title: The ECVAM International Validation Study on In Vitro Tests for Skin Corrosivity. 2. Results and Evaluation by the Management Team.
abstract: As a follow-up to a prevalidation study on in vitro tests for replacing the in vivo rabbit test for skin corrosivity, an international validation study was conducted during 1996 and 1997 under the auspices of ECVAM. The main objectives of the study were to: (a) identify tests capable of discriminating corrosives from non-corrosives for selected types of chemicals and/or all chemicals; and (b) determine whether these tests could identify correctly known R35 (UN packing group I) and R34 (UN packing groups II & III) chemicals. The tests evaluated were the rat skin transcutaneous electrical resistance (TER) assay, CORROSITEX(TM), the Skin(2TM) ZK1350 corrosivity test and EPISKIN(TM). Each test was conducted in three independent laboratories. 60 coded chemicals were tested. All of the tests evaluated showed acceptable intralaboratory and interlaboratory reproducibilities, and the TER, Skin(2) and EPISKIN tests proved applicable to testing a diverse group of chemicals of different physical forms, including organic acids, organic bases, neutral organics, inorganic acids, inorganic bases, inorganic salts, electrophiles, phenols and soaps/surfactants. Two of the four tests evaluated, the TER assay and EPISKIN, met the criteria agreed by the Management Team concerning acceptable underprediction and overprediction rates for them to be considered scientifically validated for use as replacements for the animal test for distinguishing between corrosive and non-corrosive chemicals for all of the chemical types studied [objective (a)]. EPISKIN was the only test able to distinguish between known R35 (UN packing group I) and R34 (UN packing groups II & III) chemicals, for all of the chemical types included, on an acceptable number of occasions [objective (b)]. The corrosive potentials of about 40% of the test chemicals could not be assessed with CORROSITEX, and the assay did not meet all of the criteria for it to be considered acceptable as a replacement test. However, CORROSITEX may be valid for testing specific classes of chemicals, such as organic bases and inorganic acids. The Skin(2) assay did not meet the criteria for it to be considered scientifically validated. Thus, the validities of (i) the TER and EPISKIN assays for discriminating corrosives from non-corrosives, and (ii) the EPISKIN assay for identifying correctly known R35/I and R34/II & III chemicals, have been demonstrated in this study. CORROSITEX appears to be valid when used only with certain types of chemicals.
authors.affiliation: ECVAM, JRC Environment Institute, 21020 Ispra (VA), Italy.
authors.forename: J H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Fentem
authors.forename: G E
authors.initials: GE
authors.lastname: Archer
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Balls
authors.forename: P A
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Botham
authors.forename: R D
authors.initials: RD
authors.lastname: Curren
authors.forename: L K
authors.initials: LK
authors.lastname: Earl
authors.forename: D J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Esdaile
authors.forename: H G
authors.initials: HG
authors.lastname: Holzhütter
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Liebsch