Yam J, Reer P J, Bruce R D
Human & Environmental Safety Division, Procter & Gamble Company, Miami Valley Laboratories, Cincinnati, OH 45239-8707.
Food Chem Toxicol. 1991 Apr;29(4):259-63. doi: 10.1016/0278-6915(91)90023-z.
The acute oral toxicity data for 10 compounds, generated by using two alternative methods in rats, the up-and-down method and the fixed-dose procedure, were compared with those obtained from the classical LD50 test. In this evaluation, both alternative methods offered a reduction in animal use, while providing adequate information to rank the compounds according to the EEC classification for acute oral toxicity. In addition to the ranking, these alternative methods also provided useful information on signs of toxicity and gross autopsy findings, although the results varied depending on the method used. Of the three methods, the up-and-down method required the fewest animals. Although the up-and-down method used only females, the LD50 values obtained were in good agreement with those obtained by the classical method, which used both sexes. It is concluded that the up-and-down method and the fixed-dose procedure are acceptable alternative methods to the classical LD50 test, and the choice of method depends on the type of toxicity information required.
使用上下法和固定剂量法这两种替代方法在大鼠中生成的10种化合物的急性经口毒性数据,与通过经典LD50试验获得的数据进行了比较。在该评估中,两种替代方法都减少了动物使用量,同时提供了足够的信息以根据欧盟急性经口毒性分类对化合物进行排名。除了排名之外,这些替代方法还提供了有关毒性体征和大体尸检结果的有用信息,尽管结果因所使用的方法而异。在这三种方法中,上下法所需动物数量最少。尽管上下法仅使用雌性动物,但获得的LD50值与使用雌雄两性的经典方法获得的值高度一致。结论是,上下法和固定剂量法是经典LD50试验可接受的替代方法,方法的选择取决于所需毒性信息的类型。