Toxicologic Pathology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Maurer, J. K.
Right arrow Articles by Jester, J. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Maurer, J. K.
Right arrow Articles by Jester, J. V.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Toxicologic Pathology, Vol. 29, No. 3, 308-319 (2001)
DOI: 10.1080/019262301316905264

Pathology of Ocular Irritation with Bleaching Agents in the Rabbit Low-Volume Eye Test

James K. Maurer

The Procter & Gamble Co., Cincinnati, Ohio

AL Molai

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas

Ron D. Parker

The Procter & Gamble Co., Cincinnati, Ohio

Li Li

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas

Gregory J. Carr

The Procter & Gamble Co., Cincinnati, Ohio

W. Matthew Petroll

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas

H. Dwight Cavanagh

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas

James V. Jester

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas

Despite differences in the processes leading to tissue damage, the ocular irritation response to various surfactants, two concentrations of an acid and an alkali, and an acetone, alcohol, aromatic amine, and aldehyde has been shown to depend on the extent of initial injury. The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which this fundamental relationship exists for bleaching agents in the rabbit low-volume eye test. Ten µl of sodium perborate monohydrate (NaBO 3), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 10% hydrogen peroxide (H2O 2), and 15% H2O2 was applied directly to the cornea of the right eye of each rabbit. Macroscopic assessments for irritation were made 3 hours after dosing and periodically until 35 days. Light microscopic examinations were conducted on tissues obtained at 3 hr and on 1, 3, and 35 days. In vivo confocal microscopy (CM) and measurements of dead corneal epithelial cells and keratocytes at 3 hours and 1 day were used to characterize quantitatively initial corneal injury, while in vivo CM performed at 3 hours and 1, 3, 7, 14, and 35 days was used to characterize quantitatively the corneal changes over time. The changes with NaBO3 and NaOCl were consistent with mild irritancy. For both, corneal injury was limited to the epithelium and superficial stroma. The changes with 10% H2O2 and 15% H2O2 were consistent with severe irritation. Both concentrations affected the epithelium and deep stroma, with 15% H2O 2 also at times affecting the endothelium. However, unlike other irritants previously studied, with 10% H2O2 and 15% H2O 2 there was an incongruity between the extent of epithelial and stromal injury, with stromal injury being more extensive than epithelial injury. A similar, although less dramatic, effect was observed with NaBO3. Additionally, there was still significant keratocyte loss at 35 days with 10% H2O2 and 15% H2O2 even though the eyes at times were considered to be macroscopically normal. These observations highlight the need to include both epithelial and stromal components in an ex vivo or in vitro alternative assay. In conclusion, these results continue to support and extend our hypothesis that ocular irritation is principally defined by the extent of initial injury despite clear differences in the means by which irritants cause tissue damage. Importantly, we have identified unique differences in the ocular injury and responses occurring with bleaching agents that are important to consider in the development and validation of alternative ocular irritation tests to characterize a broad range of materials differing in type and irritancy.

Key Words: Animal alternatives • confocal microscopy • conjunctiva • cornea • eye testing • wound healing


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur Respir JHome page
A. Bernard, M. Nickmilder, and C. Voisin
Outdoor swimming pools and the risks of asthma and allergies during adolescence
Eur. Respir. J., October 1, 2008; 32(4): 979 - 988.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]