Grimy AirPods or Wireless Earbuds? Here's the Right Way to Deep-Clean Them
My Beats Studio Pro headphones are never more than 10 feet away from me. I'm not exaggerating. I just wrote about how I use them at least four to five hours a day and take them with me almost everywhere: when I listen to music at the gym and during my morning walk, or stream podcasts when I walk my dog four times a day, or when I dive into an audiobook when I'm shopping at the grocery store, walking in the airport or doing chores. They truly are an extension of my body.
And that means they go through a lot each and every day. Because I get so much mileage out of my Beats headphones, I have to clean them regularly.
AirPods and other wireless earbuds and headphones -- from Beats to Bose to JBL and more -- collect dirt, debris, earwax and bacteria every time you pop them in your ears. Over time, this buildup can impair the audio quality of your headphones, but on a more serious note, it can also transfer bacteria into your ear canal and cause a nasty infection. Simply cleaning your AirPods and other wireless headphones can prevent this. You'll want to make sure you're doing it the right way, though, so as not to damage your several-hundred-dollar headphones. Here's how.
Read more: You can find the best AirPods deals here.
How to clean your AirPods
CNET
Apple has suggested a few methods for cleaning your AirPods. This easiest is simply using a disinfecting or alcohol wipe to clean the exterior surface. Just make sure to not use the wipe on the mesh speaker part and to dry the buds completely with a clean cloth before popping them back into your ears. Since alcohol dries quickly, you shouldn't need to wait more than 60 seconds or so.
For the microphone and speaker meshes, we recommend you use a dry cotton swab and a soft-bristled brush to gently wipe away dirt. Don't press too hard, though, since you could push the wax through the mesh and it would be nearly impossible to remove it then.
CNET Insider bonus: CNET senior editor Matt Elliott also suggests using Fun-Tak to remove any stubborn earwax that's leftover after your initial wipe down. He instructs that you rub the Fun-Tak together to warm it up and then press it against the speaker. Then, you can use a wooden toothpick to scrape off anything stuck to the sides of the speaker hollow.
Now Playing: How to Clean Apple AirPods and Wireless Earbuds Without Damaging Them
02:39
How to clean wireless earbuds with removable silicone tips
Cleaning wireless earbuds with detachable silicone tips, like the AirPods Pro or JBL Reflect Flow Pro, is simpler due to the protective nature of the tips. The silicone shields the speaker from dirt, earwax and debris, so it never gets too grimy. The tips can be removed for easy cleaning.
Just detach the silicone tips from the earphones and soak them in warm, soapy water for about 30 minutes. For stubborn stains, you can agitate the container to loosen up the gunk. Once clean, use a soft cloth or cotton swab to wipe away any remaining earwax or dirt and set aside the silicone tips to air dry completely.
If your earbuds don't come with silicone tips, you can purchase them separately from sources like Amazon. We recommend these affordable $13 ear tips that can be attached to standard AirPods.
Your AirPods, silicone tips and charging case all need to be cleaned.
John Kim/CNET
How to clean over-ear wireless headphones
I can't go one day without seeing those trendy over-the-ear wireless headphones, like the Apple AirPods Max or Beats Studio Pro. And I'm not mad about it -- they're super stylish -- and I even sport my own pair day-in and day-out. But they take a bit more time to clean.
Like other headphones, you should never run them under water, use abrasive tools or get liquids in any openings. The best method is to wipe down the headband portion with a disinfectant wipe and to pop the removed cushions into a container with a mixture of one teaspoon liquid laundry detergent and one cup of tepid water. After soaking, wipe the ear cushions and headband thoroughly with a clean cloth to dry. Then, lay the headphones flat to dry for at least a day before you reattach the cushions and use them again.
Over-the-ear headphones with a headband need a regular wipe down, too.
David Carnoy/CNET
Don't forget your charging case
Yes, your charging case gets grimy too. And it doesn't make much sense to go through the effort of cleaning your earbuds only to return them to a dirty charging case.
To clean the case, use a dry, lint-free cloth to wipe away any visible dirt. You can slightly dampen the cloth with water or rubbing alcohol, but be careful to avoid getting any liquid inside the charging ports.
General cleaning tips to follow
Here's a rundown of a few more earbud-cleaning tips to remember:
Never fully submerge your earbuds or headphones in water -- even if they're advertised as "waterproof" or "water-resistant"
Cotton swabs are your best bet
Refrain from using sharp objects, like safety pins, pens and kitchen utensils, to clean the speaker or microphone mesh
Make sure not to get any liquid in the openings
Avoid exposing your headphones and earbuds to products that can cause stains or other damage, including soaps, shampoos and conditioners, lotions, perfumes, solvents, detergents, sunscreen, oils or hair dyes and other hair products
For more cleaning tips, explore how to clean your Apple Watch.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
Fusion Energy May Be The Key To World Hegemony
What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.
Associated Press
17 minutes ago
- Associated Press
New online tool helps women on Medicaid find prenatal care and family planning
At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, one researcher's full-time job for the past nine months has been to find out which clinics around the state offer different kinds of women's health care, and whether they accept various forms of Medicaid. The final result is a recently launched database aimed at helping women locate the nearest clinic that can offer the care they need. The work that went into creating it highlights a pervasive problem: Even making an appointment can be a barrier that keeps women from improving their lives. 'We Need to Talk' is a compilation of all Mississippi clinics offering prenatal care – specifying which ones also offer family planning, and whether they take Medicaid insurance, Medicaid waivers and see women whose Medicaid applications are pending. There is also a hotline designed to give additional support to anyone having questions or feeling overwhelmed about the process. 'Having gone through the work, it was remarkable. It wasn't easy to figure out where you should go for care,' said Dr. Thomas Dobbs, former state health officer and dean of the John D. Bower School of Population Health at UMMC, who oversaw the project. 'And that should be one of the most basic bits of information we have.' The idea was born from the recent 900% increase in babies born with syphilis, Dobbs explained, which he called a 'canary in a coal mine' signaling more danger to come. An investigation into the epidemic showed that one of the driving factors was delayed prenatal care, caused in large part by inaccessible information and concerns about cost, Dobbs said. Finding reproductive and prenatal care can be difficult for several reasons. For one thing, there are many different kinds of clinics in Mississippi, making it hard for patients to know what to search for. The list includes federally qualified health centers, county health department clinics and private OB-GYNs. Another reason is that many clinics don't specify online whether they take Medicaid, much less what their policy is on specific or temporary Medicaid coverage. Calling doesn't always guarantee patients a comprehensive or accurate answer. The new database is an initiative of UMMC's Myrlie Evers-Williams Institute – housed in the Jackson Medical Mall – which is committed to eliminating health disparities by studying the intersection of health and social issues. The institute has a clinic on site that practices what's called 'social medicine,' a key element of eliminating those disparities, the institute's executive director Victoria Gholar explained. 'If you have a patient who has asthma and they're living in a situation where mold is in their environment, it will really be hard for them to get better,' Gholar said. 'Or, if we have a patient who has to use an electronic (medical) device, and their electricity is no longer available because they weren't able to take care of their utility bill, then we try to work with them and connect them to resources that might be able to help.' The institute employs a wide range of professionals who work on health from a non-clinical standpoint, such as researchers, community engagers, social workers and registered dietitians. It hosts events like food drives and offers free support from budgeting strategies to meal preparation for those with conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure. Aside from knowing what to search for, finding clinics that accept Medicaid can also be complicated because Mississippi Medicaid eligibility is constantly changing for a woman based on her age and circumstance – what kinds of services she's seeking, as well as whether she's pregnant. Medicaid eligibility in Mississippi is among the strictest in the nation, with one exception – pregnant women. That means many low-income women only become eligible for Medicaid once pregnant. And since an application can take up to eight weeks to be processed, the chances that a woman in this situation will be able to use her newly acquired Medicaid insurance in the first trimester are slim. A law that would cut out this interim period and allow low-income pregnant women to be immediately seen by a doctor passed the Legislature in 2024, but was never implemented because of legislative errors. The policy went back through the Legislature in 2025, passed overwhelmingly again, but is not yet in effect. Some doctors already see women whose Medicaid application is pending, and the UMMC tool specifies at which clinics that's the case. Women of reproductive age seeking reproductive health care are also eligible for leniency in the typical Medicaid stipulations. These women can apply for a Medicaid family planning waiver, which allows them to access Medicaid for family planning purposes, even if they don't qualify for general Medicaid coverage. The income requirement for pregnancy Medicaid and the family planning waiver is a household income of less than 194% of the federal poverty level, or about $2,500 a month for one person in 2025. Dobbs, who has been the main point person on the project, said he hopes the online database is one more resource improving health care accessibility and women's health metrics in Mississippi. 'This isn't about getting patients to UMMC at all,' Dobbs said. 'It's about empowering patients to be able to get the care they need where they live.' ___ This story was originally published by Mississippi Today and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Medscape
23 minutes ago
- Medscape
A PCP Guide to Emerging Therapies for Resistant Hypertension
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders . I'm Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America's primary care physician, Dr Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, this is a topic you know a ton about, isn't it? Paul N. Williams, MD: It's one I always have questions about; I think this is our 37th episode on high blood pressure, if I'm not mistaken. Watto: The audience can't get enough of it — turns out, neither can I. Williams: Me neither! Watto: I love talking about high blood pressure, and this was with a great guest, Dr Jordy Cohen. She's a hypertension expert and a nephrologist. Paul, to start us off, what are we doing with blood pressure cuffs these days? Those manual ones on the wall, those are the way to go, right? Williams: This is a scenario we talk about all the time, and we've beat this drum a lot in prior episodes. I think we've all experienced a patient whose initial triage blood pressure reading is elevated, and either you or the patient will ask for a recheck and you're tempted to use a blood pressure cuff that's been hanging on the wall, has not been calibrated in 17 years, has a decaying spiral cord, and looks like it would fall apart if you touched it. Turns out that's probably not the best way to do it, Matt. So, to reiterate: Automated cuffs are the preferred option. They are more accurate. In this episode with Dr Cohen, we talked about making sure we use the appropriate cuff size and when we have patients who have large arms, you may have to use a wrist measurement every so often. In these circumstances, positioning matters: feet flat, back supported, elbow resting on a table, and have two fingers on the opposite clavicle so that everything is at heart level. If you're taking the blood pressure reading using a cuff around the arm itself, again, you should make sure the patient's arm is resting on a tabletop, bedside, or even on your own arm to ensure it's at heart level. You also shouldn't talk with the patient during that process so you can give them every chance to have an accurate blood pressure reading. That's the first thing: Get an accurate reading. Then everything else follows that step, as you should only treat a diagnosis that you've appropriately made. Watto: All the goals are based on a properly taken blood pressure, so if your patient's blood pressure hasn't been appropriately measured, you might overtreat or undertreat someone. For most patients who are nonfrail, we're now shooting for a blood pressure that is below 130/80 mm Hg. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines for patients with chronic kidney disease state that normal blood pressure should be below 120/80, which is very hard to do. If we're getting people with a systolic in the 120s, that's probably about as good as we're going to get. For treatment, Dr Cohen and I have adopted this practice of using combination pills for hypertension management — either a calcium-channel blocker with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). I usually prefer a calcium-channel blocker with an ARB or the 'triple pill,' a single-pill combination of a calcium-channel blocker, an ARB, and a diuretic. That's what I go to now as my first-line agent. I'm using a lot of either low-dose or medium-dose combination therapy. I don't usually go to the highest dose unless I'm in a situation where I have to decide between starting a fourth medication or going to a higher dose. That's really been a practice change for me. Dr Cohen reiterated that point and emphasized that it's easiest for the patient and they usually experience fewer side effects when you choose a low-to-moderate dose in comparison to a high dose. Williams: It's a point that we've made in prior episodes, as well. As you start to max out the doses of these medications, you get diminishing returns in terms of their efficacy in lowering blood pressure efficacy and patients can start to experience increased side effects. It's a far better option to start with a kind of median dose as opposed to really trying to crank up the dose, because you just don't get that much more benefit with that approach. Watto: We're going to discuss some of the newer blood pressure–lowering agents. Paul, the first one I want to ask you about is not quite a blood pressure medication, but it does lower blood pressure. Which medication am I talking about here? Williams: I think you're probably referring to semaglutide, Matt. I think we all have a fair amount of comfort with these diabetes and weight loss medications. These are remarkable medications and the indications keep piling on, which is great. Semaglutide, in particular, is not approved for hypertension, but it does lower blood pressure, likely as a result of the weight loss that is achieved with the medication. So, it's not technically an antihypertensive, but it provides a great blood pressure benefit. I think there's also some 'fancy pants' medications coming down the pipeline that we should probably be aware of, right? Watto: Yes, and the first one I'll mention is endothelin receptor antagonists. As a generalist, you're probably not going to be prescribing these; they will probably be prescribed by a hypertension specialist. Compared with placebo, they have a modest effect in lowering blood pressure (~4 mm Hg), but they are officially approved, so they're out there. What's more exciting, Paul, are aldosterone synthase inhibitors. The generic names for these include baxdrostat and lorundrostat. They're not yet approved, but I believe they are in phase 2 or phase 3 trials, depending on the indications. They seem promising, as they have a much stronger effect on blood pressure (~10-15 mm Hg) compared with placebo. Dr Cohen thinks these medications are probably going to be in the primary care wheelhouse soon. Cost will probably an issue with these medications at the start, but otherwise, these are pills that are taken once a day and they don't have the antiandrogen side effects that you can get with the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), like spironolactone. Dr Cohen was really excited about being able to prescribe these at some point. Williams: And the MRAs are traditionally a fourth-line medication (unless you have compelling indications), so to have something else in your armamentarium that has less side effects is super exciting. It'll be great to see these in the pipeline. Watto: Now, what would you say, Paul, if I told you there was a medication for blood pressure that is only administered once every 6 months and will shut down the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS)? How does that sound? Williams: As someone who's taken medical school physiology, it sounds lightly terrifying! It feels like you do need the RAAS for some things, but I think for patients that are less interested in taking medications — which turns out to be most patients — it could potentially be exciting. I think as long as we have a way to reverse the effects of this medication if needed, then I think there's potential for excitement around this medication. Watto: I'm of course talking about a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent. The one we talked about in this episode was zilebesiran; it's an siRNA agent and is administered once every 6 months. But no one would feel comfortable giving this unless there's an antidote, because if a patient gets septic, they probably need their RAAS to help them out there. Williams: Or if you have a patient who is pregnant — lots of reasons why you might actually want that system working. Watto: Exactly. Now, some people just don't want to take medications even if they need them, Paul. What else might be offered to a patient with high blood pressure? And how excited should we be about this next therapy? Williams: I feel like you're asking the wrong guy, Matt! I think you're alluding to renal denervation therapy. I feel it had a lot of wild enthusiasm initially, then it kind of waned, and now I feel like enthusiasm is back, baby — we're back into renal denervation. It sounds like a great option and I think we're doing a little better job with it, but its effect on lowering blood pressure is about equivalent to the effect you observe with a single-agent medication. So, realistically, these patients may still need to be on medications for blood pressure control. It's only effective for about two thirds of patients who get the procedure; that's 33% of your patients who would go through this invasive procedure where we're frying a nerve and in the end, they may not actually experience any blood pressure benefit. I think there's still a population that would benefit from and be interested in this option, but I don't think it's something that we should consider as first-line therapy for the majority of folks because of that potential for treatment failure and the continued need for medications among a substantial portion of the patients who undergo this procedure. It's still exciting that there's evidence for it and it does cause significant blood pressure lowering, so it's nice to have another option. Watto: Yeah, and I think patients are going be coming in and asking about it, so having some knowledge about the pros and cons of the procedure is important.
