Contact Lens Solutions Toxicity Evaluation by the Bioluminescence Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To study the possibility of using bioluminescence biotesting to evaluate the toxicity of contact lens care solutions. Methods. The examined solutions were tested both immediately upon unpacking (i.e. sterile) and after rinsing “Pure Vision 2” lenses in them (i.e. after use). As a test system, NADH:FMN oxidoreductase and luciferase bacterial bio enzyme system was used. It contained lyophilized highly purified ferments of EC 1.14.14.3 bacterial luciferase (0.4 mg/ml) from E.coli recombinant variant and EC 1.5.1.29 NADH:FMN oxidoreductase (Ph. leiognathi) (0.18 enzyme units). The bioluminescent testing was carried out with TriStar LB 941 microplate luminometer (Germany). The measurement of the luminescence intensity was carried out in two repetitions. Residual luminescence (T, %), calculated as the ratio of the average maximum luminescence intensities of the experimental measurement (solution) and the control measurement, multiplied by 100%, was used as an integral indicator. Results. The results of bioluminescent testing of sterile solutions showed that “Maxima” solution exhibited the greatest inhibition of bioluminescence, while “Optimed” (Russia) and “AVIZOR Aqua Soft Comfort” solutions demonstrated the least effect. “Bausch + Lomb Biotrue” solution did not affect the bioluminescence. The results of bioluminescence testing of the solutions after contact lenses that had previously been worn for 10 hours were stored in them, showed a strong inhibition of bioluminescence in all solutions. Conclusion. The results of the toxicity evaluation allow for a more reliable prognosis of the long-term consequences of using certain solutions by contact lens wearers from risk groups. The findings also provide more insight into the mechanisms of development of discomfort and other reasons for refusing to wear lenses, as well as to suggest more effective prevention measures.
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 | 0.001 | 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".