Robust and efficient processes are needed to establish scientific confidence in new approach methodologies (NAMs) if they are to be considered for regulatory applications. NAMs need to be fit for purpose, reliable and, for the assessment of human health effects, provide information relevant to human biology. They must also be independently reviewed and transparently communicated. Ideally, NAM developers should communicate with stakeholders such as regulators and industry to identify the question(s), and specified purpose that the NAM is intended to address, and the context in which it will be used. Assessment of the biological relevance of the NAM should focus on its alignment with human biology, mechanistic understanding, and ability to provide information that leads to health protective decisions, rather than solely comparing NAM-based chemical testing results with those from traditional animal test methods. However, when NAM results are compared to historical animal test results, the variability observed within animal test method results should be used to inform performance benchmarks. Building on previous efforts, this paper proposes a framework comprising five essential elements to establish scientific confidence in NAMs for regulatory use: fitness for purpose, human biological relevance, technical characterization, data integrity and transparency, and independent review. Universal uptake of this framework would facilitate the timely development and use of NAMs by the international community. While this paper focuses on NAMs for assessing human health effects of pesticides and industrial chemicals, many of the suggested elements are expected to apply to other types of chemicals and to ecotoxicological effect assessments.

There are multiple in vitro and ex vivo eye irritation and corrosion test methods that are available as internationally harmonized test guidelines for regulatory use. Despite their demonstrated usefulness to a broad range of substances through inter-laboratory validation studies, they have not been widely adopted for testing agrochemical formulations due to a lack of concordance with parallel results from the traditional regulatory test method for this endpoint, the rabbit eye test. The inherent variability of the rabbit test, differences in the anatomy of the rabbit and human eyes, and differences in modelling exposures in rabbit eyes relative to human eyes contribute to this lack of concordance. Ultimately, the regulatory purpose for these tests is protection of human health, and, thus, there is a need for a testing approach based on human biology. This paper reviews the available in vivo, in vitro and ex vivo test methods with respect to their relevance to human ocular anatomy, anticipated exposure scenarios, and the mechanisms of eye irritation/corrosion in humans. Each of the in vitro and ex vivo methods described is generally appropriate for identifying non-irritants. To discriminate among eye irritants, the human three-dimensional epithelial and full thickness corneal models provide the most detailed information about the severity of irritation. Consideration of the mechanisms of eye irritation, and the strengths and limitations of the in vivo, in vitro and ex vivo test methods, show that the in vitro/ex vivo methods are as or more reflective of human biology and less variable than the currently used rabbit approach. Suggestions are made for further optimizing the most promising methods to distinguish between severe (corrosive), moderate, mild and non-irritants and provide information about the reversibility of effects. Also considered is the utility of including additional information (e.g. physical chemical properties), consistent with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's guidance document on an integrated approach to testing and assessment of potential eye irritation. Combining structural and functional information about a test substance with test results from human-relevant methods will ensure the best protection of humans following accidental eye exposure to agrochemicals.