Skip to main content
  • 48 Accesses

Abstract

The past decade has seen a world wide proliferation of legislation intended to protect the worker and the public against any ill- effects of exposure to industrial chemicals. It is often assumed that more tests will result in greater safety and that harmonization of test protocols will render the results of tests more readily acceptable to others. The harmonization effected by OECD guidelines[1] has assisted in the institution of minimal standards, but whether increased legislation has increased ultimate safety to any significant degree is more debatable and the overall cost to the community has barely been considered. Of even greater importance is the consideration whether the funding could not have been more profitably and efficiently applied to individually prepared programmes and protocols linked to specific chemicals and their perceived risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. OECD (19) Guidelines for testing of chemicals. (Paris: OECD)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fed Reg (1984). 49, 25082

    Google Scholar 

  3. Opdyke, DLJ (1976). Inhibition of sensitization reactions in-duced by certain aldehydes. Fd Cosmet Toxicol, 14, 197 - 8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Freeburg, FE, Griffiths, JF, Bruce, RD and Bay, PHS (1984). Correlation of animal test methods with human experience for household products. J Toxicol Cut Ocular Toxicol, 1, 53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Balls, M, Riddell, RJ and Worden, AN (eds) (1983). Animals and Alternatives in Toxicity Testing. ( London: Academic Press )

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zbinden, G and Flury-Roversi, M (1981). Arch Toxicol, 47, 77–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chanter, DO and Heywood, R (1982). The LD-50 test: some considerations of precision. Toxicol Lett, 10, 303–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Craig, PN (1983). Mathematical models for toxicity evalua-tions. Ann Rep Med Chem, 18, 303–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Weir, BR, Simmons, WS, Fan, AM, Livingston, DL, Tesche, NS and Walton, AH (1981). Development of a format for abstracting dose-response information from published studies for use in quantitative structure-activity relationships ( QSARs ). J Chem Inf Comput Sci, 21, 14–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cramer, GM, Ford, RA and Hall, RL (1978). Estimation of toxic hazard - a decision-tree approach. Fed Cosmet Toxicol, 6, 255

    Google Scholar 

  11. Noel, PRB (1982). Toxicity testing, hazard assessment and data quality assurance in respect to use of laboratory animals. In Bartosek, I (ed.) Toxicology Research ( New York: Raven Press )

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1986 MTP Press Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cooke, M.A. (1986). Industrial Chemicals. In: Worden, A.N., Parke, D.V., Marks, J. (eds) The Future of Predictive Safety Evaluation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4139-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4139-7_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8336-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-4139-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics