Purpose
Artificial tears (ATs) are widely used to relieve ocular symptoms of irritation, yet their diverse formulations containing varying viscosity agents, electrolytes, osmoprotectants, oils, and surfactants may differentially support microbial growth. This study compared the growth of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in commercially available ATs to identify formulation-dependent differences in susceptibility to contamination.
Design
Laboratory investigation.
Methods
Clinical and reference isolates of methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), and P. aeruginosa were recovered from patient sources (conjunctiva [n = 2], contact lens [n = 1], cornea [n = 5], corneal button [n = 1], eyelids [n = 6], lacrimal sac [n = 2], and sclera [n = 1]) and inoculated into ten ATs categorized as preservative-containing multidose bottles (MDBs), preservative-free (PF)- MDBs, or PF single-dose vials (SDVs). Turbidity of the samples was recorded for 24 hours and growth kinetics, lag time (λ), specific growth rate (µ), and area under the curve (AUC), were derived using the Gompertz equation. Samples were cultured to quantify microbial growth.
Main Outcome
Microbial growth.
Results
PF ATs supported significantly greater microbial proliferation than preserved formulations across all organisms ( P <.001). Among PF ATs, SDVs exhibited the highest AUCs, particularly for P. aeruginosa , which showed delayed but more robust growth compared with S. aureus strains. Preserved ATs demonstrated uniform bactericidal activity irrespective of preservative type, whereas PF formulations were largely bacteriostatic or permissive to growth. Linear mixed-effects modeling indicated that AT formulation explained most AUC variability (57%), exceeding strain-level effects (9%).
Conclusions
Microbial proliferation in ATs is strongly formulation dependent. PF formulations pose the greatest contamination risk, whereas preserved ATs provide broad-spectrum inhibition. These findings emphasize the need for formulation-specific evaluation of ATs and future optimization strategies that balance antimicrobial protection with ocular surface safety.
INTRODUCTION
A rtificial tears (ATs) are widely used in ophthalmic practice to relieve ocular symptoms related to conditions like corneal abrasions, and dry-eye disease. ,,,, They are predominantly obtained over the counter (OTC), and patients typically choose among them based on perceived symptom relief, ease of use, clinical indication, use of preservatives, and cost. ,, AT selection, however, must consider a potential risk of contamination. In 2022, an outbreak of drug-resistant P. aeruginosa was linked to contaminated ATs , and resulted in severe clinical consequences, including permanent vision loss, enucleation, and, in some cases, death. The outbreak underscored the need for improved understanding of how the ingredients in OTC ATs may contribute to favorable microorganism growth and potential contamination.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that clinical performance of ATs often depends more on the overall formulation and delivery system than on individual ingredients alone. ,,,,, AT formulations are selected to replicate the properties of natural tears and to address specific tear film abnormalities by typically combining different combinations of active and inactive ingredients, including viscosity-enhancing agents, electrolytes, osmoprotectants, oily agents, and surfactants. ,
Preservatives, such as benzalkonium chloride (BAK), are frequently added to ATs suppress proliferation of organisms originating from the eyelid and skin microbiota, including Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa , and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp . ,,,, While preservatives are important to maintaining sterility, a drawback of their use is toxic conjunctivitis, disruption of tear film osmolarity, and exacerbation of symptoms such as irritation or foreign body sensation, particularly among chronic users. ,,,,, Although newer preservatives have been developed to mitigate these toxic effects, many clinicians and patients prefer preservative-free (PF) formulations to avoid potential adverse effects. ,,,,,,,, An expanding variety of preservative-free formulations with differing compositions are now available for patient use.
In addition to preservatives, AT packaging can be modified to limit microbial contamination. Contamination frequently results from inadvertent contact between the bottle tip and the ocular surface, eyelid margins, or fingers during instillation or storage, particularly on reused containers. , Packaging is available in multidose bottles (MDBs) and/or single-dose vials (SDVs). SDVs are typically preservative free and intended for immediate disposal, but their volumes often exceed one drop, leading patients to reuse them. , MDBs, available in preserved and preservative free formulations, are recommended for use for up to 3 months. Newer MDB designs have incorporated one-way valve systems that prevent back-flow and microbial ingress, reducing but not fully eliminating contamination risk. , MDBs are associated with an increased risk of contamination due to their longitudinal use.
Owing to the heterogeneity of AT formulations, considerable variability in microbial growth behavior across these products is anticipated. Contamination may occur through environmental exposure or suboptimal storage conditions. Yet, formulation specific factors, like pH, osmolality, and composition of active and inactive ingredients are likely to exert an equally important influence. These parameters can create microenvironments that differentially support or inhibit microbial survival and replication, suggesting that proliferation patterns are both strain-specific and formulation-dependent. , Despite this, few studies have systematically evaluated how different AT formulations influence their growth potential. This represents a critical gap in understanding the formulation-specific risk of contamination in ophthalmic practice.
To address this gap, our study evaluates the growth of culture-confirmed isolates of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa from patients across multiple commercially available AT formulations . Our objectives were to compare microbial growth patterns between strains and AT products, identify formulation-dependent differences in susceptibility to contamination, and better describe the clinical use of ATs. We achieve this via the comparison of growth curve kinetics and microbe culture.
METHODS
BACTERIAL ISOLATE COLLECTION AND CHARACTERIZATION
Clinical isolates from patients were collected and culture-confirmed as either Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) at our institution. Six methicillin-sensitive (MSSA), six methicillin-resistant (MRSA) isolates, and six PA isolates were obtained from common ocular sources and were observed to have different virulence factors ( Table 1 ) and minimum inhibitory concentrations (Supplemental Tables 1 and 2). Additionally, two reference strains were also included: Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29 213 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27 583. All isolates were cultured on 5% sheep blood agar and incubated at 37 °C. Following two growth cycles, isolates were transferred to tryptic soy broth (TSB) slants (Remel, Lenexa, Kansas, United States) and stored at room temperature. A combination of standard microbiological techniques and DNA microarrays was used to characterize the molecular profiles of the isolates. Phenotypic identification was confirmed using the VITEK 2 automated system (bioMérieux, Durham, NC, USA).
TABLE 1
Organism Source, Virulence Factors, And Molecular Characteristics.
| Organism | Source | Virulence Factors and Molecular Characteristics |
| MRSA1 | Conjunctiva | SCCmec II, PVL-, AGR 1, spa T3841, Capsule 8 |
| MRSA2 | Corneal Button | SCCmec NT, PVL-, AGR 1, spa T571, Capsule 5 |
| MRSA3 | Conjunctiva | SCCmec IVa, PVL +, AGR 1, spa T008, Capsule NT |
| MRSA4 | Cornea | SCCmec III, PVL +, AGR 2, spa NwT, Capsule 5 |
| MRSA5 | Cornea | SCCmec III, PVL-, AGR 2, spa T1094, Capsule 5 |
| MRSA6 | Lids | SCCmec II, PVL-, AGR 1, spa T3841, Capsule 8 |
| MSSA1 | Corneal Button | PVL-, AGR 3, spa T021, Capsule 5 |
| MSSA2 | Lacrimal sac | PVL-, AGR 3, spa T021, Capsule 8 |
| MSSA3 | Lids | PVL-, AGR 3, spa T338, Capsule 8 |
| MSSA4 | Lids | PVL +, AGR 3, spa T338, Capsule 8 |
| MSSA5 | Lids | PVL +, AGR 1, spa T015, Capsule 8 |
| MSSA6 | Lids | PVL-, AGR 1, spa T148, Capsule 8 |
| PA1 | Cornea | Exo NFT3SS, Sheen Negative, Pyoverdine |
| PA2 | Sclera | Exo YTS, Sheen Negative, Pyoverdine |
| PA3 | Conjunctiva | Exo YTU, Sheen Positive, Pyocyanin |
| PA4 | Contact lens | Exo YTU, Sheen Negative, Pyoverdine |
| PA5 | Lacrimal sac | Exo YTS, Sheen Negative, Pyocyanin |
| PA6 | Eyelid | Exo YTS, Sheen Negative, Pyoverdine |
Staphylococcal Factors Included Staphylococcal Cassette Chromosome Mec (SCCmec), Panton-Valentine Leucocidin (PVL), Accessory Gene Regulator (AGR), Spa Type, Capsule type. Pseudomonal Factors Included Type 3 Secretion System Exotoxins (Exo), Sheen, and pigment.
MRSA = methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus , MSSA = methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, NA = Not Available, NFT3SS = nonfunctional T3SS, NT = no type, NwT = new type, PA = Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
ARTIFICIAL TEAR SELECTION AND STORAGE
Ten commercially available ATs were selected to represent a diverse range of formulations and were categorized into three groups: preservative-containing MDBs (n = 5), preservative-free MDBs (n = 3), and preservative-free SDVs (n = 2). Among the preservative-containing products, six different preservative agents were represented, including benzalkonium chloride (BAK), EDTA, hexadecenoic acid, polyquaternium-1, stabilized oxychloro complex, and sodium perborate ( Figure 1 ). A summary of all AT products and their formulations is provided in Table 2 .
Overview of methods.
TABLE 2
Tested Artificial Tears.
| AT | Product | Manufacturer | Group | Active Ingredients | Inactive Ingredients | Lot # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AT1 | CVS Hydration Eye Drops | CVSHealth, USA | PF MDB |
Polyethylene glycol 400 0.4%
Propylene glycol 0.3% |
HPMC (VEA)
Sodium hyaluronate (VEA) Boric acid (EB) Potassium chloride (EB) Sodium chloride (EB) Sodium hydroxide (EB) |
230 160
230 150 230 220 250 020 |
| AT2 | Systane Ultra PF Lubricant Eye Drops | Alcon Laboratories, Inc., USA | PF MDB |
Polyethylene glycol 400 0.4%
Propylene glycol 0.3% |
Hydroxypropyl guar (VEA)
Aminomethylpropanol (EB) Boric acid (EB) Potassium chloride (EB) Hydrochloric acid (EB) Sodium hydroxide (EB) |
11WLN
12D1D 12D1D 123MV |
| AT3 | Systane Hydration PF | Alcon Laboratories, Inc., USA | PF MDB |
Polyethylene glycol 400 0.4%
Propylene glycol 0.3% |
Hydroxypropyl guar (VEA)
Sodium hyaluronate (VEA) Aminomethylpropanol (EB) Boric acid (EB) Hydrochloric acid (EB) Potassium chloride (EB) Sodium borate (EB) Sodium chloride (EB) Sodium hydroxide (EB) Sorbitol (OSM) |
12EY2
12EY2 12CAW 12CAW 12JWN 12JWN |
| AT4 | Walgreens Lubricant Eye Drops | Walgreens, USA | PF SDV | SCMC 0.5% |
Calcium chloride (EB)
Hydrochloric acid (EB) Magnesium chloride (EB) Potassium chloride (EB) Sodium hydroxide (EB) Sodium lactate (EB) |
230 660
240 060 |
| AT5 | GenTeal Lubricant Eye Drops | Alcon Laboratories, Inc., USA | PF SDV |
Dextran 70 0.1%
HPMC 2910 0.3% |
Hydrochloric acid (EB)
Potassium chloride (EB) Sodium borate (EB) Sodium chloride (EB) Sodium hydroxide (EB) |
23205A
23369A |
| AT6 | Visine Dry Eye Relief | Kenvue, Belgium | Preserved |
Glycerin 0.2%
HPMC 0.36% Polyethelyne glycol 400 1% |
Benzalkonium chloride (PV)
Dextrose (VEA) Ascorbic acid (EB) Boric acid (EB) Glycine (EB) Magnesium chloride (EB) Potassium chloride (EB) Sodium borate (EB) Sodium chloride (EB) Sodium citrate (EB) Sodium lactate (EB) Sodium phosphate dibasic (EB) |
NJB4P03
NJB4P02 NJB4P02 0314RD1 |
| AT7 | Up & Up Lubricating and Rewetting Eye Drops | Target, USA | Preserved | Poly (N-Vinyl-2-Pyrrolidinone) |
EDTA 0.1% (PV)
Boric acid (EB) Hexadecenoic acid 0.1% (PV) Potassium chloride (EB) Sodium borate (EB) Sodium chloride (EB) |
GG23007
GC24034 GE24104 |
| AT8 | Systane Ultra Lubricant Eye Drops | Alcon Laboratories, Inc., USA | Preserved |
Polyethylene glycol 400 0.4%
Propylene glycol 0.3% |
Polyquaternium-1 0.001% (PV)
Hydroxypropyl guar (VEA) Aminomethylpropanol (EB) Boric acid (EB) Potassium chloride (EB) Hydrochloric acid (EB) Sodium hydroxide (EB) Sorbitol (OSM) |
11DYL
12C7P 174PE4 |
| AT9 | Refresh Relieva | Allergan, Inc., USA | Preserved |
SCMC 0.5%
Glycerin 0.9% |
SOC 0.01% (PV)
Sodium hyaluronate (VEA) Boric acid (EB) Calcium chloride dihydrate (EB) Magnesium chloride hexahydrate (EB) Potassium chloride (EB) Sodium borate decahydrate (EB) Sodium citrate dihydrate (EB) Hydrochloric acid (EB) Sodium hydroxide (EB) Erythriol (OSM) |
397 170
401 917 |
| AT10 | TheraTears Dry Eye Therapy | Thera Tears, China | Preserved | SCMC 0.25% |
Sodium perborate (PV)
Borate (EB) Calcium chloride (EB) Magnesium chloride (EB) Potassium chloride (EB) Sodium bicarbonate (EB) Sodium chloride (EB) Sodium phosphate (EB) |
415 415
435 315 436 788 |
PF = preservative free, MDB = multidose bottle, SDV = single-dose vial, VEA = viscosity-enhancing agent, EB = electrolytes and buffer, OSM = osmoprotectant, PV = preservative, HPMC = hydroxymethycellulose, SCMC = sodium carboxymethylecllylose, EDTA = edetate disodium.
All ATs were stored at room temperature and protected from light, heat, and humidity. To minimize contamination, opened bottles were kept in separate containers and handled using personal protective equipment. Expiration dates were recorded, and all bottles were disposed of upon reaching expiration or if open for more than 3 months.
AT INOCULATION
On the day of experimentation, isolates were suspended in TSB and standardized to a 0.5 McFarland turbidity standard, corresponding to 1.5 × 10⁸ colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL). The inoculum was then diluted to a concentration of 1.5 × 10 7 CFU/mL. All 18 clinical strains and the two reference strains were tested.
For each isolate, the following five experimental conditions were tested by adding 200 µL of the respective media (ATs, saline, or TSB) and 20 µL of organism: (1) ATs + saline (no organism, to confirm sterility the ATs), (2) ATs + organism (test condition), (3) saline only (no organism, negative control), (4) saline + organism (negative growth control of the organism), and (5) TSB + organism (positive growth control of the organism). The TSB provides nutrients for the organisms that allow for maximum growth, while the saline solution lacks any nutrients, so the organisms exist in a minimal growth state. Each condition was prepared in quadruplicate in a 96-well plate (SPL Life Sciences, Pocheon-Si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea).
After plating, the 96-well plates were placed in a multimode microplate reader (Varioskan Lux, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and incubated at 35 °C for 24 hours. Turbidimetric measurements were recorded (λ = 620 nm) at 15-minute intervals. Between measurements, the plate underwent low intensity shaking for 10 seconds.
VIABLE COUNT ANALYSIS—CULTURE CONFIRMATION
After 24 hours of incubation, the microplate was removed, and wells containing organisms were serially diluted in saline. Five microliters of each dilution were plated onto labeled Mueller-Hinton agar (Remel, Lenexa, Kansas, United States) plates and incubated at 37 °C for 48 hours. Bacterial colonies were counted and multiplied by the corresponding dilution factor to determine the final CFU/mL. Bacterial growth was quantified by calculating the logarithmic difference (log 10 ) between the initial inoculum (1.5 × 10⁶ CFU/mL) and the final CFU/mL count.
GROWTH CURVE MODELING AND KINETIC ANALYSIS
Turbidimetric growth curves were log-transformed. The curves were averaged for each condition. Growth was qualitatively assessed based on the presence or absence of a logistic growth pattern. Curves exhibiting a sigmoidal increase were interpreted as evidence of growth, while flat or irregular curves were considered indicative of no detectable growth. For quantitative characterization, growth curves were fitted using the Gompertz model , in MATLAB (R2024a, MathWorks, Natick, MA). Fits with R² values greater than 0.95 were considered acceptable for further analysis of growth kinetics. Parameters derived from the model included the lag time (λ), representing the delay before exponential growth; the specific growth rate (µ), corresponding to the slope of the exponential phase. Additionally, the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated as an integrated measure of total microbial proliferation.
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree