Cited by 16Contact Dermatitis and AllergiesDye analysis and toxicityAnimal testing and alternatives

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of ocular irritancy of coal-tar dyes used in cosmetics employing reconstructed human cornea-like epithelium and short time exposure tests

Open access
Lee, Miri, Nam, Ki Taek, Kim, Jungah, Lim, Song E., Yeon, Sang Hyeon, Lee, Buhyun, Lee, Joo Young, Lim, Kyung-Min·2017·Food and Chemical Toxicology

Abstract

Coal-tar dyes in cosmetics may elicit adverse effects in the skin and eyes. Countries, like the US, have banned the use of coal-tar dyes in cosmetics for the eye area due to the potential for ocular irritation. We evaluated the eye irritation potential of 15 coal-tar dyes permitted as cosmetic ingredients in reconstructed human cornea-like epithelium (RhCEs [EpiOcular™ and MCTT HCE™]) tests and the short time exposure (STE) test. Eosin YS, phloxine B, tetrachlorotetrabromofluorescein, and tetrabromofluorescein were identified as irritants in RhCEs; dibromofluorescein and uranine yielded discrepant results. STE enabled further classification in accordance with the UN Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, as follows: eosin YS as Cat 2; phloxine B, Cat 1; and tetrachlorotetrabromofluorescein and tetrabromofluorescein, Cat 1/2. STE indicated dibromofluorescein (irritant in EpiOcular™) and uranine (irritant in MCTT HCE™) as No Cat, resulting in the classification of "No prediction can be made." based on bottom-up approach with each model. These results demonstrated that in vitro eye irritation tests can be utilized to evaluate the potential ocular irritancy of cosmetic ingredients and provide significant evidence with which to determine whether precautions should be given for the use of coal-tar dyes in cosmetics or other substances applied to the eye area.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fct.2017.08.001

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Barroso, 2016, Arch. Toxicol., 1
  2. Burnett, 1971, Chronic eye irritation and staining properties of some organic colors and lakes, CTFA Cosmet. J., 3, 18
  3. Kanekar, 2014, Coloring agents: current regulatory perspective for coloring agents intended for pharmaceutical & cosmetic use, Int. J. Pharm. Phytopharm. Res. (eIJPPR), 3, 365
  4. Kolle, 2015, ATLA, 43, 181

Metadata

Authors
Lee, M., Nam, K. T., Kim, J., Lim, S. E., Yeon, S. H., Lee, B., Lee, J. Y., & Lim, K.-M.
Affiliations
  • Ewha Womans University (KR)
  • Yonsei University (KR)
  • Catholic University of Korea (KR)
Corresponding author
  • Lee, Miri
  • Lim, Song E.
  • Lee, Buhyun
  • Lee, Joo Young
  • Lim, Kyung-Min
Venue
Food and Chemical Toxicology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
108
Issue
Pt A
Pages
236-243
ISSN
0278-6915 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2745206754
Cited by
16
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Food and Chemical Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • YUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (14172MFDS97, 16182MFDS522)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Dye analysis and toxicity
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
Keywords
coal tar dyes, eye irritation, cosmetic ingredients, eosin Y, phloxine B, fluorescein, bottom-up approach
MeSH terms
Animal Testing Alternatives, Coal Tar, Cosmetics, Coloring Agents, Humans, Irritants, Epithelium, Corneal, Toxicity Tests, Acute

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review