4.4 Article

OECD validation study to assess intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility of the zebrafish embryo toxicity test for acute aquatic toxicity testing

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 69, 期 3, 页码 496-511

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.05.018

关键词

Zebrafish embryo; Aquatic acute toxicity; Reproducibility; Validation; Alternative method

资金

  1. CEFIC
  2. U.K. DEFRA [CEFIC-LRI Eco8/8.2]
  3. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (NL)
  4. project REACH [601351]
  5. Instituto Politecnico Nacional
  6. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [864.09.005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The OECD validation study of the zebrafish embryo acute toxicity test (ZFET) for acute aquatic toxicity testing evaluated the ZFET reproducibility by testing 20 chemicals at 5 different concentrations in 3 independent runs in at least 3 laboratories. Stock solutions and test concentrations were analytically confirmed for 11 chemicals. Newly fertilised zebrafish eggs (20/concentration and control) were exposed for 96 h to chemicals. Four apical endpoints were recorded daily as indicators of acute lethality: coagulation of the embryo, lack of somite formation, non-detachment of the tail bud from the yolk sac and lack of heartbeat. Results (LC50 values for 48/96 h exposure) show that the ZFET is a robust method with a good intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility (CV < 30%) for most chemicals and laboratories. The reproducibility was lower (CV > 30%) for some very toxic or volatile chemicals, and chemicals tested close to their limit of solubility. The ZFET is now available as OECD Test Guideline 236. Considering the high predictive capacity of the ZFET demonstrated by Belanger et al. (2013) in their retrospective analysis of acute fish toxicity and fish embryo acute toxicity data, the ZFET is ready to be considered for acute fish toxicity for regulatory purposes. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据