
Is your home a health hazard? 15 surprisingly filthy everyday items, from taps to toothbrushes
Does it matter that your reusable shopping bag might be carrying faecal bugs? Or that your watch strap is teeming with lifeforms? Are the studies – usually small, and sometimes conducted by cleaning-product companies – scaremongering or a grave matter of public health? Germ experts come clean.
After going to the loo, or every time your hands are dirty, you touch the tap before washing them. 'If you don't have those [long lever] elbow taps like they have in hospitals, then you're going to be making your taps really gunky, and lead to the potential for cross-contamination,' says Tetro.
Clean bathroom and kitchen taps regularly. In the kitchen, if you're washing your hands after handling raw meat, consider turning the tap on before you start. 'I would suggest you just keep a little stream going, and then you don't have to touch the taps until you've washed your hands properly.' Admittedly, this is wasteful, so you could also make sure you disinfect your kitchen taps afterwards.
'I'm surprised new lifeforms don't evolve in kitchen sponges,' says Chuck Gerba, professor of virology at the University of Arizona. They are prime habitats for microbes.
'They are always wet,' says Markus Egert, professor of microbiology at Hochschule Furtwangen University in Germany. 'They have a huge inner surface where a lot of microbes can grow, and you clean a lot of different stuff with them, so the microbes have a lot of nutrients to feed on. And they are rarely cleaned, so that makes them perfect. That's why there are so many microbes in it within a very short time, billions of microbes. The concentration – not the type of microbes – is similar to a human stool sample.' Studies have shown that sponges can contain harmful bacteria such as salmonella or campylobacter, which can cause severe food poisoning. For elderly people or young children, or those with a weakened immune system, this can be especially dangerous.
If you do use one, you could clean it in the microwave. Wet it thoroughly, put a bit of washing-up liquid on it and microwave it for one minute, and then let it dry out well. 'This reduces the number of germs very significantly,' says Egert. But this could eventually prove counterproductive. 'The few microbes that survive probably can grow up very fast and so recolonise the sponge. If you do this several times, our hypothesis is that you select for more pathogenic, more resistant microbes than you had before. So you shouldn't do it too often.' Or preferably don't use one at all – most sponges are made of plastic and aren't biodegradable.
One of the most neglected items in the kitchen, says Gerba, is the cutting board. 'People just rinse it off,' he says, 'or they'll cut raw meats and then they'll make a salad on it, and you have all those cuts and crevices from cutting that make it difficult to clean. Probably the most important thing is putting it in a dishwasher, or rinsing and scrubbing it.'
'A toothbrush is going to be mainly oral bacteria,' says Tetro. Some studies have shown a toothbrush can be home to 10m bacteria. 'But the microbiome in your mouth will change over time. If you have a lot of sugary, fatty foods, it may help change your microbiome towards bugs that are not so great, and they'll become even more populous, and then you're just spreading them in your mouth.'
Give your toothbrush a clean every day. 'Run very hot water over the brush and underneath for five seconds. You should also be changing your toothbrush about once a month.' Watch out for your toothbrush holder, too, where gunk accumulates. 'All the bacteria in the toothbrush end up growing in the bottom,' says Tetro.
Tetro is suspicious of anything named 'brush' that is never cleaned. 'With a hairbrush, it's going to be yeast and fungi. After you've washed your hair, using a [dirty] hairbrush may transfer it into your hair.' This could lead to dandruff, or scalp infections. It should be enough to clean your hairbrush once a month, says Tetro.
Sometimes dark, always moist, with water left for hours, warming up. Add to that oral bacteria, food particles and (if you're not a regular handwasher) possibly faecal bacteria, and your water bottle becomes a banquet for germs. If you fill your bottle with protein shakes or sugary drinks, it's more like an all-you-can-eat for bacteria. One study found 20% of water bottles tested contained coliform bacteria (of faecal origin). Another study found an average water bottle had 20.8m colony-forming units – more than 40,000 times the number on a toilet seat.
'If you drink water from a swimming pool, you should expect to drink poop – but, if it's your own water bottle, probably not,' says Tetro.
It's best to pour away old water, wash the bottle in hot water and washing-up liquid and, at least once a week, give it a good scrub with a (clean!) brush. Don't forget lids, straws and spouts.
Your fancy smartwatch is telling you everything you need to know about your resting heart rate and sleep quality, but it is harbouring a dirty secret – it's teeming with germs. A 2023 study found that, while staphylococci were expected (they're naturally found on skin), there were relatively high rates of pseudonomas bacteria (some variants can cause infections in humans) and 60% had enteric bacteria (found in the intestine), including E coli. Rubber and cloth straps were the worst, with gold and silver straps performing well.
You handle them multiple times, drop them on the floor, put them in your pocket, share them with other people, and then jam them in your ears – a warm, dark, moist place, home to your usual bacterial flora, and now the venue for a whole host of germs to party to your playlist. One study that swabbed 50 earphones identified fungi and bacteria, including E coli.
Again, anything that comes into contact with human skin is expected to be loaded with bacteria, and a study on spectacles found, unsurprisingly, that nose pads and the parts that touched the ears had higher concentrations. While the bacteria detected wouldn't be a concern to healthy people, the study found about 60% of the bacteria could be risky to people with compromised immune systems. It also identified bacteria linked to eye infections. It found alcohol wipes were the best at decreasing bacterial load, but many opticians say they could damage the lenses and advise warm soapy water and a soft cloth.
A 2023 food-handling study, following people who were making turkey burgers from raw meat, swabbed utensils and kitchen surfaces afterwards and found spice jars were the most frequently contaminated, with nearly half of the objects affected. Your salt and pepper shakers may also be giving you more than seasoning – a 2010 study by ABC News found shakers in restaurants were the second-dirtiest items on the table (after menus), and in a 2008 University of Virginia study, which tested objects that had been touched by cold sufferers, traces of the virus were found on all the shakers.
'Reusable bags tend to get contaminated with bacteria from raw meat and produce,' says Gerba. 'Putting them in a car trunk is like creating an incubator for the bacteria to grow in most climates.' In one of his studies where reusable grocery bags were collected from shoppers and tested, more than half contained coliform bacteria, which probably came from raw meat and other produce, and E coli was detected in 8% of bags. When the team deliberately contaminated bags with meat juices and stored them in the boot of a car for a couple of hours, the bacteria increased tenfold.
'They should be washed on a regular basis,' says Gerba. He favours cotton bags.
A team from the University of Houston tested light switches, among other areas including bathroom sinks and floors, in hotel rooms and found they were significant harbourers of faecal bacteria. In another test, nearly a quarter of light switches were found to be contaminated with the cold virus an hour after someone with snotty fingers had touched them.
Your TV remote might be 15 times more disgusting than your toilet seat. A survey for Churchill, the insurance company, found high levels of faecal bacteria on the remotes swabbed. Other surveys have found that between a quarter and third of people never clean their remote, a device that is touched by an average family of four an estimated 21,000 times a year.
True, it's not as if you'll come out of the shower dirtier than you went in, but the curtain may be the dirtiest place in the bathroom. To use our trusty toilet-seat comparison tool, one study found shower curtains had 60 times more bacterial life. That was a laughably small study of three curtains, but it's obvious they're a danger zone – people have disgusting shower habits, such as urinating, and bacteria thrive in warm, wet places. So does mould.
'Shower curtains are disgusting,' says Tetro with a laugh. 'This is, again, one of those things where, if it's your shower, your curtain, who cares, right? But a lot of people will share the shower space. As a result, you are going to have a lot more of those human germs.' And not just from people's hands and faces, he points out. 'It's going to be coming from your whole body, which is why we really should be disinfecting those shower curtains every time we disinfect the tub or the shower stall.' You can also run the shower curtain through the washing machine every so often.
You should be mindful of how clean any of your cleaning appliances are, from mouldy washing machines to stinky dishwashers. 'You should be careful when you empty the vacuum cleaner,' says Gerba. In samples of household vacuum cleaner contents, 'we found salmonella in about 10% of them. What you do is you pick up the bacteria and all this nice food for them to eat [in dust and debris], so it becomes a cafeteria for bacteria.' With a bagless cleaner, don't shake it into your bin in the kitchen – do it outside if you can).
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
20 hours ago
- The Independent
Science journal pulls controversial study about bizarre life form
A microscopic discovery in a Californian lake ignited significant scientific debate over a decade ago. Researchers claimed to have found bacteria utilising arsenic – an element lethal to known life forms – for growth. If validated, this would have profoundly expanded life's known parameters, on Earth and beyond. However, numerous research groups failed to replicate the findings, arguing it is biologically unfeasible for an organism to use such a toxic element for DNA and proteins. Some scientists have since suggested the original experiments were compromised by undetected contaminants. On Thursday, the journal Science, which first published the research, retracted it, though not because of misconduct on the researchers' part. 'If the editors determine that a paper's reported experiments do not support its key conclusions, even if no fraud or manipulation occurred, a retraction is considered appropriate,' the journal's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp wrote in the statement announcing the retraction. The researchers disagree with the journal's decision and stand by their data. It's reasonable to pull a paper for major errors or suspected misconduct — but debates and disagreements over the findings are part of the scientific process, said study co-author Ariel Anbar of Arizona State University. 'One doesn't retract a paper because the interpretation is controversial, or even because most disagree with the interpretation,' wrote Anbar in an email. 'At least, that hasn't been the case until now.' Science has more frequently retracted papers for reasons beside fraud in recent years, said Thorp and Vada Vinson, Science's executive editor, wrote in a blog post. NASA helped fund the original work. The space agency's science mission chief Nicky Fox said in a statement that NASA does not support the retraction and encourages Science to reconsider.


The Independent
2 days ago
- The Independent
A science journal pulled a controversial study about a bizarre life form against the authors' wishes
A microscopic discovery in a California lake sparked buzz and controversy more than a decade ago when it was first revealed. Scientists said they'd discovered bacteria that used the element arsenic — poisonous to life as we know it — to grow. If true, it expanded the possibilities for where life could exist on Earth — or on other worlds. Several research groups failed to replicate the results, and argue it's not possible for a living thing to use something so toxic to make DNA and proteins. Some scientists have suggested the results of the original experiments may have been skewed by undetected contaminants. On Thursday, the journal Science, which first published the research, retracted it, though not because of misconduct on the researchers' part. 'If the editors determine that a paper's reported experiments do not support its key conclusions, even if no fraud or manipulation occurred, a retraction is considered appropriate,' the journal's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp wrote in the statement announcing the retraction. The researchers disagree with the journal's decision and stand by their data. It's reasonable to pull a paper for major errors or suspected misconduct — but debates and disagreements over the findings are part of the scientific process, said study co-author Ariel Anbar of Arizona State University. 'One doesn't retract a paper because the interpretation is controversial, or even because most disagree with the interpretation,' wrote Anbar in an email. 'At least, that hasn't been the case until now.' Science has more frequently retracted papers for reasons beside fraud in recent years, said Thorp and Vada Vinson, Science's executive editor, wrote in a blog post. NASA helped fund the original work. The space agency's science mission chief Nicky Fox said in a statement that NASA does not support the retraction and encourages Science to reconsider. —- The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Daily Mail
Shocking truth behind doctor's warning about kissing a dead person at funerals
A doctor's shocking warning to avoid kissing a dead person's head as they lie in a casket at a funeral has taken the internet by storm. Dr Viktor Ivanovik, a Moldovan physician with over 1.2 million followers on TikTok, claimed that dangerous bacteria start growing on corpses just nine hours after death. In the clip titled 'Never kiss a dead person!' Ivanovik said that coming into contact with this bacteria could cause the kisser to lose their sense of smell and suffer cardio-respiratory problems. ' Do not kiss the deceased on their final journey, especially in the summer or in the room where the lifeless body is placed if there is no air conditioning,' Ivanovik said. 'Kiss the deceased when the lifeless body is in the custody of an air-conditioned morgue at an appropriate temperature,' he added. The controversial advice has set off a wave of debate, with mourning families on social media slamming the advice as insensitive, and fact-checkers calling the doctor's claims exaggerated. However, Dr Stuart Fischer, a New York City-based internist, declared the claims to be nonsensical and simply not possible, given the amount of immune defenses the human body contains. 'In any given person, there are many different types of good bacteria, but they all serve a purpose. It would be like having 100,000 secret service agents to guard someone,' Dr Fischer told 'In other words, the bacteria would be outnumbered, and they would die quickly because of the immune system of the supposedly newly infected person,' Dr Fischer said. Dr Ivanovik's claims have spread fear that someone's final goodbye could spread potentially deadly pathogens like Staphylococcus or Clostridium. 'How come I've never heard of this before in my life as a physician for 45 years?' Dr Fischer asked. 'That means that the loved ones would die or be hospitalized within a day or two. I don't believe it's happening,' he continued. The World Health Organization (WHO) agreed with Dr Fischer's take on the TikTok claims, noting that even after a natural disaster, 'there is no evidence that corpses pose a risk of epidemic disease.' 'Most agents do not survive long in the human body after death. Human remains only pose a substantial risk to health in a few special cases, such as deaths from cholera or hemorrhagic fevers,' WHO added in a statement. While Dr Ivanovik may have a massive following online, his medical credentials could not be verified by multiple media outlets, both in the US and Europe. Dr Fischer added that Ivanovik's TikTok video did not take into account the professional manner in which bodies are preserved for funerals in modern times. 'For burials, the funeral directors take things like this into account also,' Dr Fischer revealed. 'There would certainly have been cases of this before. This is not something where you could suddenly have a brand new epidemic of something,' he added. While the doctor didn't personally endorse kissing a deceased loved one at a funeral, he noted that there was nothing medically wrong with choosing to do so if it brings a grieving relative comfort. Although Ivanovik's TikTok post was liked by many of his followers, others rejected his advice, saying that their final moment with a dead relative was worth any risks. 'I kissed my father, and I would do it a million times more! I can even lose my taste and smell, he's my father!' one person replied. 'Honestly, I don't think anyone can resist kissing their parent on the hand or forehead, one last time,' another poster commented. 'It's hard when you break up with someone you love. For example, a child, mother, father, brother, etc. Maybe you're right, scientifically, but, in such a situation, it's hard,' a social media user added.