Background: Cobalt-ferrite nanoparticles (Co-Fe NPs) are attractive for nanotechnology-based therapies. Thus, exploring their effect on viability of seven different cell lines representing different organs of the human body is highly important. Methods: The toxicological effects of Co-Fe NPs were studied by in-vitro exposure of A549 and NCIH441 cell-lines (lung), precision-cut lung slices from rat, HepG2 cell-line (liver), MDCK cell-line (kidney), Caco-2 TC7 cell-line (intestine), TK6 (lymphoblasts) and primary mouse dendritic-cells. Toxicity was examined following exposure to Co-Fe NPs in the concentration range of 0.05 -1.2 mM for 24 and 72 h, using Alamar blue, MTT and neutral red assays. Changes in oxidative stress were determined by a dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate based assay. Data analysis and predictive modeling of the obtained data sets were executed by employing methods of Knowledge Discovery from Data with emphasis on a decision tree model (J48). Results: Different dose–response curves of cell viability were obtained for each of the seven cell lines upon exposure to Co-Fe NPs. Increase of oxidative stress was induced by Co-Fe NPs and found to be dependent on the cell type. A high linear correlation (R²=0.97) was found between the toxicity of Co-Fe NPs and the extent of ROS generation following their exposure to Co-Fe NPs. The algorithm we applied to model the observed toxicity belongs to a type of supervised classifier. The decision tree model yielded the following order with decrease of the ranking parameter: NP concentrations (as the most influencing parameter), cell type (possessing the following hierarchy of cell sensitivity towards viability decrease: TK6 > Lung slices > NCIH441 > Caco-2 = MDCK > A549 > HepG2 = Dendritic) and time of exposure, where the highest-ranking parameter (NP concentration) provides the highest information gain with respect to toxicity. The validity of the chosen decision tree model J48 was established by yielding a higher accuracy than that of the well-known “naive bayes” classifier. Conclusions: The observed correlation between the oxidative stress, caused by the presence of the Co-Fe NPs, with the hierarchy of sensitivity of the different cell types towards toxicity, suggests that oxidative stress is one possible mechanism for the toxicity of Co-Fe NPs.

In vitro methods have gained regulatory acceptance for the prediction of serious eye damage (UN GHS Cat 1). However, the majority of in vitro methods do not state whether they are applicable to agrochemical formulations. This manuscript presents a study of up to 27 agrochemical formulations tested in three in vitro assays (three versions of the bovine corneal opacity and permeability test (BCOP, OECD TG 437) assay, the isolated chicken eye test (ICE, OECD TG 438) and the EpiOcular™ ET-50 assay). The results were compared with already-available in vivo data. In the BCOP only one of the four, one of five in the ICE and six of eleven tested formulations in the EpiOcular™ ET-50 Neat Protocol resulted in the correct UN GHS Cat 1 prediction. Overpredictions occurred in all assays. These data indicate a lack of applicability of the three in vitro methods to reliably predict UN GHS Cat 1 of agrochemical formulations. In order to ensure animal-free identification of seriously eye damaging agrochemical formulations testing protocols and/or prediction models need to be modified or classification rules should be tailored to in vitro testing rather than using in vivo Draize data as a standard.

The ongoing transition from chemical hazard and risk assessment based on animal studies to assessment relying mostly on non-animal data, requires a multitude of novel experimental methods, and this means that guidance on the validation and standardisation of test methods intended for international applicability and acceptance, needs to be updated. These so-called new approach methodologies (NAMs) must be applicable to the chemical regulatory domain and provide reliable data which are relevant to hazard and risk assessment. Confidence in and use of NAMs will depend on their reliability and relevance, and both are thoroughly assessed by validation. Validation is, however, a time- and resource-demanding process. As updates on validation guidance are conducted, the valuable components must be kept: Reliable data are and will remain fundamental. In 2016, the scientific community was made aware of the general crisis in scientific reproducibility—validated methods must not fall into this. In this commentary, we emphasize the central importance of ring trials in the validation of experimental methods. Ring trials are sometimes considered to be a major hold-up with little value added to the validation. Here, we clarify that ring trials are indispensable to demonstrate the robustness and reproducibility of a new method. Further, that methods do fail in method transfer and ring trials due to different stumbling blocks, but these provide learnings to ensure the robustness of new methods. At the same time, we identify what it would take to perform ring trials more efficiently, and how ring trials fit into the much-needed update to the guidance on the validation of NAMs.

Assessment of eye irritation hazard has long been a core requirement in any chemical legislation. Nevertheless, publications focussing on the eye damaging potential of nanomaterials are scarce. Traditionally, eye irritation testing was performed using rabbits. The OECD Test Guideline 437 Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test method allows determining severely irritating substances without animals, and the recently adopted OECD Test Guideline 492 Reconstructed human cornea-like epithelium test method allows identifying chemicals that neither induce eye irritation nor serious eye damage. For substances applicable to these tests, huge progress has been made in replacing animal testing. The in vitro eye irritation potential of 20 nanosized and 3 non-nanosized materials was investigated in a 2-tier EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test (EpiOcular™-EIT) and BCOP testing strategy including histopathology of the bovine corneas. Furthermore, applicability of the testing strategy for nanomaterials was assessed. Test materials encompassed OECD representative nanomaterials (metals (Ag), metal oxides (ZnO, TiO2, CeO2), amorphous SiO2 and MWCNTs), three organic pigments, quartz, and talc. None of the dry-powder nanomaterials elicited eye irritation in either the EpiOcular™-EIT or the BCOP assay. Likewise, an amorphous SiO2 nanomaterial that was supplied as suspension was tested negative in both assays. By contrast, in the EpiOcular™-EIT, the silver nanomaterial that was supplied as dispersion was tested positive, whereas its surfactant-containing dispersant was borderline to negative. In the BCOP assay, the silver nanomaterial elicited highly variable results and dark-brown patches remained on the corneal surface, whereas the results for its dispersant alone were borderline to positive, which was assessed as inconclusive due to high inter-assay variability. The present study points to the low eye irritation potential of a spectrum of nanomaterials, which is consistent with available in vivo data for the same test materials or for nanosized or bulk materials of the same composition.