4.3 Article

A new sighting study for the fixed concentration procedure to allow for gender differences

Journal

HUMAN & EXPERIMENTAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 239-249

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0960327110370983

Keywords

acute inhalation toxicity; OECD Test Guidelines; fixed concentration procedure; gender differences

Categories

Funding

  1. National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research [NC3Rs]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The fixed concentration procedure (FCP) has been proposed as an alternative to the median lethal concentration (LC(50)) test (organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) test guideline [TG] 403) for the assessment of acute inhalation toxicity. The FCP tests animals of a single gender (usually females) at a number of fixed concentration levels in a sequential fashion. It begins with a sighting study that precedes the main FCP study and is used to determine the main study starting concentration. In this paper, we propose a modification to the sighting study and suggest that it should be conducted using both male and female animals, rather than just animals of a single gender. Statistical analysis demonstrates that, when females are more sensitive, the new procedure is likely to give the same classification as the original FCP, whereas, if males are more sensitive, the new procedure is much less likely to lead to incorrect classification into a less toxic category. If there is no difference in the LC(50) for females and males, the new procedure is slightly more likely to classify into a more stringent class than the original FCP. Overall, these results show that the revised sighting study ensures gender differences in sensitivity do not significantly impact on the performance of the FCP, supporting its use as an alternative test method for assessing acute inhalation toxicity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available