Literature DB >> 3803757

Human and rabbit eye responses to chemical insult.

F E Freeberg, G A Nixon, P J Reer, J E Weaver, R D Bruce, J F Griffith, L W Sanders.   

Abstract

Groups of eight human volunteers and eight albino rabbits, under controlled laboratory conditions, were exposed in one eye without subsequent rinsing to the same concentrations and volumes of four prototype consumer products: fabric softener, shampoo, hand soap, and laundry detergent. Dose volume was 0.10 or 0.01 ml. The dose concentrations were selected to produce moderate effects with recovery within 24 to 48 hr. Two irritation scales were employed with both human and animal subjects: the Draize scale by a technician and a medical scale used with slit lamp examination by an ophthalmologist. Eyes were examined by both graders before and after dosing at specified intervals until recovery. Mean and maximum irritation scores are presented for each grading time, method, and exposure, as are the mean hours to recovery (clearing) for each exposure. Recovery times for human eyes were consistent with those reported previously for accidental human exposures to similar materials. Correlation coefficients for time to clear, comparing human vs rabbit for each dose volume-species combination across the four test products, were 0.72, 0.1 ml-human vs 0.01 ml-rabbit; 0.66, 0.01 ml-human vs 0.01 ml-rabbit; 0.40, 0.01 ml-human vs 0.1 ml-rabbit; 0.35, 0.1 ml-human vs 0.1 ml-rabbit. Thus, recovery time obtained under conditions of the "Low-Volume" test (0.01 ml-rabbit) better correlates with human eye recovery time (either dose volume) than does recovery time under Draize test conditions (0.10 ml-rabbit).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3803757     DOI: 10.1016/0272-0590(86)90112-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fundam Appl Toxicol        ISSN: 0272-0590


  8 in total

1.  New thin-film adhesive for sealing full-thickness corneal incisions in rabbits.

Authors:  Jackie Tan; Leslie John Ray Foster; Frank James Lovicu; Stephanie Louise Watson
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  In vitro alternatives for ocular irritation.

Authors:  R D Curren; J W Harbell
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 3.  In Vitro Cell Models for Ophthalmic Drug Development Applications.

Authors:  Sara Shafaie; Victoria Hutter; Michael T Cook; Marc B Brown; David Y S Chau
Journal:  Biores Open Access       Date:  2016-04-01

Review 4.  Alternatives to In Vivo Draize Rabbit Eye and Skin Irritation Tests with a Focus on 3D Reconstructed Human Cornea-Like Epithelium and Epidermis Models.

Authors:  Miri Lee; Jee-Hyun Hwang; Kyung-Min Lim
Journal:  Toxicol Res       Date:  2017-07-15

5.  Eye irritation tests of polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate (PHMG) and chloromethylisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (CMIT/MIT) using a tissue model of reconstructed human cornea-like epithelium.

Authors:  Juyoung Park; Handule Lee; Kwangsik Park
Journal:  Environ Health Toxicol       Date:  2019-06-24

6.  Normative Data of Ocular Biometry, Optical Coherence Tomography, and Electrophysiology Conducted for Cynomolgus Macaque Monkeys.

Authors:  Kwang-Eon Choi; Vu Thi Que Anh; Cheolmin Yun; Young-Jin Kim; Hachul Jung; Heejong Eom; Dongkwan Shin; Seong-Woo Kim
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Assessment of the dermal and ocular irritation potential of lomefloxacin by using in vitro methods.

Authors:  Jun-Ho Ahn; Ki-Hwan Eum; Michael Lee
Journal:  Toxicol Res       Date:  2010-03

8.  Advanced Retinal Imaging and Ocular Parameters of the Rhesus Macaque Eye.

Authors:  Kira H Lin; Tu Tran; Soohyun Kim; Sangwan Park; J Timothy Stout; Rui Chen; Jeffrey Rogers; Glenn Yiu; Sara Thomasy; Ala Moshiri
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 3.048

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.