Correlation of Animal Test Methods with Human Experience for Household Products

Freeberg, F. E.; Griffith, John F.; Bruce, Robert D.; Bay, Pierre

doi:10.3109/15569528409036272

Cited by 60 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Gettings et al (1996) investigated LVET in response to severe irritants and reported an under-prediction of results when compared to Draize data. Since Draize testing is often criticized for its over-prediction of human responses, it is arguable that LVET testing is more accurate (Freeberg et al, 1984(Freeberg et al, , 1986aGhassemi et al, 1993;Roggeband et al, 2000). However, LVET is still criticized for its use of animals.…”

Section: Low-volume Eye-irritation Test (Lvet)mentioning

confidence: 95%

An overview of current techniques for ocular toxicity testing

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the hazardous nature of many materials and substances, ocular toxicity testing is required to evaluate the dangers associated with these substances after their exposure to the eye. Historically, animal tests such as the Draize test were exclusively used to determine the level of ocular toxicity by applying a test substance to a live rabbit's eye and evaluating the biological response. In recent years, legislation in many developed countries has been introduced to try to reduce animal testing and promote alternative techniques. These techniques include ex vivo tests on deceased animal tissue, computational models that use algorithms to apply existing data to new chemicals and in vitro assays based on two dimensional (2D) and three dimensional (3D) cell culture models. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of the latest advances in ocular toxicity testing techniques, and discuss the regulatory framework used to evaluate their suitability.

show abstract

Section: Low-volume Eye-irritation Test (Lvet)mentioning

confidence: 95%

An overview of current techniques for ocular toxicity testing

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The LVET was used because it is less stressful to the rabbits and is more predictive of human ocular irritancy potential than the standard Draize procedure (6,8,9,10,27). Eyes were macroscopically examined with the aid of a penlight before dosing to insure absence of ocular abnormalities.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathology of Ocular Irritation with Acetone, Cyclohexanol, Parafl uoroaniline, and Formaldehyde in the Rabbit Low-Volume Eye Test

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ocular irritation responses to 11 different surfactants and two concentration s of acetic acid and sodium hydroxide have been shown to depend on the extent of initial injury, despite marked differences in the processes leading to tissue damage. The purpose of these studies was to determine the extent to which this fundamenta l relationship applies to other nonsurfactants . Ten l l of acetone (ACT), cyclohexano l (CY), para uoroaniline (PF), or 37% formaldehyd e (FA) was directly applied to the cornea of the right eye of each rabbit. Eyes and eyelids were macroscopicall y scored for signs of irritation beginning 3 hours after dosing and periodically until recovery or 35 days. Tissues were obtained for light microscopic examination after 3 hours and on days 1, 3, and 35. Initial corneal injury was characterized quantitatively at 3 hours and 1 day using in vivo confocal microscopy (CM) and by postmortem quantitation of dead corneal epithelial cells and keratocytes using a Live-Dead Assay (L/D, Molecular Probes) and scanning laser CM. Corneal changes over time were characterized quantitatively using in vivo CM performed at 3 hours and 1, 3, 7, 14, and 35 days. The changes with ACT were consistent with mild irritation. Corneal injury was limited to the epithelium and super cial stroma, with the mean normalized depth of injury (NDI) being less than 10% with the majority of regions showing no stromal injury. Changes with CY and PF were consistent with moderate to severe irritation, and FA caused severe irritation. Speci cally, corneal injury by CY and PF tended to involve the epithelium and anterior stroma, with the mean NDI being 10.4% to 23.8%, while injury with FA involved the epithelium, deep stroma, and at times the endothelium. Interestingly, with FA signi cantly less injury was observed at 3 hours with a dramatic increase in injury observed at 1 day and thereafter. In conclusion, these results continue to support and extend our hypothesis that ocular irritation is principally de ned by the extent of initial injury despite clear differences in the means by which irritants cause tissue damage. We believe this approach can be applied to developing alternative assays based on injury to ex vivo eyes or injury to an in vitro corneal equivalent system.

show abstract

“…Additionally, for the LVET there is no forced blink following application, as in the Draize test. The LVET has been shown to predict better the ocular response occurring in humans (3)(4)(5)(6). Reduction of animal use has been through the development of various in vitro screening tests used in tier eye irritation assessment processes to make preliminary decisions and establish the direction for further testing (1,8,9).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%