Appendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 1 

## Appendix B

ICCVAM Summary Review Document:

The Low Volume Eye TestICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 2 This page intentionally left blankAppendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 3 

## ICCVAM Summary Review Document:

The Low Volume Eye Test

Interagency Coordinating Committee on the

Validation of Alternative Methods

National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the
Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

National Institutes of Health

U.S. Public Health Service
Department of Health and Human Services

2010ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 4 This page intentionally left blankAppendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 5 

## Table of Contents

List of Tables

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... B

- 6

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

................................ ................................ .............................. B

- 7

Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods: Agency Representatives

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... B

- 9

Ackn owledgements

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... B

- 10

Preface

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. B

- 13

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... B

- 15

1.0 Background on Ocular Safety Testing

................................ ................................ ................ B

- 17

2.0 Regulatory Testing Requirements for Ocular Hazards

................................ ..................... B

- 18

3.0 Principle of the Low Volume Eye Test

................................ ................................ ................ B

- 22

4.0 Per formance of the Low Volume Eye Test vs. the Draize Rabbit Eye Test

..................... B

- 24

5.0 Performance of the Low Volume Eye Test vs. the Draize Rabbit Eye Test Considering Human Study Data and Experience

................................ .............................. B

- 30

5.1 Ghassemi et al. (1993)

................................ ................................ ................................ .. B

- 30

5.2 Roggeband et al. (2000)

................................ ................................ ................................ B

- 31

5.3 Freeberg et al. (1984)

................................ ................................ ................................ .... B

- 32

5.4 Freeberg et al. (1986a)

................................ ................................ ................................ .. B

- 33

5.5 Freeberg et al. (1986b)

................................ ................................ ................................ .. B

- 33

6.0 Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ B

- 35

7.0 References

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. B

- 37

8.0 Glossary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. B

- 39ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 6 

## List of Tables

Table 1

- 1 Summary of Current U.S. Legislation Related to Ocular Health

............................ B

- 17

Table 2

- 1 Ocular Toxicity Classification Systems

................................ ................................ .. B

- 19

Table 3

- 1 C omparison of LVET and Draize Rabbit Eye Test Protocols

................................ B

- 22

Table 3

- 2 Scale of Weighted Scores for Grading the Severity of Ocular Lesions

.................. B

- 23

Table 4

- 1 Performance of the LVET in Identifying Ocular Hazard Classification According to the EPA Classification System When Compared to Draize Rabbit Eye Test Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... B

- 24

Table 4

- 2 Performance of the LVET in Identifying Ocular Hazard Classification According to the GHS Classification System When Compared to Draize Rabbit Eye Test Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... B

- 24

Table 4

- 3 Extent of Underprediction of LVET vs. Draize Rabbit Eye Test Results According to the EPA Classification System 1

................................ ........................ B

- 25

Table 4

- 4 Extent of Underprediction of LVET vs. Draize Rabbit Eye Test Results According to the GHS Classification System 1

................................ ........................ B

- 25

Table 4

- 5 Summary of Available Rabbit LVET and Draize Data from Gettings et al. (1996b)

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... B

- 26

Table 4

- 6 Summary of MAS Categorization Data

................................ ................................ .. B

- 27

Table 4

- 7 Summary of Available Rabbit LVET Data

................................ ............................. B

- 27

Table 4

- 8 Summary of Available Rabbit LVET Data

................................ ............................. B

- 28

Table 5

- 1 Summary of Rabbit and Human Responses to an Undiluted Liquid Hous ehold

Cleaner

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... B

- 31

Table 5

- 2 Human and Rabbit Eye Responses to a Liquid Laundry Detergent (1 **μ** L)

............ B

- 32

Table 5

- 3 Summary of Rabbit and Human Accidental Exposure Data from Freeberg et al. (1984)

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... B

- 32

T able 5

- 4 Human Clinical Study and Rabbit Data

................................ ................................ .. B

- 33

Table 5

- 5 Human Accidental Exposure and Rabbit Data

................................ ....................... B

- 34

Table 6

- 1 Summary of Ocular Hazard Classifications for EPA Registered Antimicrobial Cleaning Products: Consideration of LVET Data and EPA Determinations 1

........ B

- 35Appendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 7 

## List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

A.I.S.E. International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BRD Background r eview d ocument

CASRN Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number

Conj Conjunctiva

CPSC (U.S.) Consumer Product Safety Commission

CR Conjunctival redness

DER Data Evaluation Report

EC European Commission

ECETOC European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicol ogy of Chemicals

EC/HO European Commission/British Home Office

ECVAM European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods

EEC European Economic Community

EI Extremely irritating

EPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency

EU European Union

FDA (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration

FR Federal Register

FHSA U.S. Federal Hazardous Substances Act

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

GHS Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Label l ing of Chemicals

GLP Good Laboratory Practices

hr Hour

ICCVAM Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods

J aCVAM Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods

LVET Low volume eye test

μL Microliter

MAS Maximum average score

MeSH (National Library of Medicine ) Medical S ubject H eading s

MI Maximally irritating

Minim Minimally irritating

MMAS M ean maximum average score

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet

NA Not applicable

NI Nonirritating

NICEATM National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological MethodsICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 8 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

NP Not provided

NT Not tested

NTP (U.S.) National Toxicology Program

OECD Organisation for Economic Co

- o peration and Development

OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OTWG Ocular Toxicity Working Group

PNI P ractically nonirritating

PSB Product Safety Branch

scs T est substance dosed on the superior conjunctival sac

SD Standard deviation

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

TG Test Guideline

UN United NationsAppendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 9 

## Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods: Agency Representatives

Agency for Toxic Substances and Di sease Registry

* Moiz Mumtaz, Ph.D.

Bruce Fowler, Ph.D. Edward Murray, Ph.D. Eric Sampson, Ph.D.

Consumer Product Safety Commission

* Marilyn L. Wind, Ph.D. (Chair)

+ Kristina Hatlelid, Ph.D.

Joanna Matheson, Ph.D.

Department of Agriculture

* Jodie Kul pa

- Eddy, D.V.M. (Vice

- Chair)

+ Elizabeth Goldentyer, D.V.M.

Department of Defense

* Robert E. Foster, Ph.D.

+ Patty Decot

Harry Salem, Ph.D. Peter J. Schultheiss, D.V.M., DACLAM

Department of Energy

* Michael Kuperberg, Ph.D.

+ Marvin Stodolsky, Ph.D.

Department of the Interior

* Barnett A. Rattner, Ph.D.

+ Sarah Gerould, Ph.D. (to Feb. 2009)

Department of Transportation

* George Cushmac, Ph.D.

+ Steve Hwang, Ph.D.

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs

* John R. “Jack” Fowle III, Ph.D., DABT

+ Vicki Dellarco, Ph.D.

+ Tina Levine, Ph.D.

Deborah McCall Christine Augustyniak, Ph.D. (U.S. Coordinator, OECD Test Guidelines Program) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Jerry Smrchek, Ph.D. (U.S. Coordinator, OECD

Test Guidelines Program, to July 2009 ) Office of Research and Development

Suzanne McMaster, Ph.D. (to Dec. 2008) Julian Preston, Ph.D. (to July 2009) Stephanie Padilla, Ph.D. (to July 2009) Office of Science Coordination and Policy

Karen Hamernik, Ph.D. (to July 2009) Food and Drug Administration Office of the Commissioner

* Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Ph.D., DABT Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

Richard McFarland, Ph.D., M.D. Ying Huang, Ph.D. Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Melvin E. Stratm eyer, Ph.D. Vasant G. Malshet, Ph.D., DABT Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

+ Abigail C. Jacobs, Ph.D.

Paul C. Brown, Ph.D. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

David G. Hattan, Ph.D. Robert L. Bronaugh, Ph.D. Center for Veterinary Medicine

Devaraya Jagannath, Ph.D. M. Cecilia Aguila, D.V.M. National Center for Toxicological Research

Paul Howard, Ph.D. Donna Mendrick, Ph.D. William T. Allaben, Ph.D. (to Jan. 2009) Office of Regulatory Affairs

Lawrence D'Hoostelaere, Ph.D.

National Cancer Ins titute

* T. Kevin Howcroft, Ph.D.

Chand Khanna, D.V.M., Ph.D. Alan Poland, M.D. (to Oct. 2008)

National Institute of Environmental Health

Sciences

* William S. Stokes, D.V.M., DACLAM

+ Raymond R. Tice, Ph.D.

Rajendra S. Chhabra, Ph.D., DABT

Jerrold J. Heindel, Ph.D.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health

* Paul Nicolaysen, V.M.D.

+ K. Murali Rao, M.D., Ph.D.

National Institutes of Health

* Margaret D. Snyder, Ph.D.

National Library of Medicine

* Pertti (Bert) Hakkinen, Ph.D.

+ Jeanne Gosh orn, M.S.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

* Surender Ahir, Ph.D.

* Principal agency representative

+ Alternate principal agency representativeICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 10 

## Acknowledgements

Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of

Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) Ocular Toxicity Working Group (OTWG)

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Marilyn L. Wind, Ph.D. Adrienne Layton, Ph.D.

U.S. Department of Defense

Harry Salem, Ph.D.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Steve Hwang, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs

Meta Bonner, Ph.D. Jonathan Chen, Ph.D. John R. “Jack” Fowle III, Ph.D., DABT Masih Hashim, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Karen Hicks

Marianne Lewis

Debbie McCall Timothy McMahon, Ph.D. Mark Perry

John Redden Jenny Tao, Ph.D. Office of Research and Development

Andrew Geller, Ph.D. Office of Science Coordination and Policy

Karen Hamernik, Ph.D. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Paul Brown, Ph.D. Wiley Chambers, M.D. Abigai l (Abby) Jacobs, Ph.D. Jill Merrill, Ph.D., DABT (OTWG Chair) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

Robert Bronaugh, Ph.D.

Donnie Lowther Office of the Commissioner

Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Ph.D., DABT

National Institute of Environmental Health

Sciences

Warren Casey, Ph.D., DABT Mark F. Cesta, D.V.M, DACVP Raymond (Buck) Grissom, Ph.D. William Stokes, D.V.M., DACLAM

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Surender Ahir, Ph.D.

European Centre for the Validation of

Alternative Methods

– Liaison

João Barroso, Ph.D. Thomas Cole, Ph.D. Valerie Zuang, Ph.D.

Japanese Center for the Validation of

Alternative Methods

– Liaison

Hajime Kojima, Ph.D.Appendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 11 

## National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the

Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM)

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

William Stokes, D.V.M., DACLAM Director; Project Officer

Warren Casey, Ph.D., DABT Deputy Director

Deborah McCarley Special Assistant; Assistant Project Officer

NICEATM Su pport Contract Staff (Integrated Laboratory Systems [ILS], Inc.)

David Allen, Ph.D.

Jonathan Hamm, Ph.D.

Nelson Johnson

Brett Jones, Ph.D.

Elizabeth Lipscomb, Ph.D.

Linda Litchfield

Steven Morefield, M.D.

Catherine Sprankle

James Truax , M.A.

Linda Wilson

Statistical Consultant for ILS, Inc.

Joseph Haseman, Ph.D.ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 12 This page intentionally left blankAppendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 13 

## Preface

Accidental contact with hazardous chemicals frequently causes eye injury and visual impairment. United States and international regulatory agencies curren tly use the Draize rabbit eye test (Draize et
al. 1944) to identify potential ocular hazards associated with chemicals. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and U.S. Occupatio nal Health and Safety Administration have testing re gulations and /or guidelines and

recommendations for assessing the ocular irritation potential of substances such as pesticides, household products, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and agricultural and industrial chemicals.

Although ocular safety assessment has clearly helped to protect consumers and workers, concerns have been raised about the humane aspects of the Draize rabbit eye test. Regulatory authorities have adopted various modifications that reduce t he number of animals used and the potential pain and distress associated with the procedure. Significant progress has been made during the last decade. Now only one to three rabbits are required per test, compared to six rabbits in the original protocol.

P rovisions have been added that allow for animals with severe lesions or discomfort to be humanely

euthanized.

The low volume eye test (LVET) was developed by Griffith et al. (1980) with the intent of refining the Draize rabbit eye test to reduce overlabel ing of commercial products and more closely predict the

human accidenta l response to ocular hazard. The Draize test was refined by applying the test

substance to the corneal surface rather than to the conjunctival sac and by reducing the volume of

exposure from 100 μL to 10 μL. However, the hypothesis that the LVET more closely predicts the human response than the Draize test for a wide applicability domain of test substances has not been clearly demonstrated yet. T hus the LVET has yet to be adopted as a re ference test method by any regulatory agency.

The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods ( ICCVAM )

review ed the validity of the LVET because LVET data was used to support the validity of a test
method described in the I CCVAM Test Method Evaluation Report: Current Validation Status of a Proposed In Vitro Testing Strategy for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ocular Hazard Classification and Labeling of Antimicrobial Cleaning Products ( ICCVAM 20 10 ). The ICCVAM

Ocular To xicity Working Group and the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the

Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods ( NICEATM ) have prepared this draft summary

review document to summarize the current validation status of the LVET based on a vailable information and data obtained by NICEATM. This draft summary review document forms the basis

for draft ICCVAM test method recommendations , which are provided in a separate document.

An independent international scientific peer review panel met in public forum on May 19

– 21, 2009, to develop conclusions and recommendations for the LVET. The Panel included expert scientists nominated by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods and the Japanese Center

for the Validation of Alte rnative Methods . W e anticipate that these organizations will be able to use

the Panel’s independent report for their deliberations and development of test method

recommendations. The Panel consider ed this summary review document and evaluate d the extent to which the available information support ed the draft ICCVAM test method recommendations. ICCVAM considered the conclusions and recommendations of the Panel, along with comments received from the public and the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative T oxicological

Methods , before finalizing the summary review document and test method recommendations. These will be forwarded to Federal agencies for their consideration and acceptance decisions where appropriate.

We gratefully acknowledge the organization s and scientists who provided data and information for this document. We also acknowledge the efforts of those individuals who helped prepar e thisICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 14 summary review document, including the following staff from the NICEATM s upport c ontractor, Integrated Labora tory Systems, Inc.: David Allen, Jon Hamm, Nelson Johnson, Elizabeth Lipscomb, Brett Jones, Linda Litchfield, Gregory Moyer, Catherine Sprankle, and James Truax. We also thank

the members of the ICCVAM Ocular Toxicity Working Group , chaired by Karen Hamern ik, Ph.D. (EPA)

, and Jill Merrill, Ph.D. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), and ICCVAM representatives who reviewed and provided comments throughout the process leading to this draft version. We also want to thank Valerie Zuang, Ph.D.

, and Dr. Hajime Koj ima, Ph.D., the Ocular Toxicity Working Group liaisons from the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods and the Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods, respectively, for their participation.

Marilyn Wind, Ph.D. Deputy A ssociate Executive Director

Directorate for Health Sciences U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Chair, ICCVAM

William S. Stokes, D.V.M., DACLAM

Rear Admiral /Assistant Surgeon General , U.S. Public Hea l th Service Director, NICEATM Executive Director, IC CVAMAppendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 15 

## Executive Summary

Accidental eye injury due to contact with hazardous chemicals is a major cause of visual impairment. United States and international regulatory agencies currently use the Draize rabbit eye test (Draize et
al. 1944) to identify potential ocular hazards associated with chemicals. In the Draize rabbit eye test,

100 **μ** L of the test substance is introduced into the conjunctival sac of each animal’s eye. Alternatives to the Draize test have been explored to reduce th e possibility of pain and distress during the test procedure.

Griffith et al. (1980) developed the low volume eye test (LVET) to both refine the rabbit eye test and more closely predict the human response to ocular hazard. In the LVET, the test substance is applied to the corneal surface rather than the conjunctival sac. The volume of exposure is decreased from

100 μL to 10 μL. However, the LVET has not been shown to predict the human response more closely than the Draize test for a wide array of test subs tances. Thus, the LVET has not yet been adopted as a reference test method by any regulatory agency. This report reviews available scientific

literature and summarizes the usefulness and limitations of the LVET as an acceptable in vivo

reference test metho d.

Most available LVET data were generated with surfactant

- based mixtures or products, which produce only a mild ocular irritant response or no response. Gettings et al. (1996a) evaluated 25 surfactant formulations and their hazard classifications by the E nvironmental Protection Agency and Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals. The authors reported several instances in which the LVET underpredicted an ocular corrosive or severe irritant response identified

in the Draize tes t. While some claim that these data show the Draize test to be excessively overpredictive, there is limited information on the performance of known human corrosives in the

LVET.

Freeberg et al. (1984) conducted both the LVET and the Draize test on 29 hous ehold cleaning products for which human accidental exposure data are available. The authors concluded that the LVET more accurately predicts the human accidental response to such substances. Similarly, Freeberg et al. (1986b) tested 14 cleaning products wi th both the LVET and Draize tests and compared the responses to human accidental eye exposures. They concluded that the LVET response corresponds more closely to the human experience than does the Draize rabbit eye test.

Ghassemi et al. (1993) and Roggeba nd et al. (2000) concluded that the smaller volume used in the LVET (10 μL) is more appropriate when compared directly with human clinical data. However, the lack of available Draize test data in these studies precludes any direct comparison with the LVET.

The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM)

review ed the validity of the LVET because LVET data was used to support the validity of a test
method described in the ICCVAM Test Method Evaluation Report: Current Validation Status of a Proposed In Vitro Testing Strategy for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ocular Hazard Classification and Labeling of Antimicrobial Cleaning Products (ICCVAM 2010 )

. LVET data are available for only limited types and numbers of sub stances (i.e., surfactant

- containing personal and household cleaning products), precluding comprehensive evaluation of LVET performance.

Comparative human data from clinical studies and accidental exposures have been proposed to support the accuracy of th e LVET. However, these data are primarily for mild or nonirritating substances. Ethical considerations have limited the severity of substances that can be tested in human clinical studies. As a result, LVET comparisons to human clinical study data are base d on tests with mild irritants or substances not labeled as irritants. Regulatory agencies charged with protecting public health cannot be assured that the LVET can adequately protect against substances that may cause moderate or severe ocular injuries in humans.ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 16 The LVET may approximate experimentally the volume of a substance that could enter the human eye accidentally, but there are limited data to indicate whether it can accurately identify the ocular hazard of substances known to cause moderate, severe , or permanent human ocular injuries. In contrast, there are no documented instances in which a substance that produced a severe irritant/corrosive response in humans was not also classified as a severe irritant/corrosive in the Draize rabbit eye test

.Appendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 17 

## 1.0 Background on Ocular Safety Testing

Accidental eye injury is a leading cause of visual impairment in the United States. M any of these injuries occur due to contact with workplace or household chemicals. According to the National Institute of Occupational S afety and Health (NIOSH), each day about 2

, 000 U.S. workers have a job

related eye injury that requires medical treatment. Additional eye injuries occur in the home, with about 125,000 eye injuries a year caused by accidents involving common household prod ucts such as oven cleaner and bleach (source, American Academy of Ophthalmology). U.S. regulatory agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) , Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , and Occupational Sa fety and Health Administration (OSHA) have testing re gulations and/or guidelines and recommendations to assess the hazard potential of substances that may come in contact with human eyes.

These testing requirements have effectively protected consumers and workers from potential eye injury (Wagoner 1997; Chiou 1999; McGwin et al. 2006) . The primary method currently accepted by U.S. and international regulatory agencies for assessing ocular safety hazards is the Draize rabbit eye

test (Draize et al. 1944)

. T est ing guidelines describing the procedure have been published (EPA OPPTS 870.2400 [EPA 1998]), Organisation for Economic Co

- operation and Development Test Guideline 405 [OECD 2002]) and several legislative statutes have been enacted that enable

government agencies to regulate a variety of substances with the potential to pose a risk to ocular

health and safety (see Table 1

- 1 ).

Table 1

- 1 Summary of Current U.S. Legislation Related to Ocular Health

Legislation (Year of Initial Enactment) Agency Substance

Fo od, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1938) Food and Drug Administration Pharmaceuticals and

cosmetics

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1947) and Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (1972) Environmental Protection Agency Pesticides

Federal Hazardous Substances Act (1964) Consumer Product Safety

Commission Household products

Federal Hazardous Substances Act (1964) and Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) Department of Agriculture and

Environmental Protection Agency Agricultural and

industrial chemicals

Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970) Occupational Safety and Health

Administration Occupational materials

Clean Air Act Amendments (1990) Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and

Environmental Protection Agency Accidentally released

chemicals and air pollutants

Adapted from Wilhelmus (2001).ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 18 

## 2.0 Regulatory Testing Requirements for Ocular Hazards

The classification of irritant responses evaluated by each regulatory agency varies depending on their legislative mandate and specific goals for protecting human health ( Table 2

- 1)

. The EPA ocular irritation classification regulation and testing guidelines (EPA 1998, 2003) are based on the most severe response in one animal in a group of three or more animals. This cl assification system takes into consideration the kinds of ocular effects produced, as well as the reversibility and severity of the effects. The EPA classifies substances in ocular irritant Categories I through IV (EPA 2003). Category I substances are defi ned as corrosive or severe irritants, while classification from II to IV is based on decreasing severity of irritation and time required for irritation to clear. Irritation that clears in 8 to 21 days is classified as Category II, while irritation that cle ars within 7 days is classified as Category III. For Category IV substances, irritation clears within 24 hours.

The U.S. Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) guideline for ocular irritation classification (CPSC 1995) categorizes a test substance as cor rosive, irritant, or substance not labeled as irritant

. A

corrosive , according to the FHSA, is a substance that causes visible destruction or irreversible alterations in the tissue at the site of contact (CPSC 1995). FHSA classification depends on the

numb er of test animals that exhibit a positive ocular response within 72 hours after application of the test substance in the conjunctival sac.

For the purpose of harmonizing the classification of ocular irritants internationally, the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS; UN 200 7) includes two harmonized categories. One designates irreversible effects on the eye/serious damage to the eye (Category 1), and one designates reversible effects on the eye (Categ ory 2). Reversible effects are further classified based on the duration of persistence. Category 2A (irritating to eyes) reverses within 21 days, and Category 2B (mildly irritating to eyes) reverses within 7 days. The GHS categories are based on severity o f the lesions and/or the duration of persistence.

Hazard classification of ocular irritants in the European Union is characterized by two risk phrases: (1) R36 denotes “irritating to eyes”; (2) R41 denotes “risk of serious damage to the eyes” (EU 2001).

Th ese risk phrases are based on whether the levels of damage, aver aged across the 24

- , 48

- and

72

- hour observation times for each ocular lesion, fall within or above certain ranges of scores.Appendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 19 Table 2

- 1 Ocular Toxicity Classification Systems

Regulatory

Age ncy (Authorizing Act) Number

of

Animals Observation Days (after treatment) Mean

score taken? Pos itive

R esponse Classification Criteria

U.S. CPSC (Federal

Hazardous Substances Act)

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) 6 (12, 18 possible) 1, 2, 3 No Opacity or Iritis
≥1 o r Redness

or Chemosis ≥2 for any animal on any day 4 or more positive animals =

Irritant 1 st Tier:

2

– 3 positive animals = Go to

2 nd Tier

3 or more positive animals =

Irritant 2 nd Tier

1

– 2 positive animals = Go to

3 rd Tier

1 positive animal = Irritant 3rd Tier :

U.S. EPA ( FIFRA , Federal

Environmental

Pesticide Control Act, and

TSCA ) At least 3 1 hr, 1, 2, 3, 7,

21 No

– Maximum

score in an

animal used for

classification

– Opacity or

Iritis ≥1 or

Redness or

Chemosis ≥2 – One or more positive animals

needed for classification in categories below.

Category:

I = Corrosive, corneal involvement, or irritation persisting more than

21 days

II = Corneal involvement or irritation clearing in 8

– 21 days

III = Corneal involvement or

irritation cl earing in 7 days

or less

IV = Minimal effects clearing

in less than 24 hours

Definition of Full Reversal:

Opacity and Iritis scores = 0

and

Redness and Chemosis

scores ≤ 1

continuedICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 20 Table 2

- 1 Ocular Toxicity Classification Systems (continued)

Regulatory

Agency (Authorizing Act) Number

of

Animals Observation Days (after treatment) Mean

score taken? Positive Response Classification Criteria

European Union 1 if severe

effects are suspected

or 3 if no

severe effects are suspected 1, 2, 3 (observation until Day 21) Yes Mean study values (scores

of all animals in study averaged over Days 1, 2, and 3) of:

Opacity or

Chemosis ≥ 2,

Redness ≥ 2.5,

or

Iritis ≥ 1

OR

Individual

animal mean values (scores

for each endpoint are averaged for

each animal over Days 1, 2, and 3) of:

Opacity or

Chemosis ≥ 2,

Redness ≥ 2.5,

or

Iritis ≥ 1 R36 Classification

(3) Mean study value where:

2 ≤ Opacity < 3 or

1 ≤ Iritis < 1.5 or

Redness ≥ 2.5 or

Chemosis ≥ 2

(2) If 2/3 tested animals have

individual animal mean

values that falls into on e of the following categories:

2 ≤ Opacity <3

1 ≤ Iritis <2

Redness ≥2.5

Chemosis ≥2

R41 Classification

(3) Mean study value where:

Opacity ≥3 or

Iritis >1.5

(2) If 2/3 tested animals have

individual animal mean

values that fall i nto one of the following categories:

Opacity ≥3

Iritis = 2

(3) At least one animal (at the

end of the observation period, typically Day 21) where Opacity or

Chemosis ≥2,

Redness ≥2.5 or Iritis ≥1

GHS: Irreversible Eye

Effects 3 1, 2, 3 (observation until Day 21) Yes Mean animal values (over Days 1, 2, and 3) of:

Opacity ≥3

and/or

Iritis ≥1.5 – At least 2 positive response animals = Eye Irritant Category 1

– At least 1 animal with an

Opacity, Iritis, Redness, or

Chemosis score >0 on D ay 21 = Eye Irritan t Category 1

Definition of Full Reversal:

Opacity, Iritis , Redness, and

C hemosis scores = 0

continuedAppendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 21 Table 2

- 1 Ocular Toxicity Classification Systems (continued)

Regulatory

Agency (Authorizing Act) Number

of

Animals Observation Days (after treatment) Mean

score taken? Positive Response Classification Criteria

GHS: Reversible Eye

Effects 3 1, 2, 3 (observation until Day 21) Yes Mean animal values (over Days 1, 2, and 3) of:

Opacity or Iritis
≥1 or

Redness or

Chemosis ≥2

and the effect fully reverses in 7 or 21 days – At least 2 positive response animals and the effect fully reverses in 21 days = Eye Irritant Category 2A

– At least 2 positive response

animals and effect fully

reverses in 7 days = Eye Irritant Category 2B

Definition of Full Reversal:

Opacity

, Iritis

, Redness

, and

Chemosis scores = 0

Abbreviations: CPSC = U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission; EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency; FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration; FIFRA = Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; GHS = United Nations (UN) Globally Harmoni z ed System of Classification and Labe l ling of Chemicals; OSHA = U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration; TSCA = Toxic Substances

Control Act

.ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 22 

## 3.0 Principle of the Low Volume Eye Test

The low volume eye test ( LVET ) is an in vivo rabbit eye test that , like the Draize test, was designed to determine the extent of potential ocular hazard of a test substance. The tests evaluate the ocular irritation response when a test substance is administere d as a single dose to the eye of a rabbit.

D eveloped by Griffith et al. (1980) , the LVET differs from the Draize rabbit eye test primarily by applying 10 **μ** L (instead of 100 **μ** L) of a test substance directly on the cornea (instead of the conjunctival sac) ( T able 3

- 1 ). S coring of corneal, iridal, and conjunctival lesions in the LVET is identical to that of the Draize rabbit eye test ( Table 3

- 2 ).

Table 3

- 1 Comparison of LVET and Draize Rabbit Eye Test Protocols

LVET Draize

Dose volume 10 **μ** L 100 **μ** L

Dose location Applied directly onto the cornea Applied into the lower conjunctival sac

Eyelid closure No forced eyelid closure Eyelids held closed for one second

Scale for scoring ocular

lesions Draize Draize

Abbreviation: LVET = low volume eye test

To date, the LVET has not been demonstrated as an adequately valid in vivo reference test method . It

has not been formally adopted by any regulatory agency. For this reason, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (I CCVAM) is reviewing the validity of the LVET as an acceptable in vivo reference test method. In February 2007, t he International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (A.I.S.E.) submitted a background review document to the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) for an independent peer review by their Scientific Advisory Committee . The A.I.S.E. background review document provides a comprehensive summary of available data and information

with which to evaluate the usefulness and limitations of the LVET.

Since its original development, proponents of the LVET have suggested that it is a more appropriate

in vivo reference test method for comparisons to in vitro data than is the Draize rabbit eye test. This is based primarily on the assertion that the LVET is more representative of the human response to a potential ocular hazard than the Draize rabbit eye test, given that the site (corneal surface) and volume of exposure used in the LVET more closely res emble that of accidental human exposure. As a result, a reported advantage of the LVET is that it underpredicts the Draize test and is thereby less overpredictive of the human response than the Draize test. However, definitive data to support this

claim ar e not available.Appendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 23 Table 3

- 2 Scale of Weighted Scores for Grading the Severity of Ocular Lesions

Cornea

Lesion Score 1

A. Opacity

– Degree of density (area which is most dense is taken for reading)

Scattered or diffuse area

– details of iris clearly visible 1
Easily discernible translucent areas, details of iris slightly obscured 2
Opalescent areas, no details of iris visible, size of pupil barely discernible 3

Opaque, iris invisible 4

B. Area of cornea involved
One quarter (or less) but not zero 1

Greater than one quarter but less than one half 2

Greater than one half but less than three quarters 3
Greater than three quarters up to whole area 4

Score equals A x B x 5 Total maximum = 80

Iris

Lesion Score 1

A. Values

Folds above normal, congestion, swelling, circumcorneal injection (any one or all of these or combination of any thereof), iris still reacting to light (sluggish reaction is positive) 1

No reaction to light, hemorrhage; gross destruction (any one or all of these) 2
Score equals A x 5 Total p ossible maximum = 10
Conjunctiva

Lesion Score 1

A. Redness (refers to palpebral conjunctiva only)
Vessels definitely injected above normal 1
More diffuse, deeper crimson red, individual vessels not easily discernible 2
Diffuse beefy red 3

B. Chemosis

Any swelling above normal (includes nictitating membrane) 1
Obvious swelling with partial eversion of the lids 2
Swelling with lids about half closed 3
Swelling with lids about half closed to completely closed 4
C. Discharge

Any amount different from normal (does not include small amount observed in inner canthus

of normal animals 1

Discharge with moistening of the lids and hairs just adjacent to the lids 2
Discharge with moistening of the lids and considerable area around the eye 3

Score equals (A + B + C) x 2 Total maximum = 20

From Draize et al. (1944).

1 The maximum total score is the sum of all scores obtained for the cornea, iris and conjunctiva. Scores of 0 are

assigned for each parameter if the cornea, iris, or conjunctiva is normal.ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 24 

## 4.0 Performance of the Low Volume Eye Test vs. the Draize Rabbit Eye

Test

In general, m ost of the original data generated with the LVET were from surfactant

- based mixtures or

surfactant

- based products (Freeberg et al. 1984; Gettings et al. 1996a, 1998). A comparison of the substances that have been classified by the Draize rabbit eye test as ocular corrosives or severe

irritants that have also been tested in the LVET indicates that the LVET routinely underpredicts the ocular corrosive or severe irritant response in the Draize, in many cases by more than one hazard category. Gettings et al. (1 996 a, 1998 ) illustrate this in their evaluation of 25 surfactant

- containing formulations and the resulting hazard classifications according to the EPA and GHS classification systems ( EPA 2003; UN 2007) ( Tables 4

- 1 and 4

- 2 ).

Table 4

- 1 Performance of the LV ET in Identifying Ocular Hazard Classification According to the EPA Classification System When Compared to Draize Rabbit Eye Test Results

EPA Category 1 LVET Classification

I II III IV Totals

Draize I 3 1 6 0 10

II 0 0 0 0 0

III 0 0 9 2 11

IV 0 0 0 4 4

Totals 3 1 15 6 25

From Gettings et. al. 1996a and 1998.

Abbreviations: EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; LVET = low volume eye test

1 EPA classification system (EPA 2003).

Table 4

- 2 Performance of the LVET in Identifying Ocular Hazard Classification According to the GHS Classification System When Compared to Draize Rabbit Eye Test Results

GHS Category 1 LVET Classification

1 2A 2B Not Labeled Totals

Draize 1 0 0 4 4 8

2A 0 0 0 0 0

2B 0 0 0 1 1

Not Labeled 0 0 0 16 16

Totals 0 0 4 21 25

From Gettings et. al. 1996a and 1998.

Abbreviations: GHS = Globally Harmoni z ed System; LVET = low volume eye test

1 GHS classification system (UN 2007).

Tables 4

- 1 and 4

- 2 show multiple instances of underprediction of an ocular corrosive or severe irritant response in the Draize rabbit eye test by the LVET. When the EPA hazard classification

system (EPA 2003) was used

, the LVET underpredicted 60% (6/10) of Draize Category I subs tances as Category III (mild irritant) ( Table 4

- 3 ). When the GHS hazard classification system (UN 2007)

was used

, the LVET underpredicted all eight of the Draize Category 1 substances : 50% (4/8) asAppendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 25 Category 2B (mild irritant) and 50% (4/8) as Not Labeled ( not labeled as an irritant ) ( Table 4

- 4 ). These data raise concern about the ability of the LVET to reliably detect ocular corrosives or severe irritants (i.e., EPA Category I, EU Category R41, GHS Category 1).

Table 4

- 3 Extent of Underprediction of LVET v s. Draize Rabbit Eye Test Results According to the EPA Classification System 1

EPA Category LVET Category Product

Category I Category II HZY (Antidandruff shampoo)

Category I Category III HZA (Shampoo #7)

Category I Category III HZE (Gel cleanser)

Category I Category III HZF (Baby shampoo #2)

Category I Category III HZL (Foam bath)

Category I Category III HZR (Facial cleaning foam)

Category I Category III HZX (Shampoo #2)

Abbreviations: EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; LVET = low volume eye test

1 EPA classification system (EPA 2003).

Table 4

- 4 Extent of Underprediction of LVET vs. Draize Rabbit Eye Test Results According to the GHS Classification System 1

GHS Category LVET Category Product

Category 1 Category 2B HZI (Skin cleanser)

Category 1 Category 2B HZK (Bubble bath)

Category 1 Category 2B HZS (Shower gel)

Category 1 Category 2B HZY (Antidandruff shampoo)

Category 1 Not Classified HZL (Foam bath)

Category 1 Not Classified HZF (Baby shampoo #2)

Category 1 Not Classified HZX (Shampoo #2)

Category 1 Not Classified HZA (Shampoo #7)

Abbreviations: GHS = United Nations Globally Harmoni z ed System; LVET = low volume eye test

1 GHS classification system (UN 2007).

Gettings et al. (1996b) published another study investigating the relationship between the LVET and Draize eye irritation test data for 10 representative hydroalcoholic personal

- care formulations.

Table 4

- 5 provides the eye irritation profile for each of the 10 substances tested . A range of irritancy classification was demonstrated for the LVET; however, only one of the test substances was considered moderately irritating and none severely irritating according to the criteria developed by Kay and Calandra (1962). A further compar ison of the LVET using the classification scheme of

Bruner et al. (1992) revealed a range of responses from nonirritating to moderately irritating. The

Bruner et al. (1992) LVET classification appeared to be more consistent with the Kay and Calandra

irrita ncy classification as determined by the Draize rabbit eye test ( Table 4

- 5 ).ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 26 Table 4

- 5 Summary of Available Rabbit LVET and Draize Data from Gettings et al. (1996b)

Ethanol (%) Rabbit LVET Rabbit Draize

MAS Category 1 Category 2 MAS Category 1

5 2.2 PNI I 7.7 Mild

10 1.3 PNI I 3.0 Minim

15 0.7 PNI I 0.7 PNI

20 0.7 PNI I 0.7 PNI

33 4.3 Minim I 14.3 Mild

40 15.5 Mild III 38.7 Moderate

55 14.3 Mild II 36.7 Moderate

65 22.5 Mild III 28.3 Moderate

83 22.5 Mild III 36.0 Moderate

90 26.0 Moderate III 45.7 Moderate

Modified from Gettings et al. (1996b).

Abbreviations: LVET = low volume eye test; MAS = m aximum a verage s core

. 1 Kay and Calandra ( 1962 ) : PNI = practically nonirritating ; Minim = minimally irritating ; Mild = mildly

irritating ; Moderate = moderately irritating.

2 Bruner et al. ( 1992 ) : I = none to inconsequential irritation (LVET

- MAS = 0

– 5) ; II = slight irritation

(LVET

- MAS > 5

– 15) ; III = moderate to severe irritation (LVET

- MAS > 15

– 50) ; IV = severe irritation (LVET

- MAS > 50

– 65) ; V = extreme ly irritating to corrosive (LVET

- MAS > 65

– 110).

The authors noted a similarity between the irritant responses observed in the Draize rabbit eye test and the LVET, with both tests ranking the substances in a similar order. In addition, the observed irritation for both tests significantly increased when ethanol levels exceeded 33%. Indeed, the LVET consistently underpredicted ethanol solutions above this range when compared to the Draize rabbit eye test data ( Table 4

- 5 ).

Maurer et al. (2001a, 2001b) used pathology to evaluate the relationship of the ocular irritation response to the extent of initial injury for several nonsurfactant materials using the LVET. In these studies, they reported maximum average score (MAS) data for the LVET and irritation c lassifications based on Kay and Calandra (1962) as shown in Table 4

- 6 . These LVET data are compared to

available Draize data obtained from the database of the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC 1998) in Table 4

- 7 . Maurer et al. (2001a, 2001b) applied test substances directly to the cornea and performed macroscopic assessments for irritation 3 hours after dosing and periodically thereafter up to 35 days. The alcohols, cyclohexanol and parafluoroaniline,

were moderate to sev ere irritants in the LVET. Only cyclohexanol was tested in the Draize test, and it was a severe irritant/corrosive. Of the aldehydes, acetone was a mild irritant in the LVET and a moderate irritant in the Draize test. Formaldehyde (37%; w/v) was a severe i rritant in the LVET but

was not tested in the Draize test.

Four bleaches, sodium perborate monohydrate (NaBO 3 ), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 10% hydrogen peroxide ( H 2 O 2 ), and 15% H 2 O 2 , were evaluated in the LVET, but no corresponding Draize

data were available. NaBO 3 and NaOCl were classified as mild and minimal irritants in LVET respectively , with corneal injuries being limited to the epithelium and superficial stroma, as

determined u sing in vivo confocal microscopy. It should be noted that some Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) from various manufacturers label NaOCl as moderately irritating or a severe irritant/corrosive in humans at or above 5.25%, while label it corrosive in humans above 14% . T heAppendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 27 15% H 2 O 2 solution would be classified as a severe irritant based on LVET data. B oth concentrations affected the epithelium and deep stroma , as determined using in vivo confocal microscopy

. In undiluted form, H 2 O 2 is a known human ocular cor rosive/severe irritant

.

Table 4

- 6 Summary of MAS C ategorization D ata

MAS Score Ocular Irritation Rating

0

– 0.5 Nonirritating

— NI

0.5

– 2.5 Practically nonirritating

— PNI

2.5

– 15 Minimally irritating

— Minim

15

– 25 Mildly irritating

— Mild

25

– 50 Moderately irritating

— Moderate

50

– 80 Severely irritating

— Severe

80

– 100 Extremely irritating

— EI

100

– 110 Maximally irritating

— MI

From Kay and Calandra (1962).

Abbreviation : MAS = maximum average score

.

Table 4

- 7 Summary of Available Rabbit LVET Data

Chemical Class Eye Data

Rabbit LVET Rabbit Draize

MAS Category 1 MMAS Category 2

Alcohols

- - - - Cyclohexanol 50.8 Moderate/Severe 79.8 1/I/R41

Parafluoroaniline 55.0 Moderate/Severe 69.8

Aldehydes

- - - -

Acetone 19.1 Mild 65.8 2A/II/R36

Formaldehyde, 37% (w/v) 80.0 Severe

Bleaching Agents

- - - - Sodium Perborate Monohydrate 23 ± 31.2 Mild

- - Sodium Hypochlorite (2.4%) 11 ± 3.6 Minim

- - 10% Hydrogen Peroxide 16 ± 7.5 Mild

- - 15% Hydrogen Peroxide 58.3 ± 26.1 Severe

- -

Data from Maurer et al. (2001a, 2001b).

Abbreviations: ECETOC = European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals; LVET = low

volume eye test; MAS = m aximum a verage s core ; MMAS = m ean m aximum a verage s core ;

1 MAS categorization data compiled from classification table of Kay and Calandra (1962): PNI = practically

nonirritating ; Minim = minimally irritating ; Mild = mildly irritating ; Moderate = moderately irritating;

Severe = severely irritating. Eye irritancy cl assification scores based on in vivo confocal microscopy and light microscopy also available in Jester (2006).

2 Data obtained from ECETOC database (ECETOC 1998). Hazard classifications based on the Globally

Harmonized System (UN 2007)/EPA (EPA 2003)/Europ ean Union (EU 2001) were determined by

NICEATM based on available ECETOC Draize data.ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 28 Maurer et al. (2001a, 2001b) concluded that results obtained on these nonsurfactant materials support their hypothesis that ocular irritation is principally defined by t he extent of initial injury, despite clear differences in the means by which irritants cause tissue damage.

Jester (2006) used the LVET to investigate the ocular irritancy of 22 substances varying in type (i.e., surfactant, acid, alkali, bleach, alcohol, a ldehyde, and acetone) and severity ( Table 4

- 8 ). Jester evaluated the extent of ocular irritation using light microscopy, in vivo confocal microscopy, and laser scanning confocal microscopy. Of the 22 substances, five produced slight irritation, nine produc ed mild irritation, three produced moderate/severe irritation, and five produced severe irritation. However, of the three substances for which Draize data were identified (i.e., 10% acetic acid, cyclohexanol, and acetone), the LVET underpredicted Draize re sults.

Table 4

- 8 Summary of Available Rabbit LVET Data

Chemical Class Eye Data

Human 2 Rabbit LVET Rabbit Draize 1

MAS Category 3 MMAS Category 4

Surfactant

- - - - - -

Nonionic

- - - - - - Polyoxyethylene glycol monoalkylether - - 0.0 NI

- -

Polyoxyethelenesorbitan

- - 0.0 NI

- - Alkyl E ethoxylate

- - 33.0 Moderate

- -

Anionic

- - - - - - Sodium lauryl sulfate, 5%

- - 4.8 Minim

- - Sodium linear alkylbenzene

sulfonate - - 49.3 Moderate

- -

Sodium alkyl ethoxylate sulfate

- - 31.2 Moderate

- -

Cationic

- - - - - - Cetyltrimethylammonium chloride, 50% - - 76.3 Severe

- -

3

- Isotridecyloxypropyl

bis(polyoxyethylene) ammonium

chloride - - 7.7 Minim

- -

3

- Decyloxypropyl

bis(polyoxyethylene amine, 5% - - 40.0 Moderate

- -

Alkylbenyldimethylammonium chloride, 10% - 70.6 Severe

- -

Acid

- - - - - -

3% Acetic Acid

- - 5.0 Minim

- -

10% Acetic Acid

- - 9.5 Minim 68 1/I/R41

Base

- - - - - - 2% Sodium Hydroxide

- - 5.0 Minim

- - 8% Sodium Hydroxide

- - 50.8 Severe

- -

continuedAppendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 29 Table 4

- 8 Summary of Available Rabbit LVET Data (continued)

Chemical Class Eye Data

Human 2 Rabbit LVET Rabbit Draize 1

MAS Category 3 MMAS Category 4

Aldehyde

- - - - - -

Acetone

- - 3.8 Minim 65.8 2A/II/R36

Formaldehyde, 37%

- - 79.7 Severe

- -

Alcohol

- - - - - -

Parafluoroaniline

- - 43.3 Moderate

- - Cyclohexanol

- - 45.8 Moderate 79.8 1/I/R41

Bleach

- - - - - - Sodium Perborate Monohydrate

- - 8.3 Minim

- - Sodium Hypochlorite (2.4%) Severe 5

- 11.8 Minim

- -

10% Hydrogen Peroxide

- - 30.3 Moderate

- - 15% Hydrogen Peroxide

- - 68.3 Severe

- - Data from Jester (2006).

Abbreviations: ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; ECETOC = European Centre for

Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals; LVET = low volume eye test; MAS = m aximum a verage s core ; MMAS = m ean m aximum a verage s core ; MSDS = material safety data sheet

. 1 Data obtained from ECETOC database (ECETOC 1998). Hazard classifications based on EPA (EPA 2003),

Globally Harmonized System (UN 2007), and European Union (EU 2001) were determined by the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluatio n of Alternative Toxicological Methods based on

ECETOC Draize data.

2 Data compiled from accidental exposures (ATSDR database).

3 MAS categorization data compiled from classification table of Kay and Calandra, (1962) (see Table 4

- 8). Eye

irritancy classifi cation scores based on in vivo confocal microscopy and light microscopy also available in Jester (2006).

4 Category classification

– EPA /GHS /EU

. 5 Labeled as moderately irritating or severe irritant/corrosive in humans at or above 5.25% based on some

MSDS r eports, while labeled as corrosive in humans above 14%.ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 30 

## 5.0 Performance of the Low Volume Eye Test vs. the Draize Rabbit Eye Test Considering Human Study Data and Experience

Human data on potential ocular hazards are available either from accidental exposure s or from clinical studies. Accidental exposures are not generally considered to be a reliable source of the true ocular hazard potential because such exposures are likely immediately followed by flushing the eyes with large volumes of water . Thus they may not represent the most severe lesion that might be produced by such an exposure

. Griffith et al. (1980) conducted a series of rabbit eye test studies using

either 1 0 or 1 00 **μ** L of substances “ recognized as slightly irritating, moderately irritating, or sev erely irritating/corrosive to humans .”

T he ocular corrosive or severe irritant substances included the following :

**•** Acetic acid (10%), which is referenced as a severe irritant based on splashes of vinegar (containing 4% to 10% acetic acid) reported to cause pain, conjunctival hyperemia, and occasionally permanent opacity of the human cornea

**•** Calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime), which is referenced as one of the most common causes of severe chemical burns of the eye (McLaughlin 1946; Grant and Schuman 1993)

**•** Form aldehyde (38%), which is referenced for the range of injuries caused by splashes in the human eye from minor transient discomfort to severe, permanent corneal opacities (Grant and Schuman 1993)

Although detailed animal data are not available, the summary d ata provided by Griffith et al. (1980) indicate that the lesions induced by either 1 0 or 1 00 **μ** L of these substances were not reversible within 21 days. However, s uch accidental exposures as human reference data make definitive quantitative

measures of amou nt and time of exposure impossible to obtain

. E thical considerations and results based largely on the Draize rabbit eye test have limited the severity of substances that can be tested in human clinical studies. As a result, comparisons to human data are ba sed on clinical study tests with

mild irritant s or substances not labeled as irritants. Such data provide little assurance to the regulatory agencies charged with protecting public health that the LVET can provide adequate protection from

substances that m ay cause moderate or severe ocular injuries.

T he fact that seemingly innocuous commercial consumer products were identified as ocular corrosives or severe irritants by the Draize eye test could be seen as support ing the contention that the Draize eye test is excessively overpredictive of the actual hazard to humans. However, because of the paucity of information on the performance of known human corrosives in the LVET , these data cannot simply be dismissed.

Several studies have published supporting data f or the demonstrated usefulness of the LVET ( Ghassemi et al. 1993; Roggeband et al. 2000 ; Freeberg et al. 1984, 1986a, 1986b).



### 5.1 Ghassemi et al. (1993)

Ghassemi et al. (1993) provides an evaluation of a single product , a liquid household cleaner (pH 3) reportedly containing the following qualitative formula: nonionic surfactant, amphoteric surfactant, hydrotrope, solvent, and water. This study direct ly compar es LVET results to human clinical data (using either 10 or 100 **μ** L doses) for the same test substa nce

. No Draize rabbit eye test data had been reported ; therefor e, LVET results could not be compared to those of the standard eye test . The ocular lesions that were produced in this study and their subsequent time to clear suggest that this product is

a mi ld ocular irritant ( Table 5

- 1 ). The authors conclude that because the direct application to the human eye using either 10 or 100 **μ** L doses produced similar results, the smaller volume for testing is more appropriate anatomically and physiologically based on eye volume capacity and subsequent tear

volume.Appendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 31 Table 5

- 1 Summary of Rabbit and Human Responses to an Undiluted Liquid Household

Cleaner

Species Ocular

Tissues

Involved Number of Eyes Affected Mean CR at

24 hr Eyes Cleared/

Time to Clear Max Time

to Clear Cornea Iris Conj

Rabbit LVET Cornea

Iris Conj 3/3 2/3 3/3 2 2/4 days 1/7 days 7 days

Human (10 **μ** L ) Conj 0/10 0/10 10/10 0.1 1/1hr; 4/2hr; 6/4hr;

10/24hr 48 hr

Human
(100 **μ** L) Conj 0/10 0/10 10/10 0.2 1/1hr; 2/2hr; 9/24hr;

2/46hr 70hr

Data from Ghassemi et al. (1993).

Abbreviations: Conj = conjunctiva; CR = conjunctival redness; hr = hour; LVET = low volume eye test (10 **μ** L

dose volume)

.



### 5.2 Roggeband et al. (2000)

Roggeband et al. (2000) evaluat es two products , a dishwashing liquid (pH 8, contains a nionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, soap, ethanol, water) and a liquid laundry detergent (pH 7, contains anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, ethanol, water). This study direct ly compar es modified LVET results to those of a human clinical study. Bo th rabbits and humans were dosed with either 3 **μ** L (dishwashing detergent) or 1 **μ** L (liquid laundry detergent) of the test products. There are no corresponding Draize rabbit eye test data. The ocular lesions that were produced in this study and their subsequ ent time to clear suggest that these products are mild ocular irritants ( Table 5

- 2 ). The authors conclude that these data support the notion that (1) an accidental exposure would be approximately 10 **μ** L or less and (2) a volume of 10 **μ** L provides a suitable margin of safety. This is based on (1) knowledge of the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the eye and (2) the fact that study participants in Roggeband et al. (2000) could “only be exposed to 1 **μ** L of dishwashing liquid an d 3 **μ** L of liquid laundry detergent before predetermined ‘cut

- off’ ocular responses were observed above which it would have been ethically unacceptable to proceed” (Roggeband et al. 2000).ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 32 Table 5

- 2 Human and Rabbit Eye Responses to a Liquid Laundry Deterg ent ( 1 **μ** L )

Human

Volunteer Human
Animal

Number Rabbit LVET 1

1 hour 24 hour s 1 hour 24 hour s

Cornea Conj Cornea Conj Cornea Conj Cornea Conj

5 0 1/1 0 0/0 28 (c) 0/0 1/1/0 1/2 2/1/1

6 0 1/0 0 0/0 29 (c) 0/0 1/1/0 1/2 2/1/1

21 0 1/0 0 0/0 30 (c) 0/0 1/1/0 0/0 2/1/1

23 1/2 1/0 0 1/0 31 (scs) 0/0 1/1/0 1/4 2/1/0

25 1/1 1/0 0 0/0 32 (scs) 0/0 1/1/0 1/3 2/1/1

27 0 1/0 0 1/0 33 (scs) 0/0 1/1/0 1/4 2/1/1

28 0 1/0 0 0/0

30 0 0/0 0 0/0

32 0 1/0 0 0/0

34 0 1/0 0 0/0

Data from Roggeband et al. (2000).

Abbreviations: (c) = test substance dosed on the central cornea; Conj = conjunctiva; LVET = low volume eye

test; (scs) = test substance dosed on the superior conjunctival sac

. 1 Low volume eye test was modified to use 1 **μ** L instead of 10 **μ** L

.



### 5.3 Freeberg et al. (1984)

A series of studies by Freeberg et al. (1984) compare data from LVET, Draize rabbit eye test, and human studies or experience. Freeberg et al. (1984) compares LVET and Draize rabbit eye test data for 29 cleaning products (laundry products, household cleaning products, and dishwashing products) to human experience data. The ocular lesions that were produced in this study and their subsequent time to clear sugges t that these products are either mild ocular irritants or substances not labeled as

irritants ( Table 5

- 3 ). The human data were obtained from medical records of factory and consumer accidental eye exposures (515 reports over a 2

- year period). The results in dicate that both rabbit LVET and Draize eye tests overpredicted (based on time to clear of ocular lesions) the human response based on accidental eye exposure to the cleaning products. The time to clear was longer in the Draize eye test than in the LVET fo r the same product, forming the basis for the conclusion that the LVET more closely predicts the human response.

Table 5

- 3 Summary of Rabbit and Human Accidental Exposure Data from Freeberg et al. (1984)

Species Test Method Number of

Products Average ± SD Mean

Time to Clear

(Day Range) Average ± SD Median Time to Clear) (Day Range) Average ± SD

Number of Incidents (Range)

Rabbit LVET 17 7.3 ± 7.2 (1.3

– 28.8) 6.2 ± 8.8 (0.7

– 35) Not Applicable

Rabbit Draize 26 20.4 ± 7.2 (3.1

– 33.5) 20.2 ± 12.3 (1.4

– 35) Not Applicable

Human Experience data 1 29 2.4 ± 2.1 (0.2

– 9.5) 1.5 ± 1.5 (0.1

– 1.8) 16.2 ± 8.4 (3

– 68)
Data from Freeberg et al. (1984).
Abbreviations: LVET = low volume eye test; SD = standard deviation

. 1 Experience data = combined manufacturing and consumer accidental exposures

.Appendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 33 

### 5.4 Freeberg et al. (1986a)

Freeberg et al. (1986a) compare d rabbit eye test results (both LVET and Draize) with those of human studies (both 10 **μ** L and 100 **μ** L dose volumes) for four cleaning products (a liquid fabric softener, liquid shampoo, liquid hand soap, and liquid laundry detergent). The results indicate that the LVET overpredicted the human response to 10 **μ** L and 100 **μ** L of the same product. The ocular l esions in the

Draize rabbit eye test (100 **μ** L ) were more severe (both type and longevity) than in the human test using the same volume

. While the majority of effects in humans were conjunctival, the corneal effects

in humans were minimal and transient. The corneal effects in rabbits were more severe and recovered less quickly. The ocular lesions that were produced in this study and their subsequent time to clear suggest that these products would be classified as mild ocular irritants based on the Draize rabb it eye test results, the LVET, and human results ( Table 5

- 4 ).

Table 5

- 4 Human Clinical Study and Rabbit Data

Test Product Concentration (% in water) Time to Clear (hr)

Dosing Volume

Rabbit Human Rabbit

10 **μ** L 10 **μ** L 100 **μ** L 100 **μ** L

Liquid fabric

Softener 60 45 18.9 24.9 45

80 66 12.6 33.6 93

100 27 13.2 12.5 84

Liquid s hampoo 4 5 1.5 2.5 NT

16 19.8 1.9 2.6 36.5

20 33 7.5 7.9 63

Liquid hand soap 8 24 1.5 31.5 63

10 42 10.5 9.1 66

12 42 1.7 NT NT

Liquid laundry detergent 2 8.8 2 24.1 27.8

3 19.8 4.7 1.8 60

4 39.8 4.8 19.8 75

Data from Freeberg et al. (1986a).

Abb reviation : NT = n ot tested

.



### 5.5 Freeberg et al. (1986b)

Freeberg et al. (1986b) compares LVET and Draize rabbit eye test data for 14 cleaning products (liquid and solid laundry products, liquid and solid household cleaning products, liquid and solid dishwashing products, and liquid shampoos) to human experience data. The ocular lesions that w ere produced in this study and their subsequent time to clear suggest that these products would be

classified as moderate to severe ocular irritants based on the Draize rabbit eye test results . Most

would be classified as mild ocular irritants by the LVET ( Table 5

- 5 ). The human data were obtained from medical records of factory and consumer accidental eye exposures (218 reports over an 18

- month period). Similar to Freeberg et al. (1986a), r abbit LVET and Draize tests both overpredicted the human response du e to accidental eye exposure (based on time to clear). Because the time to clear was longer for substances tested in the Draize rabbit eye test than in the LVET, the authors concludedICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 34 that the LVET outcome more closely relates to the human experience than the Draize rabbit eye test

does

.

Table 5

- 5 Human Accidental Exposure and Rabbit Data

Product Mean Time to C lear (Days)

Human Rabbit LVET Rabbit Draize

Liquid Laundry Product #1 1.92 26.6 35.0

Liquid Dishwashing Product #1 0.77 8.2 25.7

Solid Dishwashing Product #1 0.59 4.6 18.3

Liquid Dishwashing Product #2 0.43 7.7 11.7

Liquid Household Cleaning Product #1 0.38

- 11.1

Liquid Dishwashing Product #3 0.30 3.9 22.2

Liquid Household Cleaning Product #2 0.23 4.0 15.2

Solid Household Cleaning Product #1 0.19 1.3 29.2

Solid Dishwashing Product #1 0.08 2.1 13.8

Solid Dishwashing Product #1 0.06 2.9 15.1

Data from Freeberg et al. (1986b).

Abbreviation : LVET = low volume eye test

.Appendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 35 

## 6.0 Summary

Because studies conducted with the LVET have been limited to tests of surfactant

- containing personal and household cleaning products, the applicability domain for which the LVET can be considered is necessarily restricted to these product types. As summari zed in Table 6

- 1

, LVET data have previously been used by one personal

- care product company to support submission of data to the EPA

for the registration of at least five antimicrobial cleaning product s. T he results were used by EPA

reviewers in a weight

- of

- evidenc e approach, in conjunction with either consumer incidence data (i.e., commercial products for which there is an opportunity for adverse events to be reported by the consumer) and/or Draize data for similar, structurally related substances

. Each study was considered

on a case

- by

- case basis and several submissions were deemed unacceptable by the EPA because either the LVET study was not considered an acceptable fulfillment of the eye irritation data requirement and/or the further confirmatory infor mation provided by the submitter was insufficient ( Table 6

- 1 )

. Based on the data provided to NICEATM in the Data Evaluation Reports (DERs)

, it

appears that a final EPA ocular hazard classification was not assigned for any product using LVET

data alone.

As indicated in the studies summarized above, human data on potential ocular hazards are available either from accidental exposures or from clinical studies. Accidental exposures are not generally considered to be a reliable source of the true ocular hazard p otential because such exposures are likely immediately followed by flushing the eyes with large volumes of water . Such accidents make definitive quantitative measures of amount and time of exposure impossible to obtain . Although the Draize eye test is repo rted to be excessively overpredictive of the human response, ethical considerations based largely on results from the Draize rabbit eye test are used to limit the types of substances that can be tested in human clinical studies. As a result, comparisons to human clinical study data are based on tests of mild irritant s or substances not labeled as irritants . Such data provide little assurance to the regulatory agencies charged with protecting public health that the LVET can provide adequate protection from m ore severe ocular injuries.

Thus, while the LVET is proposed as more likely to approximate the volume of a substance that could enter the human eye accidently, there are limited data to indicate whether it can accurately identify

the ocular hazard of subs tances known to cause moderate, severe, or permanent human ocular injuries. I n contrast, there are no documented instances in which a substance with a hazard category determined in the Draize eye test produced a more severe hazard category response in huma ns following accidental exposures or ethical human studies.

Table 6

- 1 Summary of Ocular Hazard Classi fications for EPA Registered Antimicrobial Cleaning Products : Consideration of LVET Data and EPA Determinations 1

EPA Registration

Number or

Submission

Code Submission

Date Animal Data

from LVET Study EPA Hazard Category

Based on

LVET Data Additional

Submission

Information Final EPA

Classification

Provided in DER

3573

- AO Jul 20, 2000 No corneal opacity, iritis, or

conjunctival irritation (n=6). Category IV Consumer

incidence data Study unacceptable 2

Jun 6, 2001 Same as for Jul 20, 2000 Consumer incidence data; LVET and

Draize data for similar substances Category III

continuedICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 36 Table 6

- 1 Summary of Ocular Hazard Classifications for EPA Registered Antimicrobial Cleaning Products: Consideration of LVET Data and EPA Determinations 1

(continued)

EPA Registration

Number or

Submission

Code Submission

Date Animal Data

from LVET Study EPA Hazard Category

Based on

LVET Data Additional

Submission

Information Final EPA

Classification

Provided in DER

3573

- TE Aug 9, 2000 No corneal opacity, iritis,

redness, or chemosis at day 1 (n=3). Category IV None Study unacceptable 2

Feb 7, 2001 Repeat submission from Aug 9, 2000 Animal data for

similar

substances Category IV

3573

- 72 Jun 6, 2001 NP Category III Consumer incidence data;

LVET and

Draize data for

similar

substances Category III

3573

- AI Jun 6, 2001 NP NP NP Category II

S596273 Jun 27, 2001 No corneal

effects or iritis

observed. Conjunctivitis resolved by 72 hr (n=3). Category III None Study unacceptable 2

3573

- TG Jul 25, 2001 NP Category III Consumer

incidence data ;

Animal skin irritation study

Category I (severe irritant) Study unacceptable 3

Abbreviations: DER = Data Evaluation Reports; EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; LVET = low

volume eye test; NP = n ot provided (i.e., i nformation not contained in and/or not provided to NICEATM in

DER s )

. 1 Data source: Obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request submitted to EPA for LVET data used to

support the submission of data for the registration of antimicrobial cleaning produ cts.

2 “The EPA does not consider the LVET study to be an acceptable fulfillment of the eye irrita tion data

requirement .”

3 “It is now the Product Safety Branch’s (PSB) policy to take a weight of the evidence approach to the situation

by considering individual LVET studies for possible acceptance on a case by case basis if they are significantly supplemented by further, confirmatory information. In the present case, that confirmatory

further information is not sufficient.”Appendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 37 

## 7.0 References

Bruner LH, Parker RD, Bruce RD. 1992. Reducing the number of rabbits in the low

- volume eye test. Fund Appl Toxicol 19:330

- 335.

Chiou GCY. 1999. Ophthalmic Toxicology. In: Target Organ Toxico logy Series (Hayes AW, Thoams JA, Gardner DG, eds). Philadelphia, PA:CRC Press.

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 1990. Public Law 101

- 549. Available: http://www.ehso.com/caa.htm

. CPSC. 1995. Test for eye irritants. 16 CFR 1500.42.

Draize J, Woodard G, Ca lvery H. 1944. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharm Exp Ther 82:377

– 390.

ECETOC. 1998. Eye Irritation Reference Chemicals Data Bank. 2d ed. Technical Report No. 48 (2).

E uropean Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC). Brussels, Belgium:ECETOC.

EPA. 1998. Health Effects Test Guideline. OPPTS 870.2400 Acute Eye Irritation. EPA 712

- C

- 98

- 195. Washington , DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. 2003. Label Review Manual

. 3rd e d. EPA735

- B

- 03

- 001. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington , DC :U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EU. 2001. Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001 adapting to technical progress for th e 28th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Official Journal of the European Communities L255:1

– 333.

Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act. 1972. Public Law 92

- 516.

Federal Hazardous Substances Act. 1964. Public Law 86

- 613.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. 1947. Public Law 80

- 102.

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. 1938. Public Law 75

- 717.

Freeberg FE, Griffith JF, Bruce RD, Bay PHS. 1984. Correlation of animal test methods with human experience for household products. J Toxic Cut & Ocular Toxic 1:53

– 64.

Freeberg FE, Hooker DT, Griffith JF. 1986b. Correlation of animal test metho ds with human experience for household products: an update. J Toxic Cut & Ocular Toxic 5:115

– 123.

Freeberg FE, Nixon GA, Reer PJ, Weaver JE, Bruce RD, Griffith JF, et al. 1986a. Human and rabbit eye responses to chemical insult. Fundam Appl Toxicol 7 : 626

– 6 34.

Gettings S, Lordo R, Hintze K, Bagley D, Casterton P, Chudkowski M, et al . 1996 a . The CTFA evaluation of alternatives program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. (Phase III) surfactant

- based formulations. Food Chem Toxic 34:79

– 117.

Gettings SD, Lordo RA, Demetrulias J, Feder PI, Hintze KL . 1996 b . Comparison of low

- volume,

Draize and in vitro eye irritation test data. I. Hydroalcoholic formulations. Food Chem Toxicol

34:737

– 7 49

. Gettings SD, Lordo RA, Feder PI, Hintze KL. 1998. A comparison of low volume, Draize and in

vitro eye irritation test data. III. Surfactant

- based formulations. Food Chem Toxicol 36:209

– 231.ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 38 Ghassemi A, Sauers LH, Bruner LH, Reer PJ, Hall RH. 1993. Demonstrating the human safety of a

n ew household cleaning (HSC) product using alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Presentation made at the U.S. Society of Toxicology New Orleans, Louisiana.

Grant WM

, Schuman JS. 1993. Toxicology of the Eye : Effects on the Eyes and Visual System f rom Chemicals, Drugs, Metals and Minerals, Plants, Toxins, and Venoms; Also Systemic Side Effects from Eye Medications . 4th ed. Springfield, IL : Charles C. Thomas.

Griffith J, Nixon G, Bruce R, Reer P, Bannan E. 1980. Dose

- response studies with chemical irr itants in the albino rabbit eye as a basis for selecting optimum testing conditions for predicting hazard to the human eye. Toxic Appl Pharmacol 55:501

– 513.

ICCVAM. 2003. ICCVAM Guidelines for the Nomination and Submission of New, Revised, and

Alternative Test Met hods

. NIH Publication No. 03

- 4508

. Research Triangle Park, NC:National

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

.

ICCVAM. 2010. ICCVAM Test Method Evaluation Report: Current Validation Status of a Proposed

In Vitro Testing Strategy for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ocular Hazard Classification and Labeling of Antimicrobial Cleaning Products. NIH Publication No. 10

- 7513

. Research Triangle Park,

NC:National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

.

Jester JV. 2006. Extent of corneal injury as biomarker for hazard assessment and the development of alternative models to the Draize rabbit eye test. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 25:41

– 54.

Kay JH, Calandra JC. 1962. Interpretation of eye irritation tests. J Soc Cosmet Chem 13 :281

– 289.

Maurer JK, Molai A, Parker RD, Li L, Carr GJ, Petroll WM, Cavanagh HD, Jester JV. 2001a. Pathology of ocular irritation with bleaching agents in the rabbit low

- volume eye test Toxicologic Pathology 29:308

– 319.

Maurer JK, Molai A, Parker RD, Li L, Carr GJ, Petroll WM, Cavanagh HD, Jester JV. 2001b. Pathology of ocular irritation with acetone, cyclohexanol, parafluoroaniline, and formaldehyde in the

rabbit low

- volume eye test. Toxicologic Pathology 29:187

– 199.

McGwin G. Hall TA, Xie A, Owsley C. 200 6. Trends in eye injury in the United States, 1992

- 2001. Inv Ophthalmol Vis Science 47:521

– 527.

McLaughlin R. 1946. Chemical burns of the human cornea. Am J Ophthamol 29:1355

– 1362.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. 1970. Public Law 91

- 596

Organis ation for Economic Co

- operation and Development. 2002. Test guideline 405, Acute eye irritation/corrosion, adopted February 24, 1987. In: OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals.

Paris:OECD.

Roggeband R, York M, Pericoi M, Braun W. 2000. Eye irritation re sponses in rabbit and man after single applications of equal volumes of undiluted model liquid detergent products. Food Chem Toxic

38:727

– 734.

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. 1976. Public Law 94

- 469.

United Nations. 2007. Globally Harmonized System o f Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). New York, Geneva:United Nations Publications.

Wagoner MD. 1997. Chemical injuries of the eye: Current concepts in pathophysiology and therapy. Surv Ophthalmol 41:275

– 313.

Wilhelmus K. 2001. The Draize eye test. Survey of Ophthalmology 45 : 493

– 515.Appendix B

– Summary Review Document

B

- 39 

## 8.0 Glossary 1

Assay : 2 The experimental system used. Often used interchangeably with test and test method

.
Canthus: The angle formed by the meeting of the upper and lower eyelids at either side of the eye.

Chemosis: A form of eye irritation in which the membranes that line the eyelids and surface of the eye ( conjunctiva ) become swollen.

Classification system: An arrangement of quantified results or data into groups or categories according to previously established crite ria.

Confocal microscopy : An optical imaging technique that increase s the contrast of micrograph s. It

can used to reconstruct three

- dimensional images by us e of a spatial pinhole to eliminate out

- of

- focus light or flare in specimens that are thicker than t he focal plane

. Conjunctiva: The mucous membrane that lines the inner surfaces of the eyelids and folds back to cover the front surface of the eyeball, except for the central clear portion of the outer eye (the cornea). The conjunctiva is composed of three sections: palpebral conjunctiva, bulbar conjunctiva, and fornix.

Conjunctival sac: The space located between the eyelid and the conjunctiva

- covered eyeball.

Substances are instilled into the sac to conduct an in vivo eye test.

Cornea: The transparent part of the coat of the eyeball that covers the iris and pupil and admits light

to the interior.

Corneal opacity: A subjective measurement of the extent of opaqueness of the cornea following exposure to a test substance. Increased corneal opacity is indicative of damage to the cornea.

Corneal stroma: The substantia propia: a tough, fibrous, transparent layer consisting of plates of collagen fibrils (lamellae) produced by keratocytes that make up 10% of the stroma

. The fibrils run parallel to each other, but ar e positioned at right angles to adjacent lamellae.

Corrosion: Destruction of tissue at the site of contact with a substance.

Corrosive: A substance that causes irreversible tissue damage at the site of contact.

Distress: To cause pain, or stress, or suffering to.

Endpoint : 2 The biological process, response, or effect assessed by a test method.

Globally Harmonized System (GHS): A classification system presented by the United Nations that provides (a) a harmonized criteria for classifying substances and mixtures according to their health, environmental and physical hazards, and (b) harmonized hazard communication elements, includ ing requirements for labeling and safety data sheets.

Hazard : 2 The potential for an adverse health or ecological effect. A hazard potential results only if an exposure occurs that leads to the possibility of an adverse effect being manifested.

Hyperemia: A n increase in blood flow to a tissue (e.g., cornea).

In vitro: In glass. Refers to assays that are carried out in an artificial system (e.g., in a test tube or petri dish) and typically use single

- cell organisms, cultured cells, cell

- free extracts, or puri fied cellular components.

1 The definitions in this Glossary are restricted to their uses with respect to the Draize rabbit eye test method

and in the assessment or treatment of pain and distre ss.

2 Definition used by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods

(ICCVAM 2003)ICCVAM LVET Test Method Evaluation Report

B

- 40 In vivo: In the living organism. Refers to assays performed in multicellular organisms.

Iris: The contractile diaphragm perforated by the pupil and forming the colored portion of the eye.

Not Labeled: (a) A substance the produces no changes in the eye following application to the anterior surface of the eye. (b) Substances that are not classified as GHS Category 1, 2A, or 2B; or

EU R41 or R36 ocular irritants.

Ocular: Of or relating to the eye.

Ocular corrosive: A substance that c auses irreversible tissue damage in the eye following application to the anterior surface of the eye.

Ocular irritant: A substance that produces a reversible change in the eye following application to the anterior surface of the eye.

Pain : An unpleasant s ensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder ; s uffering or distress.

pH: A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution. A pH of 7.0 is neutral; higher pHs are alkaline, lower pHs are a cidic.

Protocol : 2 The precise, step

- by

- step description of a test, including the listing of all necessary reagents, criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the test data.

Severe irritant: (a) A substance that causes tissue damage in the eye followin g application to the anterior surface of the eye that is not reversible within 21 days of application or causes serious physical decay of vision. (b) Substances that are classified as GHS Category 1, EPA Category I, or

EU R41 ocular irritants.

Test : 2 The e xperimental system used; used interchangeably with test method and assay

.

Test method : 2 A process or procedure used to obtain information on the characteristics of a substance or agent. Toxicological test methods generate information regarding the ability of a substance or agent to produce a specified biological effect under specified conditions. Used interchangeably with test and assay . See also validated test method and reference test

.
Validated test method : 2 An accepted test method for which validation studies have been completed to determine the relevance and reliability of this method for a specific proposed use.

Validation : 2 The process by which the reliability and relevance of a procedure are established for a specific purpose.

Weight of evidence (pr ocess): The strengths and weaknesses of a collection of information are used as the basis for a conclusion that may not be evident from the individual data.