Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The effect of methyl-p-hydroxybenzoate, propyl-p-hydroxybenzoate, chlorbutol, chlorocresol, EDTA, benzalkonium chloride, chlorhexidine, phenylmercuric nitrate and phenylmercuric borate on mucociliary transport rate of the frog palate has been examined. Following a variable number of applications all these preservatives halted transport, the first three reversibly. However, applications of thiomersal (0.01%) were well tolerated. The frog palate possesses a ciliated epithelium protected by mucus, since some of our findings are at variance with those previously reported results where the protective effect of mucus was negligible in the in-vitro model (usually trachea) employed, it would appear that the contribution of mucus to effective mucociliary clearance should not be underestimated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Batts et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: