Tuna Ayşegül, Taş Burak M
Infectious Disease and Clinical Microbiology, Medical Faculty, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey.
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Medical Faculty, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2025 Jan;282(1):273-278. doi: 10.1007/s00405-024-09032-x. Epub 2024 Oct 15.
We aimed to assess the presence of microplastics in nasal irrigation methods commonly used in the treatment of sinusitis and rhinitis, and to evaluate human exposure.
A total of 150 samples were included in the study, consisting of nasal wash bottles containing nasal irrigation solution, seawater spray, syringes for nasal irrigation with isotonic solution. The amount of microplastics per millilitre in the samples and patient exposure during single use were assessed separately for each method and product. All samples were filtered using a stainless steel vacuum filter on filter paper with a pore size of 1.2 μm, washed at least three times with distilled water and incubated at 45 °C for 24 h to prevent mould growth. Identification and counting of microplastics was performed using a Leica Flexacam C1 camera connected to an M80 stereomicroscope. The presence of microplastics was confirmed by the hot needle method and Nile red staining.
An average of 6.49 ± 13.08 microplastics/product was detected in all filtered samples. The lowest microplastic count was 0 microplastics/product in syringes and the highest was 92 microplastics/product in nasal wash bottles. Significant differences in the amount of microplastics individuals were exposed to during a single use were found between nasal wash bottles and seawater brands, while no significant differences were found between syringe brands. When nasal wash kits, seawater sprays and isotonic nasal rinses were evaluated separately, significant differences were found in the number of microplastics, the microplastics/ml ratio and the number of microplastics exposed during a single use. The highest microplastic exposure was found in nasal irrigation bottles.
The exposure of individuals to microplastics increases with medical support treatments, regardless of intranasal or intravenous administration. Due to the inflammation, oxidative stress and proliferation caused by microplastics, new regulations and inspections of production conditions should be implemented worldwide to reduce exposure.
我们旨在评估常用于治疗鼻窦炎和鼻炎的鼻腔冲洗方法中微塑料的存在情况,并评估人体暴露情况。
本研究共纳入150个样本,包括装有鼻腔冲洗液的洗鼻瓶、海水喷雾、用于等渗溶液鼻腔冲洗的注射器。分别对每种方法和产品评估样本中每毫升微塑料的含量以及单次使用时患者的暴露情况。所有样本均通过不锈钢真空过滤器在孔径为1.2μm的滤纸上进行过滤,用蒸馏水洗涤至少三次,并在45°C下孵育24小时以防止霉菌生长。使用连接到M80体视显微镜的徕卡Flexacam C1相机对微塑料进行鉴定和计数。通过热针法和尼罗红染色确认微塑料的存在。
在所有过滤后的样本中,平均每个产品检测到6.49±13.08个微塑料。微塑料计数最低的是注射器,为每个产品0个微塑料,最高的是洗鼻瓶,为每个产品92个微塑料。发现洗鼻瓶和海水品牌之间单次使用时个体暴露的微塑料量存在显著差异,而注射器品牌之间未发现显著差异。分别评估洗鼻套件、海水喷雾和等渗鼻腔冲洗液时,发现微塑料数量、微塑料/毫升比率以及单次使用时暴露的微塑料数量存在显著差异。微塑料暴露最高的是鼻腔冲洗瓶。
无论通过鼻腔还是静脉给药,个体在医疗支持治疗过程中接触微塑料的情况都会增加。由于微塑料引起的炎症、氧化应激和增殖,应在全球范围内实施新的法规并检查生产条件以减少暴露。