An interlaboratory evaluation of the Buehler test for the identification and classification of skin sensitizers

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 146-151

  Basketter, D A ^a   Gerberick, G F ^b  

^a UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis; Annex 5 (directive 92 32 EC) Test Method; Buehler test; European Union legislation; Guinea pig sensitization; Interlaboratory evaluation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSIS; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; EUROPEAN UNION; GUINEA PIG; HUMAN; LABORATORY TEST; PATCH TEST; PROVOCATION TEST; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION;

1-PROPANOL; ACROLEIN; ALLERGENS; ANIMALS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DINITROCHLOROBENZENE; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; ETHANOL; EUGENOL; EUROPE; EUROPEAN UNION; EVALUATION STUDIES; GUIDELINES; GUINEA PIGS; IRRITANTS; LABORATORIES; LEGISLATION, MEDICAL; PATCH TESTS; PROPANOLS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0029851815     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02332.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Annex V to the Dangerous Substances Directive 92/32/EC, in Annex to the European Commission Directive 92/69/ EEC of 31 July 1992 adapting to technical progress for the 17th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions relating to the Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances. Official Journal of the European Communities 35: L383A.
2. OECD. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Guideline 406 Skin Sensitization 1981 & 1993.
3. Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare, Guidelines for Toxicity Studies of Drugs: Skin Sensitization Studies 1990: 105-107.
4. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Code of Federal Regulations, Washington DC: 1982: 152-18, 152-24 and 158-165.
5. Magnusson B, Kligman A M. The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 1969: 52: 268-276.
6. Magnusson B, Kligman A M. Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig. Identification of contact allergens. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1970.
7. Buehler E V. Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Archives of Dermatology 1965: 91: 171-177.
8. Buehler E V. A rationale for the selection of occlusion to induce and elicit delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. A prospective test. Current Problems in Dermatology 1985: 14: 39-58.
9. Botham P A, Basketter D A, Maurer Th, Mueller D, Potokar M, Bontinck W J. Skin Sensitization - a critical review of predictive test methods in animal and man. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1991: 29: 275-286.
10. Ritz H L, Buehler E V. Planning, conduct, and interpretation of guinea pig contact Sensitization. In: Drill V A, Lazar P (eds): Current concepts in cutaneous toxicity. New York: Academic Press, 1980: 25.
11. Basketter D A, Selbie E, Scholes E W, Lees D, Kimber I, Botham P A. Results with OECD recommended positive control sensitizers in the maximization, Buehler and local lymph node assays. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1993: 31: 63-67.
12. Robinson M K, Nusair T L, Fletcher E R, Ritz H L. A review of the Buehler guinea pig skin sensitization test and its use in a risk assessment process for human sensitization. Toxicology 1990: 67: 91-107.
13. Annex VI to the Dangerous Substances Directive 92/32/ EC, ie Annex IV to the European Commission Directive 93/21/EEC of 27 April 1993 adapting to technical progress for the 18th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions relating to the Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances. Official Journal of the European Communities 36: L110A.
14. European Commission. Annex I. Official Journal of the European Communities 1993: 36: L258A and 1994: 37: L381.
15. European Commission. Annex I. Official Journal of the European Communities 1993: 36: L258A and 1994: 37: L381.
16. Kimber I, Basketter D A, Cookman G R, Dearman R J, Evans P, Loveless S E, Pauluhn J. ECETOC Reference Chemicals Data Bank. Skin and respiratory sensitizers. 1996.
17. Buehler E V. Comment on guinea pig test methods. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1982: 20: 494.
18. Barratt M D, Basketter D A. Possible origin of the sensitization potential of isoeugenol and related compounds. I Preliminary studies of potential reaction mechanisms. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 27: 98-104.
19. Kimber I, Hilton J, Botham P A, Basketter D A, Scholes E W, Miller K, Robbins M C, Gray T J B, Waite S J. The murine local lymph node assay. Results of an interlaboratory trial. Toxicology Letters 1991: 55: 203-213.
20. Loveless S E, Ladics G S, Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, Basketter D A, Scholes E W, House R V, Hilton J, Dearman R J, Kimber I. Further evaluation of the local lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial.Toxicology 1996: in press.
21. Fisher A A. Contact dermatitis. Lea and Febiger, 4th edition, 1995.
22. Stotts J, Ely W J. Induction of human skin sensitization to ethanol. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 1977: 69: 219-222.
23. Andersen K E, Maibach H I. 1985. Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. Current problems in dermatology. New York: Karger, 1985.
24. Bronaugh R L, Maibach H I. Safety evaluation of cosmetic products. In: J J Kabara (ed): Cosmetic and drug preservation. Principles and practice. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc, 1984: 503.
25. Poole R L, J F Griffith J F, Macmillan F S K. Experimental contact sensitization with benzoyl peroxide. Archives of Dermatology 1970: 102: 635-641.
26. Bird M G. Industrial solvents: some factors affecting their passage into and through the skin. Ann Occupational Hygiene 1981: 24: 235-241.
27. Tanglertsampan C, Maibach H I. The role of vehicles in diagnostic patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 29: 169-174.
28. Kimber I, Dearman R J, Scholes E W, Basketter D A. The local lymph node assay: developments and applications. Toxicology 1994: 93: 13-31.
29. Procter & Gamble, unpublished data.
30. Robinson M K, Fletcher E R, Johnson G R, Wyder W E. Value of the cutaneous basophil hypersensitivity (CBH) response for distinguishing weak contact sensitization from irritant reactions in the guinea pig. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 1990: 94: 636-643.
31. Lamson S A, Kong B M, DiSalva S J. D&C Yellow No. 10 and 11: delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis 1982: 8: 200-203.
32. Bronaugh R L, Roberts C D, McCoy J L. Dose-response relationships in skin sensitization. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1994: 32: 113-117.
33. Ritz H L, Connor D S, Sauter E D. Contact sensitization of guinea-pigs with unsaturated and halogenated sultones. Contact Dermatitis 1975: 1: 349-351.
34. Chan P D, Baldwin R C, Parsons R D, Moss J N, Stiratelli R, Smith J M, Hayes A W. Kathon biocide. Manifestation of delayed contact dermatitis in guinea pigs is dependent on the concentration for induction and challenge. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 1983: 81: 409-411.
35. Unilever, unpublished data.