Next Article in Journal
Identifying Populations at Risk for Lung Cancer Mortality from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2001–2018) Using the 2021 USPSTF Screening Guidelines
Previous Article in Journal
Dimensions of Parenting and Children’s Conduct Problems: The Importance of Considering Children’s Callous–Unemotional Traits
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 21
Issue 6
10.3390/ijerph21060780
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

An Assessment of the Ocular Toxicity of Two Major Sources of Environmental Exposure

by
Steven H. Rauchman
1,
Lora J. Kasselman
2,
Ankita Srivastava
3,
Joshua De Leon
3 and
Allison B. Reiss
3,*
1
The Fresno Institute of Neuroscience, Fresno, CA 93730, USA
2
Research Institute, Hackensack Meridian Health, Edison, NJ 08502, USA
3
Department of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY 11501, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21(6), 780; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21060780
Submission received: 3 June 2024 / Accepted: 11 June 2024 / Published: 15 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Health)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The effect of airborne exposure on the eye surface is an area in need of exploration, particularly in light of the increasing number of incidents occurring in both civilian and military settings. In this study, in silico methods based on a platform comprising a portfolio of software applications and a technology ecosystem are used to test potential surface ocular toxicity in data presented from Iraqi burn pits and the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment. The purpose of this analysis is to gain a better understanding of the long-term impact of such an exposure to the ocular surface and the manifestation of surface irritation, including dry eye disease. In silico methods were used to determine ocular irritation to chemical compounds. A list of such chemicals was introduced from a number of publicly available sources for burn pits and train derailment. The results demonstrated high ocular irritation scores for some chemicals present in these exposure events. Such an analysis is designed to provide guidance related to the needed ophthalmologic care and follow-up in individuals who have been in proximity to burn pits or the train derailment and those who will experience future toxic exposure.

1. Introduction

Airborne environmental toxins pose many health risks, and studies of these consequences often focus on the lungs and internal organs and, particularly, on their carcinogenic and mutagenic potential [1,2,3]. However, there is very little literature on the effect of defined, intense exposure to airborne hazards on the eye [4]. The anterior surface of the eye, comprising the cornea and conjunctival tissues, receives direct exposure to the air and airborne chemicals and is vulnerable to injury by these chemicals.
This paper will focus on two major environmental events in recent history that have had an impact on the ocular health of those in the vicinity. These events are (1) the Ohio train derailment and toxic spill and (2) the burn pits used by the military for waste disposal abroad. The scope and impact of these incidents on the eye is the subject of this work.
In this study, a screening of the chemicals released into the air from burn pits and from the East Palestine train derailment was conducted using in silico tests in a first attempt to predict the effects on the ocular surface.
There is a significant need to allow computer models to test for chemical ocular toxicity. Such in silico methods provide a low-cost alternative to biological testing that overcomes this price barrier and paves the way for the prediction of the ocular toxicity of chemicals that have not yet been evaluated [5]. Quantitative structure activity (QSAR) can reflect the potential biological activity based on a chemical’s structure [6]. Numerous chemicals are patented each year, and many chemicals are commercially available, but their impact on human organs, including the eyes, is speculative [7]. Traditional Draize tests use exposure of rabbit eyes to a known chemical [8]. This test is expensive, and this method raises serious ethical concerns [9]. In vitro tests are less expensive but still not practical in many instances [10]. Chemicals in the work environment are an established cause of eye irritation and dry eyes. Exposure to organic chemicals in workers in the dry-cleaning industry is known to be associated with symptomatic dry eyes [11]. Dry eye disease with the loss of tear film homeostasis is a painful condition that can cause corneal epithelial damage and visual impairment [12]. It negatively impacts one’s quality of life and imposes a significant economic and social burden globally [13]. Volatile compounds in the atmosphere can directly reach the ocular surface and promote inflammation and cytotoxicity, leading to dry eye disease, pain, and burning [14].
In this paper, new data will be presented on Iraq burn pits and the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, USA. This will underscore the underrecognized link between acute and subacute environmental events and long-term damage to the surface of the eye so that actions can be taken to mitigate the risk and consequences for those currently experiencing ocular problems, considering future occurrences.

2. Materials and Methods

Advanced Chemistry Development (ACD) Labs (Toronto, ON, Canada) applied in silico methods to detect the ocular irritation response to air contaminants (https://www.acdlabs.com/products/percepta-platform/tox-suite/, accessed on 16 June 2023). ACD labs employed the chemical structures of 49 chemicals detected at burn pits (full list available upon request) to provide the structure-based calculation of the toxicity endpoints. There was no attempt to analyze the particulate matter or dust as this would not conform to a strict chemical analysis. The general properties were calculated based on experimental data using the ADME Suite and the Tox Suite on the ACD/LAB Percepta platform, Release 2022.2.1 (Build 3577, 7 June 2022) (https://www.acdlabs.com/products/percepta-platform/adme-suite/, accessed on 16 June 2023) [15]. The algorithm for predicting eye irritation in the Tox Suite is based on standard rabbit Draize test data transformed into a binary variable (irritating/not irritating), where the chemicals are considered irritants if they produce at least moderate irritation levels according to the original Draize classification scheme [8,16]. The predictive model was built using structural fragments and physicochemical descriptors, and its output was a probability that the test chemical would cause moderate or severe eye irritation [17]. The experimental data used for the development of the predictive models were sourced from the European chemical substances information system (European Chemical Inventory) and the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) databases [18,19]. The final datasets comprised over 2100 molecules for both eye and skin irritation, including qualitative irritation categories determined from tests conducted on adult albino rabbits. Predictive models of the irritation potential were constructed using the binomial Partial Least Squares (PLS) method. These models integrated key physicochemical properties of the chemicals, such as ionization and molecular size, alongside fragmental descriptors, including predefined substructures known to significantly influence the property under analysis. The resulting models demonstrated a high accuracy, with prediction accuracies of 78% for rabbit eye irritation and 73% for rabbit skin irritation. A more thorough analysis of the physiochemical properties determining toxicity is described by Szymański et al. and Nicholas et al. [20,21].

3. Results

A total of 48 chemicals were analyzed (Table 1) and 3 chemicals—acrolein, chlorodifluoromethane, and methylene chloride—were red-flagged as severe irritants (>0.75 ocular irritation where 1.0 is the maximum). The ACD has since verified that these chemicals were appropriately red-flagged based on their analysis. This does not indicate that the other molecules are non-irritating. However, a high degree of certainty is assigned to red-flagged chemicals.
Figure 1 depicts the chemicals found in Iraqi burn pits predicted to be eye irritants. This provides a quantitative baseline to establish a standard when examining future toxic spills. The ocular toxicity bar was intentionally set high to validate the concept introduced in this study. The burn pit chemicals were chlorodifluormethane (also known as difluoromonochloromethane) with an ocular irritation of 0.77, methylene chloride (also known as dichloromethane) with an ocular irritation of 0.76, and acrolein, with an ocular irritation of 0.8. The specific ocular toxicities are independently referenced [22,23,24,25].
The ACD lab results from the Ohio train derailment in East Palestine were similarly analyzed. Two out of the seven compounds were referenced in the literature [26]. Vinyl chloride was rated 0.76, and separate sources affirm this specific toxicity of vinyl chloride [27,28]. About 1 million pounds of vinyl chloride gas were emitted into the environment following the derailment [29]. Butylacrylate was described to have a very high ocular toxicity, with a rating of 0.86. Figure 2 depicts the chemicals found in the Ohio train derailment predicted to be eye irritants.
Overall, in Ohio, two out of the seven chemicals were identified as probable eye irritants, and, in the Iraqi burn pits, three out of the forty-eight chemicals were identified as probable eye irritants.

4. Discussion

The most common manifestation of ocular surface toxic exposure is dry eye disease [30,31]. The public workshop series hosted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in November 2023 named the health research priorities for the East Palestine hazardous materials’ release and named eye irritation as a commonly reported symptom [32]. Sanchez et al. found that veterans exposed to burning oil fields also exhibited more signs of dry eye disease, and smoke from other types of burn and fire situations is also a culprit [33,34] The ophthalmology community has long recognized the importance of dry eye disease as a result of eye irritation, and it is a frequent topic among clinicians and in the ophthalmology literature [35,36,37]. There are multiple FDA-approved prescription drugs and over-the-counter artificial tear formulations designed to treat dry eyes [38,39]. However, the clinical relationship between dry eye disease and specific chemical exposure is not frequently addressed. Interest in exposure-related damage to organs such the lungs, heart, and liver can be severe and easily discernible, while more insidious problems such as ocular surface irritation tend to be of a lower priority. This article is an attempt to focus our attention on this often-overlooked consequence of environmental exposure.
The context for this discussion is the harm imposed by burn pits and the East Palestine train derailment, so these incidents merit a brief overview.
Burn pits have been used to dispose of waste predominantly in Iraq [40,41]. Hundreds of thousands of American troops have been exposed to huge amounts of toxic waste incinerated in large open pits with few, if any, environmental safeguards [42]. The VA health system has documented the extent of this exposure [43,44]. The actual list of the chemicals has been documented [24,45]. Ocular surface symptoms have been demonstrated in veterans returning from Iraq [14]. A summary of government data with specific chemicals has been compiled by Makesha Sink OD. These refer to a list of actual chemicals discussed by DOD. Specific ocular irritants are listed [45,46]. This list formed the basis of the data sent to the ACD labs for analysis. While not an exhaustive list, it conforms to what various government agencies have been reviewing.
The East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment took place on the evening of February 3, 2023. It led to a toxic spill and an environmental event [32,47,48]. The industrial chemicals and fire led to a constellation of eye symptoms in both the community and the first responders [49]. These included burning, tearing, and eye pain. An EPA letter listing the specific chemicals to be examined is noted by Jill Newmark in STAT [50]. This list forms the basis of the ACD submission, and, since then, the EPA has compiled its air-sampling data on its website [27,51].
The technology to assess ocular surface toxicity is well developed [52,53]. Many previous papers have discussed at length the three main currently available approaches for measuring toxic changes to the surface of the eye [54]. These are (1) the Draize test, (2) in vitro testing, and (3) in silico models [55]. The Draize test requires animal models and is not practical for assessing multiple molecules released in toxic events [8,56]. The in vivo methods are expensive and time consuming [57]. The in silico models are well adapted for a rapid analysis of identified chemicals [58,59]. Of these three, we applied an in silico model for this study as it is practical and widely applied in studies of chemical exposure toxicity [60,61].
Dry eye disease results from inadequate tear production or a low tear quality and causes visual disturbance, eye irritation, and discomfort [62,63]. The diagnosis is made by multiple assessments, with an evaluation of ocular subjective symptoms, tear volume, tear break-up time, tear osmolality, slit lamp examination, and surface staining [64]. Instability of the tear film leads to an inflammatory reaction with oxidative stress and an increase in the concentration of inflammatory cytokines in the tears [65,66]. Inflammation would likely be a key mediator in chemical toxic exposure [55,67].
Ocular surface injury brings about a huge economic burden and a loss of quality of life [68,69]. In 2011, the average cost of managing patients with dry eye was estimated at USD11,302 per patient, with an overall cost of USD55.4 billion to the United States [70]. The expenditure for dry eye medications per patient has been estimated at USD1873 per year in the United States [71]. A retrospective study from China found the burden of dry eye disease on the health care system to be somewhere in the range of USD104.2–USD166.6 billion per year [72]. It contributes to absenteeism, unemployment, and lower productivity [73,74]. Mental health is also negatively influenced by both airborne exposure and dry eye disease [75,76]. Billions of USD in direct and indirect economic costs have been documented [77,78].
Despite its enduring health consequences, dry eye disease is generally not factored into the long-term analysis of important chemical toxic exposure, and the clinical relationship between dry eye disease and specific chemical exposure is rarely addressed. In fact, a recent review of burn pit-associated symptoms in veterans did not consider the eyes [79]. A clinical ophthalmologist frequently encounters and manages dry eye disease when a patient presents in the office setting. The evaluation, categorization, and treatment options for dry eye disease are well characterized in the literature, but the condition can have a highly variable constellation of symptoms and is, therefore, often undiagnosed, and treatment opportunities are missed [80,81]. The first option usually involves the regular instillation of over-the-counter lubricants in the form of artificial tears [82]. The control of the inflammation with topical corticosteroids, cyclosporine A, or oral derivatives of tetracycline may offer relief. It is important that acute chemical events should be included among the differential causes of dry eye disease. If the onset of the symptoms coincides with such an acute event or environmental exposure, then this issue is relevant not only to the patient, but to those managing cleanup, countermeasures, and data collection for the mitigation of health consequences [83].
Major environmental disasters have occurred and will likely continue to occur with a reasonable frequency. As an example, the World Trade Center disaster on 11 September 2001 led to many health consequences as a result of toxic debris, including eye irritation, but this was understandably overshadowed by a myriad of other health problems [84,85]. The most pressing concern is to remove individuals from immediate harm [86]. There is an emergency response system in place to address such concerns [87]. Secondary response is important but may be muted as other issues distract attention [88,89]. Proactive recognition may avert a repeat of similar disasters, and the recognition of the risk to the ocular surface can prompt not only timely treatment, but adequate surveillance and the development of improved protocols to minimize eye damage [90,91]. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, open burning as a means of waste disposal is common, and exposure is ongoing and unavoidable without awareness and substantial change [92,93].
This study presents some limitations. There can be great variability in the chemicals released from different types of burn sites, so the chemicals detected here may not be representative of burn sites in general. This was an in silico test, so even though some of the chemicals have been shown by independent means to negatively impact human health, substantiating the evidence through future data collection would support our contention that these chemicals are toxic to the eyes in real-life scenarios [94].

5. Conclusions

This study presents new ocular toxicology data for two major events: Iraqi burn pits and the Ohio train derailment. Our data demonstrate the application of easily accessible and proven scientific measurements to determine the trajectory and significance of toxic exposure that will undoubtedly occur in the future. This work can provide a path for the institution of safety measures and monitoring protocols where individuals exposed to surface ocular toxins can be carefully followed for the development of chronic ocular surface disease or dry eye disease. Appropriate sampling and analysis are the necessary first steps in defining the toxins released. Proactive mitigation and education programs by community-based, academic, and governmental organizations can improve the outcomes.
The eyes are directly exposed to any toxic chemicals released into the air. The immediate consequences are usually obvious, with significant burning and tearing. The long-term impact of exposure is an important knowledge gap, but it is known that dry eye disease brings enormous personal and economic consequences. Our in silico analysis provides quantitative data, and it is our hope that it will be applied as a tool to study the next toxic spill.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.H.R. and A.B.R.; methodology, S.H.R. and L.J.K.; formal analysis, L.J.K. and A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.H.R. and A.B.R.; writing—review and editing, A.B.R., J.D.L. and A.S.; project administration, A.B.R. and J.D.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analyzed as part of the current study can be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank Edmonds Bafford and Robert Buescher.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Teixeira, J.; Bessa, M.J.; Delerue-Matos, C.; Sarmento, B.; Santos-Silva, A.; Rodrigues, F.; Oliveira, M. Firefighters’ personal exposure to gaseous PAHs during controlled forest fires: A case study with estimation of respiratory health risks and in vitro toxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 908, 168364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wang, X.; Doherty, T.A.; James, C. Military burn pit exposure and airway disease: Implications for our Veteran population. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2023, 131, 720–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Davis, C.W.; Rabin, A.S.; Jani, N.; Osterholzer, J.J.; Krefft, S.; Hines, S.E.; Arjomandi, M.; Robertson, M.W.; Sotolongo, A.M.; Falvo, M.J. Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network. Postdeployment Respiratory Health: The Roles of the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry and the Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network. Fed. Pract. 2022, 39, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Alves, M.; Asbell, P.; Dogru, M.; Giannaccare, G.; Grau, A.; Gregory, D.; Kim, D.H.; Marini, M.C.; Ngo, W.; Nowinska, A.; et al. TFOS Lifestyle Report: Impact of environmental conditions on the ocular surface. Ocul. Surf. 2023, 29, 1–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Xu, M.; Yang, H.; Liu, G.; Tang, Y.; Li, W. In silico prediction of chemical aquatic toxicity by multiple machine learning and deep learning approaches. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2022, 42, 1766–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Manyepa, P.; Gani, K.M.; Seyam, M.; Banoo, I.; Genthe, B.; Kumari, S.; Bux, F. Removal and risk assessment of emerging contaminants and heavy metals in a wastewater reuse process producing drinkable water for human consumption. Chemosphere 2024, 361, 142396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Biggi, G.; Giuliani, E.; Martinelli, A.; Benfenati, E. Patent Toxicity. Res. Policy 2022, 51, 104329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Draize, J.H.; Woodard, G.; Calvery, H.O. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1944, 82, 377–390. [Google Scholar]
  9. Valadares, M.C.; de Oliveira, G.A.R.; de Ávila, R.I.; da Silva, A.C.G. Strategy Combining Nonanimal Methods for Ocular Toxicity Evaluation. Methods Mol. Biol. 2021, 2240, 175–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kaluzhny, Y.; Klausner, M. In vitro reconstructed 3D corneal tissue models for ocular toxicology and ophthalmic drug development. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 2021, 57, 207–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jiménez Barbosa, I.A.; Rodríguez Alvarez, M.F.; Dussán Torres, G.A.; Khuu, S.K. Ocular surface and tear film changes in workers exposed to organic solvents used in the dry-cleaning industry. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0226042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Clayton, J.A. Dry Eye. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 2212–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Tsubota, K.; Yokoi, N.; Shimazaki, J.; Watanabe, H.; Dogru, M.; Yamada, M.; Kinoshita, S.; Kim, H.M.; Tchah, H.W.; Hyon, J.Y.; et al. New Perspectives on Dry Eye Definition and Diagnosis: A Consensus Report by the Asia Dry Eye Society. Ocul. Surf. 2017, 15, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Vitoux, M.A.; Kessal, K.; Baudouin, C.; Laprévote, O.; Melik Parsadaniantz, S.; Achard, S.; Brignole-Baudouin, F. Formaldehyde Gas Exposure Increases Inflammation in an In Vitro Model of Dry Eye. Toxicol. Sci. 2018, 165, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Rosell-Hidalgo, A.; Moore, A.L.; Ghafourian, T. Prediction of drug-induced mitochondrial dysfunction using succinate-cytochrome c reductase activity, QSAR and molecular docking. Toxicology 2023, 485, 153412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Luechtefeld, T.; Maertens, A.; Russo, D.P.; Rovida, C.; Zhu, H.; Hartung, T. Analysis of Draize eye irritation testing and its prediction by mining publicly available 2008-2014 REACH data. ALTEX 2016, 33, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Japertas, P.; Didziapetris, R.; Sazonovas, A. A rule based approach for prediction of the rabbit eye and skin irritation. Toxicol. Lett. 2007, 172, S80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. European Chemicals Inventory. Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/ec-inventory (accessed on 1 June 2023).
  19. The Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS). Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-119/default.html (accessed on 1 June 2023).
  20. Szymański, P.; Skibiński, R.; Inglot, T.; Bajda, M.; Jończyk, J.; Malawska, B.; Mikiciuk-Olasik, E. New tacrine analogs as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors—Theoretical study with chemometric analysis. Molecules 2013, 8, 2878–2894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Nicolas, C.I.; Mansouri, K.; Phillips, K.A.; Grulke, C.M.; Richard, A.M.; Williams, A.J.; Rabinowitz, J.; Isaacs, K.K.; Yau, A.; Wambaugh, J.F. Rapid experimental measurements of physicochemical properties to inform models and testing. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 901–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Summary for CID 6372, Chlorodifluoromethane. Available online: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chlorodifluoromethane (accessed on 11 April 2024).
  23. Gupta, S.; Martin, L.M.; Zhang, E.; Sinha, P.R.; Landreneau, J.; Sinha, N.R.; Hesemann, N.P.; Mohan, R.R. Toxicological effects of ocular acrolein exposure to eyelids in rabbits in vivo. Exp. Eye Res. 2023, 234, 109575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ilhan, A.; Yolcu, U.; Uzun, S. Acute and long-term ocular effects of acrolein vapor on the eyes and potential therapies. Cutan. Ocul. Toxicol. 2016, 35, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ballantyne, B.; Gazzard, M.F.; Swanston, D.W. The ophthalmic toxicology of dichlorøomethane. Toxicology 1976, 6, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Modi, Y.S.; Qurban, Q.; Zlotcavitch, L.; Echeverri, R.J.; Feuer, W.; Florez, H.; Galor, A. Ocular surface symptoms in veterans returning from operation Iraqi freedom and operation enduring freedom. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014, 55, 650–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sun, W. The Devastating Health Consequences of the Ohio Derailment: A Closer Look at the Effects of Vinyl Chloride Spill. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Vinyl Chloride: Toxicological Overview. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7dcf25ed915d2ac884daf8/hpa_vinyl_chloride_toxicological_overview_v1.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2024).
  29. Bashir, H.; Mahalwar, G.; Henry, T. The East Palestine Disaster: The Potential Toxic Effects of Vinyl Chloride Exposure on Cardiovascular Health. Cureus 2023, 15, e46835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bonneau, N.; Potey, A.; Vitoux, M.A.; Magny, R.; Guerin, C.; Baudouin, C.; Peyrin, J.M.; Brignole-Baudouin, F.; Réaux-Le Goazigo, A. Corneal neuroepithelial compartmentalized microfluidic chip model for evaluation of toxicity-induced dry eye. Ocul. Surf. 2023, 30, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jung, S.J.; Mehta, J.S.; Tong, L. Effects of environment pollution on the ocular surface. Ocul. Surf. 2018, 16, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Health Sciences Policy. Public Health Research and Surveillance Priorities from the East Palestine Train Derailment: Proceedings of a Workshop—In Brief; Wollek, S., Masiello, M., Snair, J., Eds.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sanchez, V.; Baksh, B.S.; Cabrera, K.; Choudhury, A.; Jensen, K.; Klimas, N.; Galor, A. Dry Eye Symptoms and Signs in US Veterans with Gulf War Illness. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2022, 237, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Berra, M.; Galperín, G.; Dawidowski, L.; Tau, J.; Márquez, I.; Berra, A. Impact of wildfire smoke in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on ocular surface. Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. 2015, 78, 110–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Patel, S.; Mittal, R.; Kumar, N.; Galor, A. The environment and dry eye-manifestations, mechanisms, and more. Front. Toxicol. 2023, 5, 1173683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Latham, S.G.; Williams, R.L.; Grover, L.M.; Rauz, S. Achieving net-zero in the dry eye disease care pathway. Eye 2024, 38, 829–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Heilenbach, N.; Hu, G.; Lamrani, R.; Prasad, J.; Ogunsola, T.; Iskander, M.; Elgin, C.Y.; McGowan, R.; Vieira, D.; Al-Aswad, L.A. Environmental influences on ophthalmic conditions: A scoping review. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2023, 51, 516–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. McCann, P.; Kruoch, Z.; Lopez, S.; Malli, S.; Qureshi, R.; Li, T. Interventions for Dry Eye: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2024, 142, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Ucakhan, O.O.; Celik-Buyuktepe, T.; Yang, L.; Wogu, B.; Asbell, P.A. Update on Dry Eye Disease Treatment: Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials. Eye Contact Lens 2023, 49, 542–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hirzel, K.L.; Balmer, J. Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Exposures. Workplace Health Saf. 2023, 71, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Van De Graaff, J.; Poole, J.A. A Clinician’s Guide to Occupational Exposures in the Military. Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 2022, 22, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bith-Melander, P.; Ratliff, J.; Poisson, C.; Jindal, C.; Ming Choi, Y.; Efird, J.T. Slow Burns: A Qualitative Study of Burn Pit and Toxic Exposures Among Military Veterans Serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and Throughout the Middle East. Ann. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2021, 4, 1042. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Woskie, S.R.; Bello, A.; Rennix, C.; Jiang, L.; Trivedi, A.N.; Savitz, D.A. Burn Pit Exposure Assessment to Support a Cohort Study of US Veterans of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2023, 65, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee to Reassess the Department of Veterans Affairs Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry. Reassessment of the Department of Veterans Affairs Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  45. Toxic Exposure Table (In Reference to VA 10-03). Available online: https://cswab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Health-Effects-Service-Member-Environmental-Exposures10-03-Burn-Pits-360-April-2020.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2024).
  46. Woodall, B.D.; Yamamoto, D.P.; Gullett, B.K.; Touati, A. Emissions from small-scale burns of simulated deployed U.S. military waste. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 10997–11003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Oladeji, O.; Saitas, M.; Mustapha, T.; Johnson, N.M.; Chiu, W.A.; Rusyn, I.; Robinson, A.L.; Presto, A.A. Air Pollutant Patterns and Human Health Risk following the East Palestine, Ohio, Train Derailment. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2023, 10, 680–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nogueira, L.M.; Sherman, J.D.; Shultz, J.M. Derailing Carcinogens-Oncologists and the Ohio Train Derailment. JAMA Oncol. 2024, 10, 25–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Motria, C. CDC/ATSDR Assessment of Chemical Exposures (ACE)/Epi Aid Investigation East Palestine Train Derailment. 6 November 2023. Available online: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/147412 (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  50. Neimark, J. Experts weigh in on potential health hazards posed by chemicals in Ohio train derailment. STAT, 21 February 2023. Available online: https://www.statnews.com/2023/02/21/east-palestine-train-chemicals/(accessed on 17 March 2024).
  51. East Palestine, Ohio Train Derailment Air Monitoring and Sampling Data. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/east-palestine-oh-train-derailment/air-sampling-data (accessed on 17 March 2024).
  52. Dutescu, R.M.; Uthoff, D.; Panfil, C.; Schrage, N. High-frequency application of cationic agents containing lubricant eye drops causes cumulative corneal toxicity in an ex vivo eye irritation test model. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 2020, 36, 725–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wilson, S.L.; Ahearne, M.; Hopkinson, A. An overview of current techniques for ocular toxicity testing. Toxicology 2015, 327, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Rauchman, S.H.; Locke, B.; Albert, J.; De Leon, J.; Peltier, M.R.; Reiss, A.B. Toxic External Exposure Leading to Ocular Surface Injury. Vision 2023, 7, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Lieto, K.; Skopek, R.; Lewicka, A.; Stelmasiak, M.; Klimaszewska, E.; Zelent, A.; Szymański, Ł.; Lewicki, S. Looking into the Eyes-In Vitro Models for Ocular Research. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 9158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Adriaens, E.; Barroso, J.; Eskes, C.; Hoffmann, S.; McNamee, P.; Alépée, N.; Bessou-Touya, S.; De Smedt, A.; De Wever, B.; Pfannenbecker, U.; et al. Retrospective analysis of the Draize test for serious eye damage/eye irritation: Importance of understanding the in vivo endpoints under UN GHS/EU CLP for the development and evaluation of in vitro test methods. Arch. Toxicol. 2014, 88, 701–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Lee, M.; Hwang, J.H.; Lim, K.M. Alternatives to In Vivo Draize Rabbit Eye and Skin Irritation Tests with a Focus on 3D Reconstructed Human Cornea—Like Epithelium and Epidermis Models. Toxicol. Res. 2017, 33, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sedykh, A.; Choksi, N.Y.; Allen, D.G.; Casey, W.M.; Shah, R.; Kleinstreuer, N.C. Mixtures-Inclusive In Silico Models of Ocular Toxicity Based on United States and International Hazard Categories. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2022, 35, 992–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Bonneau, N.; Baudouin, C.; Réaux-Le Goazigo, A.; Brignole-Baudouin, F. An overview of current alternative models in the context of ocular surface toxicity. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2022, 42, 718–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rim, K.T. In silico prediction of toxicity and its applications for chemicals at work. Toxicol. Environ. Health Sci. 2020, 12, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dracheva, E.; Norinder, U.; Rydén, P.; Engelhardt, J.; Weiss, J.M.; Andersson, P.L. In Silico Identification of Potential Thyroid Hormone System Disruptors among Chemicals in Human Serum and Chemicals with a High Exposure Index. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 8363–8372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Messmer, E.M. The pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of dry eye disease. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2015, 112, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Craig, J.P.; Nichols, K.K.; Akpek, E.K.; Caffery, B.; Dua, H.S.; Joo, C.K.; Liu, Z.; Nelson, J.D.; Nichols, J.J.; Tsubota, K.; et al. TFOS DEWS II definition and classification report. Ocul. Surf. 2017, 15, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Elhusseiny, A.M.; Khalil, A.A.; El Sheikh, R.H.; Bakr, M.A.; Eissa, M.G.; El Sayed, Y.M. New approaches for diagnosis of dry eye disease. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 12, 1618–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Roy, N.S.; Wei, Y.; Ying, G.S.; Maguire, M.G.; Asbell, P.A.; Dry Eye Assessment and Management (DREAM) Study Group. Association of tear cytokine concentrations with symptoms and signs of dry eye disease: Baseline data from the Dry Eye Assessment and Management (DREAM) Study. Curr. Eye Res. 2023, 48, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Stevenson, W.; Chauhan, S.K.; Dana, R. Dry Eye Disease, an immune mediated ocular surface disorder. Arch. Ophthalol. 2012, 130, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Araj, H.; Tumminia, S.J.; Yeung, D.T. Ocular Surface—Merging Challenges and Opportunities. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 2020, 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Ahmmed, A.A.; Ting, D.S.J.; Figueiredo, F.C. Epidemiology, economic and humanistic burdens of Ocular Surface Chemical Injury: A narrative review. Ocul. Surf. 2021, 20, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Morthen, M.K.; Magno, M.S.; Utheim, T.P.; Snieder, H.; Hammond, C.J.; Vehof, J. The physical and mental burden of dry eye disease: A large population-based study investigating the relationship with health-related quality of life and its determinants. Ocul. Surf. 2021, 21, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yu, J.; Asche, C.V.; Fairchild, C.J. The economic burden of dry eye disease in the United States: A decision tree analysis. Cornea 2011, 30, 379–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chen, E.M.; Kombo, N.; Teng, C.C.; Mruthyunjaya, P.; Nwanyanwu, K.; Parikh, R. Ophthalmic Medication Expenditures and Out-of-Pocket Spending: An Analysis of United States Prescriptions from 2007 through 2016. Ophthalmology 2020, 127, 1292–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Yang, W.; Luo, Y.; Wu, S.; Niu, X.; Yan, Y.; Qiao, C.; Ming, W.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, H.; Chen, D.; et al. Estimated Annual Economic Burden of Dry Eye Disease Based on a Multi-Center Analysis in China: A Retrospective Study. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 771352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Morthen, M.K.; Magno, M.S.; Utheim, T.P.; Hammond, C.J.; Vehof, J. The work-related burden of dry eye. Ocul. Surf. 2023, 28, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Dana, R.; Meunier, J.; Markowitz, J.T.; Joseph, C.; Siffel, C. Patient-Reported Burden of Dry Eye Disease in the United States: Results of an Online Cross-Sectional Survey. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 216, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Hoisington, A.J.; Stearns-Yoder, K.A.; Kovacs, E.J.; Postolache, T.T.; Brenner, L.A. Airborne Exposure to Pollutants and Mental Health: A Review with Implications for United States Veterans. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2024, 11, 168–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Wan, K.H.; Chen, L.J.; Young, A.L. Depression and anxiety in dry eye disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eye. 2016, 30, 1558–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Chan, C.; Ziai, S.; Myageri, V.; Burns, J.G.; Prokopich, C.L. Economic burden and loss of quality of life from dry eye disease in Canada. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2021, 6, e000709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Luo, Y.; Yang, W.; Qi, M.; Wang, Y.; Li, S.; Wang, M.; Zeng, Q. Annual direct economic burden and influencing factors of dry eye disease in Central China. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2021, 30, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Conti, M.A.; Bardes, J.M.; Oury, J.; Goodboy, A.K.; Shin, M.; Wilson, A. Prevalence of Burn Pit Associated Symptoms Among US Veterans Who Utilize Non-VA Private Healthcare. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2024, 66, 439–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hua, R.; Yao, K.; Hu, Y.; Chen, L. Discrepancy between subjectively reported symptoms and objectively measured clinical findings in dry eye: A population based analysis. BMJ Open 2014, 28, e005296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Inomata, T.; Iwagami, M.; Nakamura, M.; Shiang, T.; Yoshimura, Y.; Fujimoto, K.; Okumura, Y.; Eguchi, A.; Iwata, N.; Miura, M.; et al. Characteristics and Risk Factors Associated with Diagnosed and Undiagnosed Symptomatic Dry Eye Using a Smartphone Application. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020, 138, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Aragona, P.; Giannaccare, G.; Mencucci, R.; Rubino, P.; Cantera, E.; Rolando, M. Modern approach to the treatment of dry eye, a complex multifactorial disease: A P.I.C.A.S.S.O. board review. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2021, 105, 446–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Rispens, J.R.; Jones, S.A.; Clemmons, N.S.; Ahmed, S.; Harduar-Morano, L.; Johnson, M.D.; Edge, C., 3rd; Vyas, A.; Bourgikos, E.; Orr, M.F. Anhydrous Ammonia Chemical Release—Lake County, Illinois, April 2019. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 109–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Gargano, L.M.; Mantilla, K.; Fairclough, M.; Yu, S.; Brackbill, R.M. Review of Non-Respiratory, Non-Cancer Physical Health Conditions from Exposure to the World Trade Center Disaster. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Moline, J.; Herbert, R.; Nguyen, N. Health consequences of the September 11 World Trade Center attacks: A review. Cancer Investig. 2006, 24, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Carter, H.E.; Gauntlett, L.; Amlôt, R. Public Perceptions of the “Remove, Remove, Remove” Information Campaign Before and During a Hazardous Materials Incident: A Survey. Health Secur. 2021, 19, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Lucchini, R.G.; Hashim, D.; Acquilla, S.; Basanets, A.; Bertazzi, P.A.; Bushmanov, A.; Crane, M.; Harrison, D.J.; Holden, W.; Landrigan, P.J.; et al. A comparative assessment of major international disasters: The need for exposure assessment, systematic emergency preparedness, and lifetime health care. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Jaffe, S. Hazardous train spills prompt calls for tougher safety rules. Lancet 2023, 401, 1143–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bartels, M. Chemical Health Risks from the Ohio Train Accident—What We Know So Far. Scientific American, 16 August 2023. Available online: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chemical-health-risks-from-the-ohio-train-accident-what-we-know-so-far/(accessed on 17 March 2024).
  90. Mohamed, H.B.; Abd El-Hamid, B.N.; Fathalla, D.; Fouad, E.A. Current trends in pharmaceutical treatment of dry eye disease: A review. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2022, 175, 106206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kim, S.; Jang, Y.W.; Ku, Y.A.; Shin, Y.; Rahman, M.M.; Chung, M.H.; Kim, Y.H.; Kim, D.H. Investigating the Anti-Inflammatory Effects of RCI001 for Treating Ocular Surface Diseases: Insight into the Mechanism of Action. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 850287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Pathak, G.; Nichter, M.; Hardon, A.; Moyer, E. The Open Burning of Plastic Wastes is an Urgent Global Health Issue. Ann. Glob. Health 2024, 90, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Kularatne, R.K.A. A mini review of hazardous wastes generated by environmental analytical laboratories: A perspective from Sri Lanka as an economically developing country. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Yusuf, M. Insights into the in-silico research: Current scenario, advantages, limits, and future perspectives. Life Silico 2023, 1, 13–25. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 21 00780 g001
Figure 1. Bar graph of predicted eye irritation by chemicals in Iraqi burn pit. The chemicals with a predicted eye irritation of 0.75 or greater are indicated in red. The dashed line represents a predicted toxicity threshold of 0.75.
Figure 1. Bar graph of predicted eye irritation by chemicals in Iraqi burn pit. The chemicals with a predicted eye irritation of 0.75 or greater are indicated in red. The dashed line represents a predicted toxicity threshold of 0.75.
Ijerph 21 00780 g001
Ijerph 21 00780 g002
Figure 2. Bar graph of predicted eye irritation by chemicals in Ohio. The chemicals with a predicted eye irritation of 0.75 or greater are indicated in red. The dashed line represents a predicted toxicity threshold of 0.75.
Figure 2. Bar graph of predicted eye irritation by chemicals in Ohio. The chemicals with a predicted eye irritation of 0.75 or greater are indicated in red. The dashed line represents a predicted toxicity threshold of 0.75.
Ijerph 21 00780 g002
Table 1. Chemicals detected at burn pits with their predicted probability of ocular irritation.
Table 1. Chemicals detected at burn pits with their predicted probability of ocular irritation.
IDNameSMILESProbability of Eye IrritationChemical Formula
1AcenaphtheneC1CC2=CC=CC3=C2C1=CC=C30.35C12H10
2AnthraceneC1=CC=C2C=C3C=CC=CC3=CC2=C10.32C14H10
3AcenaphthyleneC1=CC2=C3C(=C1)C=CC3=CC=C20.35C12H8
4Benzo(a) AnthraceneC1=CC=C2C(=C1)C=CC3=CC4=CC=CC=C4C=C320.28C18H12
5Benzo(a)pyreneC1=CC=C2C3=C4C(=CC2=C1)C=CC5=C4C(=CC=C5)C=C30.27C20H12
6Benzo[b]fluoranthene-d12C1=CC=C2C3=C4C(=CC=C3)C5=CC=CC=C5C4=CC2=C10.27C20D12
7Benzo(g,h,i)peryleneC1=CC2=C3C(=C1)C4=CC=CC5=C4C6=C(C=C5)C=CC(=C36)C=C20.25C22H12
8Benzo(k)fluorantheneC1=CC=C2C=C3C4=CC=CC5=C4C(=CC=C5)C3=CC2=C10.27C20H12
9ChryseneC1=CC=C2C(=C1)C=CC3=C2C=CC4=CC=CC=C430.28C18H12
10Dibenz(a,h)anthraceneC1=CC=C2C(=C1)C=CC3=CC4=C(C=CC5=CC=CC=C54)C=C320.24C22H14
11FluorantheneC1=CC=C2C(=C1)C3=CC=CC4=C3C2=CC=C40.31C16H10
12FluoreneC1C2=CC=CC=C2C3=CC=CC=C310.34C13H10
13pyreneC1=CC2=C3C(=C1)C=CC4=CC=CC(=C43)C=C20.31C16H10
14Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneC1=CC=C2C(=C1)C3=C4C2=CC5=CC=CC6=C5C4=C(C=C6)C=C30.25C22H12
15m-XyleneCC1=CC(=CC=C1)C0.56C8H10
16NaphthaleneC1=CC=C2C=CC=CC2=C10.37C10H8
17AcetoneCC(=O)C0.44C3H6O
18AcroleinC=CC=O0.8C3H4O
19BenzeneC1=CC=CC=C10.6C6H6
20Carbon DisulfideC(=S)=S0.45CS2
21ChlorodifluoromethaneC(F)(F)Cl0.77CHClF2
22EthylbenzeneCCC1=CC=CC=C10.56C8H10
23HexaneCCCCCC0.39C6H14
24HexachlorobutadieneC(=C(Cl)Cl)(C(=C(Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.34C4Cl6
25p-XyleneCC1=CC=C(C=C1)C0.56C8H10
26Methylene ChlorideC(Cl)Cl0.76CH2Cl2
27PentaneCCCCC0.41C5H12
28PropyleneCC=C0.45C3H6
29StyreneC=CC1=CC=CC=C10.68C8H8
30TolueneCC1=CC=CC=C10.58C6H5CH3
31HexachlorobutadieneC(=C(Cl)Cl)(C(=C(Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.34C4Cl6
32OctachlorodibenzodioxinC12=C(C(=C(C(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)OC3=C(O2)C(=C(C(=C3Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.23C12H4Cl4O2
33OctachlorodibenzofuranC12=C(C(=C(C(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)OC3=C2C(=C(C(=C3Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.23C12Cl8O
341,2,3,4,6,7,8 HPCDDC1=C2C(=C(C(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl)OC3=C(O2)C(=C(C(=C3Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.24C12HCl7O2
351,2,3,4,6,7,8 HPCDFC1=C2C3=C(C(=C(C(=C3Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)OC2=C(C(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl0.25C12HCl7O
361,2,3,4,7,8,9 HPCDFC1=C2C(=C(C(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl)C3=C(O2)C(=C(C(=C3Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.25C12HCl7O
371,2,3,4,7,8 HXCDDC1=C2C(=CC(=C1Cl)Cl)OC3=C(O2)C(=C(C(=C3Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.25C12H2Cl6O2
381,2,3,4,7,8 HXCDFC1=C2C(=CC(=C1Cl)Cl)OC3=C2C(=C(C(=C3Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.26C12H2Cl6O
391,2,3,6,7,8 HXCDDC1=C2C(=C(C(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl)OC3=CC(=C(C(=C3O2)Cl)Cl)Cl0.25C12H2Cl6O2
401,2,3,6,7,8 HXCDFC1=C2C3=C(C(=C(C=C3OC2=C(C(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.26C12H2Cl6O
411,2,3,7,8,9 HXCDDC1=C2C(=C(C(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl)OC3=C(C(=C(C=C3O2)Cl)Cl)Cl0.25C12H2Cl6O2
421,2,3,7,8,9 HXCDFC1=C2C(=C(C(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl)C3=C(C(=C(C=C3O2)Cl)Cl)Cl0.26C12H2Cl6O
431,2,3,7,8 PECDDC1=C2C(=CC(=C1Cl)Cl)OC3=C(C(=C(C=C3O2)Cl)Cl)Cl0.27C12H3Cl5O2
441,2,3,7,8 PECDFC1=C2C(=CC(=C1Cl)Cl)OC3=CC(=C(C(=C23)Cl)Cl)Cl0.27C12H3Cl5O
452,3,4,6,7,8 HXCDFC1=C2C3=CC(=C(C(=C3OC2=C(C(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.26C12H2Cl6O
462,3,4,7,8 PECDFC1=C2C3=CC(=C(C(=C3OC2=CC(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.27C12H3Cl5O
472,3,7,8 TCDDC1=C2C(=CC(=C1Cl)Cl)OC3=CC(=C(C=C3O2)Cl)Cl0.28C12H4Cl4O2
482,3,7,8 TCDFC1=C2C3=CC(=C(C=C3OC2=CC(=C1Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl0.29C12H4Cl4O
Abbreviations. Simplified molecular input line entry system (SMILES).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rauchman, S.H.; Kasselman, L.J.; Srivastava, A.; De Leon, J.; Reiss, A.B. An Assessment of the Ocular Toxicity of Two Major Sources of Environmental Exposure. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 780. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21060780

AMA Style

Rauchman SH, Kasselman LJ, Srivastava A, De Leon J, Reiss AB. An Assessment of the Ocular Toxicity of Two Major Sources of Environmental Exposure. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024; 21(6):780. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21060780

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rauchman, Steven H., Lora J. Kasselman, Ankita Srivastava, Joshua De Leon, and Allison B. Reiss. 2024. "An Assessment of the Ocular Toxicity of Two Major Sources of Environmental Exposure" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21, no. 6: 780. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21060780

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop