Ocular toxicology: synergism of UV radiation and benzalkonium chloride
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To investigate the combined toxic effect of ultraviolet (UV) radiation and benzalkonium chloride (BAK), a common preservative in ophthalmic eye drops, on human corneal epithelial cells (HCEC).Methods Cultured HCEC were exposed to different combined and separate UV (280–400 nm) and BAK solutions at relevant human exposure levels. Human exposure to UV can occur before, during, or after eye drop installation, therefore, three different orders of ocular exposures were investigated: UV and BAK at the same time, UV first followed by BAK, and BAK first followed by UV. Control treatments included testing HCEC exposed to BAK alone and also HCEC exposed to UV alone. In addition, phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was used as a negative control. After exposure, cell metabolic activity of the cultures was measured with PrestoBlue, and cell viability was determined using confocal microscopy with viability dyes.Results BAK alone reduced the metabolic activity and cell viability of HCEC in a dose- and time-dependent manner. UV alone at a low dose (0.17 J/cm2) had little toxicity on HCEC and was not significantly different from PBS control. However, UV plus BAK showed combined effects that were either greater than (synergistic) or equal to (additive) the sum of their individual effects. The synergistic effects occurred between low dose UV radiation (0.17 J/cm2) and low concentrations of BAK (0.001%, 0.002%, 0.003%, and 0.004%).Conclusions This investigation determined that at relevant human exposure levels, the combination of UV radiation (280–400 nm) and BAK can cause synergistic and additive toxic effects on human corneal epithelial cells. This finding highlights the importance of considering the combined ocular toxicity of BAK and solar radiation in the risk assessment of BAK-preserved ophthalmic solutions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".