4.4 Article

Evaluating the sensitization potential of surfactants: Integrating data from the local lymph node assay, guinea pig maximization test, and in vitro methods in a weight-of-evidence approach

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 389-400

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.05.007

关键词

Alternative methods; Skin sensitization; Guinea pig maximization test (GPMT); hCLAT; Irritation; KeratinoSens assay; Local lymph node assay (LLNA); Peptide reactivity assay; Regulatory tests; Weight of evidence

资金

  1. European Committee of Organic Surfactants and their Intermediates (CESIO)
  2. Givaudan Schweiz AG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An integral part of hazard and safety assessments is the estimation of a chemical's potential to cause skin sensitization. Currently, only animal tests (OECD 406 and 429) are accepted in a regulatory context. Nonanimal test methods are being developed and formally validated. In order to gain more insight into the responses induced by eight exemplary surfactants, a battery of in vivo and in vitro tests were conducted using the same batch of chemicals. In general, the surfactants were negative in the GPMT, KeratinoSens and hCLAT assays and none formed covalent adducts with test peptides. In contrast, all but one was positive in the LLNA. Most were rated as being irritants by the EpiSkin assay with the additional endpoint, IL1-alpha. The weight of evidence based on this comprehensive testing indicates that, with one exception, they are non-sensitizing skin irritants, confirming that the LLNA tends to overestimate the sensitization potential of surfactants. As results obtained from LLNAs are considered as the gold standard for the development of new nonanimal alternative test methods, results such as these highlight the necessity to carefully evaluate the applicability domains of test methods in order to develop reliable nonanimal alternative testing strategies for sensitization testing. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据