RESUMEN
The inter-laboratory performance of Isolated Chicken Eye (ICE) histopathology scoring was assessed for predicting EU CLP/UN GHS Cat. 1 surfactants. Furthermore, the predictive capacity of ICE histopathology was evaluated for the combined dataset of surfactants and existing data for non-extreme pH (2 < pH < 11.5) detergents. Use of ICE histopathology led to increased sensitivity compared to the ICE test method alone for surfactants. When combined with the existing dataset of detergents, use of histopathology in addition to the standard ICE test method decreased the false negative rates from 64% (14/22) to 27% (6/22); increased accuracy from 53% (16/30) to 77% (23/30); and led to acceptable level of false positives (from 0/8 to 1/8 (12.5%). Moreover, good reproducibility of ICE histopathology predictions conducted on the same slides was found between pathologists and peer-reviewers from three independent laboratories (10/12 or 83%) and over time. Use of ICE histopathology was therefore found suitable to predict EU CLP/UN GHS Cat. 1 surfactants and non-extreme pH detergents. In addition, appropriate reproducibility of ICE histopathology was found, provided that i) an internal peer-review system was in place; ii) original slides were assessed to enable evaluation of three dimensional effects; and iii) appropriate training and proficiency appraisal were conducted.
Asunto(s)
Detergentes/efectos adversos , Lesiones Oculares/inducido químicamente , Patología/métodos , Tensoactivos/efectos adversos , Animales , Pollos , Reacciones Falso Negativas , Reacciones Falso Positivas , Concentración de Iones de Hidrógeno , Patología/normas , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Naciones UnidasRESUMEN
In 1944, Draize et al., published a paper entitled "Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes". The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development published their first guideline on eye irritation in 1981, using rabbits. In the early eighties the development of alternative non-animal tests to replace the Draize eye test started. The first attempts to validate alternative tests for eye irritation were considered to be relatively simple by comparing in vitro and in vivo irritation index scores. In the early nineteen-eighties, we introduced the use of isolated eyes as an alternative test for the Draize eye irritation test. What was expected to be a process of several years, however, turned out to be a decades spanning process still not fully completed. For a large part, this can be attributed to the nature of the in vivo test in rabbits, which is more complicated and compromised than originally believed. This paper describes, most chronologically, the development, performance, validation and application of the Isolated Eye Test and, in broader perspective, the international validation and acceptance of this alternative test by regulatory authorities and agencies.
Asunto(s)
Alternativas a las Pruebas en Animales , Pollos , Ojo/efectos de los fármacos , Irritantes/toxicidad , Pruebas de Toxicidad , Animales , Técnicas In Vitro , ConejosRESUMEN
In vitro methods have gained regulatory acceptance for the prediction of serious eye damage (UN GHS Cat 1). However, the majority of in vitro methods do not state whether they are applicable to agrochemical formulations. This manuscript presents a study of up to 27 agrochemical formulations tested in three in vitro assays (three versions of the bovine corneal opacity and permeability test (BCOP, OECD TG 437) assay, the isolated chicken eye test (ICE, OECD TG 438) and the EpiOcular™ ET-50 assay). The results were compared with already-available in vivo data. In the BCOP only one of the four, one of five in the ICE and six of eleven tested formulations in the EpiOcular™ ET-50 Neat Protocol resulted in the correct UN GHS Cat 1 prediction. Overpredictions occurred in all assays. These data indicate a lack of applicability of the three in vitro methods to reliably predict UN GHS Cat 1 of agrochemical formulations. In order to ensure animal-free identification of seriously eye damaging agrochemical formulations testing protocols and/or prediction models need to be modified or classification rules should be tailored to in vitro testing rather than using in vivo Draize data as a standard.
Asunto(s)
Agroquímicos/clasificación , Agroquímicos/toxicidad , Ojo/efectos de los fármacos , Irritantes/clasificación , Irritantes/toxicidad , Agroquímicos/farmacocinética , Alternativas a las Pruebas en Animales , Animales , Bovinos , Pollos , Opacidad de la Córnea , Ojo/metabolismo , Femenino , Humanos , Técnicas In Vitro , Irritantes/farmacocinética , Masculino , Permeabilidad , Conejos , Pruebas de ToxicidadRESUMEN
A.I.S.E. investigated the suitability of the regulatory adopted ICE in vitro test method (OECD TG 438) with or without histopathology to identify detergent and cleaning formulations having extreme pH that require classification as EU CLP/UN GHS Category 1. To this aim, 18 extreme pH detergent and cleaning formulations were tested covering both alkaline and acidic extreme pHs. The ICE standard test method following OECD Test Guideline 438 showed good concordance with in vivo classification (83%) and good and balanced specificity and sensitivity values (83%) which are in line with the performances of currently adopted in vitro test guidelines, confirming its suitability to identify Category 1 extreme pH detergent and cleaning products. In contrast to previous findings obtained with non-extreme pH formulations, the use of histopathology did not improve the sensitivity of the assay whilst it strongly decreased its specificity for the extreme pH formulations. Furthermore, use of non-testing prediction rules for classification showed poor concordance values (33% for the extreme pH rule and 61% for the EU CLP additivity approach) with high rates of over-prediction (100% for the extreme pH rule and 50% for the additivity approach), indicating that these non-testing prediction rules are not suitable to predict Category 1 hazards of extreme pH detergent and cleaning formulations.
Asunto(s)
Pollos/fisiología , Detergentes/toxicidad , Ojo/efectos de los fármacos , Alternativas a las Pruebas en Animales , Animales , Reacciones Falso Positivas , Concentración de Iones de Hidrógeno , Técnicas In Vitro , Irritantes , Modelos Estadísticos , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
A.I.S.E. investigated the suitability of histopathological evaluations as an additional endpoint to the regulatory adopted ICE in vitro test method (OECD TG 438) to identify non-extreme pH detergent and cleaning products that require classification as EU CLP/UN GHS Category 1 (serious eye damage). To this aim, a total of 30 non-extreme pH products covering the range of in vivo classifications for eye irritation, and representing various product categories were tested. Epithelium vacuolation (mid and lower layers) and erosion (at least moderate) were found to be the most relevant histopathological effects induced by products classified in vivo as Category 1. Histopathology criteria specifically developed for non-extreme pH detergent and cleaning products were shown to correctly identify materials classified as Category 1 based on in vivo persistent effects, and to significantly increase the overall sensitivity of the standard ICE prediction model for Category 1 identification (to 75%) whilst maintaining a good concordance (73%). In contrast, use of EU CLP additivity approach for classification of mixtures was considerably less predictive, with a concordance of only 27%, and 100% over-predictions of non-Category 1 products. As such, use of histopathology as an addition to the ICE test method was found suitable to identify EU CLP/UN GHS Category 1 non-extreme pH detergent and cleaning products and to allow a better discrimination from Category 2 products.