Volume 127, Issue 7 pp. 1513-1519
Allergy/Rhinology

Can contaminated water be rendered safe for nasal saline irrigations?

Allison G. Ordemann MD

Corresponding Author

Allison G. Ordemann MD

Department of Otolaryngology and Communicative Sciences, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.

Send correspondence to Allison G. Ordemann, MD, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 2500 N. State Street, 5 East, Jackson, MS 39216. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
James K. Stanford II MD

James K. Stanford II MD

Department of Otolaryngology and Communicative Sciences, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
Donna C. Sullivan PhD

Donna C. Sullivan PhD

Department of Microbiology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
J. Mark Reed MD

J. Mark Reed MD

Department of Otolaryngology and Communicative Sciences, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 22 February 2017
Citations: 8

Presented at the Triological Society Combined Sections Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., May 21, 2016.

The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis

To compare sterile water to three methods of sterilization (carbon filtration, boiling, and ultraviolet [UV] light) for preparation of nasal saline irrigants free of bacterial and amebic contaminants.

Study Design

Bench-top translational research and cost comparison.

Methods

Sterile water was compared to common sterilization methods. Sterile water was contaminated with known concentrations of Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Moraxella catarrhalis, Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumonia, Legionella pneumophila, and Naegleria fowleri. Test samples were subjected to boiling, carbon filtration, or ultraviolet light (UV) and then cultivated on appropriate media. Controls included samples of sterile water (negative control) and untreated test samples (positive control).

Results

Carbon filtration reduced but did not eliminate the number of organisms present in test samples. Boiling test samples for 5 minutes and UV light treatment resulted in sterilization of all organisms. Negative (sham contaminated) samples produced no growth, whereas positive (untreated) samples grew numerous organisms as expected. A cost comparison between bottled water and UV water sterilization (with SteriPEN Ultra) became equal in less than 2 years of consistent use.

Conclusions

Carbon filtration reduces contamination but does not sterilize water and is thus unsafe for preparation of nasal saline irrigant. Boiling and UV treatment resulted in sterilization and are equivalent to purchased sterile water. Ultraviolet treatment was found to be safe, convenient, and a cost-effective alternative to purchased sterile water.

Level of Evidence

NA Laryngoscope, 127:1513–1519, 2017

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.