

Plot all of your results onto a simple bar graph like the one below; you can do this on a computer or you can use graph paper and pencils.

This will allow you to show which brand of paper towel is the most absorbent and which is truly awful.

Problems and Further Experimentation

Of course, this is a very simple experiment and it does have some limitations; you are testing only one reason why people choose a certain brand.

Some brands might be excellent at soaking up spills but are very expensive. Maybe some brands are not as good at soaking up water but are better at soaking up other liquids like milk or cooking oil.

When a consumer buys paper towels, they are not just looking for absorbency. Price, softness, availability, number of sheets on a roll, and strength are all important factors when buying a roll of kitchen towel.

Perhaps you could design an experiment to rate the strength and softness, or try and calculate how much each towel costs per sheet.

Paper towel manufacturers spend millions of dollars every year but, with a few simple experiments, you can find out which brands truly are the best.

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth (Sep 21, 2008). Paper Towel Experiment. Retrieved Nov 17, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/paper-towel-experiment

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Related articles

Mold Bread Experiment

Paper Airplane Experiment

Pendulum Experiment

Experiments with Popcorn

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Get all these articles in 1 guide.

Want the full version to study at home, take to school or just scribble on?

Whether you are an academic novice, or you simply want to brush up your skills, this book will take your academic writing skills to the next level.

Download electronic versions: - Epub for mobiles and tablets - For Kindle here - PDF version here

Save this course for later

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

None of our reviews are sponsored. We earn a commission when you purchase items through our links.

Home » Cleaning » Paper Towels

The Best Paper Towel Brands

Updated September 20, 2022

A fter researching for over 30 hours and performing eight tests, we have determined that Brawny – Pick-A-Size stands out as the leader among best paper towel brands on the market. We tested six of the top paper towel brands for strength, durability, absorbency and overall usability, and Brawny was the best performer overall. We found Bounty – Select-A-Size to be a strong runner up.

Our Top Choices

Pick-A-Size

Select-A-Size

Honorable Mention

Table of contents

Compare the best paper towels, 1. best overall: brawny – pick-a-size, 2. runner-up: bounty – select-a-size, 3. honorable mention: viva – vantage, other finalists we tested, how we selected finalists to test, important features to consider, how we tested, the bottom line.

Originally, we intended to include Seventh Generation – Natural Unbleached paper towels in our analysis of the best products. However, after trying out the sheets in a couple of simple preliminary experiments — cleaning windows, scrubbing floors and holding weight while wet — we decided that they didn’t perform well enough to be included in our list of recommendations. They are, however, a popular choice for a 100-percent recycled, unbleached product.

Each of our top brands has the option to tear off a small sheet, about half the size of a standard paper towel, which helps reduce unnecessary waste. They also are easy to tear, function as sponges and can hold weight when wet. Of course, if you want to reduce even more waste you can consider using a washable kitchen towel instead of a disposable paper towel, but some messes you just don’t want to run through your washing machine.

As an added bonus, while all sheets are assumed to be single-use, the top six were easy to rinse, wring out and reuse after wiping down a countertop.

From our final list of six brands, we started the testing process to bring you our favorite.

Two brands stood out as top-of-the-line products after assessing the quantitative and qualitative data: Brawny – Pick-A-Size and Bounty Select-A-Size. They were tougher, absorbed more water, cleaned up messes easier with less sheets and distinguished themselves as better than the rest overall.

We give the narrowest edge to Brawny for its soft feel, durability and absorbency — for a price that beats Bounty.

Brawny feels cloth-like, which helps when washing floors and cleaning windows. It rarely wears thin, even when repeatedly scrubbing a stain. In our test of strength using sandpaper, it outlasted the competition, holding strong at 13 swipes across the rough surface. This just beat out Bounty and more than doubled the performance of other brands.

Top Choice: Brawny - Pick-A-Size

Overall performance in the four important areas of strength, durability, absorbency and overall usability make Brawny the best option available.

The combination of strength and softness is unique. It’s a great tool for a variety of household functions and cleaning tasks. It even works well as an alternative to napkins and tissues.

But the real tipping point is the absorbency. A sheet of Brawny retained 0.1 ounces (by weight) more than Bounty — 0.7 ounces to Bounty’s 0.6 ounces. At $.04 per square foot, Brawny is half a cent cheaper per square foot than Bounty. That may seem small, but, combined with the higher absorbency, it becomes pretty significant.

In fact, over the life of a roll, Brawny collects nearly half a pound more liquid than Bounty and costs less.

Key takeaways:

• Brawny – Pick-A-Size is our choice for best paper towel due to its strength, absorbency and scrubbing power.
• Brawny also costs less per square foot than our second-best pick, Bounty.
• Since it’s a leading brand, the cost is higher than a generic brand, but you’re paying for better performance.

Bounty is the clear runner-up, joining Brawny in substantially outperforming the other brands. When we soaked the towels in water and subjected them to weight, Bounty held just under 20 ounces, an impressive show of strength that surpassed the others and nearly doubled the weight held by all brands except Brawny.

Bounty also tied Brawny in the volume absorbency test, needing just two and a half sheets to pick up two ounces of water.

Also Great: Bounty - Select-A-Size

Bounty joined Brawny in substantially outperforming the other brands we tested.

Bounty finished either just ahead, just behind, or exactly even with Brawny in every test we conducted. In the overall user experience, the two products are very similar and perform tasks around the house with an almost-equal result. It is only with careful scrutiny of the data and consideration of price that Bounty is our second-best pick.

• Bounty – Select-A-Size performed at or near the top in each household test.
• It’s the strongest sheet, holding nearly 20 ounces of weight when wet.
• However, because it’s a high-quality product, Bounty is the most expensive one we tested, at $.045 per square foot.

If there is a second tier in the paper towel market, Viva – Vantage Choose-A-Sheet is in it. In our tests around the house, Viva — which uses a mix of paper from responsibly managed sources — was a much closer rival to Bounty and Brawny than the other products.

Although it’s advertised as one ply, Viva sheets are constructed with the trademark V-weave technology that functionally seems to operate as a second layer. It picked up stains as efficiently and left windows just as clean as both of our best picks. The grooved texture helps it remove dirt, grime, and grease easily and reliably.

In the test of volume absorbency, Viva equaled both Bounty and Brawny in collecting two ounces of water with just two-and-a-half sheets. It also retained 0.6 ounces of liquid by weight, tied with Bounty and just behind Brawny.

While it may not be as soft or as tough as our two favorites, it shines brighter than the rest of the field. And at a similar price as Brawny and Bounty — $.05 per square foot — Viva is a good value.

White Cloud GreenEarth paper towels are Rainforest Alliance Certified and sourced entirely from 100% recycled paper. However, the recycled material clearly impacts the effectiveness of the White Cloud sheet. It absorbed half the water of our favorite brands and held less than half the weight. It also shredded quickly in our home tests, like scrubbing floors and swiping over sandpaper.

Scott – Mega Roll Choose-A-Sheet also suffered from a functionality standpoint. Scott towels consistently failed to match the performance standards of the top three brands while being priced about the same as Brawny, Bounty and Viva.

If you’re making a decision solely on price, Great Value – Ultra Strong  is a reasonable option. Its performance in our tests was about equal to White Cloud and Scott, but at just under $.02 per square foot, it’s the cheapest. In fact, it’s less than half the price of Brawny, Bounty, Viva and Scott.

During our research stage, we looked at the metrics used by reviews of the most popular and highest-rated paper towels. We read consumer reviews, finance blogs, environmental websites and home publication recommendations to narrow down our list of paper towels to the six best.

Our top six brands are all rated four stars or higher on Amazon.com and Walmart.com, and some — like Brawny Pick-A-Size, Bounty Select-A-Size and Viva Vantage – Choose-A-Sheet — were recommended in product reviews from publications like Good Housekeeping and Real Simple.

We read blogs, like Lifehacker, to find out what people look for in their paper towels. We also reviewed the findings in Consumer Reports, which tested 18 different products in its search of the best one.

After several days of research, we found that the key characteristics people look for in paper towels include:

• Scrubbing power
• Affordability/value

Next, we found products that rated highly in these categories and selected our finalists:

Why you should trust us

We’re not the first people to test and rate paper towels. There are dozens of articles, forums and review sites that have produced really useful information. We know; we spent hours combing through them.

After considering the content that is already available, we were able to design tests that yielded new quantitative data to measure just how strong and durable these products are. It was important to us to create numbers that were an accurate measure of the claims printed on the packaging.

We put the top products through five days of home testing to bring you numerical data. Using the paper towels for a variety of tasks — from cleaning windows to prepping food — our eight household tests rated the products for water and grease absorbency, strength, durability, glass cleaning ability, softness and scrubbing ability.

Single-use paper towels vs reusable cloth towels

Paper towels were introduced as a replacement product for traditional cloth towels in the early 1900s. In comparison with cloth towels, the disposable varieties are more convenient, don’t need to be washed and are always dry when you need them.

The more significant appeal of paper towels, however, is that they don’t spread bacteria or chemicals around your house.

With cloth towels, once they have come into contact with chicken scraps, chemical-based cleaner, or even the hands of someone with a cold, they act as a vehicle to spread germs. Single-use paper towels trap these germs and take them to the trash can when they’re tossed out.

Why should you use paper towels?

Because paper towels eliminate the spread of germs, they can be a helpful tool for your cleaning and cooking routine.

We understand the ecological and environmental impact of disposable paper products. In fact, for many tasks around the house, we encourage you to use reusable cloth towels. They don’t eliminate other essential tools like the sponges from our kitchen cleaning sponge review . However, when you’re preparing meals with raw meat or using common cleaning products, single-use paper towels are the safest and most hygienic option.

They can also be used for the following household functions:

• Scrubbing built-up grit and grime off surfaces
• Cleaning up spills and pet accidents
• Rinsing and drying fresh fruit and vegetables
• Soaking up grease from bacon and fried foods
• Covering microwaved food to prevent splatters
• Polishing furniture
• Wiping down the car
• Disinfecting bathroom and kitchen surfaces
• Cleaning windows and mirrors

Packaging advertises a range of features and levels of thickness, absorbency and strength: “ultra absorbent,” says White Cloud; “the strength to take on tough messes,” says Brawny; “scrubs like cloth,” says Viva.

But how does this language translate to real-world performance?

While you can’t judge a product’s performance based on packaging when you’re shopping in a store or online, you can calculate its value with a few other metrics.

For the most basic value calculation, first look at the total cost and, using your phone’s calculator, divide it by the number of rolls in a package.

However, rolls come in various sizes, so figuring out the price per square foot is a more meaningful figure. Each of the six brands that we analyzed listed the total square footage on the packaging. Divide the total cost of the package by the total square footage to find the price per square foot, and you can easily compare two or three brands while you shop.

The ply is the number of layers in each sheet. Two-ply — meaning two layers of paper — is typical for effective single-use towels. Check the packaging to see if the rolls are one ply or two. Of our top six, only Scott Choose-a-Sheet and Viva were one ply.

Look for packaging that says, “choose-a-size” or “choose-a-sheet,” as an indicator that the product has additional perforations so you have more control over the size of the sheet you tear off.

Standard paper towels are 11-by-11 inches, but the sheets in this style are around 6-by-11 so you have the option of using a small sheet for a smaller job — or double up and use two sheets when you need to. This eliminates waste and helps you save money by ensuring your rolls last longer.

Environmental impact

If a brand takes any extra steps to be environmentally friendly, they’ll typically let you know on the packaging.

Some brands use paper that comes from responsible sources, like Viva; some are made from recycled paper, like White Cloud; and others even come unbleached, which allows them to be composted. Keep in mind that it might not be worth choosing a green brand if you end up using more paper towels to get the job done.

Remember that if you have a compost system in your backyard or live in a city that collects compost, your paper towel tube will be a welcome addition. When you’re finished with the roll, you could simply recycle it, or shred the inner core and throw it in the compost.

With our top six finalists selected, we developed a series of tests to compare them. We looked at the following quantitative and qualitative performance metrics to find the strongest in each category and, ultimately, to bring you our top choice.

• Price per square foot
• Water absorbency
• Glass cleaning ability
• Grease absorbency
• Scrubbing ability

Quantitative analysis

To measure absorbency, we conducted two separate tests — one for water weight and one for volume.

Weight: First, we weighed a dry sheet of each paper towel. We then saturated the sheet with water, held it up until the water stopped dripping from the bottom edge and weighed it again to see how much of the water remained within the sheet.

Brawny came out ahead in this test, holding 0.7 ounces of water per sheet. Close runners-up were Bounty and Viva, each with 0.6 ounces.

Volume: Our second test determined how many sheets each brand needed to completely absorb two ounces of water by volume. We poured the two ounces onto a wide plate and used a consistent motion for each brand to drag quartered sheets until the plate was completely dry to the touch.

Brawny, Bounty and Viva all completed the task using just two-and-a-half sheets, pulling ahead of the other three brands.

Using this sheets-per-ounce data, we were able to calculate the cost per ounce of liquid absorption for each paper towel. Even though Great Value finished near the bottom of the pack in absorption per sheet, it actually works out to be the cheapest in terms of cost per ounce of liquid absorbed at $.013 per ounce — because a roll of it is larger and cheaper than most other brands.

White Cloud comes in at $.018 per ounce of absorption. Brawny just edged out Bounty at $.023 and $.026, respectively. The single-ply products — Viva and Scott — were the most expensive in terms of cost per ounce of liquid absorption.

Test 2: Strength Next, we wanted to test the strength of each brand by seeing how much weight it could support before breaching. We saturated each product with water, stretched it tight, and started piling on the pennies until the sheet broke under the weight.

Bounty earned first place in this test, holding 224 pennies or 19.9 ounces. Brawny was the next strongest, holding 205 pennies or 18.2 ounces. The other four brands were substantially weaker, all breaking under the weight of 104-116 pennies or 9.25-10.3 ounces.

Test 3: Durability Finally, we wanted to discover which brand could hold up to tough jobs the longest. Using medium-grade, coarse sandpaper, we tested how many swipes a sheet could handle until it wore through.

After folding each sheet three times, making eight layers of the paper towel, we dragged a sanding block across each sheet, using consistent speed and force to drag the sanding block with a string. We then checked for tears after each swipe.

Again, Brawny and Bounty distanced themselves from the competition, withstanding 13 and 12 swipes, respectively. Viva shredded after six strokes, White Cloud and Great Value lasted just five, and Scott wore through after four.

Qualitative analysis

The experience of using a paper towel involves much more than just measurable data. To evaluate overall user experience, we cleaned windows, used them as napkins and facial tissue, soaked up bacon grease and scrubbed dried red wine off the kitchen floor.

With the mid-afternoon sun shining in, we cleaned sliding glass doors using glass cleaner and one sheet of each product. We wanted to see how easily each towel removed dirt, how it held up under wet cleaning solution and if visible streaks were left behind on the glass.

In this first test, Viva joined Bounty and Brawny in the top tier, performing better than the other three products. These top three towels, Viva in particular, have more texture than the others, with grooves and divots, making it easier for them to pick up dirt, grime and grease from surfaces. All three stayed strong and left the glass free of streaks.

Scott and Great Value are thinner than the other brands and, therefore, absorbed less of the glass cleaner.

Test 2: Softness In addition to wanting a strong and absorbent sheet to handle the dirty work, it’s nice to know that a paper towel is also soft. To analyze the overall softness of the products, we used each sheet as a napkin and tested the feel of each on skin.

Bounty and Brawny are by far the softest and feel most pleasant, and they don’t irritate or scratch. With eyes closed, it’s easy to distinguish Bounty and Brawny from the other brands, but they feel very similar to one another. In a pinch, both paper towels can comfortably replace napkins and facial tissue.

Test 3: Grease absorbency Next, we fried bacon in a hot pan pulled out two strips with a slotted spatula and placed them on a sheet of paper towel, which was directly on the kitchen counter. After folding the sheet over the bacon to blot the grease, we checked out the absorbency.

As we removed the folded sheets from the counter, there was clearly grease where the sheets of Scott and White Cloud had been. There was a fainter remnant of grease under the Viva and Great Value towels, which could be felt but not seen. There was also a trace bit of grease left on the counter by the Brawny towel.

A sheet of Bounty appeared to trap the most grease from the two strips of bacon, and the spot on the counter under it was dry to the touch.

Test 4: Scrubbing ability For this test, we “spilled” red wine on the kitchen floor and let it sit for eight hours. We then tackled the six dried stains with one sheet of each brand.

Viva, Brawny and Bounty each remained strong. These sheets didn’t shred or wear thin as we repeatedly scrubbed the stain.

In fact, all three picked up the wine relatively quickly and easily without having to exert much pressure. Again, the more textured surface of these three towels probably explains their superior performance in this test.

The other three brands did eventually succeed in removing the spots, but only after increasing the pressure and number of swipes across the spill. Our hands went right through the Scott and White Cloud sheets as they thinned and shredded during the cleaning.

We feel confident recommending both Brawny Pick-A-Size and Bounty Select-A-Size paper towel products, but we believe Brawny is slightly better for use all around the house at a better value.

Brawny and Bounty clearly established themselves as the favorites, often doubling the performance of the other products in our countable data. Both brands proved to be strong enough for the toughest of challenges, yet soft enough to be sensitive on more delicate surfaces, like glass and even skin.

In the end, Brawny pulled ahead on the merits of its higher absorbency combined with lower price, making it not only the best towel for the job but also the best value.

Our Top Pick: Brawny - Pick-A-Size

Outstanding performance in strength, durability and absorbency made Brawny our #1 pick.

Share this Review

Bryan Vu , Editor

Bryan is our cooking and kitchen expert, with more than 15 years of experience of cooking and testing kitchen products. When outside of the kitchen, he enjoys woodworking, photography, videography and figuring out how to live a more eco-friendly lifestyle. He thoroughly enjoys discovering the best, whether it’s ingredients or equipment, and finding products that can stand the rigors of daily use.

More Reviews

The 9 Best Mops For Hardwood Floors

Rubbermaid - Reveal Spray Mop

The 9 Best Kitchen Towels

The 9 Best Pet Hair Removers

DELOMO - Pet Hair Roller

How Often Should You Vacuum?

The 9 Best Toilet Brushes

SimpleHuman

The 8 Best Vacuums for Hardwood Floors

Shark - Apex

The Best Lightweight Vacuums

Shark - Rocket HV302

The Best Upright Vacuums

The Best Rust Removers

Iron Out - Stain Remover

The 6 Best Canister Vacuums

Kenmore - Elite

How to Clean a Fan (With Step By Step Photos)

The 7 Best Cat Litter Mats

CatGuru - Heavy Duty Cat Litter Mat

December 10, 2015

Folded or Flat Paper Towel: Which One Absorbs More Water?

A soggy project from Science Buddies

By Science Buddies

A little science can help you save an important resource you probably use every day: paper towels. Try this activity and see what simple trick can help you--and the environment! 

George Retseck

Key concepts Absorption Paper Water Molecules

Introduction We all know that washing hands throughout the day can help keep colds and flu at bay. So several times a day we lather up, scrub, rinse and then use a paper towel—then another one, maybe even three or four to dry them off. Because who wants wet hands?

But could there be a way to conserve some of that paper by getting a paper towel to go the extra mile, allowing you to dry your hands with just one single sheet? This activity just might help you find the answer.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Background To understand how paper towels absorb water, we need to know a little about how they are made.

Paper towels are made of ground-up plant material. If you look through a microscope at a torn-up piece of paper (or look up some images on the Internet), you will see a web of tiny plant fibers. Magnifying your paper further will reveal that the fibers are made of long chains of linked sugar molecules, called cellulose. Water is attracted to cellulose and likes to be soaked up and stick to the cellulose in paper.

When you looked through your microscope, did you also see the spaces between the fibers? These empty spaces affect the absorbency of the paper: Water likes to stick together and fill these spaces as it follows the water attracted to the cellulose. More spaces allow more water to be absorbed. But what would happen if you add a tiny space between sheets of paper towels? Would the empty space between the sheets help to hold more water?

Five or more identical paper towels—preferably the type in public restrooms (In case you would like to test different types of paper towels, choose at least five identical towels of each type. Do not worry about wasting a few towels—this activity might help save paper in the long run!)

Place to hang a paper towel to drip

Kitchen scale, one-gram precision or better

Paper and pen or pencil (for recording weights)

A workspace that can get a little wet

Scissors to make towels smaller for small hands (optional)

Preparation

Assemble all of your materials at your workspace.

Unfold the first paper towel (if you have the prefolded type). Wet it thoroughly and hang it so all of the excess water drips out.

When the towel no longer drips, weigh it on a kitchen scale. You can heap up the towel on the scale rather than neatly folding it. Record the mass on a piece of paper.

Fold an identical paper towel in three (if it was not already prefolded) and fold it one more time so six layers of towel are on top of one another. Wet it thoroughly and hang it—still folded—so all of the excess water drips out. Do you think this folded paper towel holds more, less or just as much water as the unfolded paper towel?

When the folded towel stops dripping, weigh it on a kitchen scale. Do not unfold it; place it on the scale then read and record its mass. Does it weigh more, less or exactly the same as the wet unfolded paper towel? If there is a difference, why do you think the mass is different?

Now that you measured how much water the folded and unfolded paper towels can hold, and maybe found a difference, which do you think would dry your hands better?

Place a fresh, unfolded paper towel and an identical fresh paper towel folded in three in a dry spot on your workspace.

Wet your hands, shake them three times to remove most of the water and then dry them off with the unfolded paper towel. Do your hands feel completely dry, somewhat dry or still quite wet?

Repeat wetting and shaking your hands. Try to shake your hands in the same way you did the first time then dry them with the folded paper towel. How do your hands feel now? Do they feel dryer, wetter or just as dry as when you used the unfolded paper towel?

If your hands feel very dry with both the folded and unfolded paper towels, try again with half a paper towel, as follows: Cut a paper towel in half and dry your hands with an unfolded half-towel and with a folded half-towel. Do you feel a difference now?

How can your findings help you use fewer paper towels for the same job?

Extra: If you have more paper towels of the same type, repeat the tests; perform each step exactly the same way and notice the variations in the outcomes. Does the measured difference in mass vary a lot or just a bit? Is it always the folded or always the unfolded paper towel that weighs more? Do your hands always feel drier when using the folded or the unfolded paper towel ? Scientists repeat tests to verify the outcome. Scientists also like to have their studies repeated by a different researcher utilizing different instrumentation (such as the scale). If the independent tests reveal the same results, the test is called reproducible . Such repeated tests by other experimenters have more scientific value. Can you find a friend to help you make your tests reproducible?

Extra: If you have different types of paper towels available, repeat the tests with them. Do you expect similar results? What did you find after testing them all?

Extra : Test other paper products that are used to absorb liquids, such as kitchen paper towels, toilet paper, paper napkins or tissues. Do these absorb more water when folded than when used single-layered? Which type of paper product gains most by folding? Can you explain why?

Observations and results Did you measure a higher mass for the folded wet paper towel and did your hands feel drier when you used it? This is expected, as the tiny space between paper towel layers helps hold more water.

Paper is made of cellulose, which water molecules like to cling to. As a result, paper readily absorbs water. Paper towels are especially absorbent because their cellulose fibers have empty spaces—tiny air bubbles—between them. Water molecules, which like to stay together, follow the one another as they are absorbed by the cellulose and fill the empty spaces. Layering the paper towel creates more spaces for water to fill, which explains why your layered paper towel could hold more water and was more efficient at drying your hands.

The next time you reach for the paper towels, remember to fold! You might feel good knowing you just saved an extra paper towel from being used.

Cleanup Let your wet paper towels dry, then recycle them if possible.

This activity was inspired by the TEDx talk, " How to Use One Paper Towel ," by Joe Smith.

More to explore How Do Paper Towels Absorb Water? from A Moment of Science, Indiana Public Media How to Use One Paper Towel , from Joe Smith, TEDxConcordiaUPortland Paper Chromatography , from Flashbang Science Chromatography: Be a Color Detective , from Scientific American

This activity brought to you in partnership with Science Buddies