ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Microplastics identified in commercial over-the-counter lubricant eyedrops.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing evidence that microplastics exert harmful effects on human health and on the ocular surface. This pilot study aims to investigate if microplastic particles are present in commonly used eyedrops in single-use plastic vials.
methodsSix commonly used commercial tear-replacement solutions available without a doctor's prescription were tested (Brands A-F). All brands of eyedrops were analysed visually using light microscopy and the number of microplastic particles were manually counted. These were further analysed using the Agilent 8700 Laser Direct Infrared (LDIR) chemical imaging system.
resultsAll eyedrops analysed contained microplastics. The number of particles identified using light microscopy ranged between 15 (Brand E) to >18,000 (Brand F). In total, nine types of microplastics were identified with LDIR - polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyvinylchloride, polyethylene terephthalate, polycarbonate, polymethylmethacrylate, polyamide and polyurethane.
conclusionsThis study provides the most extensive quantification of microplastic contamination in commercial eyedrops to date, highlighting a major, under-recognised source of ocular exposure. These particles may arise from secondary degradation of plastic vials during production, transportation, storage, or during instillation, or introduced from other sources during production and represent a major source of exposure to the ocular surface, especially among patients who require chronic instillation of eyedrops.
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.