ArticleClinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology2024
Measurement of Microplastic Release After the Use of Polypropylene Nasal Irrigation Bottles.
Article in Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microplastics in the Human Nasal Cavity and Upper Airway: Emerging Evidence and Rhinologic Implications.Journal of rhinology : official journal of the Korean Rhinologic Society · 2026Review
- Identification and Characterization of Microplastics in Human Cervicovaginal Lavage Fluids Using Raman Spectroscopy: A Preliminary Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMicroplastics originating from plastic materials may pose risks to human health. This study investigated the presence of microplastics in nasal irrigation fluids collected from reused bottles, focusing on the duration of bottle usage.
methodsReadily available nasal irrigation bottles made of polypropylene were purchased. Unused bottles served as controls. Test samples were prepared to simulate 1-, 3-, and 6-month reuse. Nasal irrigation fluid samples (n=12) were collected from each set of bottles: three from the new control bottles and nine from the bottles simulating 1-, 3-, and 6-month reuse. Raman spectroscopy was used to detect microplastics in the nasal irrigation samples, and the results were compared based on the duration of bottle use.
resultsAn average of 33.00±20.42 microplastic particles per 300 mL was detected in the nasal irrigation fluid from the control bottles. In comparison, bottles used for 1, 3, and 6 months contained averages of 68.66±30.07, 261.66±20.59, and 204.33±52.16 microplastic particles per 300 mL, respectively. The majority of these particles ranged in size from 10 to 100 μm and were primarily fragment-shaped. Polypropylene was identified as the predominant type of microplastic, suggesting it was directly released from the irrigation bottles.
conclusionWe detected microplastics in nasal irrigation fluids, which likely originated from the repeated use of nasal irrigation bottles. The quantity of microplastics was significantly higher in samples from bottles simulating 3 months of use compared to the control samples. Therefore, we recommend the development of guidelines to regulate the duration of nasal irrigation bottle usage to reduce microplastic infiltration into the body via the sinonasal cavity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.