key: cord-0974427-vvrgn2jj
authors: Vardoulakis, Sotiris; Espinoza Oyarce, Daniela A.; Donner, Erica
title: Transmission of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases in public washrooms: A systematic review
date: 2021-08-27
journal: Sci Total Environ
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149932
sha: bcc7be350f1fda2b011f191a2042910b8bfcfd0f
doc_id: 974427
cord_uid: vvrgn2jj

Background The risk of infectious disease transmission in public washrooms causes concern particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review aims to assess the risk of transmission of viral or bacterial infections through inhalation, surface contact, and faecal-oral routes in public washrooms in healthcare and non-healthcare environments. Methods We systematically reviewed environmental sampling, laboratory, and epidemiological studies on viral and bacterial infection transmission in washrooms using PubMed and Scopus. The review focused on indoor, publicly accessible washrooms. Results Thirty-eight studies from 13 countries were identified, including 14 studies carried out in healthcare settings, 10 in laboratories or experimental chambers, and 14 studies in restaurants, workplaces, commercial and academic environments. Thirty-three studies involved surface sampling, 15 air sampling, 8 water sampling, and 5 studies were risk assessments or outbreak investigations. Infectious disease transmission was studied in relation with: (a) toilets with flushing mechanisms; (b) hand drying systems; and (c) water taps, sinks and drains. A wide range of enteric, skin and soil bacteria and enteric and respiratory viruses were identified in public washrooms, potentially posing a risk of infection transmission. Studies on COVID-19 transmission only examined washroom contamination in healthcare settings. Conclusion Open-lid toilet flushing, ineffective handwashing or hand drying, substandard or infrequent surface cleaning, blocked drains, and uncovered rubbish bins can result in widespread bacterial and/or viral contamination in washrooms. However, only a few cases of infectious diseases mostly related to faecal-oral transmission originating from washrooms in restaurants were reported. Although there is a risk of microbial aerosolisation from toilet flushing and the use of hand drying systems, we found no evidence of airborne transmission of enteric or respiratory pathogens, including COVID-19, in public washrooms. Appropriate hand hygiene, surface cleaning and disinfection, and washroom maintenance and ventilation are likely to minimise the risk of infectious disease transmission.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns about the potential risk of disease transmission in public washrooms (toilets) via direct inhalation of aerosolised viruses or contact with surfaces contaminated by respiratory droplets or faecal waste. Faecal shedding seems to occur in COVID-19 patients with or without gastrointestinal symptoms (Gu et al., 2020) , which could enable asymptomatic individuals with no respiratory symptoms to be a potential source of faecal transmission (McDermott et al., 2020) . This has been indicated as a possible risk in both healthcare (Lane et al., 2020) and non-healthcare (Luo et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2021) settings. Anecdotal evidence suggests that public washrooms have been avoided by users due to the real or perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission in these environments during the pandemic (e.g. (Calechman, 2020) ).

In general, routine use of washrooms may result in the dispersal of urine-and faecal-derived microbiota, including pathogens and opportunistic pathogens (i.e. microorganisms that do not usually infect healthy hosts but may produce infections in immunocompromised persons or in those with certain underlying diseases), and surface contamination is typically found to be higher in public toilets compared to domestic toilets (Flores et al., 2011; Gerhardts et al., 2012) . Washrooms in public settings such as commercial sites, workplaces, and healthcare environments, can be unhygienic if subject to high use, and infrequent or Overall, 3049 titles were identified through the bibliographic database searches and 19 through manual searches. After screening these records, 65 full-text articles were obtained and assessed for eligibility, with 38 of them included in the evidence synthesis ( Figure 1 ). The eligible studies were from 13 countries, with a relatively high number of studies from the UK and USA (Supplementary Materials, Figure S1 ).

A wide range of bacteria and viruses were targeted and/or identified in these studies, with the most studied species being enteric bacteria (e.g. Escherichia coli), skin bacteria (e.g. Staphylococcus spp.), and common environmental spore-forming bacteria (e.g. Bacillus spp.) (Figure 2 ).

Of the 38 eligible studies, 13 were carried out in shared toilets in healthcare settings, 11 were laboratory experiments, and the rest were conducted in a range of workplace, commercial, academic (i.e., universities, schools), restaurant, or other public washroom environments ( Figure 3 ).

Most studies (n = 33) involved surface sampling with swabs, and/or air sampling (n = 15) using wet/dry active samplers or settle plates, with fewer studies (n = 8) conducting water sampling (including tap, sink and toilet bowl water). A smaller number of studies (n = 5) involved risk assessment or outbreak investigation.

A full list of the extracted information can be found in the Supplementary Materials, while a summary of the studies is included in Table 1 .

Based on the quality assessment criteria (section 2.3), the studies included were deemed to be of mixed quality. A number of studies were conducted in laboratories simulating unrealistic washroom conditions, including drying of unwashed or gloved hands covered with model organism solutions (Best et al., 2014; Best and Redway, 2015) . Eleven studies were assessed as good quality (Aithinne et al., 2019; Boone and Gerba, 2005; Inkinen et al., 2017; Knowlton et al., 2018; Margas et al., 2013; Mkrtchyan et al., 2013; Mohamed et al., 2015; Snelling et al., 2011; Suen et al., 2019; Verani et al., 2014; Zapka et al., 2011) , 16 studies were assessed as fair quality (Boxman et al., 2009a; Breathnach et al., 2012; Carducci et al., 2016;  bacteria including Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus spp. (including antimicrobial resistant strains) and viruses (including Human Adenovirus) were found on urinal floors, hand drying systems, inner door surfaces and handles, and water taps (Flores et al., 2011; Mkrtchyan et al., 2013; Suen et al., 2019; Verani et al., 2014) .

Potential routes of infectious disease transmission in washrooms include: (a) the faecal-oral route, i.e. contaminated hands touching the face or food; (b) the respiratory route, i.e. personal exposure to droplets and aerosols carrying pathogens; and (c) transmission through contact with contaminated surfaces and fomites ( Figure 5 ).

Two studies identified faecal-oral transmission as the probable transmission route for Norovirus outbreaks in restaurants in the Netherlands (Boxman et al., 2009a; Boxman et al., 2009b) , and one for a workplace Norovirus outbreak in USA (Repp et al., 2013) . One of these Dutch studies highlighted that transmission could have occurred either directly (i.e. hand-to-mouth) or indirectly via contaminated surfaces, food or water (Boxman et al., 2009b) .

Five studies showed distribution by hands to be a potential mechanism of transmission in washrooms, with poor hand washing and ineffective hand drying increasing the likelihood of transfer onto other surfaces (Boone and Gerba, 2005; Boxman et al., 2009b; Margas et al., 2013; Pitt et al., 2018; Snelling et al., 2011) .

Microbial identification in these studies was methodologically restricted due to the use of specific plating protocols, but collectively, these studies demonstrated the presence and transfer of coliform bacteria, skinassociated and environmental bacteria, and respiratory and enteric viruses (Influenza A and Norovirus).

Boone and Gerba stressed the importance of contact with fomites as a potential mechanism of transmission (Boone and Gerba, 2005) .

Sixteen studies identified droplets as the potential route of transmission for infectious diseases associated with bacteria (Alharbi et al., 2016; Best et al., 2018; Best et al., 2014; Best and Redway, 2015; Best et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2000; Verani et al., 2014) . Details of microbial species identified in these studies are provided in Table 1 ; they include a diverse range of opportunistic pathogens as well as viruses. Six studies examined droplet and/or aerosol dispersal for bacteria (Best et al., 2014; Cooper et al., 2016; Knowlton et al., 2018) , including Pseudomonas putida (Gormley et al., 2017) , and viruses including Human adenovirus (Carducci et al., 2016) . One study examined contamination by droplet and direct surface contact for coliform bacteria (Margas et al., 2013) .

Mechanisms of aerosolisation considered in the literature included toilet flushing, showering, hand washing and drying, and vomiting. Eight studies identified toilet flushing as a potential transmission mechanism, as it may produce droplets and aerosols that can contaminate the washroom environment (Aithinne et al., 2019; Best et al., 2012; Carducci et al., 2016; Cooper et al., 2016; Gerhardts et al., 2012; Knowlton et al., 2018; Sassi et al., 2018; Verani et al., 2014) . Dispersion of droplets and aerosols was reported as a result of toilet flushing with open lid (Best et al., 2012; Gormley et al., 2017; Knowlton et al., 2018; Verani et al., 2014) , with droplet dispersion as the dominant route within a single cubicle/unit, and aerosol transmission as the probable route to other toilets within the same washroom (Gormley et al., 2017) . Vomiting from an infected person was also reported as a mechanism of microbial aerosolisation (Gerhardts et al., 2012) .

Fourteen studies identified contact with contaminated surfaces as a potential route of transmission for infectious diseases associated with bacteria and viruses (Boone and Gerba, 2005; Breathnach et al., 2012; Flores et al., 2011; Gerhardts et al., 2012; Harrison et al., 2003; Huesca-Espitia et al., 2018; Inkinen et al., 2017; Kurgat et al., 2019; Margas et al., 2013; Patrick et al., 2010; Snelling et al., 2011; Suen et al., 2019; Tsunoda et al., 2019; Zapka et al., 2011) (Table 1) . Studies varied from ambient microbiome analysis (e.g. non-selective culturing and isolate identification by MALDI-TOF; environmental swabs and qPCR or 16S rRNA sequencing for identification) through to studies specifically targeting the analysis of antimicrobial resistant bacterial strains, and targeted bacterial/viral inoculation and tracing experiments.

Bacterial aerosolisation and deposition on inanimate surfaces (Huesca-Espitia et al., 2018) , contact with contaminated surfaces and contaminated water (Tsunoda et al., 2019) , and wet, contaminated hands (Harrison et al., 2003) were all identified as potential transmission pathways. Eight studies identified surface contamination and contact with fomites as the main exposure pathway in public washrooms (Best et al., 2018; Flores et al., 2011; Harrison et al., 2003; Inkinen et al., 2017; Kurgat et al., 2019; Mohamed et al., J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Journal Pre-proof Patrick et al., 2010; Repp et al., 2013) , with Flores et al. pointing out that routine use of public toilets results in dispersal of urine-and faecal-bacteria throughout the washroom (Flores et al., 2011) .

Microorganisms identified included a variety of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, including skin microbiota, opportunistic pathogens, enteric pathogens, and viruses (Table 1) . Verani et al. mentioned surface to surface spreading by hands as an important transfer route given the high contamination of flushing buttons and door handles in public washrooms (Verani et al., 2014) .

In sections 3.4-3.6, we examine in more detail the potential for infectious disease transmission in three frequently touched washroom areas which have been extensively studied, including: (a) toilets with flushing mechanisms; (b) areas with hand drying systems; and (c) water taps and sinks.

Seven studies investigated dispersion of pathogens following toilet flushing (Aithinne et al., 2019; Best et al., 2012; Cooper et al., 2016; Gormley et al., 2017; Knowlton et al., 2018; Sassi et al., 2018; Verani et al., 2014) , highlighting that the toilet plume is an important vector of pathogens (Cooper et al., 2016; Verani et al., 2014) . Studies included deliberate inoculation and experimental designs to test the effects of flushing, as well as ambient environmental sampling in the toilet area (Table 1) . Two of these studies indicate the presence of bioaerosols following multiple flushes (Aithinne et al., 2019; Knowlton et al., 2018) : Aithinne et al. identified bioaerosols over at least 12 flushes, with spore contamination identifiable even after 24 flushes following seeding of a toilet with Clostridium difficile in a sealed chamber; while Knowlton et al. identified bioaerosols after flushing even when no faecal waste was present, suggesting that bacterial residues from previous users remained in the toilet water. Gormley et al. showed that bioaerosols can potentially be transmitted to other building sections following flushing via plumbing airstreams and extraction fan systems, and contaminate room surfaces (Gormley et al., 2017) . Using an experimental 2-story sanitary plumbing system to test aerosolisation and dispersal of a model organism (Pseudomonas putida) inoculated into the toilet bowl, they demonstrated that typical sanitary plumbing system airflows are sufficient to carry aerosolised particles between different floors of a building and noted that cross-transmission is a particular risk in the case of defective plumbing conditions. They noted that empty U-traps were not uncommon and suggested that greater consideration should be given to this possible mode of pathogen transmission, particularly in high risk environments such as hospitals, J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Journal Pre-proof where sewer pathogen loads are high and populations are particularly vulnerable. A follow-up study using the same experimental setup indicated that the number of particles emitted from the sanitary plumbing system as a result of a toilet flush is equivalent to a person talking loudly for just over 6 and a half minutes (Gormley et al., 2021) .

Three studies addressed toilet design (Best et al., 2012; Breathnach et al., 2012; Sassi et al., 2018) , recommending the use of toilet lids (Best et al., 2012) , toilets with low bowl volume and flush force (Sassi et al., 2018) , and easy to clean toilet bowls, proper disposal of sanitary items, and weekly disposal of toilet brushes (Breathnach et al., 2012) . Three Japanese studies investigated transmission from bidet toilets (Kanayama Katsuse et al., 2017; Katano et al., 2014; Tsunoda et al., 2019) , and indicated risk of infection following the use of the warm-water nozzle to clean the genital and gluteal area following defecation.

Six studies identified hand drying with warm air or jet air dryers as a potential mechanism of transmission associated with the production of droplets and aerosols (Alharbi et al., 2016; Best et al., 2014; Best and Redway, 2015; Huesca-Espitia et al., 2018; Suen et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2000) . Suen et al. reported that rubbish bins were frequently found to be uncovered in public washrooms and sometimes positioned underneath warm air dryers, which could further increase the spread of pathogens by dispersing rubbish via the airflow generated and by increasing the amount of aerosols in the washroom environment . Huesca-Espitia et al. suggested that it is unlikely that hand dryers are reservoirs of bacteria internally, but they may mobilise pathogens in the washroom air (Huesca-Espitia et al., 2018) ; therefore HEPA filters can reduce the amount of bacterial contamination from hand dryers.

Eight studies of varying quality (see section 3.1) found that paper towels were potentially more effective in reducing the risk of transmission when compared to warm air and/or jet air dryers based on droplet dispersal experiments and surface contamination analyses following hand contact (Best et al., 2018; Best et al., 2014; Best and Redway, 2015; Huesca-Espitia et al., 2018; Kimmitt and Redway, 2016; Kouadri, 2020; Pitt et al., 2018; Snelling et al., 2011) . Alharbi et al. found that warm air dryers can disperse bacteria into the environment and potentially deposit them on users (Alharbi et al., 2016) . Contrary to these studies, Taylor et al. found no difference in the amount of bacteria left on hands following the use of warm air dryers or paper J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Journal Pre-proof towels (Taylor et al., 2000) . In addition, an intervention trial with combined cloth towel and warm air hand drying reported a substantial reduction in surface contamination (Patrick et al., 2010) .

Drawbacks to the use of paper towels in washroom environments have also been noted. Harrison et al. found that the front of the paper towel dispenser can become contaminated due to general use and as a result of freeing jammed towels; this could lead to higher transmission risk if the unit is not routinely cleaned (Harrison et al., 2003) . Taylor et al. found that paper towels can become highly contaminated (Taylor et al., 2000) , which in turn can contaminate the washroom environment due to inappropriate disposal as a result of carelessness or rubbish bins that are full (Snelling et al., 2011) . In addition, Breathnach et al. found that blockages were common due to incorrect disposal of paper towels into toilets (Breathnach et al., 2012) .

Finally, the paper towel supply may be exhausted, leaving users with damp hands and increasing the risk of transmission via door handles (Snelling et al., 2011) . Retractable, single-serve, cloth towel dispensing units can present similar challenges, if not regularly serviced.

When comparing warm air and jet air dryers, assessment of transmission risk varied depending on the measures used. Specifically, Kimmitt and Redway argued that jet air dryers had a higher risk of transmission given the higher rate of particle dispersal and production of aerosols that remained airborne for more than 15min compared to warm air dryers (Kimmitt and Redway, 2016) . However, when comparing the amount of bacteria left on hands or surface contamination following hand contact, warm air dryers had higher risk of transmission due to rubbing hands while drying (Pitt et al., 2018; Snelling et al., 2011) and inappropriate drying leaving hands partially wet (Snelling et al., 2011) . Using a jet air dryer could prevent hand rubbing and promote appropriate drying over a shorter time period (Snelling et al., 2011) .

Three studies examined the potential contribution of water taps to infection transmission in public washrooms (Breathnach et al., 2012; Flores et al., 2011; Halabi et al., 2001) , with one of these studies also addressing shower heads in the same environment (Breathnach et al., 2012) . Regarding water tap design, Halabi et al. showed that conventional fittings were preferable compared to non-touch fittings in the hospital setting investigated, with the low water pressure and the standing column of warm water in non-touch taps leading to greater contamination with P. aeruginosa and Legionella (Halabi et al., 2001) . Taps with hot/cold temperature selection were less contaminated. As a result, the hospital involved in this investigation removed J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Journal Pre-proof all non-touch taps and replaced them with conventional taps (Halabi et al., 2001) . However, a more recent study has shown reduced incidence of healthcare-associated infections in a long-term care facility by converting to automated touchless dispensing and closed-refill systems (Handley and Hessefort, 2020). Breathnach et al. (2012) provided a general assessment of sink design in hospital settings, stating that water flowing directly into the plughole may lead to splash-back from the U-bend, resulting in greater risk of microbial transmission. They conducted outbreak investigations of multidrug resistant P. aeruginosa in two hospitals and demonstrated the potential for hospital wastewater systems to act as environmental reservoirs for this emerging nosocomial infection. They suggested a variety of measures for reducing transmission risks, including reduction of incoming water pressure and flow rate in showers to reduce flooding, changes in storage practices to physically distance clean items from sluices, cleaning protocol reviews, and additional staff training to reduce blockages (Breathnach et al., 2012) .

In a non-health care environment, Flores et al. found that the risk of transmission from water and taps in public washrooms was minimal. Environmental sampling of the tap mouth and tap water revealed minor bacterial contributions of Actinobacteria, Bacteriodetes, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria (Flores et al., 2011) .

Other potential routes of transmission included bacteria contaminated soap from bulk soap dispensers (Zapka et al., 2011) , plumbing system with depleted U-traps and airflow systems that may promote transmission of aerosols (Gormley et al., 2017) , and blockages due to paper towels and clinical wipes being disposed of down toilets (Breathnach et al., 2012) .

Six studies comparing the dispersal of droplets and/or aerosols following the use of jet air dyers, warm air dryers, and/or paper tower measured the range of spread using a variety of experimental designs (Best et al., 2018; Best et al., 2014; Best and Redway, 2015; Kimmitt and Redway, 2016; Margas et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2000) . The greatest dispersal of model organisms was found with jet air dryers, spreading over distances as far as 3.0m (Kimmitt and Redway, 2016) . Droplet dispersal from the sides of the unit ranged from 1.0m (Best and Redway, 2015) to 2.24m (Margas et al., 2013) , dispersal diagonally from the unit was 2.44m (Margas et al., 2013) , dispersal from the front of the unit ranged from 50cm (Best and Redway, 2015) to 1.5m (Margas et al., 2013) , and upward dispersal vertical from the unit ranged from 0.6-1.2m (Best and Redway, 2015) to 0.75-1.25m (Kimmitt and Redway, 2016) . For paper towel dispensers, vertical dispersal J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Journal Pre-proof on the wall next to the unit ranged from 0.9-1.2m (Best and Redway, 2015) and 1.74m to the side, 2.0m diagonally, and 1.5m in front of the unit (Margas et al., 2013) ; and for continuous roller towel vertical dispersal ranged from 1.2 to 1.5m (Best and Redway, 2015) . Finally, vertical dispersal from warm air dyers was found to range between 0.0-0.3m (Best and Redway, 2015) . In general, the main areas of contamination when using paper towels or dyers were the floor under the towel dispenser and jet air dryer unit (Best et al., 2018; Margas et al., 2013) , and the wall below the warm air dryer (Taylor et al., 2000) , possibly because water droplets were shaken onto the wall in the process of drying the hands.

Three studies investigating the distribution of droplets and aerosols following toilet flushing also provided measures for range of dispersal (Best et al., 2012; Cooper et al., 2016; Knowlton et al., 2018) . The height of dispersal ranged from the toilet seat up to 0.25m above the seat (approx. toilet handle height) (Best et al., 2012) , and to distances up to 1.0m ( 

The infectious dose of a pathogen depends on the species or strain, but faecal pathogens with a low infectious dose that can potentially be transmitted via washroom surfaces include Rotavirus, Norovirus, Caliciviruses, and Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (Boxman et al., 2009a; Gerhardts et al., 2012) .

Outbreak investigations included in this review demonstrated the role of fomites and contaminated surfaces as possible Norovirus transmission pathways (Boxman et al., 2009a; 2009b) . As only a few particles are sufficient to cause infection, low infectious dose pathogens pose a significant transmission risk in public washrooms, if an infected person has been present and cleaning and sanitation have been inadequate. By contrast, the risk of becoming infected with pathogens that require a high infectious dose is much lower, although appropriate hygiene practices are paramount to risk mitigation in both cases.

A number of studies identified viable opportunistic pathogens in washroom environmental samples (Cooper et al., 2016; Inkinen et al., 2017) . Bacteria identified included Staphylococcus spp. (Inkinen et al., 2017) , Klebsiella pneumoniae (Zapka et al., 2011) , Klebsiella spp. and Enterococci spp. (Best et al., 2018) , Escherichia coli (Best et al., 2018; Mohamed et al., 2015) ; Legionella spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Journal Pre-proof (Halabi et al., 2001) , Pseudomonas putida (Gormley et al., 2017) ; Micrococcus luteus (Harrison et al., 2003) , and Serratia marcescens (Harrison et al., 2003; Zapka et al., 2011) (Table 1) . Some studies also documented the presence of antibiotic-resistant strains in and around toilets including extra-intestinal pathogenic and antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli (Mohamed et al., 2015; Suen et al., 2019) 

Staphylococcus aureus (Best et al., 2018) . Two Japanese studies investigating transmission risk from bidet 

Four studies examined environmental factors and potential infection transmission in public washrooms (Boone and Gerba, 2005; Gormley et al., 2017; Inkinen et al., 2017; Katano et al., 2014) . Based on controlled experiments with Pseudomonas putida, Gormley et al. identified ventilation and U-trap depletion in toilets to be a major source of cross-contamination of airstreams. These conditions were promoted by poor toilet design and system overload, which are prominent in high-rise buildings and can be exacerbated by external factors such as wind shear (Gormley et al., 2017) . Katano et al. identified lack of chlorine in lavage tanks to be a major source of infection in bidets with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli. Heating and long retention time of the tank water led to inactivation and evaporation of chlorine, which in turn enabled bacterial proliferation and subsequent infection in users (Katano et al., 2014) . Also regarding toilet design, lidless toilets, which are common in disabled and hospital washrooms, may pose a risk particularly to immunocompromised patients due to the possible dispersal of pathogens from toilet flushing.

In relation to microorganism survival on surfaces, Boone and Gerba found no significant difference in the survival of Influenza A detected on moist and dry washroom surfaces (Boone and Gerba, 2005) . Inkinen et al. (2017) found that bacterial survival of Staphylococcus, Enterobacteriaceae and other Gram-negative rods can be significantly reduced on surfaces made of copper compared to reference materials. Under dry-hand contamination, the antimicrobial effect is fast and works within a few minutes, but under wet-hand conditions the effect is slower and can be as long as hours (Inkinen et al., 2017) . Eight studies identified appropriate hand washing as the most effective measure to prevent the spread of infectious diseases in washrooms (Best et al., 2018; Best et al., 2012; Boxman et al., 2009a; Boxman et al., 2009b; Flores et al., 2011; Gerhardts et al., 2012; Mohamed et al., 2015; Patrick et al., 2010) . Two of these studies also suggested complementing hand washing with hand sanitisers (Gerhardts et al., 2012; Mohamed et al., 2015) , and three suggested complementing with effective environmental disinfection (Boxman et al., 2009b; Gerhardts et al., 2012; Mohamed et al., 2015) . Following hand washing, three studies suggested that the use of paper towels is potentially more effective than the use of warm air or jet air dryers in reducing bacterial contamination in washrooms (Kimmitt and Redway, 2016; Kouadri, 2020; Pitt et al., 2018) . Snelling et al. suggested that using a warm air dryer for at least 30 sec with no rubbing of hands produced similar results to the 10 sec drying time of a jet air dryer (Snelling et al., 2011) . However, regardless of the method used, Taylor et al. argued that the best measure of prevention is fully dried hands (Taylor et al., 2000) . Furthermore, two studies suggested the use of physical barriers to prevent the spread of infection, with one of these promoting a direct barrier in the toilet seat (Mohamed et al., 2015) , and the other promoting the use of gloves in healthcare settings while caring for patients and cleaning toilets (Katano et al., 2014) .

Sixteen studies indicated frequent and effective cleaning practices to be an important measure to reduce Other suggested environmental hygiene measures were refurbishment or replacement of inadequate taps, sinks, toilets and sluice (Breathnach et al., 2012) , improved design of front and back panels of the jet air dryer (Margas et al., 2013) , provision of a section to put belongings during handwashing, and increased visibility of hand sanitisers and paper towels , installation of UVC lights (Cooper et al., 2016) , and use of sealed soap refills instead of open bulk soap refillable dispensers (Zapka et al., 2011) .

There is a limited number of studies, mainly from China, reporting on surface or air sampling of SARS-CoV-2 in washrooms. However, all identified studies were conducted in toilets inside hospital respiratory isolation wards or intensive care units, or in patients' homes, therefore they did not meet the public washroom inclusion criteria for this review. Nevertheless, we briefly discuss key findings from these studies here, as they can potentially inform COVID-19 transmission prevention in public washroom settings.

Isolation of infectious SARS-CoV-2 in faeces of COVID-19 patients indicates the possibility of faecal-oral transmission though contaminated surfaces or faecal-respiratory transmission through aerosolised faeces (Xiao et al., 2020; Yong et al., 2020) . Studies that analysed environmental samples from toilets in COVID-those reported from a study of two hospitals in Wuhan, China, which found high concentration of SARS-CoV-2 positive aerosols in a bathroom . However, this was a temporary, single-toilet room with no ventilation. To our knowledge, there have been no reports of faecal-oral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (Vardoulakis et al., 2020) and no COVID-19 clusters have yet been linked to public washroom use (Nicol, 2020) . However, faecal-respiratory transmission is suspected to have played a role in a COVID-19 community outbreak in a high-rise residential building in Guangzhou, China, via vertical spread of virusladen aerosols in drainage systems (Kang et al., 2020) .

Public washrooms are considered by many as high risk environments for infectious disease transmission. (Boxman et al., 2009b) ; therefore correct handwashing greatly minimises this risk.

In addition, appropriate disinfectant in the toilet bowl prior to flushing reduces the level of contamination in the washroom environment after flushing (Sassi et al., 2018) .

There is increasing recognition of the importance of hand drying in the process of hand hygiene, suggesting that the efficacy of hand drying is a critical factor in the prevention of the transfer of pathogens and crossinfection particularly in healthcare settings (Gammon and Hunt, 2019) . It has been suggested that numbers of bacteria translocating on touch contact decrease progressively as drying removes residual moisture from hands (Patrick et al., 1997) . Methods for hand drying in public washrooms vary considerably and include cloth or paper towels and warm air or jet air dryers. These methods may differ in their ability to dry hands (Boxman et al., 2009b; Repp et al., 2013) .

COVID-19 is mainly transmitted through the inhalation of respiratory droplets and aerosols, direct contact with infected individuals, and potentially via contact with contaminated surfaces (Vardoulakis et al., 2020) .

Indoor environments that promote close contact for longer periods are the most likely to facilitate respiratory transmission (Morawska et al., 2020) . Faecal-oral transmission is theoretically possible as the SARS-CoV-2 virus is continually shed by infected and convalescent individuals (Xiao et al., 2020) , although it is not entirely clear whether the viral particles in faeces remain infectious and for how long (Nicol, 2020) .

flushing may result in significant spread of bioaerosols in washrooms Wang et al., 2020) . In

Journal Pre-proof most cases, however, adequate surface disinfection and room ventilation is expected to limit the virus's concentration in the washroom environment.

Although the risk of airborne transmission of bacterial or viral infections in a public washroom is low, it is recommended as a precaution to limit the time spent in a public washroom in a single visit, maintain at least 1.5m distance from other users and wear a facemask in washrooms within high risk settings. Regular disinfection of toilet surfaces is also an important COVID-19 precautionary intervention (Ding et al., 2021) , and will reduce the risk of transmission of other viral and bacterial infectious diseases in washroom environments. Plumbing design and standing water volumes are key considerations for hospital and aged care facility water quality, particularly where retrofitting and extensions are involved, and management should thus be tailored on a case-by-case basis. Personal precautions, environmental hygiene and washroom design recommendations from the examined studies are summarised in Box 1. Assessing the efficacy of these measures was beyond the scope of the present review.

Personal precautions:

 Appropriate hand washing with water and soap (for at least 20 sec) followed by drying until hands are fully dry.

 Carry hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes in case facilities lack soap or running water.

 Limit time spent in a public washroom in a single visit (to less than 15 min).

 Close the toilet lid before flushing; leave cubicle immediately after activating the flush button.

 Wear a facemask in settings with significant risk of COVID-19 transmission.

 Maintain physical distance from other users and avoid crowded washrooms.

 Avoid touching the exit door handle (instead open door using elbow) or other surfaces in the washroom after washing hands and before leaving the area.

 Avoid eating, smoking, drinking or using a mobile phone within the washroom.  Chlorine residual should be maintained in toilet lavage tanks.

 Drains should be regularly cleaned and unblocked to avoid overflow.

 Use of sealed soap refills instead of open bulk soap refillable dispensers.

 Installation of UVC lights may be a useful supplementary decontamination method in healthcare settings.

 Provision of adequate ventilation, including mechanical ventilation with air filtration where possible.

 Hand sanitisers should be available and visible in washroom entrance/exit.

 Rubbish bins properly covered and regularly emptied. Bins located away from electric hand dryers.

 Easy to clean toilet bowls, with low volume and flush force.

 Hand drying units regularly cleaned; electric hand dryers equipped with HEPA filters where possible;

paper towel dispensers regularly stocked.

 Use copper products in small frequently touched locations such as toilet flush buttons, light switches and door handles.

 Use sink designs that reduce the risk of splash-back from plugholes or U-bends in plumbing systems.

 Reduce incoming water pressure and flow rate in showers to reduce the risk of flooding.

 Avoid use of warm-water bidet toilets.

 Non-touch flush buttons and other sensor-operated fittings for hand dryers, soap and paper towel dispensers and sinks (but avoid low water pressure in non-touch taps).

in healthy individuals. However, there was a number of pathogens and colonising opportunistic pathogens identified that may pose an infection risk to immunocompromised individuals in healthcare settings. Faecaloral transmission and washroom surface contamination were implicated in a number of intestinal disease outbreaks mainly in restaurants. We found no evidence of airborne transmission of pathogens, including COVID-19, in public washrooms.

The key to health protection from toilet associated pathogens is correct hand washing and drying, which can prevent direct transmission via the faecal-oral route, as well as contamination of other people and surfaces.

Thoroughly washing and drying hands after toilet use greatly reduces the risk of any pathogen transmission irrespective of the drying method. Good air ventilation and frequent cleaning of surfaces, particularly of those frequently touched (e.g., door handles), are strongly recommended.

More high-quality environmental sampling studies assessing the risk of COVID-19 and other infectious disease transmission via all possible exposure routes in public washrooms, and the efficacy of preventive measures, are urgently needed. The role and frequency of defective plumbing in high risk settings should also be further evaluated.

☐ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☒The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:

This is an independent study funded by Dyson Technology Ltd. SV is member of the Dyson Scientific Advisory Board and has received research funding and honoraria from Dyson.

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Viruses were detected on 135 surfaces (78%), and in 17 (89%) water samples tested. The surface total positivity was 71% in offices, and 82% in hospital. 

Do women spend more time in the restroom than men?

Environmental contamination by bacteria in hospital washrooms according to hand-drying method: A multi-centre study

Microbiological comparison of hand-drying methods: The potential for contamination of the environment, user, and bystander

Comparison of different hand-drying methods: The potential for airborne microbe dispersal and contamination

Potential for aerosolization of Clostridium difficile after flushing toilets: The role of toilet lids in reducing environmental contamination risk

The occurrence of influenza A virus on household and day care center fomites

Norovirus on swabs taken from hands illustrate route of transmission: A case study

Environmental swabs as a tool in norovirus outbreak investigation, including outbreaks on cruise ships

Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa outbreaks in two hospitals: Association with contaminated hospital waste-water systems

How risky is using a public bathroom during the pandemic?

SARS-CoV-2 RNA contamination on surfaces of a COVID-19 ward in a hospital of Northern Italy: What risk of transmission?

What is the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 from the use of public toilets?

Toilets dominate environmental detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in a hospital

Opportunistic pathogens enriched in showerhead biofilms

Microbial biogeography of public restroom surfaces

The neglected element of hand hygiene -significance of hand drying, efficiency of different methods and clinical implication: A review

A model of the transmission of micro-organisms in a public setting and its correlation to pathogen infection risks

Aerosol and bioaerosol particle size and dynamics from defective sanitary plumbing systems

Pathogen cross-transmission via building sanitary plumbing systems in a full scale pilot test-rig

COVID-19: Gastrointestinal manifestations and potential fecal-oral transmission

Bacterial transfer and cross-contamination potential associated with paper-towel dispensing

The hygienic efficacy of different hand-drying methods: A review of the evidence

Deposition of bacteria and bacterial spores by bathroom hot-air hand dryers

Copper as an antibacterial material in different facilities

Public health and healthcare-associated risk of electric, warm-water bidet toilets

Probable evidence of fecal aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a high-rise building

A survey on bacterial contamination of lavage water in electric warm-water lavage toilet seats and of the gluteal cleft after lavage

Evaluation of the potential for virus dispersal during hand drying: a comparison of three methods

Can a toilet promote virus transmission? From a fluid dynamics perspective

Aerodynamic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in two Wuhan hospitals

Air and surface contamination in non-health care settings among 641 environmental specimens of 39 COVID-19 cases

Assessment of the environmental microbiological cross contamination following hand drying with paper hand towels or an air blade dryer

Put a lid on it: Are faecal bio-aerosols a route of transmission for SARS-CoV-2?

Could public restrooms be an environment for bacterial resistomes?

Extraintestinal pathogenic and antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli contamination of 56 public restrooms in the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: The PRISMA statement

Detection of sars-cov-2 within the healthcare environment: A multi-centre study conducted during the first wave of the covid-19 outbreak in england

Droplet fate in indoor environments, or can we prevent the spread of infection?

How can airborne transmission of COVID-19 indoors be minimised?

Study quality assessment tools: Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. National Institutes of Health: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Public washrooms in the time of COVID-19: Facility features and user behaviours can influence safety. 2021. National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health

Air, surface environmental, and personal protective equipment contamination by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) fom a symptomatic patient

Reduction of microbial transmission in childcare using an improved hand drying protocol

Residual moisture determines the level of touch-contact-associated bacterial transfer following hand washing

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

Colonizing opportunistic pathogens (COPs): The beasts in all of us

A norovirus outbreak related to contaminated surfaces

Evaluation of hospital-grade disinfectants on viral deposition on surfaces after toilet flushing

The public washroom -friend or foe? An observational study of washroom cleanliness combined with microbiological investigation of hand hygiene facilities

A microbiological evaluation of warm air hand driers with respect to hand hygiene and the washroom environment

Survey on bacterial contamination of bidet toilets and relation to the interval of scrubbing these units

COVID-19 environmental transmission and preventive public health measures

Viral contamination of aerosol and surfaces through toilet use in health care and other settings

On-site analysis of COVID-19 on the surfaces in wards

Virus transmission from urinals

Contamination of SARS-CoV-2 in patient surroundings and on personal protective equipment in a non-ICU isolation ward for COVID-19 patients with prolonged PCR positive status

Infectious SARS-CoV-2 in feces of patient with severe COVID-19

Isolation of 2019-nCoV from a stool specimen of a laboratory-confirmed case of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Bacterial hand contamination and transfer after use of contaminated bulk-soap-refillable dispensers

Contaminated area/medium: Air, vertical board/wall MS2 bacteriophage Mean total viral plaques after 0-2.5, 2.5-5, 5-7.5, 7.5-10, 10-12.5, and 12.5-15 min of drying device use

Contaminated area/medium: Air Bacterial CFU Mean bioaerosol concentration at different conditions: No waste no flush: 210 (SD: 136) CFU/m 3 No waste with flush

Country: Saudi Arabia Setting: Academic Design: Bathroom handwashing conditions; Selective media; culturebased; antimicrobial susceptibility testing of 16 isolates Bacterial CFU, multi-drug resistant Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp

s): 2.95 (SD: 1.46) log10 CFU WAD Turbodry (35 s): 2.02 (SD: 1.25) log10 CFU WAD A5 (30 s): 2.21 (SD: 1.04) log10 CFU JAD vs WAD drying procedure: 21 instances of no bacteria transferred

Effect of rubbing hands when using WAD: Rubbing increased bacteria transferred in many instances. No statistical difference between any of the dryers when hands still, and bacterial reduction comparable to PT for middle of fingers. Rubbing with PT proved effective and to be the best means of reducing bacterial loading on fingertips

Country: Hong Kong Setting: Healthcare, restaurant, food market, shopping centre, public library, sport centre, tourist spot, hotel, public housing state Bacterial CFU, Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Moraxella spp

Bacterial contamination in bidet toilet: Nozzle surface: 167/192 (87%) Spray water: 181/192 (94%) Mean counts of thin colonies recovered: Nozzle surface: 14.4 (SD: 16.2) CFU Spray water: 16.3 (SD: 17.1) CFU

Acinetobacter spp

This work was supported by Dyson Technology Ltd. We thank Amelia Joshy (ANU) for her assistance with