Reaction mass of 5,7-dimethoxy-3-(4-(sec-C10-C13-alkyl)-benzoyl)-2H-chromen-2-one

Eye irritation

Administrative data

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

05 Feb 2019 - 26 Feb 2019

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2019

Report date:

2019

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 437 (Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test Method for Identifying i) Chemicals Inducing Serious Eye Damage and ii) Chemicals Not Requiring Classification for Eye Irritation or Serious Eye Damage)

Version / remarks:

adopted October 09, 2017

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

yes

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Reaction mass of 5,7-dimethoxy-3-(4-(sec-C10-C13-alkyl)-benzoyl)-2H-chromen-2-one

EC Number:

949-790-7

Molecular formula:

Not applicable - UVCB

IUPAC Name:

Reaction mass of 5,7-dimethoxy-3-(4-(sec-C10-C13-alkyl)-benzoyl)-2H-chromen-2-one

Test material form:

liquid

Specific details on test material used for the study:

dentification: Esacure 3644
Physical Description: Light yellow solid
Purity/Composition: UVCB
Storage Conditions: At room temperature protected from light

Test animals / tissue source

Species:

cattle

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

TEST SYSTEM
Bovine eyes were used as soon as possible after slaughter.
Source: Bovine eyes from young cattle were obtained from the slaughterhouse (Vitelco, -'s Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands), where the eyes were excised by a slaughterhouse employee as soon as possible after slaughter.
Transport: Eyes were collected and transported in physiological saline in a suitable container under cooled conditions.
Characteristics of donor animals: Young cattle obtained from the slaughterhouse

PREPARATION OF CORNEAS
The eyes were checked for unacceptable defects, such as opacity, scratches, pigmentation and neovascularization by removing them from the physiological saline and holding them in the light. Those exhibiting defects were discarded.
The isolated corneas were stored in a petri dish with cMEM (Earle’s Minimum Essential Medium (Life Technologies, Bleiswijk, The Netherlands) containing 1% (v/v) L-glutamine (Life Technologies) and 1% (v/v) Fetal Bovine Serum (Life Technologies)). The isolated corneas were mounted in a corneal holder (one cornea per holder) of BASF (Ludwigshafen, Germany) with the endothelial side against the O-ring of the posterior half of the holder. The
anterior half of the holder was positioned on top of the cornea and tightened with screws. The compartments of the corneal holder were filled with cMEM of 32 ± 1°C. The corneas were incubated for the minimum of 1 hour at 32 ± 1°C.

Test system

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Controls:

yes, concurrent positive control

yes, concurrent negative control

Amount / concentration applied:

315.0 to 354.3 mg, applied directly on the corneas in such a way that the cornea was completely covered

Duration of treatment / exposure:

Corneas were incubated in a horizontal position for 240 ± 10 minutes at 32 ± 1°C

Duration of post- treatment incubation (in vitro):

After the incubation the solutions and the test compound were removed and the epithelium was washed at least three times with MEM with phenol red (Earle’s Minimum Essential Medium Life Technologies). Following the final opacity measurement, permeability of the cornea to Na-fluorescein (Sigma-Aldrich, Germany) was evaluated.

The medium of both compartments (anterior compartment first) was removed. The posterior compartment was refilled with fresh cMEM. The anterior compartment was filled with 1 mL of 5 mg Na-fluorescein/mL cMEM solution (Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH, Germany). The holders were slightly rotated, with the corneas maintained in a horizontal position, to ensure Uniform distribution of the sodium-fluorescein solution over the entire cornea. Corneas were incubated in a horizontal position for 90 ± 5 minutes at 32 ± 1°C.

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

Three corneas were selected at random for each treatment group.

Details on study design:

After the incubation the solutions and the test compound were removed and the epithelium was washed at least three times with MEM with phenol red (Earle’s Minimum Essential Medium Life Technologies). Possible pH effects of the test item
on the corneas were recorded. Each cornea was inspected visually for dissimilar opacity patterns. The medium in the posterior compartment was removed and both compartments were refilled with fresh cMEM and the opacity determinations were performed.

Results and discussion

In vitro

Results

Results 1

Irritation parameter:

cornea opacity score

Run / experiment:

Mean

Value:

-0.6

Vehicle controls validity:

not applicable

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Results 2

Irritation parameter:

in vitro irritation score

Run / experiment:

Mean

Value:

-0.1

Vehicle controls validity:

not applicable

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Results 3

Irritation parameter:

other: Permeability

Run / experiment:

Mean

Value:

0.034

Vehicle controls validity:

not applicable

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Remarks on result:

no indication of irritation

Other effects / acceptance of results:

ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS:
The negative control responses for opacity and permeability were less than the upper limits of the laboratory historical range indicating that the negative control did not induce irritancy on the corneas. The mean in vitro irritancy score of the positive control (20% (w/v) Imidazole) was 139 and within two standard deviations of the current historical positive control mean. It was therefore concluded that the test conditions were adequate and that the test system functioned properly. Esacure 3644 did not induce ocular irritation through both endpoints, resulting in a mean in vitro irritancy score of -0.1 after 240 minutes of treatment.

Any other information on results incl. tables

Summary

Treatment	Mean Opacity	Mean Permeability	Mean in vitro irritation score (1,2)
Negative control	0.8	0.014	1
Positive control	117	1.465	139
Esacure 3644	-0.6	0.034	-0.1

(1) Calculated using the negative control corrected mean opacity and mean permeability values for the positive control and test item.

(2) In vitro irritancy score (IVIS) = mean opacity value + (15 x mean OD490 value).7

Individual results are detailed in the full study report

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

In conclusion, since Esacure 3644 induced an IVIS ≤ 3, no classification is required for eye irritation or serious eye damage.

Executive summary:

The objective of this study was to evaluate the eye hazard potential of Esacure 3644 as measured by its ability to induce opacity and increase permeability in an isolated bovine cornea using the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability test (BCOP test).

This report describes the potency of chemicals to induce serious eye damage using isolated bovine corneas.  The eye damage of Esacure 3644 was tested through topical application for approximately 240 minutes.  

The study procedures described in this report were based on the most recent OECD guideline.

Batch M7-238-1807001 of Esacure 3644 was a light yellow solid.  Since no workable suspension in physiological saline could be obtained, the test item was used as delivered and added pure on top of the corneas.

The negative control responses for opacity and permeability were less than the upper limits of the laboratory historical range indicating that the negative control did not induce irritancy on the corneas.  The mean in vitro irritancy score of the positive control (20% (w/v) Imidazole) was 139 and within two standard deviations of the current historical positive control mean.  It was therefore concluded that the test conditions were adequate and that the test system functioned properly.  

Esacure 3644 did not induce ocular irritation through both endpoints, resulting in a mean in vitro irritancy score of -0.1 after 4 hours of treatment.  

In conclusion, since Esacure 3644 induced an IVIS ≤ 3, no classification is required for eye irritation or serious eye damage.