4.4 Article

The added value of the 90-day repeated dose oral toxicity test for industrial chemicals with a low (sub)acute toxicity profile in a high quality dataset

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages 320-332

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.04.008

Keywords

3Rs; Repeated dose; Sub-chronic; REACH; Chemicals legislation; Alternatives; Sub-acute

Funding

  1. BUAV Charitable Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A survey conducted on the EU Notification of New Substances (NONS) database suggested that for industrial chemicals with a profile of low toxicity in (sub)acute toxicity tests there is little added value to the conduct of the 90-day repeated dose study. Avoiding unnecessary animal testing is a central aim of the EU REACH chemicals legislation; therefore we sought to verify the profile using additional data. The OECD's eChemPortal was searched for substances that had both a 28-day and a 90-day study and their robust study summaries were then examined from the ECHA CHEM database. Out of 182 substances with high quality 28-day and 90-day study results, only 18 reported no toxicity of any kind in the (sub)acute tests. However, for 16 of these there were also no reported signs of toxicity at or close to the limit dose (1000 mg/kg bw/d) in the 90-day study. Restricting the 'low (sub)acute toxicity in a high quality dataset' profile to general industrial chemicals of no known biological activity, whilst allowing irritant substances, increases the data set and improves the prediction to 95% (20 substances out of 21 substances). The low toxicity profile appears to be of low prevalence within industrial chemicals (10-15%), nevertheless, avoidance of the conduct of a redundant 90-day study for this proportion of the remaining REACH phase-in substances would avoid the use of nearly 50,000 animals and save industry 50 million Euros, with no impact on the assessment of human health. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available