Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol ; 106: 292-302, 2019 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31112721

ABSTRACT

From October 2016 the REACH Regulation requires an alternative testing strategy for skin sensitization. The current paper describes our experience when putting into practice the REACH alternative testing strategy with a modification for 50 industrial chemicals in total, including mono-constituents, multi-constituents and UVCBs. For mono- and multi-constituents, a tiered approach was followed starting with an in silico (Derek Nexus) assessment, DPRA and KeratinoSens™ assay, followed by a weight of evidence conclusion based on the generated data, or further testing using the U-SENS™ assay. For UVCBs testing started with the KeratinoSens™ assay followed by the U-SENS™ assay if additional relevant information could be gained for an overall conclusion. From the 50 substances tested, for 46% a conclusion on skin sensitization potential and potency could be drawn based on the non-animal testing strategy; however, 54% of the substances still needed to be studied in vivo due to discordant results from non-animal testing or the need for reliable potency data. Important issues with the currently available, validated non-animal methods are the lack or comparability of skin metabolism and lack of potency indication, which is present in the in vivo assays. Skin sensitization testing for UVCBs and multi-constituents is still in a grey area, as neither the in chemico, in vitro assays, and in vivo LLNA have been validated for UVCBs and multi-constituents.


Subject(s)
Animal Testing Alternatives , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Skin Tests , Skin/drug effects , Animals , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL