This study compared five methods, the isolated rabbit eye (IRE), bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP), EpiOcular™, fluorescein leakage (FL) and neutral red release (NRR) assays, for predicting the eye irritation potential of hair-care formulations. Ten shampoo and seven conditioner formulations of known ocular irritation potential were tested. Each group included a market-acceptable formulation as a comparative benchmark. Predictions of ocular irritation were made by using classification models (IRE, BCOP and EpiOcular assays) or by direct comparison with benchmarks (IRE, EpiOcular, FL and NRR assays). The BCOP assay was less sensitive than the IRE test in discriminating between formulations of different irritation potentials, and did not perform as well as the other assays in identifying mild formulations. All of the assays appeared to be better at discriminating correctly between the shampoos than between the conditioners. The EpiOcular assay showed the closest concordance between the in vivo results and the in vitro data from cell-based assays (particularly for shampoos). The FL assay also showed a high concordance (particularly for conditioners). There was a tendency for these in vitro assays to over-predict eye irritation potential, but there was no under-prediction and they were particularly successful at identifying mild formulations. The NRR assay was less predictive with both shampoos and conditioners. The results from this comparative evaluation fully support the continued use of the IRE test as a suitable alternative to in vivo eye irritation testing in rabbits, although it also over-predicted the irritancies of several of the formulations. The value of using concurrent benchmarks (reference standards), appropriate to the materials being tested, in interpreting the data obtained from in vitro tests, was also demonstrated. Overall, the results indicate that further comparisons of the IRE, EpiOcular and FL assays are warranted using much larger numbers of test materials.
BallsM., BothamP.A., BrunerL.H., & SpielmannH. (1995). The EC/HO international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro9, 971–929.
2.
BallsM., BergN., BrunerL.H., CurrenR. D., de SilvaO., EarlL.K., EsdaileD. J., FentemJ.H., LiebschM., OhnoY., PrinsenM.K., SpielmannH., & WorthA. (1999). Eye irritation testing: the way forward. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 34. ATLA26, 53–77.
3.
BrantomP.G., BrunerL.H., ChamberlainM., de SilvaO., DupuisJ., EarlL.K., LovellD.P., PapeW.J.W., UttleyM., BagleyD.M., BakerF.W., BracherM., CourtellemontP., DeclercqL., FreemanS., SteilingW., WalkerA.P., CarrG.J., DamiN., ThomasG., HarbellJ., JonesP.A., PfannenbeckerU., SoutheeJ.A., TchengM., ArgembeauxH., CastelliD., ClothierR., EsdaileD.J., ItigakiH., JungK., KasaiY., KojimaH., KristenU., LarnicolM., LewisR.W., MarenusK., MorenoO., PetersonA., RasmussenE.S., RoblesC., & SternM. (1997). A summary report of the COLIPA international validation study on alternatives to the rabbit eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro11, 141–179.
4.
FrazierJ.M. (1991). Alternatives to acute ocular and dermal toxicity tests in animals. In Dermatotoxicology (ed. MarzulliF.N., & MaibachH.I.), pp. 817–834. New York, NY, USA: Hemisphere Publishing.
5.
GettingsS.D., LordoR.A., HintzeK.L., BagleyD.M., CastertonP.L., ChudkowskiM., CurrenR.D., DemetruliasJ.L., DiPasqualeL.C., EarlL.K., FederP.I., GalliC.L., GayR., GlazaS.M., GordonV.C., JanusJ., KurtzP.J., MarenusK.D., MoraI.J., PapeW.J.W., RenskersK.J., RheinsL.A., RoddyM.T., RozenM.G., TedeschiJ.P., & ZyrackiJ. (1996). The CTFA evaluation of alternatives program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. Phase III. Surfactant-based formulations. Food and Chemical Toxicology34, 79–117.
6.
de SilvaO., CottinM., DamiN., RoguetR., CatrouxP., TouficA., SicardC., DossouK.G., GernerI., SchledeE., SpielmannH., GuptaK.C., & HillR.N. (1997). Evaluation of eye irritation potential: statistical analysis and tier testing strategies. Food and Chemical Toxicology35, 159–164.
7.
SpielmannH., LiebschM., KalweitS., MoldenhauerF., WirnsbergerT., HolzhütterH-G., SchneiderB., GlaserS., GernerI., PapeW.J.W., KreilingR., KrauserK., MiltenburgerH.G., SteilingW., LuepkeN.P., MullerN., KreuzerH., MurmannP., SpenglerJ., Bertram-NeisE., SiegmundB., & WiebelF.J. (1996). Results of a validation study in Germany on two in vitro alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye irritation test, the HET-CAM test and the 3T3-NRU cytotoxicity test. ATLA24, 741–858.
8.
BurtonA.B.G., YorkM., & LawrenceR.S. (1981). The in vitro assessment of severe eye irritants. Food and Cosmetic Toxicology19, 471–481.
9.
YorkM., LawrenceR.S., & GibsonG. (1982). An in vitro test for the assessment of eye irritancy in consumer products – preliminary findings. International Journal of Cosmetic Science4, 223–234.
10.
O'BrienK.A.F., DixitM.B., McCallJ.C., BothamP.A., & LewisR.W. (1992). An interlaboratory assessment of the EYTEX system. Toxicology in Vitro6, 549–556.
11.
JonesP.A., BracherM., MarenusK., & KojimaH. (1999). Performance of the neutral red uptake assay in the COLIPA international validation study on alternatives to the rabbit eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro13, 325–333.
12.
O'BrienK.A.F., BasketterD.A., JonesP., & DixitM. (1994). An in vitro study of the eye irritation potential of new shampoo formulations. Toxicology in Vitro8, 257–261.
13.
OsborneR., PerkinsM.A., & RobertsD.A. (1995). Development and interlaboratory evaluation of an in vitro human cell-based test to aid in ocular irritancy assessments. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology28, 139–153.
14.
SoutheeJ.A., McPhersonJ.P., OsborneR., CarrG.J., & RasmussenE. (1999). The performance of the tissue equivalent assay using the Skin2™ ZK1200 model in the COLIPA international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro13, 355–373.
15.
SternM., KlausnerM., AlvaradoR., RenskersK., & DickensM. (1998). Evaluation of the Epi-Ocular tissue model as an alternative to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro12, 455–462.
16.
BrunerL.H., EvansM.G., McPhersonJ.P., SoutheeJ.A., & WilliamsonP.S. (1998). Investigation of ingredient interactions in cosmetic formulations using isolated bovine corneas. Toxicology in Vitro12, 669–690.
17.
CurrenR., EvansM., RaabeH., DobsonT., & HarbellJ. (1999). Optimisation of the bovine cornea opacity and permeability assay: histopathology aids understanding of the EC/HO false negative materials. ATLA27, Special Issue, 344.
18.
GautheronP., DukicM., AlixD., & SinaJ.F. (1992). Bovine corneal opacity and permeability test: an in vitro assay of ocular irritancy. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology18, 442–449.
19.
GautheronP., GirouxJ., CottinM., AudegondL., MorillaA., Mayordomo-BlancoL., TortajadoA., HaynesG., VericatJ.A., PirovanaR., Gillio TosE., HagemannC., VanparysP., DeknudtG., JacobsG., PrinsenM., KalweitS., & SpielmannH. (1994). Interlaboratory assessment of the bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) assay. Toxicology in Vitro8, 381–392.
20.
CottinM., & ZanvitA. (1997). Fluorescein leakage test: a useful tool in ocular safety assessment. Toxicology in Vitro11, 399–405.
21.
TchaoR. (1988). Trans-epithelial permeability of fluorescein in vitro as an assay to determine eye irritants. In Alternative Methods in Toxicology, Vol. 6, In Vitro Toxicology Approaches to Validation (ed. GoldbergA.M.), pp. 271–283. New York, NY, USA: Mary Ann Liebert.
22.
ZanvitA., MeunierP-A., ClothierR., WardR., & Buiatti-TchengM. (1999). Ocular irritancy assessment of cosmetic formulations and ingredients: fluorescein leakage test. Toxicology in Vitro13, 385–391.
23.
ReaderS.J., BlackwellV., O'HaraR., ClothierR.H., GriffinG., & BallsM. (1990). Neutral red release from pre-loaded cells as an in vitro approach to testing for potential eye irritancy potential. Toxicology in Vitro4/5, 264–266.
24.
DraizeJ., WoodardG., & CalveryH. (1944). Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics82, 377–390.
25.
SinaJ.F., GalerD.M., SussmanR.G., GautheronP.D., SargentE.V., LeongB., ShahP.V., CurrenR.D., & MillerK. (1995). A collaborative evaluation of seven alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test using pharmaceutical intermediates. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology26, 20–31.
26.
MossmanT. (1983). Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. Journal of Immunological Methods65, 55–63.
27.
CooperK.J., EarlL.K., HarbellJ., & RaabeH. (2001). Prediction of ocular irritancy of prototype shampoo formulations by the isolated rabbit eye (IRE) test and bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) assay. Toxicology in Vitro15, 95–103.
28.
BallsM, BrantomP.G., CassidyS., EsdaileD., FentemJ., LiebschM., McPhersonJ., PfannenbeckerU., & PrinsenM. (1999). Preliminary evaluation of the application of reference standards in the prevalidation and validation of in vitro tests for eye irritation. In Alternatives to Animal Testing. II. Proceedings of the Second International Scientific Conference Organised by the European Cosmetic Industry (ed. ClarkD.G., LisanskyS.G., & MacmillanR.), pp. 201–204. Newbury, UK: CPL Press.
29.
BrantomP., FentemJ., BallsM., & CassidyS. (1999). The application of reference standards in the prevalidation and validation of in vitro tests for eye irritation. ATLA27, Special Issue, 332.
30.
ShawA.J., ClothierR.H., & BallsM. (1990). Loss of transepithelial permeability of a confluent monolayer of Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDKC) cells as a determinant of ocular irritancy potential. ATLA18, 145–151.
31.
CurrenR.D., & HarbellJ.W. (1998). Report from the bovine corneal opacity and permeability technical workshop, November 3–4, 1997. In Vitro and Molecular Toxicology11, 315–351.
32.
CourtellementP., HébertP., BiesseJ.P., CastelliD., FriteauL., SerranaJ., & RoblesC. (1999). Relevance and reliability of the PREDISAFE assay in the COLIPA eye irritation validation program (phase 1). Toxicology in Vitro13, 305–312.
