Industrial Uses of Acute Toxicity Testing

  • G. J. A. Oliver
Conference paper

Abstract

Several thousand new chemicals are synthesised each year, many of which will add to those already used in commerce. There is both a moral and legal Obligation on the chemical industry to ensure that the risk of adverse effects to human health and the environment is minimal in order to competently satisfy society’s rightful demands for safety. Generally, this Obligation is met by toxicity experiments using animal species to provide Surrogate data from which risk to human health may be determined.

Keywords

Surfactant Toxicity Europe Transportation Marketing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anon (1984) Chem Reg Rep 8, 333Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bass R, Günzel P, Henschler D, König J, Lorke D, Neubert D, Schütz E, Schuppan D and Zbinden G (1982) LD50 versus acute toxicity. Critieal assessment of the methodology currently in use. Arch Toxicol, 51, 183–186Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown VKH (1983) Acute toxicity texting. In: Animals and Alternatives in Toxicity Testing. Eds Balls, Riddell an Wordern, Academic Press, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruce RP (1984) An up-and down procedure for acute toxicity testing. In pressGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    British Toxicology Society (1984) A new approach to the Classification of subtances and preparations on the basis of their acute toxicity. A report by the British Toxicology Society Working Party on Toxicity. Human Toxicol 3, 85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chanter DO and Heywood R (1982) The LD50 test: some considerations of precision. Toxicology Letters 10, 303–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dayan A (1983) Complete programme for acute toxicity testing - not only LD50 determination. Acta Pharmacol Toxicol 52, 31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dayan AD, Clark B, Jackson M, Morgan H and Charlesworth, FA (1984) Role of the LD50 test in the pharmaceutical industry. The Lancet, 555–556.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Depass LR, Myers RC, Weaver EV and Weil CS (1984) Alternative Methods in Toxicology. Vol 2. Acute Toxicity Testing: Alternative Approaches. May Ann Liebert Inc, Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dixon WJ (1965) The up-and-down method for small samples. J Am Stat Assoc 60, 967–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ECETOC Monograph N° 6 (1985) Acute toxicity tests, LD50 (LC50), determination and alternatives. BrüsselsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    EEC VIth Amendment (1983) Directive 79–831, Annex VI, Part IIBGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EEC VIth Amendment (1984) Directive 79–831, Annex VGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Environmental Protection Agency (1984) Federal Register 49, (188), 37979Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fowler JSL, Brown JS and Bell HA (1979) The rat toxicity screen. Pharmacol & Therapeutics, 5, 461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fowler JSL and Rutty DA (1983) Methodolical aspects of acute toxicity testing, particularly LD50 determinations: present use in development of new drugs. Acta Pharmacol Toxicol, 52, 20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Griffin JP (1981) Referring to the paper by Zbinden & Flury-Roversi. Arch Toxicol, 49, 99–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hayes WJ (1982) Principles and Methods of Toxicology. Raven PressGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Health & Safety at Work (etc) Act (1984) The Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1984. No. 1244Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Environmental Protection Agency Health Effects Test Guidelines (1982) EPA 560/6-82–001 (PB82-232984)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hunter WJ, Lingk W and Recht P (1979) Intercomparison study on the determination of Single administration toxicity in rats. J Assoc Off Anal Chem, 62, 864–873PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Irwin S (1962) Drug Screening and evaluative procedures. Science (NY) 136, 123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lorke D (1983) A new approach to practical acute toxicity testing. Arch Toxicol, 54, 275–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martens M, Mosselmans G, Fumero S, Jacobs G and Lafontaine A (1984) Some thoughts on a possible regulatory approach at EEC level on the Classification and labelling of dangerous preparations. Reg Tox Pharmacol, 4, 134–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Müller H and Kley HP (1982) Retrospective study on the reliabiüty of an “approximate LD50” determined with a small number of animals. Arch Toxicol, 51, 189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals (1981) Section 4: Health Effects. Test Guidelines, Nos 401, 402, 403Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schütz E (1969) On acute oral toxicity tests. Amer Perf Cosmet, 84, 41–44Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schütz E, Fuchs H (1982) A new approach to minimising the number of animals used in acute toxicity testing and optimising the information of test results. Arch Toxicol, 51, 197–220Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sperling F (1976) Non-lethal parameters as indices of acute toxicity: inadequacy of the acute LD50. In: New Concepts in Safety Evaluation. Eds Mehlmann MA, Shapiro RE, Blumenthal H, John Wiley and Sons, New York, London, Sydney, Toronto, pp 177–191Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tattersall ML (1982) Statistics and the LD50 study. Arch Toxicol Suppl, 5, 267–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Überla K and Schnieders B (1982) In reference to the paper by Bass et al. Arch Toxicol, 51, 187Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weil CS (1983) Economical LD50 and slope determinations. Drug and Chem Toxicol, 6, 595–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zbinden G and Flury-Roversi M (1981) Significance of the LD50 test for the toxicological evaluation of chemical substances. Arch Toxicol, 47, 77–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. J. A. Oliver

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations