Limited information exists on the pathologic changes occurring with surfactant-induced ocular irritation in the context of accidental human exposures and animal tests used to assess for such irritation. The purpose of this study was to begin to characterize the pathologic changes that occur with surfactants in the context of standard animal tests and compare the response in rats to that in rabbits. Representative anionic, cationic, and nonionic surfactants causing slight to severe ocular irritation were directly applied to the corneas of rabbits and rats at a dose of 10 μl. Eyes and eyelids of each animal were macroscopically examined for signs of irritation beginning 3 hr after dosing and periodically until recovery or day 35. Eyes and eyelids from animals in each group were collected for microscopic examination after 3 hr and at recovery or day 35. Microscopically, all of the surfactants caused erosion, denudation, and/or necrosis of the conjunctival and corneal epithelium in rabbits and rats. Necrosis of keratocytes was observed in rabbits and rats treated with the severely irritating cationic surfactant and in rats treated with anionic surfactants that were mildly irritating and moderately irritating. Corneal endothelial changes were observed in rabbits and rats with only the cationic surfactant. Changes in eyes of rabbits and rats that had not recovered by day 35 included decreased prominence of goblet cells, conjunctivalization of the corneal epithelium, neovascularization and fibrosis of the cornea, and presence of devitalized stroma. Overall, the changes in rabbits and rats were similar and suggest that the rat may be used as a surrogate for the rabbit in studies to understand better mechanisms of surfactant-induced eye irritation.
Aitken D., Friend J., Thoft RA, and Lee WR (1988). An ultrastructural study of rabbit ocular surface transdifferentiation. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 29: 224-231.
2.
Bito LZ (1984). Species differences in the response of the eye to irritation and trauma: A hypothesis of divergence in ocular defense mechanisms, and the choice of experimental animals for eye research. Exp. Eye Res. 39: 807-829.
3.
Bruner LH (1992). Alternatives to the use of animals in household product and cosmetic testing. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 200: 669-673.
4.
Bruner LH (1992). Ocular irritation. In: In Vitro Toxicity Testing. Applications to Safety Evaluation, JM Frazier (ed). Marcel Dekkar, New York, pp. 149-190.
5.
Bruner LH, Kain DJ, Roberts DA, and Parker RD (1991). Evaluation of seven in vitro alternatives for ocular safety testing. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 17: 136-149.
6.
Bruner LH, Parker RD, and Bruce RD (1992). Reducing the number of rabbits in the low-volume eye test. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 19: 330-335.
7.
Campos M., Raman S., Lee M., and McDonnell PJ (1994). Keratocyte loss after different methods of de-epithelialization . Ophthalmology101: 890-894.
8.
Campos M., Szerenyi K., Lee M., McDonnell JM, Lopez PF, and McDonnell PJ (1994). Keratocyte loss after corneal deepithelialization in primates and rabbits. Arch. Ophthalmol. 112: 254-260.
9.
Clayton RM, Green K., Wilson M., Zehir A., Jack J., and Searle L. (1985). The penetration of detergents into adult and infant eyes: Possible hazards of additives to ophthalmic preparations. Food Chem. Toxicol. 23: 239-246.
10.
Cormier EM, Hunter JE, Billhimer W., May J., and Farage MA (1995). Correlation of animal eye data with human experience for household porducts. J. Toxicol. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 14: 197-205.
11.
Daston GP and Freeberg FE (1991). Ocular irritation testing. In: Dermal and Ocular Toxicology: Fundamentals and Methods, DW Hobson (ed). CRC Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 509-540.
12.
DeSousa DJ, Rouse AA, and Smolon WJ (1984). Statistical consequences of reducing the number of rabbits utilized in eye irritation testing: Data on 67 petrochemicals. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 76: 234-242.
13.
Draize JH, Woodard G., and Calvery HO (1944). Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 82: 377-390.
14.
Dua HS, Gomes JAP, and Singh A. (1994). Corneal epithelial wound healing. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 78: 401-408.
15.
Freeberg FE , Griffth JF, Bruce RD, and Bay PHS (1984). Correlation of animal test methods with human experience for household products . J. Toxicol. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 1: 53-64.
16.
Freeberg FE , Hooker DT, and Griffth JF (1986). Correlation of animal eye data with human experience for household products . J. Toxicol. Cut. Ocular Toxicol. 5: 115-123.
17.
Freeberg FE , Nixon GA, Reer PJ, Weaver JE, Bruce RD, Griffith JF, and Sanders LW III (1986). Human and rabbit eye responses to chemical insult. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 7: 626-634.
18.
Gershbein LL and McDonald JE (1977). Evaluation of the corneal irritancy of test shampoos and detergents in various animal species. Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 15: 131-134.
19.
Grant WM (1974). Description of drugs, chemicals, plants and venoms, and their effects on the eyes. In: Toxicology of the Eye, 2nd ed. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, pp. 75-1099.
20.
Green S. (1992). In vitro test validation and regulatory animal testing: A house built on sand versus a house of cards?Alternat. Lab. Anim. 20: 567-570.
21.
Green S., Chambers WA, Gupta KC, Hill RN, Hurley PM, Lambert LA, Lee CC, Lee JK, Liu PT, Lowther DK, Roberts CD, Seabaugh VM, Springer JA, and Wilcox NL (1993). Criteria for in vitro alternatives for the eye irritation test. Food Chem. Toxicol. 31: 81-85.
22.
Green WR, Sullivan JB, Hehir RM, Scharpf LG, and Dickinson AW (1978). A Systematic Comparison of Chemically Induced Eye Injury in the Albino Rabbit and Rhesus Monkey. The Soap and Detergent Association, New York.
23.
Griffith JF , Nixon GA, Bruce RD, Reer PJ, and Bannan EA (1980). Dose-response studies with chemical irritants in the albino rabbit eye as a basis for selecting optimum testing conditions for predicting hazard to the human eye. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 55: 501-513.
24.
Guillot JP, Gonnet JF, Clement C., Caillard L., and Truhaut R. (1982). Evaluation of the ocular-irritation potential of 56 compounds. Food Chem. Toxicol. 20: 573-582.
25.
Harroff HH Jr (1991). Pathological processes of the eye related to chemical exposure. In: Dermal and Ocular Toxicology: Fundamentals and Methods, DW Hobson (ed). CRC Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 493-508.
26.
Heywood R. and James RW (1978). Towards objectivity in the assessment of eye irritation . J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem. 29: 25.
27.
Huang AJW , Watson BD, Hernandez E., and Tseng SCG (1988). Induction of conjunctival transdifferentiation on vascularized corneas by photothrombotic occlusion of corneal neovascularization . Ophthalmology95: 228-235.
28.
Jester JV, Maurer JK, Petroll WM, Wilkie DA, Parker RD, and Cavanagh HD (1996). Application of in vivo confocal microscopy to the understanding of surfactant-induced ocular irritation. Toxicol. Pathol. 24: 412-428.
29.
Kruse FE, Chen JJY, Tsai RJF, and Tseng SCG (1990). Conjunctival transdifferentiation is due to incomplete removal of limbal basal epithelium. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 31: 1903-1913.
30.
Landini G. and Misson G. (1993). Simulation of corneal neovascularization by inverted diffusion limited aggregation. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci . 34: 1872-1876.
31.
Marzulli FN and Simon ME (1971). Eye irritation from topically applied drugs and cosmetics: Preclinical studies. Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom. 48: 61-79.
32.
Nakayasu K. (1988). Stromal changes following removal of epithelium in rat cornea. Jpn. J. Ophthalmol. 32: 113-125.
33.
Parish WE (1985). Ability of in vitro (corneal injury-eye organ-and chorioallantoic membrane) tests to represent histopathological features of acute eye inflammation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 23: 215-227.
34.
Riley MV and Green K. (1992). Comparative physiology and biochemistry of the eye. In: Manual of Oculotoxicity Testing of Drugs, O Hockwin (ed). Gustav Fischer Verlag , New York, pp. 45-80.
35.
Rowan AN (1984). The future of animals in research and training. The search for alternatives. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 4: 508-516.
Swanston DW (1985). Assessment of the validity of animal techniques in eye-irritation testing. Food Chem. Toxicol. 23: 169-173.
38.
Talsma DM, Leach CL, Hatoum NS, Gibbons RD, Roger J-C., and Garvin PJ (1988). Reducing the number of rabbits in the Draize eye irritancy test: A statistical analysis of 155 studies conducted over 6 years . Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 10: 146-153.
39.
Thoft RA (1989). The role of the limbus in ocular surface maintenance and repair. Acta Ophthalmol. 67: 91-94.
40.
Tseng SCG , Hirst LW, Farazdaghi M., and Green WR (1984). Goblet cell density and vascularization during conjunctival transdifferentiation. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 25: 1168-1176.
41.
US Department of Health and Human Services (1985). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Animal Resources Program, Division of Research Resources, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
42.
Weil CS and Scala RA (1971). Study of intra- and interlaboratory variability in the results of rabbit eye and skin irritation tests. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 19: 276-360.
43.
Williams SJ , Graepel GJ, and Kennedy GL (1982). Evaluation of ocular irritancy potential: Intralaboratory variability and effect of dosage volume . Toxicol. Lett.12: 235-241.
