Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T08:14:04.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do variations in nasal irrigation recipes and storage effect the risk of bacterial contamination?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022

J D Whittaker Open the ORCID record for J D Whittaker [Opens in a new window] ,
E Baker ,
S Kumar ,
R Collingwood ,
M West  and
P K Lee
J D Whittaker*
Affiliation:
ENT, Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust, UK
E Baker
Affiliation:
Microbiology, Queen's Hospital Burton, University Hospital of Derby and Burton NHS Trust, Burton-on-Trent, UK
S Kumar
Affiliation:
ENT, Leicester Royal Infirmary, University Hospital of Leicester NHS Trust, UK
R Collingwood
Affiliation:
Microbiology, Queen's Hospital Burton, University Hospital of Derby and Burton NHS Trust, Burton-on-Trent, UK
M West
Affiliation:
Microbiology, Queen's Hospital Burton, University Hospital of Derby and Burton NHS Trust, Burton-on-Trent, UK
P K Lee
Affiliation:
ENT, Queen's Hospital Burton, University Hospital of Derby and Burton NHS Trust, Burton-on-Trent, UK
*
Corresponding author: Dr JD Whittaker, Ear, Nose and Throat, Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall Healthcare NHS trust, Moat Road, Walsall WS2 9PS, UK E-mail: Joshua.whittaker@nhs.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Make-at-home nasal irrigation solutions are often recommended for treating chronic rhinosinusitis. Many patients will store pre-made solution for convenient use. This study investigated the microbiological properties of differing recipes and storage temperatures.

Method

Three irrigation recipes (containing sodium chloride, sodium bicarbonate and sucrose) were stored at 5oC and 22oC. Further samples were inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Sampling and culturing were conducted at intervals from day 0–12 to examine for bacterial presence or persistence.

Results

No significant bacterial growth was detected in any control solution stored at 5oC. Saline solutions remained relatively bacterial free, with poor survival of inoculated bacteria, which may be related to either lower pH or lower osmolality. Storing at room temperature increased the risk of contamination in control samples, particularly from pseudomonas.

Conclusion

If refrigerated, pre-made nasal irrigation solutions can be stored safely for up to 12 days without risking cross-contamination to irrigation equipment or patients.

Keywords

Nasal LavageRhinitisNasal PolypsImmunologyAllergySinusitis

Information

Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 137 , Issue 7 , July 2023 , pp. 794 - 798
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The online version of this article has been updated since original publication. A notice detailing the change has also been published.

Dr J D Whittaker takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Fokkens, WJ, Lund, VJ, Hopkins, C, Hellings, PW, Kern, R, Reitsma, S et al. European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2020. Rhinology 2020;58:1–46410.4193/Rhin20.401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewenza, S, Charron-Mazenod, L, Cho, JJW, Mechor, B. Identification of bacterial contaminants in sinus irrigation bottles from chronic rhinosinusitis patients. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;39:458–63Google ScholarPubMed
Nguyen, SA, Camilon, MP, Schlosser, RJ. Identification of microbial contaminants in sinus rinse squeeze bottles used by allergic rhinitis patients. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;5:26–910.1016/j.wjorl.2018.12.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welch, KC, Cohen, MB, Doghramji, LL, Cohen, NA, Chandra, RK, Palmer, JN et al. Clinical correlation between irrigation bottle contamination and clinical outcomes inpost-functional endoscopic sinus surgery patients. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:401–410.2500/ajra.2009.23.3338CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, JM, Nayak, JV, Doghramji, LL, Welch, KC, Chiu, AG. Assessing the risk of irrigation bottle and fluid contamination after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;24:197–910.2500/ajra.2010.24.3481CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keen, M, Foreman, A, Wormald, PJ. The clinical significance of nasal irrigation bottle contamination. Laryngoscope 2010;120:2110–410.1002/lary.21031CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, MS, Mangussi-Gomes, J, Rassi, IE, Balieiro, FO, Stamm, AC. Disinfection of saline solutions and devices for nasal irrigation: why, when and how? Clin Otolaryngol 2018;43:970–110.1111/coa.13085CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morong, S, Lee, JM. Microwave disinfection: assessing the risks of irrigation bottle and fluid contamination. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2012;26:398–40010.2500/ajra.2012.26.3805CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nikolaou, E, Mitsi, E, Ferreira, DM, Bartolo, A, Leong, SC. Assessing the ideal microwave duration for disinfection of sinus irrigation bottles—a quantitative study. Clin Otolaryngol 2018;43:261–610.1111/coa.12956CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittaker, JD, Reynolds, T, Lee, PK. The implications of variations in nasal irrigation recipes in the United Kingdom. Clin Otolaryngol 2021;46:297–30310.1111/coa.13665CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, Z, Zhang, Y, Zhou, B. Effect of saline nasal irrigation with different temperature on the clinical symptoms and the level of inflammatory factors in patients with allergic rhinitis [in Chinese]. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 2017;31:135–7Google ScholarPubMed
Nimsakul, S, Ruxrungtham, S, Chusakul, S, Kanjanaumporn, J, Aeumjaturapat, S, Snidvongs, K. Does heating up saline for nasal irrigation improve mucociliary function in chronic rhinosinusitis? Am J Rhinol Allergy 2018;32:106–1110.1177/1945892418762872CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behera, SK, Radhakrishnan, ST, Swain, S. Nasal irrigation using saline at room temperature or body temperature: which is more beneficial in chronic rhinosinusitis? Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;5:100510.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20192720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, L, Yan, W, Zhao, X. Treatment of allergic rhinitis with normal saline nasal irrigation at different temperature [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 2014;49:109–14Google ScholarPubMed
Onyango, LA, Dunstan, RH, Gottfries, J, von Eiff, C, Roberts, TK. Effect of low temperature on growth and ultra-structure of staphylococcus spp. PLoS One 2012;7:1–1010.1371/journal.pone.0029031CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsuji, A, Kaneko, Y, Takahashi, K, Ogawa, M, Goto, S. The effects of temperature and pH on the growth of eight enteric and nine glucose non-fermenting species of gram-negative rods. Microbiol Immunol 1982;26:15–2410.1111/j.1348-0421.1982.tb00149.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chusakul, S, Warathanasin, S, Suksangpanya, N, Phannaso, C, Ruxrungtham, S, Snidvongs, K et al. Comparison of buffered and nonbuffered nasal saline irrigations in treating allergic rhinitis. Laryngoscope 2013;123:53–610.1002/lary.23617CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bastier, PL, Lechot, A, Bordenave, L, Durand, M, De Gabory, L. Nasal irrigation: from empiricism to evidence-based medicine. A review. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2015;132:281–510.1016/j.anorl.2015.08.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiamco, MM, Atci, E, Mohamed, A, Call, DR, Beyenal, H. Hyperosmotic agents and antibiotics affect dissolved oxygen and pH concentration gradients in Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 2017;83:e02783–1610.1128/AEM.02783-16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wise, SK, Lin, SY, Toskala, E, Orlandi, RR, Akdis, CA, Alt, JA et al. International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: allergic rhinitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2018;8:108–352Google Scholar