Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36122606›Full record

ArticleToxicology2022

Assessing the skin irritation and sensitizing potential of concentrates of water chlorinated in the presence of iodinated X-ray contrast media.

David M Lehmann, Mikayla D Armstrong, Wanda C Williams, Cristina Postigo, Jane E Simmons

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

David M LehmannCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA. Electronic address: Lehmann.david@epa.gov.
Mikayla D ArmstrongDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Wanda C WilliamsCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
Cristina PostigoDepartment of Environmental Chemistry, Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA), CSIC, Carrer Jordi Girona 18-26, Barcelona, 08034, Spain; Technologies for Water Management and Treatment Research Group, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva s/n, Granada, 18071, Spain.
Jane E SimmonsCenter for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
Environmental Protection Agency · USUniversidad de Granada · ESUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemical disinfection of water provides significant public health benefits. However, disinfectants like chlorine can react with naturally occurring materials in the water to form disinfection byproducts (DBPs). Natural levels of iodine have been reported to be too low in some source waters to account for the levels of iodinated DBPs detected. Iodinated X-ray contrast media (ICM) have been identified as a potential source of iodine. The toxicological impact of ICM present in source water at the time of disinfection has not been fully investigated. Iopamidol, iohexol, iopromide, and diatrizoate are among the ICM most frequently detected in water. In this study, source water containing one of these four ICM was chlorinated; non-chlorinated ICM-containing water samples served as controls. Reactions were conducted at an ICM concentration of 5 µM and a chlorine dose of 100 µM over 72 hr. Water concentrates (20,000-fold) were prepared by XAD-resin/ethyl acetate extraction and DMSO solvent exchange. We used the MatTek® reconstituted human epithelial skin irritation model to evaluate the water concentrates and also assessed the dermal irritation and sensitization potential of these concentrates using the LLNA:BrdU ELISA in BALB/c mice. None of the water concentrates tested (2500X) resulted in a skin irritant response in the MatTek® skin irritation model. Likewise, none of the concentrates (2500X, 1250X, 625X, 312.5X, 156.25X) produced a skin irritation response in mice: erythema was minimal; the maximum increase in ear thickness was less than 25%. Importantly, none of the concentrates produced a positive threshold response for allergic skin sensitization at any concentration tested in the LLNA:BrdU ELISA. We conclude that concentrates of water disinfected in the presence of four different ICM did not cause significant skin irritation or effects consistent with skin sensitization at the concentrations tested.

Indexed as

DisinfectantsIodineWater Pollutants, ChemicalWater PurificationAnimalsBromodeoxyuridineChlorineContrast MediaDiatrizoateDimethyl SulfoxideHalogenationHumansIohexolIopamidolIrritantsMiceBromodeoxyuridineChlorineContrast MediaDiatrizoateDimethyl SulfoxideDisinfectantsIodineIohexolIopamidolIrritantsSolventsWaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalAllergic hypersensitivityChlorinationDermal irritationIodinated X-ray contrast mediaLocal lymph node assaySkin sensitizationWater

Identifiers

PMID36122606
PMCPMC11519700
OpenAlexW4297259827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.