https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2838-5099
Figures
Abstract
Background
Hospital health care workers (HCW) are at increased risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. We investigated whether certain behavioral and physical features, e.g. nose picking and wearing glasses, are associated with infection risk.
Aim
To assess the association between nose picking and related behavioral or physical features (nail biting, wearing glasses, and having a beard) and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2-infection.
Methods
In a cohort study among 404 HCW in two university medical centers in the Netherlands, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were prospectively measured during the first phase of the pandemic. For this study HCW received an additional retrospective survey regarding behavioral (e.g. nose picking) and physical features.
Results
In total 219 HCW completed the survey (response rate 52%), and 34/219 (15.5%) became SARS-CoV-2 seropositive during follow-up from March 2020 till October 2020. The majority of HCW (185/219, 84.5%) reported picking their nose at least incidentally, with frequency varying between monthly, weekly and daily. SARS-CoV-2 incidence was higher in nose picking HCW compared to participants who refrained from nose picking (32/185: 17.3% vs. 2/34: 5.9%, OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 24.52), adjusted for exposure to COVID-19. No association was observed between nail biting, wearing glasses, or having a beard, and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Citation: Lavell AHA, Tijdink J, Buis DTP, Smulders YM, Bomers MK, Sikkens JJ (2023) Why not to pick your nose: Association between nose picking and SARS-CoV-2 incidence, a cohort study in hospital health care workers. PLoS ONE 18(8): e0288352. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288352
Editor: Tope Michael Ipinnimo, Federal Teaching Hospital, Ido-Ekiti, NIGERIA
Received: February 2, 2023; Accepted: June 23, 2023; Published: August 2, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Lavell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data are all contained within the paper and Supporting Information files.
Funding: This work was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development ZonMw (S3 study, grant agreement no. 10430022010023 to M.K.B.) and the Corona Research Fund Amsterdam UMC. The funders were not involved in designing the study, data collection, analysis or interpreting the data, writing the manuscript or the decision to submit the article for publication.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The end of 2019 marked the beginning of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic [1]. Worldwide, preventive measurements were introduced aiming to reduce physical contact, and droplet and aerosol transmission [2, 3]. In healthcare facilities, guidelines recommended the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for those working in direct patient care, including the use of facemasks, a gown and goggles/face shields, as well as gloves and strict hand hygiene protocols [3–5].
Despite these guidelines, health care workers (HCW) are more likely to contract SARS-CoV-2 infection (hazard ratio [HR] 3.92, 95% CI 1.79 to 8.62, for those working with COVID-19 patients compared with HCW not working in patient care [6]), with risk factors including suboptimal hand hygiene and use of PPE [7, 8]. Although the main route of inoculation is via respiratory mucosa [2, 9], it is unknown whether transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is affected by habitual hand-mucosa contact, as occurs in nose picking and nail biting. Studies suggest that a large proportion of the adult population regularly pick their nose [10, 11]. It can be hypothesized that regular nose picking and nail biting in an environment with high levels of circulating virus enables the virus’s transfer to the nasal or oral mucosa, as is seen with nose picking and S. aureus nasal carriage [12]. Infection risk may be further increased when mucosa are damaged, e.g. from the strain due to repetitive nasal finger penetration [13]. Also, it is unknown whether transmission risk is affected by physical features influencing fit of PPE and susceptibility to droplets, for example having a beard or wearing glasses [14, 15]. The latter is of interest since the ocular mucosa has been identified as another possible route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission [16, 17].
In this study, we aim to examine the effects of an individual’s behavioral and physical features on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a prospective cohort study of HCW. More precisely, we are interested in the role of skin and mucosa manipulating-related behavior (nose picking and nail biting), and physical features influencing fit of PPE (having a beard), and susceptibility to droplets (wearing glasses).
Methods
Study design and participants
The S3 cohort was set up in March 2020 to study incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify its potential risk factors among HCW working in the Amsterdam University Medical Centers (S3 cohort; NL 73478.029.20, Netherlands Trial Register NL8645). SARS-CoV-2 incidence was monitored by both serologic surveillance and self-reported nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT)-results; risk factors for infection were identified by means of surveys regarding work- and community-related COVID-19 exposure. A more comprehensive overview of the original cohort and results of this study is described elsewhere [6]. The current study is part of a S3 cohort sub study on behavioral features and mental health, for which HCW already participating in the main cohort were asked to participate in October 2020. Of a total of 801 HCW, 404 (50.4%) agreed to participate in the sub study for which written informed consent was obtained. These 404 received an additional online retrospective survey in 2021 on behavioral and physical features that may influence infection rates, i.e. practices as nose picking, nail biting, wearing glasses or having a beard (S1 File). All survey data was collected using Castor Electronic Data Capture (EDC) [18]. The study was reported as per STROBE guidelines and approved by the medical ethics review committee of both hospitals of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers.
COVID-19 exposure
‘Working in COVID-19 patient care’ and ‘contact with a community member or coworker with COVID-19’ were associated with an increased risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the original S3 study cohort [6]. To be able to adjust for possible confounding of these factors, participants were categorized as either ‘working in COVID-19 patient care’, ‘working in non-COVID-19 patient care’, or ‘not working in patient care’. Additionally, participants that reported close contact with a symptomatic coworker or community member were identified. Besides NAAT-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected contacts, community members with high suspicion of infection were also included before NAAT-testing became widely available (March to June 2020) [19].
Outcome measures
SARS-CoV-2 infection.
SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a self-reported positive NAAT result and/or presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, as detected by measuring total-Ig against S1-RBD using the commercially available Wantai enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [20]. The Wantai ELISA has a specificity of 99.6% and sensitivity of ≥95.4% in mild or asymptomatic cases 14 days after the onset of illness [21–23].
Infection control practices
During this study both hospitals instituted identical infection control measures. In-hospital social distancing included keeping 1.5m distance between individuals not wearing PPE, working from home for non-essential personnel, etc. Dedicated COVID-19 wards and intensive care units were established; HCW working with possible or proven COVID-19 patients wore PPE consisting of gloves, gowns, goggles and IIR surgical masks during non-aerosol generating care, or FFP2 masks combined with a cap during high-risk aerosol generating procedures and on the intensive care ward. No PPE was recommended outside COVID-19 patient care. From October 1, 2020, onwards all personnel were requested to wear a face shield or face mask in public spaces in accordance with national guidelines. A more in detail description was provided previously [6].
Statistical analysis
The associations between the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections (dependent variable) and nose picking, nail biting, wearing glasses, and having a beard (independent variables), were assessed by logistic regression analysis. The multivariable model was adjusted for determinants previously shown to be associated with COVID-19 incidence in the cohort: working in direct COVID-19 patient care, and contact with coworkers or community members with SARS-CoV-2 infection [6]. Mixed model logistic regression was performed as sensitivity analysis to adjust for possible clustering within hospitals and specific departments. We did not perform survival analysis since the proportional hazards assumption did not hold due to the highly variable COVID-19 incidence and changing PPE guidelines over time. Data analysis was performed using R version 4.0.3. Significance level was set at an alpha of 5%, defined as a 95% confidence interval (CI) excluding an odds ratio of 1. Graphs were made using GraphpadPrism version 9.1.0.
Results
Descriptives
A total of 219 HCWs (52.4% of 404 participants) completed the survey regarding behavioral and physical features of interest. Habitual nose picking, varying from monthly, weekly to daily, was disclosed by 185 (85%) respondents. Nose pickers were younger than non-nose pickers (median age in years for nose pickers 44 (IQR 36 to 56) and for non-nose pickers 53 (IQR 46 to 57), and males reported more frequently nose picking (90%) compared with females (83%). Doctors were the most frequent nose pickers (residents: 100% and specialists: 91%), followed by support staff (86%) and nurses (80%). Nail biting (monthly, weekly, daily or hourly) was less frequently reported (33%), 158 (72%) participants reported wearing glasses and 18/52 males (35%) reported having a beard (Table 1). By October 2020, which was the start of the second pandemic wave in the Netherlands, 34/219 (16%) HCW were SARS-CoV-2 seropositive. Only 2 (6%) of these seropositive participants never picked their nose, while 9 (27%) reported monthly nose picking, 12 (35%) weekly and 11 (32%) daily. None of the participants reported to pick their nose every hour (S1 Table and S1 Fig).
Role of behavior manipulating skin and mucosa and the risk of COVID-19: Nose picking and nail biting
We found an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for nose pickers (COVID-19 rate 32/185: 17.3%, Table 2) compared to participants who refrained from nose picking (2/34: 5.9%, OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 24.52, Table 2), adjusted for exposure to COVID-19. When divided into subgroups based on nose picking frequency, all nose picking groups had higher infection rates compared to the non-nose picking group, but the only significant subgroup difference was between those reporting weekly nose picking and those who never picked their nose (subgroup analysis shown in Fig 1). Post-hoc sensitivity analysis, to adjust for possible clustering within workplace showed the same trend (OR 3.74, 95% CI 0.98–25.06, S2 Table). We did not find a significant association between nail biting and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19 rate in nail biters 10/72: 13.9%, versus non-nail biters 24/147: 16.3%, OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.18, Table 2), adjusted for exposure to COVID-19.
Plots showing Odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) of the association between nose picking (A), nail biting (B), wearing glasses (C), having a beard (D) and SARS-CoV-2 infection, assessed by multivariable logistic regression analysis corrected for exposure to COVID-19 (i.e. working with COVID-19 patients and contact with a coworker or community-contact with SARS-CoV-2 infection). The association between nose picking, nail biting, wearing glasses and having a beard as ordinal determinants and the outcome SARS-CoV-2 infection is depicted (any frequency versus never), as well as dichotomized determinants: no (never) versus yes (monthly/weekly/daily/hourly) for nose picking and nail biting and no (never/monthly) versus yes (weekly/daily) for wearing glasses and having a beard. Significant 95% CI’s are indicated by red error bars. *NA due to non-positivity.
Physical features affecting fit of PPE and risk of COVID -19: Wearing glasses and having a beard
Glasses-wearing respondents contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection at a lower rate compared to those without glasses, but the difference was not significant in the adjusted model (17/146: 11,6% versus 17/73: 23.3%; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.06, Table 2). We did not find an association between having a beard and the incidence of COVID-19 in men (2/16: 12.5% versus 4/36: 11.1%; OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.80, Table 2).
Discussion
In this hospital HCW cohort study we found that nose picking is associated with an increased incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Nose picking has not been reported before as a risk factor for contracting SARS-CoV-2. Our findings highlight the importance of the nasal cavity as a main transit port for SARS-CoV-2 [2, 9, 24]. Nose picking may facilitate viral entry by directly introducing virus particles present on the hands to the nose, thus facilitating infection [13, 25, 26]. The viral load in the nasal mucosa is high in the days after contracting a SARS-CoV-2 infection, even before the onset of symptoms and in patients that remain asymptomatic [24, 27]. Subsequently, nose picking HCW who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 could contaminate the work environment, potentially leading to further transmission [28, 29]. SARS-CoV-2 transmission from HCW-to-HCW is an important problem in hospitals [6], perhaps the role of nose picking is underestimated in this regard.
We did not find an association between nail biting and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This might be explained by the protective effects of salivary proteins which were recently demonstrated to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binding to the ACE2 receptor [30], making the mouth merely an exit rather than an entrance route for viral transmission [24].
An important strength of our study is the prospective longitudinal serological sampling from the start of the very first phase of the pandemic. The well-characterized cohort allowed for the adjustment for relevant confounding factors. In addition, we were able to include a population of HCW (nurses, doctors, support staff) with characteristics generalizable to the Dutch population of HCW [31]. Finally, the subject of facial and skin-related behavior and specifically nose picking has not been studied with regard to infection transmission of COVID-19.
Some limitations need to be discussed. We found a relevant, but not statistically significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence between HCW wearing glasses and those that did not, which may have been caused by an insufficient sample size. The time-interval between the serology measurements (March-October 2020) and the survey exploring behavioral and physical features (December 2021) could have introduced recall bias and potential shifting of (nose picking) behavior [32, 33]. Also, we did not ask whether HCW committed to nose picking and nail biting when on the work floor, or the specifics of inter variability between nose pickers, e.g. the depth of penetration and eating of boogers. The current study was performed in the pre-Omicron and pre-vaccination era, so implications for current practice could be influenced by changing viral characteristics such as virus-specific transmission dynamics and by differences in host immunity [34]. However, identifying and addressing readily preventable sources of transmission remains important to limit in-hospital spread of SARS-CoV-2 and (probably) other respiratory viruses, both to patients and co-workers, in any epidemic. For this reason, we feel our findings are relevant despite these limitations and underline the importance of preventive measures and proper hand hygiene when working in healthcare.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this is the first study that shows that nose picking by HCW is associated with an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. It is surprising to observe the extensiveness in which the scientific community (including our own study team) has researched all sorts of SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes, risk factors and protective measures; yet assessing the role of simple behavioral and physical properties has so far been overlooked. Possibly this sensitive subject is still taboo in the health care profession. It is commendable we assume HCWs to not portray bad habits, yet we too are only human after all, as illustrated by the pivotal proportion of nose pickers in our cohort (84.5%). Considering guideline recommendations include e.g. illustrations of appropriate masks for those with facial hair despite the lack of any real-life evidence [35], nose picking deserves more consideration as a potential health hazard, and explicit recommendations against nose picking should be included in the same SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention guidelines. Future research could examine the effectiveness of interventions addressing behavior (like awareness campaigns, or the use of nail polish with an unpleasant smell) [36, 37], treating the underlying cause of nose picking (e.g. by using saline spray to reduce mucus [38, 39]) or using nasal disinfectant spray in SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals to counteract viral shedding [40–42].
Supporting information
S1 File. Survey regarding behavioral and physical features.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288352.s001
(DOCX)
S1 Fig. Proportion of behavioral and physical features.
A-D. Bar charts showing the proportion of nose picking, nail biting, and wearing glasses or having a beard in SARS-CoV-2 seropositive and seronegative participants.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288352.s002
(TIF)
S1 Table. Baseline characteristics demographic, behavioral and physical features in relation to SARS-CoV-2 status.
Baseline characteristics of participants (n = 219) divided into SARS-CoV-2 seropositive and seronegative subgroups. *Males only.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288352.s003
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Sensitivity analysis: Association between nose picking, nail biting, wearing glasses or having a beard, and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 adjusted for working in different departments.
Results of mixed model logistic regression assessing the association between behaviors or physical features and the outcome SARS-CoV-2 infection. ⤉ Nose picking and nail biting were dichotomized into never versus yes (variating from monthly, weekly, daily to every hour). Wearing glasses or having a beard were dichotomized into no (never or monthly) versus yes (variating from weekly to daily) * Males only. Models were corrected for possible confounding of working in different hospitals (location AMC or location VUmc) and departments (intensive care unit (ICU), emergency department (ED), nursing ward, non-COVID-19 patient care, non-patient care) and contact with a COVID-19 infected coworker of community member.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288352.s004
(DOCX)
S3 Table. De-identified dataset.
SARS-CoV-2 is coded as 0 for seronegative and 1 for seropositive; sex as 0 for male and 1 for female; exposed as 0 for not exposed and 1 for exposed (working in direct care for COVID-19 patients); community contact and coworker contact as 0 for no and 1 for yes; nose picking, nail biting, wearing glasses and having a beard as 0 for never, 1 for monthly, 2 for weekly, 3 for daily and 4 for every hour.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288352.s005
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We thank all participating healthcare workers of Amsterdam UMC, who took time to facilitate this study in the midst of the pandemic, for their contribution.
References
- 1.
WHO. Listings of WHO’s response to COVID-19. 2020 [cited 29 Jul 2022] p. 17608 words. Available: https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline
- 2.
Meyerowitz EA, Richterman A, Gandhi RT, Sax PE. Transmission of sars-cov-2: A review of viral, host, and environmental factors. Annals of Internal Medicine. American College of Physicians; 2021. pp. 69–79. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-5008 pmid:32941052
- 3.
Islam MS, Rahman KM, Sun Y, Qureshi MO, Abdi I, Chughtai AA, et al. Current knowledge of COVID-19 and infection prevention and control strategies in healthcare settings: A global analysis. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. Cambridge University Press; 2020. pp. 1196–1206. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2020.237 pmid:32408911
- 4.
GOV.UK. COVID-19: guidance for health professionals. 2020 [cited 29 Jul 2022]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/wuhan-novel-coronavirus
- 5.
CDC. Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. 2022 [cited 29 Jul 2022]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html
- 6. Sikkens JJ, Buis DTP, Peters EJG, Dekker M, Schinkel M, Reijnders TDY, et al. Serologic Surveillance and Phylogenetic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Hospital Health Care Workers. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4: e2118554. pmid:34319354
- 7.
Sommerstein R, Fux CA, Vuichard-Gysin D, Abbas M, Marschall J, Balmelli C, et al. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, the rational use of masks, and protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control. BioMed Central Ltd; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-020-00763-0 pmid:32631450
- 8.
Gómez-Ochoa SA, Franco OH, Rojas LZ, Raguindin PF, Roa-Díaz ZM, Wyssmann BM, et al. COVID-19 in Health-Care Workers: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence, Risk Factors, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology. Oxford University Press; 2021. pp. 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaa191 pmid:32870978
- 9. Sungnak W, Huang N, Bécavin C, Berg M, Queen R, Litvinukova M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nat Med. 2020;26: 681–687. pmid:32327758
- 10. Joubert CE. INCIDENCE O F SOME ORAL-BASED HABITS AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS AND THEIR CORRELATIONS WITH USE OF ORAL STIMULANTS ‘. Psychol Rep. 1993.
- 11. Jefferson JW, Thompson TD. Rhinotillexomania: Psychiatric Disorder or Habit? J Clin Psychiatry. 1995. pmid:7852253
- 12. Wertheim HFL, Kleef M van, Vos MC, Ott A, Verbrugh HA, Fokkens W. Nose Picking and Nasal Carriage of Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27: 863–867. pmid:16874648
- 13. Furuya H. Prediction of Potential Respiratory Tract Infection from SARS-CoV-2 Through Hand-to-face Contact Transmission. Tokai J Exp Clin Med. 2020. pmid:33300586
- 14. Prince SE, Chen H, Tong H, Berntsen J, Masood S, Zeman KL, et al. Assessing the effect of beard hair lengths on face masks used as personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2021;31: 953–960. pmid:34006963
- 15. Zeng W, Wang X, Li J, Yang Y, Qiu X, Song P, et al. Association of dailywear of eyeglasses with susceptibility to coronavirus disease 2019 infection. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020;138: 1196–1199. pmid:32936214
- 16. Qu JY, Xie HT, Zhang MC. Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission through the ocular route. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15: 687–696. pmid:33658750
- 17. Kitazawa K, Deinhardt-Emmer S, Inomata T, Deshpande S, Sotozono C. The transmission of sars-cov-2 infection on the ocular surface and prevention strategies. Cells. 2021;10: 1–18. pmid:33918318
- 18.
Castor EDC. Castor Electronic Data Capture. [cited 1 Feb 2023]. Available: https://www.castoredc.com
- 19.
Rijksoverheid. Juni 2020: Versoepeling coronamaatregelen en testen voor iedereen. [cited 29 Jul 2022]. Available: httpss://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/coronavirus-tijdlijn/juni-2020-versoepeling-coronamaatregelen-en-testen-voor-iedereen
- 20. Zhao J, Yuan Q, Wang H, Liu W, Liao X, Su Y, et al. Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71: 2027–2034. pmid:32221519
- 21. van den Beld M. Report Status of the validation of ELISA and auto-analyser antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics: considerations for use. 2020. Available: status-validation-elisa-and-auto-analysers_2020715_final.pdf (nvmm.nl)
- 22. Harritshøj LH, Gybel-Brask M, Afzal S, Kamstrup PR, Jørgensen CS, Thomsen MK, et al. Comparison of 16 serological SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in 16 clinical laboratories. J Clin Microbiol. 2021;59. pmid:33574119
- 23. Fox T, Geppert J, Dinnes J, Scandrett K, Bigio J, Sulis G, et al. Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;2022. pmid:36394900
- 24.
Cegolon L, Javanbakht M, Mastrangelo G. Nasal disinfection for the prevention and control of COVID-19: A scoping review on potential chemo-preventive agents. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. Elsevier GmbH; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113605 pmid:32898838
- 25. Reed SE. An investigation of the possible transmission of rhinovirus colds through indirect contact. J Hyg, Camb. 1975. pmid:170332
- 26. Richard P Wenzel, Jack M Gwaltney JOH. Transmission of Rhinovirus Colds by self-inoculation. N Engl J Med. 1973.
- 27. Zou L, Ruan F, Huang M, Liang L, Huang H, Hong Z, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patient. N Engl J Med. 2020. Available: pmid:32074444
- 28. Pasquarella C, Colucci ME, Bizzarro A, Veronesi L, Affanni P, Meschi T, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 on hospital surfaces. Acta Biomed. 2020;91: 76–78. pmid:32701919
- 29. Bradley N. Doebbeling M.D., M.S., Gail L. Stanley M.D., Carol T. Sheetz R.N., B.S.N., Michael A. Pfaller M.D., Alison K. Houston B.A., Linda Annis, et al. Comparative Efficacy Of Alternative Hand-Washing Agents in Reducing Nosocomial Infections in Intensive Care Units. N Engl J Med. 1992.
- 30. Yoshizato K, Taira T, Sato-Matsubara M, Sekiguchi S, Yabunaka Y, Kira Y, et al. Cloaking the ACE2 receptor with salivary cationic proteins inhibits SARS-CoV-2 entry. J Biochem. 2022;172: 205–216. pmid:35792074
- 31.
CBS. StatLine. 2022 [cited 28 Mar 2022]. Available: https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline#/CBS/nl/
- 32. Chen YJ, Qin G, Chen J, Xu JL, Feng DY, Wu XY, et al. Comparison of Face-Touching Behaviors before and during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3. pmid:32725247
- 33. Sahota S, Gill S, Ridenton J, Hegarty H, Pope K, Gentile G. Hair today, gone tomorrow: How personal protective equipment guidance changed doctor’s facial hair during the COVID-19 pandemic. Heal Sci Reports. 2021;4: 1–11. pmid:33977160
- 34. Cegolon L, Ronchese F, Ricci F, Negro C, Larese-Filon F. SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Health Care Workers of Trieste (North-Eastern Italy), 1 October 2020–7 February 2022: Occupational Risk and the Impact of the Omicron Variant. Viruses. 2022;14. pmid:36016284
- 35.
CDC, Niosh, NPPTL. Facial Hairstyles and Filtering Facepiece Respirators CLEAN SHAVEN STUBBLE LONG STUBBLE FULL BEARD FRENCH FORK DUCKTAIL VERDI GARIBALDI BANDHOLZ. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/disp_part/respsource3fittest.html
- 36. Seltzer AP. NOSE PICKING. J Natl Med Assoc. 1963. pmid:14049564
- 37.
Rahman J, Mumin J, Fakhruddin B. How frequently do we touch facial T-zone: A systematic review. Annals of Global Health. Ubiquity Press; 2020. pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2956 pmid:32704480
- 38.
Head K, Snidvongs K, Glew S, Scadding G, Schilder AGM, Philpott C, et al. Saline irrigation for allergic rhinitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012597.pub2 pmid:29932206
- 39. Huijghebaert S, Hoste L, Vanham G. Essentials in saline pharmacology for nasal or respiratory hygiene in times of COVID-19.
- 40. Cegolon L, Mastrangelo G, Emanuelli E, Camerotto R, Spinato G, Frezza D. Early Negativization of SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Nasal Spray of Seawater plus Additives: The RENAISSANCE Open-Label Controlled Clinical Trial. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14. pmid:36432693
- 41. Frank S, Brown SM, Capriotti JA, Westover JB, Pelletier JS, Tessema B. In Vitro Efficacy of a Povidone-Iodine Nasal Antiseptic for Rapid Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2. JAMA Otolaryngol—Head Neck Surg. 2020;146: 1054–1058. pmid:32940656
- 42.
Idrees M, McGowan B, Fawzy A, Abuderman AA, Balasubramaniam R, Kujan O. Efficacy of Mouth Rinses and Nasal Spray in the Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro and In Vivo Studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. MDPI; 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912148 pmid:36231450