使用四种不同方法对不同类型手套的体外细胞毒性进行比较分析。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q1 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Renata Calil Lemos, Ludmila Rosa Bergsten Torralba, Mirian Noemi Pinto Vidal, Ronald Santos Silva, Taline Ramos Conde, Helena Pereira da Silva Zamith
{"title":"使用四种不同方法对不同类型手套的体外细胞毒性进行比较分析。","authors":"Renata Calil Lemos, Ludmila Rosa Bergsten Torralba, Mirian Noemi Pinto Vidal, Ronald Santos Silva, Taline Ramos Conde, Helena Pereira da Silva Zamith","doi":"10.1080/15376516.2025.2537317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to increased use of protective materials among healthcare workers and the general population, resulting in a rise in health issues such as allergies. Glove types, such as latex, nitrile, and vinyl, are notable sources of cutaneous reactions; however, most of their cytotoxic effects are considered negligible. Given the significant exposure of healthcare professionals to gloves and the absence of mandatory toxicological testing to ensure the quality of these medical products under Brazilian legislation, this study aimed to evaluate the <i>in vitro</i> cytotoxicity of three glove-types: natural rubber latex (NRL) surgical, nitrile, and vinyl medical examination gloves, using mouse fibroblast L-929 cell cultures. Four methods were employed based on guidelines from the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), Brazilian Pharmacopeia (BP), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Organization Standardization (ISO). All latex gloves tested would be considered unsafe for use, exhibiting at least moderate cytotoxicity in the agar diffusion, direct contact and elution test methods. In contrast, 75% of nitrile gloves and 67% of vinyl gloves were considered safe, showing mild cytotoxicity in the agar diffusion method, which proved to be the most effective for differentiating cytotoxicity among glove materials. Both nitrile and vinyl gloves showed significantly lower cytotoxicity than latex gloves in the promising Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) method. These findings support the recommendation for mandatory inclusion of the agar diffusion and elution test methods as regulatory quality control assays for evaluating glove cytotoxicity.</p>","PeriodicalId":23177,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative analysis of <i>in vitro</i> cytotoxicity across various glove types using four different methods.\",\"authors\":\"Renata Calil Lemos, Ludmila Rosa Bergsten Torralba, Mirian Noemi Pinto Vidal, Ronald Santos Silva, Taline Ramos Conde, Helena Pereira da Silva Zamith\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15376516.2025.2537317\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to increased use of protective materials among healthcare workers and the general population, resulting in a rise in health issues such as allergies. Glove types, such as latex, nitrile, and vinyl, are notable sources of cutaneous reactions; however, most of their cytotoxic effects are considered negligible. Given the significant exposure of healthcare professionals to gloves and the absence of mandatory toxicological testing to ensure the quality of these medical products under Brazilian legislation, this study aimed to evaluate the <i>in vitro</i> cytotoxicity of three glove-types: natural rubber latex (NRL) surgical, nitrile, and vinyl medical examination gloves, using mouse fibroblast L-929 cell cultures. Four methods were employed based on guidelines from the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), Brazilian Pharmacopeia (BP), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Organization Standardization (ISO). All latex gloves tested would be considered unsafe for use, exhibiting at least moderate cytotoxicity in the agar diffusion, direct contact and elution test methods. In contrast, 75% of nitrile gloves and 67% of vinyl gloves were considered safe, showing mild cytotoxicity in the agar diffusion method, which proved to be the most effective for differentiating cytotoxicity among glove materials. Both nitrile and vinyl gloves showed significantly lower cytotoxicity than latex gloves in the promising Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) method. These findings support the recommendation for mandatory inclusion of the agar diffusion and elution test methods as regulatory quality control assays for evaluating glove cytotoxicity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15376516.2025.2537317\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15376516.2025.2537317","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行导致医护人员和普通人群更多地使用防护材料,导致过敏等健康问题增加。手套类型,如乳胶、丁腈和乙烯基,是皮肤反应的主要来源;然而,它们的大多数细胞毒性作用被认为可以忽略不计。鉴于医疗保健专业人员大量接触手套,且巴西法律没有强制性毒理学测试以确保这些医疗产品的质量,本研究旨在利用小鼠成纤维细胞L-929细胞培养物,评估三种手套类型的体外细胞毒性:天然胶乳(NRL)外科手套、丁腈手套和乙烯基医疗检查手套。根据美国药典(USP)、巴西药典(BP)、经济合作与发展组织(OECD)和国际组织标准化(ISO)的指南,采用了4种方法。所有测试的乳胶手套都被认为是不安全的,在琼脂扩散、直接接触和洗脱测试方法中表现出至少中等的细胞毒性。相比之下,75%的丁腈手套和67%的乙烯基手套被认为是安全的,在琼脂扩散法中显示出轻微的细胞毒性,这被证明是区分手套材料细胞毒性最有效的方法。在有前途的中性红色摄取(NRU)方法中,丁腈手套和乙烯基手套的细胞毒性都明显低于乳胶手套。这些发现支持了将琼脂扩散和洗脱测试方法强制纳入手套细胞毒性评估的规范性质量控制分析的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative analysis of in vitro cytotoxicity across various glove types using four different methods.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to increased use of protective materials among healthcare workers and the general population, resulting in a rise in health issues such as allergies. Glove types, such as latex, nitrile, and vinyl, are notable sources of cutaneous reactions; however, most of their cytotoxic effects are considered negligible. Given the significant exposure of healthcare professionals to gloves and the absence of mandatory toxicological testing to ensure the quality of these medical products under Brazilian legislation, this study aimed to evaluate the in vitro cytotoxicity of three glove-types: natural rubber latex (NRL) surgical, nitrile, and vinyl medical examination gloves, using mouse fibroblast L-929 cell cultures. Four methods were employed based on guidelines from the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), Brazilian Pharmacopeia (BP), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Organization Standardization (ISO). All latex gloves tested would be considered unsafe for use, exhibiting at least moderate cytotoxicity in the agar diffusion, direct contact and elution test methods. In contrast, 75% of nitrile gloves and 67% of vinyl gloves were considered safe, showing mild cytotoxicity in the agar diffusion method, which proved to be the most effective for differentiating cytotoxicity among glove materials. Both nitrile and vinyl gloves showed significantly lower cytotoxicity than latex gloves in the promising Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) method. These findings support the recommendation for mandatory inclusion of the agar diffusion and elution test methods as regulatory quality control assays for evaluating glove cytotoxicity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
3.10%
发文量
66
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods is a peer-reviewed journal whose aim is twofold. Firstly, the journal contains original research on subjects dealing with the mechanisms by which foreign chemicals cause toxic tissue injury. Chemical substances of interest include industrial compounds, environmental pollutants, hazardous wastes, drugs, pesticides, and chemical warfare agents. The scope of the journal spans from molecular and cellular mechanisms of action to the consideration of mechanistic evidence in establishing regulatory policy. Secondly, the journal addresses aspects of the development, validation, and application of new and existing laboratory methods, techniques, and equipment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信