Eye irritation testing: The way forward

ATLA Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 53-77

  Balls, Michael ^a   Berg, Ninna ^b   Bruner, Leon H ^c   Curren, Rodger D ^d   De Silva, Odile ^e   Earl, Lesley K ^f   Esdaile, David J ^g   Fentem, Julia H ^a   Liebsch, Manfred ^h   Ohno, Yasuo ⁱ   Prinsen, Menk K ^j   Spielmann, Horst ^h   Worth, Andrew P ^a  

^a JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^b NOVO NORDISK A S   (Denmark)

^c PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^d Institute for in Vitro Sciences   (United States)

^e L'Oréal Recherche Department of Analytical Chemistry   (France)

^f UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^g SANOFI   (France)

^h FEDERAL INSTITUTE FOR RISK ASSESSMENT   (Germany)

ⁱ NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SCIENCES   (Japan)

^j TNO   (Netherlands)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL WELFARE; CONFERENCE PAPER; DRUG RESEARCH; EYE IRRITATION; GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE; NONHUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 13044268461     PISSN: 02611929     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (53)

1. ECVAM (1994). ECVAM News & Views. ATLA 22, 7-11.
2. Draize, J.H., Woodward, G. & Calvery, H.O. (1944). Methods for study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 82, 377-390.
3. EC (1993). Council 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 laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European Communities L110A, 1-86.
4. OECD (1987). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, No. 405: Acute Eye Irritation/Corrosion, 9pp. Paris, France: OECD.
5. Earl, L.K., Dickens, A.D. & Rowson, M.J. (1997). A critical analysis of the rabbit eye irritation test variability and its impact on the validation of alternative methods. Toxicology in Vitro 11, 295-304.
6. Balls, M., Botham, P.A., Bruner, L.H. & Spielmann, H. (1995). The EC/HO international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro 9, 871-929.
7. Brantom, P.G. et al. (1997). A summary report of the COLIPA international validation study on alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro 11, 141-179.
8. CEC (1991). Collaborative study on the evaluation of alternative methods to the eye irritation test. Document XI/632/91-V/E/1/131/91, Part I, 54pp. Brussels, Belgium: CEC.
9. CEC (1991). Collaborative study on the evaluation of alternative methods to the eye irritation test. Document XI/632/91-V/E/1/131/91, Part II, 196pp. Brussels, Belgium: CEC.
10. Bruner, L.H., Carr, G.J., Chamberlain, M. & Curren, R.D. (1996). Validation of alternative methods for toxicity testing. Toxicology in Vitro 10, 479-501.
11. Curren, R.D., Southee, J.A., Spielmann, H., Liebsch, M., Fentem, J.H. & Balls, M. (1995). The role of prevalidation in the development, validation and acceptance of alternative methods. ECVAM prevalidation task force report 1. ATLA 23, 211-217.
12. Spielmann, H., Kalweit, S., Liebsch, M., Wirnsberger, T., Gerner, I., Bertram-Neis, E., Krauser, K., Kreiling, R., Miltenburger, G., Pape, W. & Steiling, W. (1993). Validation study of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test in Germany: cytotoxicity testing and HET-CAM test with 136 industrial chemicals. Toxicology in Vitro 7, 505-510.
13. Spielmann, H., Liebsch, M., Kalweit, S., Moldenhauer, F., Wirnsberger, T., Holzhütter, H-G., Schneider, B., Glaser, S., Gerner, I., Pape, W.J.W., Kreiling, R., Krauser, K. & Miltenburger, H.G., Steiling, W., Luepke, N.P., Muller, N., Kreuzer, H., Murmann, P., Spengler, J., Bertram-Neis, E., Siegemund, B. & Wiebel, F.J. (1996). Results of a validation study in Germany on two in vitro alternatives to the Draize eve irritation test, the HET-CAM test and the 3T3-NRU cytotoxicity test. ATLA 24, 741-858.
14. Künstler, K., Bartnik, F., Heitman, W., Lüpke, N.P., Sterzl, W. & Wallat, S. (1987). Abschlussbericht des BMBF-Projektes "Validierung von Ersatzmethoden für Tierversuche zur Prüfung auf Lokale Verträglichkeit". Henkel KGaA, Ressort Forschung/Universität Münster, Institut für Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, 241pp. Bonn, Germany; BMBF.
15. Spielmann, H., Gerner, I., Kaiweit, S., Moog, R., Wirnsberger, T., Krauser, K., Kreiling, R., Kreuzer, H., Luepke, N-P, Miltenburger, G., Muller, N., Murmann, P., Pape, W., Siegemund, B., Spengler, J., Steiling, W. & Wiebel, F.J. (1991). Interlaboratory assessment of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test in Germany. Toxicology in Vitro 5, 539-542.
16. EC (1992). Council Directive 93/69/EEC of 31 July 1992 adapting to technical progress for the 17th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European Communities L383, 113-114.
17. Gettings, S.D., Teal, J.J., Bagley, D.M., Demetrulias, J.L., DiPasquale, L.C., Hintze, K.L., Rozen, M.G., Weise, S.L., Chudkowski, M., Marenus, K.D., Pape, W.J.W., Roddy, M., Schnitzinger, R., Silber, P.M., Glaza, S.M. & Kurtz, P.J. (1991). The CTFA evaluation of alternatives program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. Phase I. Hydro-alcoholic formulations: Part 2: data analysis and biological significance. In Vitro Toxicology 4, 247-288.
18. Gettings, S.D., DiPasquale, L.C., Bagley, D.M., Casterton, P.L., Chudkowski, M., Curren, R.D., Demetrulias, J.L., Feder, P.I., Galli, C.L., Gay, R., Glaza, S.M., Hintze, K.L., Janus, J., Kurtz, P.J., Lordo, R.A., Marenus, K.D., Moral, J., Muscatiello, M.J., Pape, W.J.W., Renskers, K.J., Roddy, M.T. & Rozen, M.G. (1994). The CTFA evaluation of alternatives program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. Phase II. Oil/water emulsions. Food and Chemical Toxicology 32, 943-976.
19. Gettings, S.D., Lordo, R.A., Hintze, K.L., Bagley, D.M., Casterton, P.L., Chudkowski, M., Curren, R.D., Demetrulias, J.L., DiPasquale, L.C., Earl, L.K., Feder, P.I., Galli, C.L., Gay, R., Glaza, S.M., Gordon, V.C., Janus, J., Kurtz, P.J., Marenus, K.D., Moral, J., Pape, W.J.W., Renskers, K.J., Rheins, L.A., Roddy, M.T., Rozen, M.G., Tedeschi, J.P. & Zyracki, J. (1996), The CTFA evaluation of alternatives program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. Phase III. Surfactant-based formulations. Food and Chemical Toxicology 34, 79-117.
20. Bradlaw, J., Gupta, K., Green, S., Hill, R. & Wilcox, N. (1997). Practical application of non-whole animal alternatives: summary of IRAG workshop on eye irritation testing. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35, 175-178.
21. Scala, R.A. & Springer, J. (1997). IRAG working group 6. Guidelines for the evaluation of eye irritation alternative tests: criteria for data submission. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35, 13-22.
22. Chamberlain, M., Gad, S.C., Gautheron, P. & Prinsen, M.K. (1997). IRAG working group 1. Organotypic models for the assessment/prediction of ocular irritation. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35, 23-37.
23. Spielmann, H., Liebsch, M., Moldenhauer, F., Holzhütter, H.G., Bagley, D.M., Lipman, J.M., Pape, W.J., Miltenburger, H., de Silva, O., Hofer, H. & Steiling, W. (1997). IRAG working group 2. CAM-based assays. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35, 39-66.
24. Botham, P., Osborne, R., Atkinson, K., Carr, G., Cottin, M. & van Buskirk, R.G. (1997). IRAG working group 3. Cell function-based assays. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35, 67-77.
25. Harbell, J.W., Koontz, S.W., Lewis, R.W., Lovell, D. & Acosta, D. (1997). IRAG working group 4. Cell cytotoxicity assays. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35, 79-126.
26. Curren, R.D., Sina, J.F., Feder, P., Kruszewski, F.H., Osborne, R. & Régnier, J.F. (1997). IRAG working group 5. Other assays. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35, 127-158.
27. Feder, P., Carr, G., Holzhütter, H.G., Lovell, D. & Springer, J. (1997). Statistical planning and analysis considerations in the evaluation of in vitro alternatives to whole animal use for eye irritation testing. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35, 167-174.
28. Ohno, Y., Kaneko, T., Kobayashi, T., Inoue, T., Kuroiwa, Y., Yoshida, T., Momma, J., Hayashi, M., Akiyama, J., Atsumi, T., Chiba, K., Endo, T., Fujii, A., Kakishima, H., Kojima, H., Masamoto, K., Masuda, M., Matsukawa, S., Ohkoshi, K., Okada, J., Sakamoto, K., Takano, K. & Takanaka A. (1994). First-phase validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients. In Vitro Toxicology 7, 89-94.
29. Ohno, Y., Kaneko, T., Kobayashi, T., Inoue, T., Kuroiwa, Y., Yoshida, T., Momma, J., Hayashi, M., Akiyama, J., Atsumi, T., Chiba, K., Endo, T., Fujii, A., Kakishima, H., Kojima, H., Masamoto, K., Masuda, M., Matsukawa, S., Ohkoshi, K., Okada, J., Sakamoto, K., Takano, K. & Takanaka A. (1995). First-phase interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients. I. Overview, organization and results of the validation study. AATEX 3, 123-136.
30. Kay, J.H. & Calandra, I.C. (1962). Interpretation of eye irritation tests. Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists 3, 281-289.
31. OECD (1996). Final Report of the OECD Workshop on Harmonization of Validation and Acceptance Criteria for Alternative Toxicological Test Methods, 62pp. Paris, France: OECD.
32. OECD (1998). Revised Proposal for the Harmonization of Hazard Classification Based on Eye Irritation/Corrosion. ENV/MC/CHEM/HCL(98)5, 10pp. Paris, France: OECD.
33. Bruner, L.H., de Silva, O., Earl, L.K., Easty, D.L., Pape, W. & Spielmann, H. (1998). Report on the COLIPA workshop on mechanisms of eye irritation. ATLA 26, 811-820.
34. ECETOC (1992). ECETOC Technical Report No. 48, Eye Irritation: Reference Chemicals Data Bank, 169pp. Brussels, Belgium; ECETOC.
35. ECETOC (1998). ECETOC Technical Report No. 48, Eye Irritation: Reference Chemicals Data Bank, Second Edition, 236pp. Brussels, Belgium: ECETOC.
36. Walker, A.P. (1985). A more realistic animal technique for predicting human eye response. Food and Chemical Toxicology 23, 175-178.
37. Basketter, D.A., Whittle, E. & Chamberlain, M. (1994). Identification of irritation and corrosion hazards to skin: an alternative strategy to animal testing. Food and Chemical Toxicology 32, 539-542.
38. Botham, P.A., Earl, L.K., Fentem, J.H., Roguet, R. & van de Sandt, J.J.M. (1998). Alternative methods for skin irritation testing: the current status. ECVAM skin irritation task force report 1. ATLA 26, 195-211.
39. Basketter, D.A., Scholes, E.W., Chamberlain, M. & Barratt, M.D. (1995). An alternative strategy to the use of guinea-pigs for the identification of skin sensitization hazard. Food and Chemical Toxicology 33, 1051-1057.
40. Spielmann, H., Lovell, W.W., Hölzle, E., Johnson, B.E., Maurer, T., Miranda, M.A., Pape, W.J.W., Sapora, O. & Sladowski, D. (1994). In vitro phototoxicity testing. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 2. ATLA 22, 314-348.
41. Atterwill, C.K., Bruinink, A., Drejer, J., Duarte, E., Abdulla, E.M., Meredith, C., Nicotera, P., Regan, C., Rodriguez-Farré, E., Simpson, M.G., Smith, R., Veronesi, B., Vijverberg, H., Walum, E. & Williams, D.C. (1994). In vitro neurotoxicity testing. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 3. ATLA 22, 350-362.
42. Lewis, R.W., McCall, J.C. & Botham, P.A. (1994). Use of an in vitro test battery as a prescreen in the assessment of ocular irritancy. Toxicology in Vitro 8, 75-81.
43. Worth, A.P. & Fentem, J.H. (1999). A general approach for evaluating stepwise testing strategies. ATLA 27, 161-177.
44. Worth, A.P., Fentem, J.H., Balls, M., Botham, P.A., Curren, R.D., Earl, L.K., Esdaile, D.J. & Liebsch, M. (1998). An evaluation of the proposed OECD testing strategy for skin corrosion. ATLA 26, 709-720.
45. Barratt, M.D., Brantom, P.G., Fentem, J.H., Gerner, I., Walker, A.P. & Worth, A.P. (1998). The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for skin corrosivity. I, Selection and distribution of the test chemicals. Toxicology in Vitro 12, 471-482.
46. Fentem, J.H., Archer, G.E.B., Balls, M., Botham, P.A.. Curren, R.D., Earl, L.K., Esdaile, D.J., Holzhütter, H.G. & Liebsch, M. (1998). The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for skin corrosivity. II. Results and evaluation by the management team. Toxicology in Vitro 12, 483-524.
47. Lovell, D.P. (1996). Principal component analysis of Draize eye irritation tissue scores from 72 samples of 55 chemicals in the ECETOC data bank. Toxicology in Vitro 11, 295-304.
48. Lovell, D.P. (1996). Use of principal component analysis for Draize eye irritation tissue scores. In Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics (ed. L.F.M. van Zutphen & M. Balls), pp. 737-746. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
49. Lindberg, W., Perrson, J. & Wold, S. (1983). Partial least squares method for spectrofluorimetric analysis of mixtures of humic acid and lignin sulfonate. Analytical Chemistry 55, 643-648.
50. de Silva, O., Cottin, M., Dami, N., Roguet, R, Catroux, P., Toufic, A., Sicard, C., Dossou, K.G., Gerner, I., Schlede, E., Spielmann, H., Gupta, K.C. & Hill, R.N. (1997). Evaluation of eye irritation potential: statistical analysis and tier testing strategies. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35, 159-164.
51. Gordon, A.E. (1981). Classification: Methods for the Exploratory Analysis of Multivariate Data. New York, USA: Chapman & Hall.
52. McFarland, J.W. & Gans, D.J. (1990). Linear discriminant analysis and cluster significance analysis. In Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry, Vol. 4, Quantitative Drug Design (ed. C.A. Ramsden), pp. 667-689. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
53. OECD (1998). Revised Proposal for the Harmonization of Validation and Acceptance Criteria for Alternative Toxicological Test Methods. Paris, France: OECD.