Tan Jian-Bin, Zhao Min, Yang Xing-Fen, Zhou Yi-Lin, Chen Bi-Feng, Chen Rui-Yi, Huang Jian-Kang
Center for Disease Control and Prevention of Guangdong Province, Guangzhou 510300, China.
Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2011 Jun;29(6):431-4.
To evaluate three alternative methods for LD50 test-Fixed Dose Procedure (FDP), the Acute Toxic Class Method (ATC) and Up and Down Procedure (UDP).
Female SD rats (8-12 weeks of age, 160-200 g) were used. Three alternative methods from OECD were applied to assess 22 chemicals (10 cosmetic raw materials and 12 raw materials of personal and home care products). The toxicity ranking for tested chemicals was established according to Globally Harmonized System (GSH). The results LD50 test were compared for the consistency and correlation between alternative methods and traditional test.
For cosmetic raw materials, the concordance rate of the three alternative methods was 80% (8/10); for raw material of personal and home care products, the concordance rates of FDP, ATC and UDP was 91.7% (11/12), 75.0% (9/12) and 83.0% (10/12), respectively. The number of animals required in three alternative methods was significantly lower than that in traditional test (P < 0.05), but the time required in three alternative methods was significantly higher than that in traditional test (P < 0.05).
High consistency and correlation were found between each alternative method and LD50 test. FDP may be more potential when applied to assess acute oral toxicity of cosmetic raw materials.
评估三种半数致死剂量(LD50)测试的替代方法——固定剂量法(FDP)、急性毒性分级法(ATC)和上下法(UDP)。
使用8至12周龄、体重160至200克的雌性SD大鼠。采用经合组织(OECD)的三种替代方法评估22种化学品(10种化妆品原料和12种个人及家庭护理产品原料)。根据全球统一制度(GHS)确定受试化学品的毒性等级。比较替代方法与传统测试之间LD50测试结果的一致性和相关性。
对于化妆品原料,三种替代方法的一致率为80%(8/10);对于个人及家庭护理产品原料,FDP、ATC和UDP的一致率分别为91.7%(11/12)、75.0%(9/12)和83.0%(10/12)。三种替代方法所需动物数量显著低于传统测试(P<0.05),但三种替代方法所需时间显著高于传统测试(P<0.05)。
各替代方法与LD50测试之间具有高度的一致性和相关性。FDP在评估化妆品原料急性经口毒性时可能更具潜力。