Evaluation of the developmental toxicity of acetyl cedrene

International Journal of Toxicology

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 423-428

  Lapczynski, Aurelia ^a   Isola, Daniel A ^a   Christian, Mildred S ^b   Diener, Robert M ^b   Api, Anne Marie ^a  

^a RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR FRAGRANCE MATERIALS   (United States)

^b Argus International Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Acetyl Cedrene; CAS Registry No. 32388 55 9; Developmental Toxicity; Fragrance; Isomeric Ketones; Rat

Indexed keywords

ACETIC ACID DERIVATIVE; ACETYLCEDRENE; CORN OIL; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ABORTION; ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; AUTOPSY; BODY WEIGHT; CELL VIABILITY; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL FEATURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DETERIORATION; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; FEMALE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; FOOD INTAKE; GESTATIONAL AGE; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; NONHUMAN; OVARY CELL; PREGNANCY; PREMATURE LABOR; SOFT TISSUE; UTERUS;

ANIMALS; EATING; FEMALE; FETUS; MATERNAL-FETAL EXCHANGE; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; PERFUME; PREGNANCY; RATS; RATS, SPRAGUE-DAWLEY; SESQUITERPENES; TERPENES; WEIGHT GAIN;

ZEA MAYS;

EID: 33748643617     PISSN: 10915818     EISSN: 1092874X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10915810600870575     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Dunn, O. J. 1964. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6:241-252.
2. Dunnett, C. W. 1955. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 50:1096-1121.
3. IFRA (International Fragrance Association). 1998. IFRA Exposure Inquiry.
4. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources 1996. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Khera, K. S. 1981. Common fetal aberrations and their teratologic significance: a review. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 1:13-18.
6. MHW(Japanese Ministry of Health andWelfare). 1997. Good Laboratory Practice Standard for Safety Studies on Drugs. MHW Ordinance Number 21, March 26, 1997.
7. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 1998. The Revised OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practices [C(97)186/Final].
8. Poet, T. S. 2000. Assessing dermal absorption. Toxicol. Sci. 58:1-2.
9. Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 96-104. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10. Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G. 1967a. Analysis of variance. In Statistical methods, 6th ed. 258-275. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
11. Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G. 1967b. Variance test for homogeneity of the binomial distribution. In Statistical methods, 6th ed. 240-241. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
12. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1969a. Bartlett's test of homogeneity of variances. In Biometry, 370-371. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.
13. Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1969b. Kruskal-Wallis test. In Biometry, 388-389. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.
14. Staples, R. E., and V. L. Schnell. 1964. Refinements in rapid clearing technique in the KOH-alizarin red S method for fetal bone. Stain Technol. 39:61-63.
15. US FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1987. Good Laboratory Practice Regulations; Final Rule. 21 CFR part 58.
16. US FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1994. International conference on harmonization; Guideline on detection of toxicity to reproduction for medicinal products. Federal Register, September 22, 1994, volume 59, no. 183.
17. Wilson, J. G. 1965. Methods for administering agents and detecting malformations in experimental animals. In Teratology: Principles and techniques, ed. J. G. Wilson and J. Warkany, 262-277. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.