首页> 外文期刊>Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology: RTP >Can acute dermal systemic toxicity tests be replaced with oral tests? A comparison of route-specific systemic toxicity and hazard classifications under the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)
【24h】

Can acute dermal systemic toxicity tests be replaced with oral tests? A comparison of route-specific systemic toxicity and hazard classifications under the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)

机译:急性皮肤全身毒性试验可以代替口服试验吗?全球化学品统一分类和标签制度(GHS)下特定路线的系统毒性和危害分类的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Acute systemic toxicity data (LD50 values) and hazard classifications derived in the rat following oral administration and dermal application have been analysed to examine whether or not orally-derived hazard classification or LD50 values can be used to determine dermal hazard classification. Comparing the oral and dermal classifications for 335 substances derived from oral and dermal LD50 values respectively revealed 17% concordance, and indicated that 7% of substances would be classified less severely while 76% would be classified more severely if oral classifications were applied directly to the dermal route. In contrast, applying the oral LD50 values within the dermal classification criteria to determine the dermal classification reduced the concordance to 15% and the relative 'under-classification' to 1%, but increased the relative 'over-classification' to 84%. Both under- and over-classification are undesirable, and mitigation strategies are discussed. Finally, no substance with an oral LD50 of 2000mg/kg was classified for acute systemic toxicity by the dermal route, suggesting that dermal testing for acute systemic toxicity of such substances adds nothing to the hazard characterisation and should be removed from routine regulatory data requirements.
机译:已对口服和皮肤应用后大鼠的急性全身毒性数据(LD50值)和危害分类进行了分析,以检查是否可以将口服衍生的危害分类或LD50值用于确定皮肤危害分类。比较分别来自口服和皮肤LD50值的335种物质的口服和皮肤分类,发现一致性为17%,并指出如果将口服分类直接应用于LD50值,则7%的物质分类不那么严格,而76%的分类更严格。真皮路线。相反,在皮肤分类标准中应用口服LD50值来确定皮肤分类可将一致性降低到15%,相对“分类不足”降低到1%,但将相对“过度分类”提高到84%。过度分类和过度分类都是不可取的,并且讨论了缓解策略。最后,没有经皮肤途径将口服LD50> 2000mg / kg的物质分类为急性全身毒性,这表明经皮肤测试此类物质的急性全身毒性不会增加危害特征,应从常规法规数据要求中删除。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号