{"title":"Development of a defined approach for eye hazard identification of solid chemicals according to the three UN GHS categories.","authors":"Nathalie Alépée, Els Adriaens","doi":"10.14573/altex.2401191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Currently there are two OECD-adopted defined approaches (DA) for eye hazard identification of non-surfactant liquids (OECD TG 467). The current study aimed to develop a DA for eye hazard identification of solid chemicals according to the three UN GHS categories (Cat.1, Cat. 2, No Cat.): the DAS. The DAS combines two test methods described in OECD TG 437 and TG 492. The DAS was developed based on in-depth statistical analysis of a database on solids containing in vitro and historically curated in vivo Draize eye test data. The performance of the DAS was assessed by comparing the predictions with the classification based on in vivo Draize eye test data, on the one hand, and with the performance criteria established by the OECD expert group, on the other hand. In a first tier of the DAS, the SkinEthic™ HCE EIT method (TG 492) is used to distinguish No Cat. from classified substances. For classified substances, the BCOP LLBO method (TG 437) is used to identify Cat. 1, and the remaining solids are predicted Cat. 2. In summary, 77.4% Cat. 1 (N=31), 52.3% Cat. 2 (N=18), and 70.0% of No Cat. (N=60) solids were correctly identified compared to the classification based on the Draize eye test. The percentage of correct predictions met the minimum OECD performance values of 75% Cat. 1, 50% Cat. 2, and 70% No Cat., and the percentage of mispredictions was below the established maximum values. Therefore, inclusion of the DAS in OECD TG 467 has been achieved.</p>","PeriodicalId":51231,"journal":{"name":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","volume":" ","pages":"457-468"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2401191","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Currently there are two OECD-adopted defined approaches (DA) for eye hazard identification of non-surfactant liquids (OECD TG 467). The current study aimed to develop a DA for eye hazard identification of solid chemicals according to the three UN GHS categories (Cat.1, Cat. 2, No Cat.): the DAS. The DAS combines two test methods described in OECD TG 437 and TG 492. The DAS was developed based on in-depth statistical analysis of a database on solids containing in vitro and historically curated in vivo Draize eye test data. The performance of the DAS was assessed by comparing the predictions with the classification based on in vivo Draize eye test data, on the one hand, and with the performance criteria established by the OECD expert group, on the other hand. In a first tier of the DAS, the SkinEthic™ HCE EIT method (TG 492) is used to distinguish No Cat. from classified substances. For classified substances, the BCOP LLBO method (TG 437) is used to identify Cat. 1, and the remaining solids are predicted Cat. 2. In summary, 77.4% Cat. 1 (N=31), 52.3% Cat. 2 (N=18), and 70.0% of No Cat. (N=60) solids were correctly identified compared to the classification based on the Draize eye test. The percentage of correct predictions met the minimum OECD performance values of 75% Cat. 1, 50% Cat. 2, and 70% No Cat., and the percentage of mispredictions was below the established maximum values. Therefore, inclusion of the DAS in OECD TG 467 has been achieved.
期刊介绍:
ALTEX publishes original articles, short communications, reviews, as well as news and comments and meeting reports. Manuscripts submitted to ALTEX are evaluated by two expert reviewers. The evaluation takes into account the scientific merit of a manuscript and its contribution to animal welfare and the 3R principle.