METHODS: The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability test method (BCOP), OECD Test Guideline 437, was used as an initial step to study the inducing effect of palm-based MES on irreversible eye damage. The second assessment involved the use of reconstructed human corneal-like epithelium test method, OECD Test Guideline 492 using SkinEthic™ Human Corneal Epithelium to study the potential effect of palm-based MES on eye irritancy. The palm-based MES were prepared in 10% solution (w/v) in deionized water and tested as a liquid and surfactant test substances whereby both test conducted according to the liquid/surfactant treatment protocol.
RESULTS: The preliminary BCOP results showed that palm-based MES; C12, C14, C16, C16:18 were not classified as severe eye irritants test substances with in vitro irritancy score between 3 and the threshold level of 55. The second evaluation using SkinEthic™ HCE model showed that palm-based MES; C12, C14, C16, C16:18 and three commercial samples were potentially irritants to the eyes with mean tissue viability ≤ 60% and classified as Category 2 according to United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals. However, there are some limitations of the proposed ocular irritation classification of palm-based MES due to insolubility of long chain MES in 10% solution (w/v) in deionized water.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, future studies to clarify the eye irritation potential of the palm-based MES will be needed, and could include; methods to improve the test substance solubility, use of test protocol for solids, and/or inclusion of a benchmark anionic surfactant, such as sodium dodecyl sulphate within the study design.
METHODS: The decellularization was achieved using a developed closed sonication treatment system for 10 hrs, and continued with a washing process for 5 days. For the control, a simple immersion treatment was set as a benchmark to compare the decellularization efficiency. Histological and biochemical assays were conducted to investigate the cell removal and retention of the vital extracellular matrix. Surface ultrastructure of the prepared scaffolds was evaluated using scanning electron microscope at 5,000× magnification viewed from cross and longitudinal sections. In addition, the biomechanical properties were investigated through ball indentation testing to study the stiffness, residual forces and compression characteristics. Statistical significance between the samples was determined with p-value =0.05.
RESULTS: Histological and biochemical assays confirmed the elimination of antigenic cellular components with the retention of the vital extracellular matrix within the sonicated scaffolds. However, there was a significant removal of sulfated glycosaminoglycans. The surface histoarchitecture portrayed the preserved collagen fibril orientation and arrangement. However, there were minor disruptions on the structure, with few empty micropores formed which represented cell lacunae. The biomechanical properties of bioscaffolds showed the retention of viscoelastic behavior of the scaffolds which mimic native tissues. After immersion treatment, those scaffolds had poor results compared to the sonicated scaffolds due to the inefficiency of the treatment.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study reported that the closed sonication treatment system had high capabilities to prepare ideal bioscaffolds with excellent removal of cellular components, and retained extracellular matrix and biomechanical properties.