Assessment of the Eye Irritating Properties of Chemicals by Applying Alternatives to the Draize Rabbit Eye Test: The Use of QSARs and In Vitro Tests for the Classification of Eye Irritation
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2005
Assessment of the Eye Irritating Properties of Chemicals by Applying Alternatives to the Draize Rabbit Eye Test: The Use of QSARs and In Vitro Tests for the Classification of Eye Irritation
Huggins has reported on the current situation relating to the development of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test with rabbits, and an ECVAM Working Group have reviewed the efforts needed in order to replace this animal test within the next 10 years by using the results of non-animal assessment methods. Our report reviews regulatory experience gained over the last 20 years with the EU chemicals notification procedure with respect to the assessment of eye lesions observed in Draize tests. The nature of eye lesions and their importance for classification and labelling of possible hazards to human eyes are evaluated and discussed, with a view to promoting the development of specific in vitro assays which are able to discriminate between eye damage, moderate eye irritation, and minor irritation effects which are completely reversible within a few days. Structural alerts for the prediction of eye irritation/corrosion hazards to be classified and labelled according to international classification criteria, are presented, which should be validated in accordance with internationally agreed (OECD) principles for (Q)SAR system validation. Physicochemical limit values for prediction of the absence of any eye irritation potential relevant for human health can make available a definition of the applicability domains of alternative methods developed for the replacement of the Draize eye irritation test.
LewinL., & GuilleryH. (1913). Die Wirkungen von Arzneimitteln und Giften auf das Auge. Handbuch für die gesamte ärztliche Praxis.Berlin, Germany: August Hirschwald.
2.
DraizeJ.H., WoodardG., & CalveryH.O. (1944). Methods for study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics82, 377–390.
3.
WeilC.S., & ScalaR.A. (1971). Study of intra- and interlaboratory variability in the results of rabbit eye and skin irritation tests. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology19, 276–360.
4.
MarzulliF.N., & RugglesD.I. (1973). Rabbit eye irritation test: collaborative study. Journal of the Association of Analytical Chemists56, 905–914.
5.
OECD. (2002). Acute Eye Irritation/Corrosion. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. No. 405, 14 pp. Paris, France: OECD Publication Office.
6.
GernerI., SchledeE., GuptaK.C., HillR.N., & LowtherD.K. (1998). Detailed Review Document on Classification Systems for Eye Irritation/Corrosion in OECD Member Countries. Series on Testing and Assessment. No. 14, 41 pp. Paris, France: OECD Publication Office.
7.
Anon. (1967). Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European Communities196, 1–98. {With several subsequent amendments}
8.
Anon. (2001). Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001 adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL225, 276–279.
9.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2003). Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Part 3. Health and Environmental Hazards, 122 pp. New York, NY, USA, and Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations. Website http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs; corrections available at http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs (Accessed 8.12.04).
10.
KayJ.H., & CalandraI.C. (1962). Interpretation of eye irritation tests. Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists3, 281–289.
11.
Anon. (2003). Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Third Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union. COM/2003/0019 final, 176 pp. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
12.
Anon. (2001). White Paper on a Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. COM(2001)88final, 32 pp. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Website http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/whitepaper.htm (Accessed: 8.12.04).
13.
FentemJ.H., ArcherG.E.B., BallsM., BothamP.A., CurrenR.D., EarlL.K., EsdailD.J., HolzhütterH.G., & LiebschM. (1998). The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for skin corrosivity. II. Results and evaluation by the management team. Toxicology in Vitro12, 483–524.
14.
Anon. (2000). Commission Directive 2000/33/EC of 25 April 2000 adapting to technical progress for the 27th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. ANNEX 1. B.40. Skin Corrosion. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL136, 90–97.
15.
OECD. (1996). Final report of the OECD Workshop on Harmonization of Validation and Acceptance Criteria for Alternative Toxicological Test Methods. ENV/MC/CHEM/TG(96)9, 58 pp. Paris, France: OECD.
16.
WorthA.P., & FentemJ.H. (1999). A general approach for evaluating stepwise testing strategies. ATLA27, 161–177.
17.
CroninM.T.D., BasketterD.A., & YorkM. (1994). A quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) investigation of a Draize eye irritation database. Toxicology in Vitro8, 21–28.
18.
AbrahamM.H., KumarsinghR., Cometto-MunizJ.E., & CainW.S. (1998). A quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) for a Draize eye irritation database. Toxicology in Vitro12, 201–207.
19.
GernerI., ZinkeS., GraetschelG., & SchledeE. (2000). Development of a decision support system for the introduction of alternative methods into local irritancy/corrosivity testing strategies: creation of fundamental rules for a decision support system. ATLA28, 665–698.
20.
ZinkeS., GernerI., GraetschelG., & SchledeE. (2000). Local irritation/corrosion testing strategies: development of a decision support system for the introduction of alternative methods. ATLA28, 29–40.
21.
GernerI., & SchledeE. (2002). Introduction of in vitro data into local irritation/corrosion testing strategies by means of SAR considerations: assessment of chemicals. Toxicology Letters127, 169–175.
22.
BorenfreundE., & BorreroO. (1984). In vitro cytotoxicity assays. Potential alternatives to the Draize ocular irritancy test. Cell Biology and Toxicology1, 55–65.
23.
BorenfreundE., & PuernerJ.A. (1985). Toxicity determined in vitro by morphological alterations and neutral red absorption. Toxicology Letters24, 119–124.
24.
ReinhardtC.A., BosshardE., & SchlatterC. (1985). Irritation testing of skin and mucous membranes. Food and Chemical Toxicology23, 135–338.
25.
LüpkeN.P. (1985). Hen's egg chorioallantoic membrane test for irritation potential. Food and Chemical Toxicology23, 287–291.
26.
RiddellR.J., ClothierR.H., & BallsM. (1986). An evaluation of three in vitro cytotoxicity assays. Food and Chemical Toxicology24, 469–471.
27.
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.
28.
OhnoY., KanekoT., InoueT., MorikawaY., YoshidaT., FujiiA., MasudaM., OhnoT., HayashiM., MommaJ., UchiyamaT., ChibaK., IkedaN., ImanishiY., ItagakiH., KakishimaH., KasaiY., KurishitaA., KojimaH., MatsukawaK., NakamuraT., OhkoshiK., OkumuraH., SaijoK., SakamotoK., SuzukiT., TakanoK., TatsumiH., TaniN., UsamiM., & WatanabeR. (1999). Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests of cosmetic ingredients. 1. Overview of the validation study and Draize scores for the evaluation of the tests. Toxicology in Vitro13, 73–98.
29.
HaginoS., KinoshitaS., TaniN., NakamuraT., OnoN., KonishiK., IimuraH., KojimaH., & OhnoY. (1999). Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests of cosmetic ingredients. 2. Chorionallantoic membrane (CAM) test. Toxicology in Vitro13, 99–113.
30.
OkamotoY., OhkoshiK., ItagakiH., TsudaT., KakishimaH., OgawaT., KasaiY., OhuchiJ., KojimaH., KurishitaA., KanekoT., MatsushimaY., IwabuchiY., & OhnoY. (1999). Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests of cosmetic ingredients. 3. Evaluation of the haemolysis test. Toxicology in Vitro13, 115–124.
31.
HataoM., MurakamiN., SakamotoK., OhnumaM., MatsushigeC., KakishimaH., OgawaT., KojimaH., MatsikawaK., MasudaK., ChibaK., YoshizawaK., KanekoT., IwabuchiY., MatsushimaY., MommaJ., & OhnoY. (1999). Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests of cosmetic ingredients. 4. Haemoglobin denaturation test. Toxicology in Vitro13, 125–137.
32.
KurishitaA., KatohT., OhsawaH., NakasawaH., SugiuraH., UsamiM., KakishimaH., KuwaharaH., OhuchiJ., KasaiY., OhokoshiK., OkamoteY., MoritoY., ShibataM., TsudaT., KojimaH., MizutaniA., IkedaN., SumidaY., NishifujiM., KatagiriM., KazamaA., HayashiN., HiroseA., KanekoT., & OhnoY. (1999). Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests of cosmetic ingredients. 5. Skin2™ ZK1100 and tissue equivalent assay. Toxicology in Vitro13, 139–151.
33.
OhuchiJ., KasaiY., SakamotoK., OhnumaM., KitamuraM., KawasakiY., KakishimaH., SuzukiK., KuwaharaH., ImanishiY., TatsumiH., KotaniM., InoueK., OkumuraH., ArashimaM., KurishitaA., KinoshitaS., TaniN., KojimaH., NakamuraT., SuzukiK., IshibashiT., HoriH., TakahashiH., NishikawaT., KitanoY., & OhnoY. (1999). Inter-laboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests of cosmetic ingredients. 6. Evaluation of MATREX™. Toxicology in Vitro13, 153–162.
34.
KojimaH., TakinoY., KanariM., SakamotoK., MiyaiE., AkiyamaJ., ShibataM., TorishimaH., YamamotoR., MiyajimaA., OhnoY., & TakanakaA. (1995). First phase inter-laboratory validation of the in vitro eye tests for cosmetic ingredients. 7. Evaluation of cytotoxicity tests on primary rabbit corneal epithelial cells (CornePack). AATEX3, 175–181.
35.
TaniN., KinoshitaS., OkamotoY., KotaniM., ItagakiH., MurakamiN., SugiuraS., UsamiM., KatoK., KojimaH., OhnoT., SaijoK., KatoM., HayashiM., & OhnoY. (1999). Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests of cosmetic ingredients. 8. Evaluation of cytotoxicity tests on SIRC cells. Toxicology in Vitro13, 175–187.
36.
ChibaK., MakinoI., OhuchiJ., KasaiY., KakishimaJ., TsukumoK., UchiyamaT., MiyaiE., AkiyamaJ., OkamotoY., KojimaH., OkumuraH., TsurumiY., UsamiM., KatohK., SugiuraS., KurishitaA., SunouchiM., MiyajimaA., HayashiM., & OhnoY. (1999). Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests of cosmetic ingredients. 9. Evaluation of cytotoxicity test on HeLa cells. Toxicology in Vitro13, 189–198.
37.
OkumuraH., ArashimaM., OhuchiJ., KasaiY., TsukumoK., KakishimaH., KotaniM., KojimaH., KurishitaA., HayashiM., MiyajimaA., SunouchiM., & OhnoY. (1999). Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests of cosmetic ingredients. 10. Evaluation of cytotoxicity test on CHL cells. Toxicology in Vitro13, 199–208.
38.
WilcoxD.K., & BrunerL.H. (1990). In vitro alternatives for ocular safety testing: an outline of assays and possible future developments. ATLA18, 117–128.
39.
BrunerL.H., KainD.J., RobertsD.A., & ParkerR.D. (1991). Evaluation of seven in vitro alternatives for ocular safety testing. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology17, 136–149.
40.
BallsM., BlaauboerB.J., FentemJ.H., BrunerL., CombesR.D., EkwallB., FielderR.J., GuillouzoA., LewisR.W., LovellD.P., ReinhardtC.A., RepettoG., SladowskiD., SpielmannH., & ZuccoF. (1995). Practical aspects of the validation of toxicity test procedures. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 5. ATLA23, 129–147.
41.
BallsM., BothamP.A., BrunerL.H., & SpielmannH. (1995). The EC/HO international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro9, 871–929.
42.
BrantomP.G., BrunerL.H., ChamberlainM., De SilvaO., DupuisJ., EarlL.K., LovellD.P., PaperW.J.W., & UttleyM. (1997). A summary report of the COLIPA international validation study on alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye irritation test. Toxicology in Vitro11, 141–79.
43.
KalweitS., BesokeK., GernerI., & SpielmannH. (1990). A national validation project of alternative methods to the Draize rabbit eye test. Toxicology in Vitro4, 702–706.
44.
SpielmannH., GernerI., KalweitS., MoogR., WirnsbergerT., KrauserK., KreilingR., KreuzerH., LüpkeN.P., MiltenburgeH.G., MüllerN., MürmannP., PapeW., SiegemundB., SpenglerJ., SteilingW., & WiebelF. (1991). Interlaboratory assessment of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test in Germany. Toxicology in Vitro5, 539–542.
45.
SpielmannH., KalweitS., LiebschM., WirnsbergerT., GernerI., Bertram-NeisE., KrauserK., KreilingR., MiltenburgerH.G., PapeW., & SteilingW. (1993). Validation study of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test in Germany: cytotoxicity testing and HET-CAM test with 136 industrial chemicals. Toxicology in Vitro7(4), 505–510.
46.
SpielmannH., LiebschM., KalweitS., MoldenhauerF., WirnsbergerT., HolzhütterH.G., SchneiderB., GlaserS., GernerI., PapeW.J.W., KreilingR., KrauserK., MiltenburgerH.G., SteilingW., LuepkeN.P., MüllerN., KreuzerH., MürmannP., SpenglerJ., Bertram-NeisE., SiegemundB, & WiebelF.J. (1999). Results of a validation study in Germany on two in vitro alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test, the HET-CAM test and the 3T3-NRU cytotoxicity test. ATLA24, 741–858.
47.
SpielmannH., LiebschM., KalweitS., MoldenhauerF., WirnsbergerT., HolzhütterH.G., SchneiderB., GlaserS., GernerI., PapeW.J.W., KreilingR., KrauserK., MiltenburgerH.G., SteilingW., LuepkeN.P., GünzelP., MüllerN., KreuzerH., MürmannP., SpenglerJ., Bertram-NeisE., SiegemundB., & WiebelF.J. (1999). A tiered in vitro/in vivo testing strategy to classify severely eye irritating chemicals using two alternatives to the Draize eye test, the HET-CAM test and the 3T3 NRU cytotoxicity test. In Alternatives to Animal Testing II. Proceedings of the Second Conference organised by the European Cosmetic Industry (ed. ClarkD.G., LisanskyS.G., & MacmillanR.), pp. 205–210. Newbury, Berks., UK: CPL Press.
48.
GettingsS.D., TealJ.J., BagleyD.M., DemetruliasJ.L., DiPasqualeL.C., HintzeK.L., RozenM.G., WeiseS.L., ChudkowskiM., MarenusK.D., PapeW.J.W., RoddyM., SchnitzingerR., SiberP.M., GlazaS.M., & KurtzP.J. (1991). The CTFA evaluation of alternatives program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. Phase I. Hydro-alcoholic formulations. Part 2: data analysis and biological significance. In Vitro Toxicology4, 247–288.
49.
GettingsS.D., DiPasqualeL.C., BagleyD.M., CastertonP.L., ChudkowskiM., CurrenR.D., DemetruliasJ.L., FederP.I., GalliC.L., GayR., GlazaS.M., HintzeK.L., JanusJ., KurtzP.J., LordoR.A., MarenusK.D., MoralJ., MuscatielloM.J., PapeW.J.W., RenskerK.J., RoddyM., & RozenM.G. (1994). The CTFA evaluation of alternatives program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. Phase II. Oil/water emulsions. Food and Chemical Toxicology32, 943–976.
50.
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., MoralJ., PapeW.J.W., RenskerK.R., RheinsL.A., RoddyM., 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, 79–17.
51.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (1997). Validation and acceptance of toxicological test methods. A report of the ad hoc Coordinating Committee on the validation of alternative methods. NIH Publication No. 97-3981, 105 pp. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA: NIEHS.
52.
ScalaR.A., & SpringerJ. (1997). IRAG Workshop Group 6: guidelines for the evaluation of eye irritation alternative tests: criteria for data submission. Food and Chemical Toxicology35, 13–22.
53.
BradlawJ., GuptaH., GreenS., HillR., & WilcoxN. (1997). Practical application of non-whole animal alternatives: summary of IRAG workshop on eye irritation testing. Food and Chemical Toxicology34, 175–178.
54.
OhnoY., KanekoT., KobayashiT., InoueT., KuroiwaY., YoshidaT., MommaJ., HayashiM., AkiyamaJ., AtsumiT., ChibaK., EndoT., FujiiA., KakishimaH., KojimaH., MasamotoK., MasudaM., MatsukawaS., OhkoshiK., OkadaJ., SakamotoK., TakanoK., & TakanakaA. (1994). First-phase validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients. In Vitro Toxicology7, 89–94.
55.
OhnoY., KanekoT., KobayashiT., InoueT., KuroiwaY., YoshidaT., MommaJ., HayashiM., AkiyamaJ., AtsumiT., ChibaK., EndoT., FujiiA., KakishimaH., KojimaH., MasamotoK., MasudaM., MatsukawaS., OhkoshiK., OkadaJ., SakamotoK., TakanoK., & TakanakaA. (1995). First-phase interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients. I. Overview, organization and results of the validation study. ALTEX3, 123–136.
56.
BallsM., BergN., BrunerL.H., CurrenR.D., de SilvaO., EarlL.K., EsdaileD.J., FentemJ.H., LiebschM., OhnoY., PrinsenM.K., SpielmannH., & WorthA.P. (1999). Eye irritation testing: the way forward. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 34. ATLA27, 53–77.
57.
BrunerL.H., de SilvaO., EarlL.K., EastyD.L., PapeW., & SpielmannH. (1998). Report on the COLIPA workshop on mechanisms of eye irritation. ATLA26, 811–820.
58.
EarlL.K., DickensA.D., & RowsonM.J. (1997). A critical analysis of the rabbit eye irritation test variability and its impact on the validation of alternative methods. Toxicology in Vitro11, 295–304.
WorthA.P., & BallsM., eds. (2002). Alternative (non-animal) methods for chemicals testing: current and future prospects. A report prepared by EVCAM and the ECVAM Working Group on Chemicals. ATLA30, Suppl. 1, 1–125.
61.
GernerI., GraetschelG., KahlJ., & SchledeE. (2000). Development of a decision support system for the introduction of alternative methods into local irritation/corrosion testing strategies: development of a relational database. ATLA28, 11–28.
62.
BermanE.R. (1991). Cornea. In Biochemistry of the Eye, pp. 89–150. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.
63.
BermanE.R. (1991). Lens. In Biochemistry of the Eye, pp. 201–290. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.
64.
SlingsbyC., SimpsonA., FersztA., BatemanO.A., & NaliniV. (1991). Biochemistry of the eye: molecular interactions in the eye lens. Biochemical Society Transactions19, 853–858.
65.
BenedekG.B. (1997). Cataract as a protein condensation disease. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science38, 1911–1921.
66.
BermanE.R. (1991). Aqueous, irisciliary body, and trabeculum. In Biochemistry of the Eye, pp. 151–200. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.
67.
HodsonS., GuggenheimJ., KailaD., & WighamC. (1991). Biochemistry of the eye: anion pumps in ocular tissues. Biochemical Society Transactions19, 849–852.
68.
GrantW.M. (1986). Introductory outline of toxic effects involving the eyes or vision. In Toxicology of the eye. Effects on the Eyes and Visual System from Chemicals, Drugs, Metals and Minerals, Plants, Toxins and Venoms; Also, Systemic Side Effects from Eye Medications (ed. GrantW.M.), pp. 3–29. Springfield, MA, USA: Charles C Thomas.
69.
FreebergF.E., NixonG.A., ReerP.J., WeaverJ.E., BruceR.D., GriffithJ.F., & SandersL.W. (1986). Human and rabbit eye responses to chemical insult. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology7(4), 626–634.
70.
YorkM., & SteilingW. (1998). A critical review of the assessment of eye irritation potential using the Draize rabbit eye test. Journal of Applied Toxicology18, 233–240.
71.
MaurerJ.K., ParkerR.D., PetrolW.M., CarrG.J., CavanaghH.D., & JesterJ.V. (1999). Quantitative measurement of acute corneal injury in rabbits with surfactants of different type and irritancy. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology158, 61–70.
72.
MuirC.K. (1987). Qualitative differences in opacification and thickness of bovine cornea in vitro induced by acid, alkali, surfactant or methanol. ATLA14, 279–287.
73.
MuirC.K. (1987). Surfactant-induced opacity of bovine isolated cornea: an epithelial phenomenon?Toxicology Letters38, 51–54.
74.
IgarashiH., & NorthoverA.M. (1987). Increases in opacity and thickness induced by surfactants and other chemicals in the bovine isolated cornea. Toxicology Letters39, 249–154.
75.
RougierA., CottinM., de SilvaO., CatrouxP., RoguetR., & DossouK.G. (1994). The use of in vitro methods in the ocular irritation assessment of cosmetic products. Toxicology in Vitro8, 893–905.
76.
LewisR.W., McCallJ.C., & BothamP.A. (1994). Use of in vitro test battery as a prescreen in the assessment of ocular irritancy. Toxicology in Vitro8, 75–81.
77.
KayserD., & RollR. (1995). Strategy of Toxicological Testing to Assess Chemicals within the Framework of the Chemicals Act. BgVV Schriften, 76 pp. Munich, Germany: MMV Verlag.
78.
BarrattM.D. (1995). The role of structure–activity relationships and expert systems in alternative strategies for determination of skin sensitisation, skin corrosivity and eye irritation. ATLA23, 111–122.
79.
BarrattM.D., CastellJ.V., ChamberlainM., CombesR.D., DeardenJ.C., FentemJ.H., GernerI., GuilianiA., GrayT.J.B., LivingstoneD.J., ProvanW.M., RuttenF.A.J.J.L., VerhaarH.J.M., & ZbindenP. (1995). The integrated use of alternative approaches for predicting toxic hazard. ATLA23, 410–429.
80.
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.
81.
YoungJ.R., HowM.J., WalkerA.P., & WorthW.M.H. (1988). Classification as corrosive or irritant to skin of preparations containing acidic or alkaline substances without testing on animals. Toxicology in Vitro2, 19–26.
82.
RégnierJ.F., & ImbertC. (1992). Contributions of physicochemical properties to the evaluation of ocular irritation. ATLA20, 457–465.
83.
HanschC., & FujitaT. (1964). p-s-p Analysis: a method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. Journal of the American Chemical Society86, 1616–1626.
84.
EnsleinK. (1988). An overview of structure–activity relationships as an alternative to testing in animals for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, dermal and eye irritation, and acute oral toxicity. Toxicology and Industrial Health4, 479–498.
85.
EnsleinK., BlakeB.W., TuzzeoT.M., BorgstedtH.H., HartJ.B., & SalemH. (1988). Estimation of rabbit eye irritation scores by structure–activity equations. In Vitro Toxicology2, 1–14.
86.
KlopmanG., PtchelintserD., FriersonM., PennisiS., RenskerK., & DickensM. (1993). Multiple computer automated structure evaluation methodology as an alternative to in vivo eye irritation testing. ATLA21, 14–27.
87.
BarrattM.D. (1997). QSARs for the eye irritation potential of neutral organic chemicals. Toxicology in Vitro11, 1–8.
88.
KulkarniA., HopfingerA.J., OsborneR., BrunerL.H., & ThompsonE.D. (2001). Prediction of eye irritation from organic chemicals using membrane-interaction QSAR analysis. Toxicological Sciences59, 335–345.
89.
HanwayR.H., & EvansP.F. (2000). Read-across of toxicological data in the notification of new chemicals. Toxicology Letters1/116, 61.
90.
ZinkeS., & GernerI. (2000). Local irritation/corrosion testing strategies: extending a decision support system by applying self-learning classifiers. ATLA28, 651–663.
91.
CroninM.T.D., JaworskaJ.S., WalkerJ.D., ComberM.H.I., WattsC.D., & WorthA.P. (2003). Use of quantitative structure-activity relationships in international decision making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. Environmental Health Perspectives111, 1391–1401.
92.
SchledeE., & GernerI. (1995). The Draize eye test and progress in development and acceptance of alternatives to this test in Europe. In The World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences: Education, Research, Testing (ed. GoldbergA.M., van ZutphenL.F.M., & PrincipeM.L.), pp. 333–336. New York, NY, USA: Mary Ann Liebert.
