Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by FREEBERG, F.E.
Right arrow Articles by SANDERS, L.W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by FREEBERG, F.E.
Right arrow Articles by SANDERS, L.W., III
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1986 Oxford University Press

research-article

Human and Rabbit Eye Responses to Chemical Insult

F.E. FREEBERG*,1, G.A. NIXON*, P.J. REER*, J.E. WEAVER*, R.D. BRUCE*, J.F. GRIFFITH* and L.W. SANDERS, III{dagger}

*The Procter & Gamble Company Cincinnati, Ohio {dagger}Hill Top Research, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio

Human and Rabbit Eye Responses to Chemical Insult. FREEBERG, F.E., NIXON, G.A., REER, P.J., WEAVER, J.E., BRUCE, R.D., GRIFFITH, J.F., AND SANDERS, L.W., Ill (1986). Fundam Appl. Toxicol. 7, 626-634. 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). It is concluded that a rabbit eye test based on a 0.01-ml dose volume (low volume test) more accurately predicts human occular response than does the Draize test and should be used to judge new eye irritation methods.


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




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.