2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2017.09.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CON4EI: Development of testing strategies for hazard identification and labelling for serious eye damage and eye irritation of chemicals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The three-tiered strategy utilizes the SMI method in conjunction with the corneal epithelial and BCOP methods (classification of Cat 1). For the proposed strategies, 71.1-82.9% Cat 1, 64.2-68.5% Cat 2, and ≥ 80% No Cat chemicals were correctly identified (Adriaens et al 2018b). Important conclusions were that the EpiOcular-EIT and the SkinEthic HCE EIT test methods were able to predict the immediate disruptive effects to the corneal epithelium (corneal opacity), and they were also able to identify chemicals that are classified based on the persistence of the effects at day 21 and or due in part to conjunctival effects (Kandarova et al 2018b;Van Rompay et al 2018).…”
Section: Drivers Of Classification and Tiered Testing Approaches In Eye Irritation Testingmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The three-tiered strategy utilizes the SMI method in conjunction with the corneal epithelial and BCOP methods (classification of Cat 1). For the proposed strategies, 71.1-82.9% Cat 1, 64.2-68.5% Cat 2, and ≥ 80% No Cat chemicals were correctly identified (Adriaens et al 2018b). Important conclusions were that the EpiOcular-EIT and the SkinEthic HCE EIT test methods were able to predict the immediate disruptive effects to the corneal epithelium (corneal opacity), and they were also able to identify chemicals that are classified based on the persistence of the effects at day 21 and or due in part to conjunctival effects (Kandarova et al 2018b;Van Rompay et al 2018).…”
Section: Drivers Of Classification and Tiered Testing Approaches In Eye Irritation Testingmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…For the proposed strategies, 71.1-82.9% Cat 1, 64.2-68.5% Cat 2, and ≥ 80% No Cat chemicals were correctly identified (Adriaens et al 2018b). Important conclusions were that the EpiOcular-EIT and the SkinEthic HCE EIT test methods were able to predict the immediate disruptive effects to the corneal epithelium (corneal opacity), and they were also able to identify chemicals that are classified based on the persistence of the effects at day 21 and or due in part to conjunctival effects (Kandarova et al 2018b;Van Rompay et al 2018). The combination of in vitro 3D corneal epithelial test methods (EpiOcular-EIT and SkinEthic HCE EIT) and ex vivo BCOP LLBO test method grouped with physicochemical analysis in a two-step, bottom-up approach was shown to be applicable for neat liquid materials and resulted in improved specificity (Alépée et al 2019).…”
Section: Drivers Of Classification and Tiered Testing Approaches In Eye Irritation Testingmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Therefore, the criteria that were set during the CONsortium for in vitro Eye Irritation testing strategy (CON4EI) project were used initially to develop DAL-1 and DAL-2. 10 Following the introduction of the DAs to the OECD expert group on eye/skin irritation/corrosion and phototoxicity, Cosmetics Europe proposed target values to assess the performance of DAs for eye hazard identification to distinguish between the three UN GHS categories. The proposed target values considered the uncertainty of the Draize eye test by taking into account the within-and between-test variability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proposed target values considered the uncertainty of the Draize eye test by taking into account the within-and between-test variability. [9][10][11] After discussion with the OECD expert group, a con-sensus was reached on the performance criteria to assess the predictivity of DAs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%