Why Coffee Stains Your Mugs and the Best Way to Get Rid of Them
That got me thinking: Why do coffee and tea stain mugs so easily, and why are those stains so hard to remove?
To find out, I did some digging and found a handful of surprisingly effective ways to keep coffee mugs, thermoses and coffee pots looking spotless. Here's what I learned.
For more stain-removing tips, learn how to remove stains from clothes, how to clean workout clothes and how to clean your running shoes.
Why does coffee stain your cups and mugs?
It's so frustrating to run your cups and mugs through the dishwater only to find they're still stained at the end of the cycle. Before you throw out that old cup, think of it as a learning opportunity to research why coffee has such powerful staining power.
Coffee can stain cups and mugs due to the presence of compounds called tannins, a type of polyphenol that is naturally present in coffee beans. When coffee is brewed, tannins can adhere to the surface of cups or mugs, leading to brown staining over time.
Boy_Anupong/Getty Images
How to avoid coffee stains in your mugs
The best offense is a good defense. To stop stains before they start, it's best to rinse a cup or mug right after use to prevent any stains from setting in.
Additionally, coffee stains can be exacerbated by other factors, like the temperature of the coffee, since heat accelerates chemical reactions. The tannin compounds in the hot coffee will more strongly adhere to the cup material. Leaving the coffee in the cup or mug for an extended period also makes stains harder to remove since the tannins will set into the surface of the cup as the coffee cools down.
The porosity of the cup material can also impact the likelihood of staining. The more porous the material, the more susceptible it is to absorbing liquids and staining. Plastic, earthenware and stone cups or mugs are generally considered more porous. I recommend purchasing high-quality stainless steel cups or mugs since they're non-porous, making stubborn stains unlikely.
Regular cleaning of cups or mugs can help prevent coffee stains from ingraining into the material. Let's review some of the best methods for removing coffee stains.
Five methods to remove coffee stains for good
The following five methods should remove the coffee stains from your cups once and for all. (Or at least until the next time you drink coffee out of it, in which case, you'll need to repeat these steps.)
Method one
What you'll need: Baking soda and water.
What to do: Create a paste by mixing equal parts baking soda and tap water. Apply the paste to the stained areas of the cup, scrub gently with a sponge or brush, then rinse thoroughly.
Method two
What you'll need: White vinegar.
What to do: Soak the coffee-stained cup in a mixture of white vinegar and water for a few hours. After, scrub the stains with a sponge or brush, and then wash the cup with dish detergent to eliminate the sour vinegar taste and its pungent smell.
solidcolours/Getty Images
Method three
What you'll need: Lemon juice and salt.
What to do: Make a mixture of lemon juice and table salt. Gently rub this mixture over the stained areas and then rinse thoroughly. You will want to wash the cup or mug with dish detergent and water afterward to get rid of any lingering lemon taste or smell.
Method four
What you'll need: Baking soda and white vinegar.
What to do: Sprinkle a few teaspoons of baking soda inside the cup or mug, gently pour in white vinegar and allow the mixture to fizz. Once it has fizzled out, scrub the stained areas with a sponge or brush and rinse thoroughly.
fcafotodigital/Getty Images
Method five
What you'll need: Denture cleaning tablets.
What to do: Denture tablets clean mugs just as well as they clean teeth. Fill the stained cup with warm water and drop in one denture cleaning tablet, making sure to add enough water to completely cover the coffee stains. Let it sit for a few hours, and then scrub and rinse as with the other methods.
As with anything, a little effort and time will go a long way to making your cups and mugs shine. These tips will work on any drinkware material and can even be used for tea stains, too. Feel free to repeat any of the above processes as needed to get the stains out.
For more cleaning tips, you can also check out how often you should clean your makeup brushes, and the best way to machine wash your sheets and bedding.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NC-based app uses AI to fight denied health insurance claims
A new app developed in North Carolina is using artificial intelligence to fight denied health insurance claims. The app, from Counterforce, lets residents upload their insurance coverage documents along with their denial letter. ALSO READ: The cost of AI: Who pays to power the future? It then combines them to create a medically based analysis that residents can print and send back to their insurance company. Counterforce is free for anyone to use online. VIDEO: The cost of AI: Who pays to power the future?
Los Angeles Times
14 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Criminalization or support? President Trump's executive order on homelessness gets mixed reaction
An executive order signed by President Trump purporting to protect Americans from 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks' attributed to homelessness has left local officials and homeless advocates outraged over its harsh tone while also grasping for a hopeful message in its fine print. The order Trump signed Thursday would require federal agencies to reverse precedents or consent decrees that impede U.S. policy 'encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.' It ordered those agencies to 'ensure the availability of funds to support encampment removal efforts.' Depending on how that edict is carried out, it could extend a lifeline for Mayor Karen Bass' Inside Safe program, which has eliminated dozens of the city's most notable encampments but faces budget challenges to maintain the hotel and motel beds that allow people to move indoors. Responding to the order Friday, Bass said she was troubled that it called for ending street homelessness and moving people into rehabilitation facilities at the same time as the administration's cuts to Medicaid have affected funding 'streams for facilities for people to stay in, especially people who are disabled.' 'Of course I'm concerned about any punitive measures,' Bass said. 'But first and foremost, if you want to end street homelessness, then you have got to have housing and services for people who are on the street.' Kevin Murray, president and chief executive of the Weingart Center homeless services and housing agency, saw ambiguity in the language. 'I couldn't tell whether he is offering money for people who want to do it his way or taking money away from people who don't do it his way,' Murray said. Others took their cue from the order's provocative tone set in a preamble declaring that the overwhelming majority of the 274,224 people reported living on the street in 2024 'are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.' The order contradicted a growing body of research finding that substance use and mental illness, while significant, are not overriding factors in homelessness. 'Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.' A February study by the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative at UC San Francisco found that only about 37% of more than 3,000 homeless people surveyed in California were using illicit drugs regularly, but just over 65% reported having regularly used at some point in their lives. More than a third said their drug use had decreased after they became homeless and one in five interviewed in depth said they were seeking treatment but couldn't get it. 'As with most executive orders, it doesn't have much effect on its own,' said Steve Berg, chief policy officer for the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 'It tells the federal agencies to do different things. Depending on how the federal agencies do those things, that's what will have the impact.' In concrete terms, the order seeks to divert funding from two pillars of mainstream homelessness practice, 'housing first,' the prioritization of permanent housing over temporary shelter, and 'harm reduction,' the rejection of abstinence as a condition of receiving services and housing. According to the order, grants issued under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should 'not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.' And the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should, to the extent permitted by law, end support for 'housing first' policies that 'deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.' To some extent, those themes reflect shifts that have been underway in the state and local response to homelessness. Under pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California legislature established rules allowing relatives and service providers to refer people to court for treatment and expanded the definition of gravely disabled to include substance use. Locally, Bass' Inside Safe program and the county's counterpart, Pathway Home, have prioritized expanding interim housing to get people off the streets immediately. Trump's order goes farther, though, wading into the controversial issue of how much coercion is justified in eliminating encampments. The Attorney General and the other federal agencies, it said, should take steps to ensure that grants go to states and cities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering and squatting. Homeless advocacy organizations saw those edicts as a push for criminalization of homelessness and mental illness. 'We'll be back to the days of 'One Flew Over the Cuckcoo's Nest,' 'Berg said, referring to the 1962 novel and subsequent movie dramatizing oppressive conditions in mental health institutions. Defending Housing First as a proven strategy that is the most cost-effective way to get people off the street, Berg said the order encourages agencies to use the money in less cost-effective ways. 'What we want to do is reduce homelessness,' he said. 'I'm not sure that is the goal of the Trump administration.' The National Homelessness Law Center said in a statement saying, 'This Executive Order is rooted in outdated, racist myths about homelessness and will undoubtedly make homelessness worse.... Trump's actions will force more people into homelessness, divert taxpayer money away from people in need, and make it harder for local communities to solve homelessness.' Murray, who describes himself as not a fan of Housing First, noted that key policies pressed in the order—civil commitment, encampment removal and substance use treatment—are already gaining prominence in the state and local response to homelessness. 'We all think if it came from Trump it is horrible,' Murray said. 'It is certainly overbearing. It certainly misses some nuances of what real people with mental illness and substance use are like. But we've started down the path of most of this stuff.' His main concern was that the order might be interpreted to apply to Section 8, the primary federal financial tool for getting homeless people into housing. What would happen, he asked, if someone with a voucher refused treatment? 'It might encourage more people to stay on the streets,' he said. 'Getting people into treatment isn't easy.'
Medscape
14 minutes ago
- Medscape
Alternative Funders and Costly Meds: Are Patients Insured?
In the ever-evolving landscape of employer self-funded healthcare, cost-saving strategies emerge with promises of efficiency and reduced spending. Yet, for real patients — especially those battling chronic illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease — these quick-fix schemes can have devastating, unintended consequences. Among the most disruptive of these strategies in employer-funded health plans is the involvement of alternative funders: third-party entities inserted between patients and their essential therapies. Real patient stories most powerfully illustrate the physical, emotional, and financial harm they experience. Self-Insured Employers and Alternative Funder Programs Rising healthcare costs have led many employers to seek new ways to manage the growing expenses of self-insured health plans. Strategies such as alternative funder programs (AFPs) have been touted as ways to keep costs down and preserve financial stability for businesses. While these methods might give some relief to employer balance sheets, they can cause medication access delays and disruption, as well as added complexity, confusion, and stress for the patient. Madelaine (Mattie) A. Feldman, MD Essentially, AFPs contract with the employer to stop all coverage of the cost of expensive medicines, which includes most, if not all, of the biologic drugs. The AFPs will then apply for patient assistance from manufacturers and other programs under the guise of the patient being 'uninsured.' If assistance is obtained (free drug or copay cards), they will charge the employer a percentage of the price of the drug or card. Most manufacturer assistance programs have put up guardrails to prevent what they consider to be abuse of programs meant to help the truly 'uninsured.' If AFPs are unable to obtain free drugs, then they may try to source the medicine from outside of the United States, which manufacturers say is illegal. All of this creates delays in processing with denials and disruption of care for those relying on these specialty drugs. Employees are told they need to sign up for these programs or they may be responsible for the entire price of their medication, which often scares them into signing up, potentially giving the AFP years of access to very personal data. The Patient's Ordeal: When Savings Come Before Care Janelle Zeihen was diagnosed with Crohn's disease on February 14, 2022. Her diagnosis was delayed because her symptoms were initially mistaken for complications from recent pelvic radiation for cancer. Once properly identified, her gastroenterologist started her on vedolizumab (Entyvio, Takeda) infusions every 8 weeks and daily prednisone. This stabilized her condition, allowing her to eventually taper off prednisone. In January 2024, Zeihen's employer, Bedrock Healthcare, changed health insurance plans. She was told that vedolizumab would be covered only if she switched to home infusions via CVS's Coram home infusion service. Her disease remained controlled, but by August of that year, complications began when she was told her treatments would no longer be covered. Additionally, her gastroenterologist told her that she had been billed over $80,000 per infusion by Coram for the three infusions she had so far received in 2024, totaling $250,000. (In comparison, Medicare rates are only about $6500 per infusion.) This is when Zeihen's bureaucratic nightmare began. A nurse at the gastrointestinal doctor's office had worked with a certain rheumatology office manager and patient advocate, Nilsa Cruz, on difficult approvals for her patients in the past. She contacted Cruz to see if she could help to unravel the situation and hopefully get coverage for Zeihen to resume infusions at the rheumatologist's office. Cruz had many questions. Why was Zeihen supposedly covered for home infusion and then not covered? Why was she billed for three infusions that had already taken place? Did she have insurance or didn't she? Cruz spent more than 60 hours over 3 weeks reviewing paperwork, contacting insurances and third-party administrators, and spending time with Zeihen on her employer's employee/patient portal. She discovered that while Zeihen's insurance card listed Anthem, the plan was actually managed by Leading Edge Administrators, with provider-administered drug coverage handed over to Payer Matrix, an alternative funder. Cruz said that is when her 'heart sank.' She knew AFPs disrupted patient care and 'abused' patient assistance programs, resulting in many patients losing total access to treatments. Cruz found out after speaking with Anthem that they had mistakenly approved the home infusions in January 2024, but they were not actually responsible for administering or covering any costs to the plan. The company that Anthem was using to manage Zeihen's insurance plan, Leading Edge, had itself hired the AFP Payer Matrix to manage provider-administered drug coverage. Payer Matrix instructed Zeihen's employer, Bedrock, to exclude expensive biologics like vedolizumab from coverage. A Payer Matrix representative asked Cruz to apply for assistance from vedolizumab's manufacturer, Takeda, but Cruz said that she was obligated to tell Takeda that Payer Matrix was involved. Takeda denied the patient assistance request, suspecting improper use of their program for insured patients. Payer Matrix's nurse suggested to Zeihen that she change her medication to one from a different manufacturer from whom they may be able to get free drug. Zeihen was shocked that this 'insurance nurse' was trying to treat her without input from her gastroenterologist and she refused to agree to that. Cruz then went to Zeihen's employer for help, but the employer never responded to appeals or letters of medical necessity. Federal and state legislators/regulators and the Department of Labor were all copied on the communication. By now, Zeihen was left with overdue bills and denied treatments and no clear path to continue her medically necessary care. After persistent advocacy from Cruz, including contacting all involved parties, Anthem — who was not responsible for the coverage — agreed to cover all the vedolizumab infusions that Zeihen had received thus far in 2024 through Coram home infusion, as well as the next two scheduled treatments at the rheumatologist's office until the end of the year. This intervention relieved Zeihen from the $250,000 debt and allowed her to complete her treatment for the year. Where is Zeihen now? She was forced to leave her employer-covered insurance because the AFP in the plan had left her uninsured for the treatment that had been covered previously. She signed up for an exchange insurance plan, but her employer refused to cover any of the new exchange policy premiums, which were higher than her previous cost share. Ultimately, this resulted in her having to leave the full-time position with her employer. She now works part time and even though she lost many of the benefits of full-time employment, her Crohn's disease treatments are covered and the flares of her disease have subsided. She's not sure if her disease is better controlled because she is now getting her treatments in a timely manner or the fact that the stress, fear, and confusion caused by the AFP in her employer's plan is now gone. Why Employers Should Beware While pitched as a quick fix, AFPs may actually undermine employer goals in the long run. The administrative chaos can result in delayed or denied care, higher absenteeism, lost productivity, and even legal challenges if employees are saddled with unexpected medical debt. In addition, employers have a fiduciary duty to employees to prevent these costly arrangements that can cause psychological harm to employees. Furthermore, these programs can expose employers to reputational risk as stories of harmed workers spread. Zeihen's journey is emblematic of a growing problem in employer health benefits. The lure of immediate savings from AFPs often comes at an unacceptable cost to both employees and the organizations that depend on them. This story also displays the need for advocates like Cruz. Her dedication to patients and their well-being is exemplified in her perseverance and tenacity in finding a way to help Zeihen get the care she needed. I wish there were more 'Nilsa Cruzs' in this world. At the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, we are fortunate to have the actual Nilsa Cruz in this story as part of our Payer Issue Response Team (PIRT). PIRT reviews 'payer' problems that are sent to us by rheumatologists around the country, and we do what we can to help solve them. While we can't solve every payer problem there is, we are grateful to be able to help those patients whose problems we can solve.
