↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Eye irritation testing of nanomaterials using the EpiOcular™ eye irritation test and the bovine corneal opacity and permeability assay
Published in
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12989-016-0128-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Assessment 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. The 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. None 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. The 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 24%
Other 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 12%
Chemistry 6 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,845,697
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#341
of 561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,724
of 299,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.