In the past, reports on the tumorigenic potential of lubricating oils in experimental animals have poorly defined the materials under study. In this paper the results of mouse skin painting studies with 46 clearly defined samples of refinery streams associated with lubricating oil processing show that modern conventional solvent refining of distillates removes tumorigenic potential while conventional acid refining may not. Furthermore, dewaxing, hydrofinishing, and clay treatments do not appear to mitigate the tumorigenicity of the lubricant distillates. Lubricant processing has changed over the years and assessments of the carcinogenicity of present-day lubricating materials must be based on knowledge of modern processing.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

elastic tape; remove pads aft~r 24 hours, wipe clean, and score then and after an additional 48 hours using Draize technique .Primary dermal irritation index = 0.6, Slightly Irritating ~Protocol: New Zealand White Rabbits, 4 male, 4 female, 2-3 kg; apply 5 glkg to an area approximately 30% of the total body surface, abraded and nonabraded in 2 of each sex; cover with gal!.~e bandage, plastic wrap, and elastic tape. Remove covers after 24 hours wipe clean and observe for 14 days then sacrifice for gross necropsy.Results: No deaths at 5 glkg.QralP rotocol: 5 male,S female Sprague-Dawley rats; age approx 9 wks; oral gavage dose 5.0 glkg body weight; observation for 14 days, sacrifice and gross necropsy; if mortality less than 2 terminate study, if 2 or greater, expose other groups to determine LD50.Results: No deaths at 5 glkg.~Sensitization Protocol: 10 male Hartley guinea pigs; age approx 9-10 wks; N =10; 1.0 mL undiluted on an adhesive pad applied for 6 hr, 3 times weekly for 3 wks, challenge dose 2 wks later. Sites scored for edema and erythema at 24 hr after application; Draize tE!Chnique 1.Results: No difference between sensitizing and challenge dose effects.