4.4 Article

Classes of organic pigments meet tentative PSLT criteria and lack toxicity in short-term inhalation studies

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2021.104988

关键词

PSLT; Organic pigments; Dissolution; Surface reactivity; Inhalation; Alveolar macrophage assay; In vitro testing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A non-animal testing battery was presented to identify poorly soluble, low toxicity substances based on solubility, surface reactivity, and effects on alveolar macrophages in vitro. The results showed that this battery could effectively classify pigments into different categories, reducing the need for animal testing and guiding product development towards safer applications.
Here, we present a non-animal testing battery to identify PSLT (poorly soluble, low toxicity) substances based on their solubility in phagolysosomal lung fluid simulant, surface reactivity and effects on alveolar macrophages in vitro. This is exemplified by eleven organic pigments belonging to five chemical classes that cover a significant share of the European market. Three of the pigments were tested as both, nanoform and non-nanoform. The results obtained in this integrated non-animal testing battery qualified two pigments as non PSLT, one pigment as poorly soluble and eight pigments as poorly soluble and low toxicity in vitro. The low toxic potency of the eight PSLT and the one poorly soluble pigment was corroborated by short-term inhalation studies with rats. These pigments did not elicit apparent toxic effects at 10 mg/m3 (systemic and in the respiratory tract). One of the pigments, Diarylide Pigment Yellow 83 transparent, however, caused minimal infiltration of neutrophils; hence its low toxicity is ambiguous and needs further verification or falsification. The present test battery provides an opportunity to identify PSLT-properties of test substances to prioritise particles for further development. Thus, it can help to reduce animal testing and steer product development towards safe applications.

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