Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27083156›Full record

ArticleParticle and fibre toxicology2016

Eye irritation testing of nanomaterials using the EpiOcular™ eye irritation test and the bovine corneal opacity and permeability assay.

Susanne N Kolle, Ursula G Sauer, Maria C Rey Moreno, Wera Teubner, Wendel Wohlleben, Robert Landsiedel

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Particle and fibre toxicology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Safety Assessment of Nanomaterials to Eyes: An Important but Neglected Issue.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2019
    Review
  7. Toxicological research · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Safety assessment of nanomaterials using an advanced decision-making framework, the DF4nanoGrouping.Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology · 2017
    Article
  10. Human corneal cell culture models for drug toxicity studies.Drug delivery and translational research · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Susanne N KolleBASF SE, Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, GB/TB - Z470, 67056, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Ursula G SauerScientific Consultancy - Animal Welfare, Hallstattfeld 16, 85579, Neubiberg, Germany.
Maria C Rey MorenoBASF SE, Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, GB/TB - Z470, 67056, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Wera TeubnerBASF Schweiz AG, GUP/PS - K141, 4057, Basel, Switzerland.
Wendel WohllebenBASF SE, Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, GB/TB - Z470, 67056, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Robert LandsiedelBASF SE, Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, GB/TB - Z470, 67056, Ludwigshafen, Germany. robert.landsiedel@basf.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessment of eye irritation hazard has long been a core requirement in any chemical legislation. Nevertheless, publications focussing on the eye damaging potential of nanomaterials are scarce. Traditionally, eye irritation testing was performed using rabbits. The OECD Test Guideline 437 Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test method allows determining severely irritating substances without animals, and the recently adopted OECD Test Guideline 492 Reconstructed human cornea-like epithelium test method allows identifying chemicals that neither induce eye irritation nor serious eye damage. For substances applicable to these tests, huge progress has been made in replacing animal testing.

methodsThe in vitro eye irritation potential of 20 nanosized and 3 non-nanosized materials was investigated in a 2-tier EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test (EpiOcular™-EIT) and BCOP testing strategy including histopathology of the bovine corneas. Furthermore, applicability of the testing strategy for nanomaterials was assessed. Test materials encompassed OECD representative nanomaterials (metals (Ag), metal oxides (ZnO, TiO2, CeO2), amorphous SiO2 and MWCNTs), three organic pigments, quartz, and talc.

resultsNone of the dry-powder nanomaterials elicited eye irritation in either the EpiOcular™-EIT or the BCOP assay. Likewise, an amorphous SiO2 nanomaterial that was supplied as suspension was tested negative in both assays. By contrast, in the EpiOcular™-EIT, the silver nanomaterial that was supplied as dispersion was tested positive, whereas its surfactant-containing dispersant was borderline to negative. In the BCOP assay, the silver nanomaterial elicited highly variable results and dark-brown patches remained on the corneal surface, whereas the results for its dispersant alone were borderline to positive, which was assessed as inconclusive due to high inter-assay variability.

conclusionThe present study points to the low eye irritation potential of a spectrum of nanomaterials, which is consistent with available in vivo data for the same test materials or for nanosized or bulk materials of the same composition.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimal Testing AlternativesBiological AssayCattleCorneaCorneal OpacityHumansIrritantsNanoparticlesNanotechnologyPermeabilityRisk AssessmentTissue Culture TechniquesTissue SurvivalToxicity TestsIrritantsBovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability assay (BCOP)EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test (EIT)Eye irritationIn vitroNanomaterialsSevere eye damage

Identifiers

PMID27083156
PMCPMC4833924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.