187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16226427)
1. Slug species- and population-specific effects on the end points of the Slug Mucosal Irritation test.
Dhondt MM; Adriaens E; Pinceel J; Jordaens K; Backeljau T; Remon JP
Toxicol In Vitro; 2006 Jun; 20(4):448-57. PubMed ID: 16226427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Refinement of the Slug Mucosal Irritation test as an alternative screening test for eye irritation.
Adriaens E; Dhondt MM; Remon JP
Toxicol In Vitro; 2005 Feb; 19(1):79-89. PubMed ID: 15582359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Successful prevalidation of the slug mucosal irritation test to assess the eye irritation potency of chemicals.
Adriaens E; Bytheway H; De Wever B; Eschrich D; Guest R; Hansen E; Vanparys P; Schoeters G; Warren N; Weltens R; Whittingham A; Remon JP
Toxicol In Vitro; 2008 Aug; 22(5):1285-96. PubMed ID: 18406103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The evaluation of the local tolerance of vaginal formulations containing dapivirine using the Slug Mucosal Irritation test and the rabbit vaginal irritation test.
Dhondt MM; Adriaens E; Roey JV; Remon JP
Eur J Pharm Biopharm; 2005 Aug; 60(3):419-25. PubMed ID: 15996583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of an alternative mucosal irritation test using slugs.
Adriaens E; Remon JP
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol; 2002 Jul; 182(2):169-75. PubMed ID: 12140180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. New aspects of the Slug Mucosal Irritation assay: predicting nasal stinging, itching and burning sensations.
Lenoir J; Adriaens E; Remon JP
J Appl Toxicol; 2011 Oct; 31(7):640-8. PubMed ID: 21132841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mucosal irritation potential of personal lubricants relates to product osmolality as detected by the slug mucosal irritation assay.
Adriaens E; Remon JP
Sex Transm Dis; 2008 May; 35(5):512-6. PubMed ID: 18356773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. In vitro skin irritation testing on reconstituted human epidermis: reproducibility for 50 chemicals tested with two protocols.
Tornier C; Rosdy M; Maibach HI
Toxicol In Vitro; 2006 Jun; 20(4):401-16. PubMed ID: 16229985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. CON4EI: Slug Mucosal Irritation (SMI) test method for hazard identification and labelling of serious eye damaging and eye irritating chemicals.
Adriaens E; Guest R; Willoughby JA; Fochtman P; Kandarova H; Verstraelen S; Van Rompay AR
Toxicol In Vitro; 2018 Jun; 49():77-89. PubMed ID: 28870540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reconstituted human corneal epithelium: a new alternative to the Draize eye test for the assessment of the eye irritation potential of chemicals and cosmetic products.
Doucet O; Lanvin M; Thillou C; Linossier C; Pupat C; Merlin B; Zastrow L
Toxicol In Vitro; 2006 Jun; 20(4):499-512. PubMed ID: 16243479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The slug mucosal irritation (SMI) assay: development of a screening tool for the evaluation of ocular discomfort caused by shampoos.
Lenoir J; Claerhout I; Kestelyn P; Klomp A; Remon JP; Adriaens E
Toxicol In Vitro; 2011 Dec; 25(8):1919-25. PubMed ID: 21741469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The Slug Mucosal Irritation (SMI) assay: a tool for the evaluation of nasal discomfort.
Lenoir J; Bachert C; Remon JP; Adriaens E
Toxicol In Vitro; 2013 Sep; 27(6):1954-61. PubMed ID: 23845896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment of the eye irritating properties of chemicals by applying alternatives to the Draize rabbit eye test: the use of QSARs and in vitro tests for the classification of eye irritation.
Gerner I; Liebsch M; Spielmann H
Altern Lab Anim; 2005 Jun; 33(3):215-37. PubMed ID: 16180977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An interlaboratory study of the short time exposure (STE) test using SIRC cells for predicting eye irritation potential.
Takahashi Y; Hayashi T; Koike M; Sakaguchi H; Kuwahara H; Nishiyama N
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2010 Jun; 29(2):77-90. PubMed ID: 20178401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Evaluation of the chorioallantoic membrane in the chick embryo to test the irritation potential of chemical and cosmetic products].
Mystkowska-Baczkowska ET; Komar A; Samos-Zielińska J; Stroińska W; Rogulska T
Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig; 1995; 46(4):407-15. PubMed ID: 8619123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prediction of eye irritation potential of surfactant-based rinse-off personal care formulations by the bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) assay.
Cater KC; Harbell JW
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2006; 25(3):217-33. PubMed ID: 16980247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. An alternative test battery in detecting ocular irritancy of agrochemicals.
Tavaszi J; Budai P; Pálovics A; Kismányoki A
Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2008; 73(4):891-5. PubMed ID: 19226840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Eye irritation of low-irritant cosmetic formulations: correlation of in vitro results with clinical data and product composition.
Debbasch C; Ebenhahn C; Dami N; Pericoi M; Van den Berghe C; Cottin M; Nohynek GJ
Food Chem Toxicol; 2005 Jan; 43(1):155-65. PubMed ID: 15582208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Draize rabbit eye test compatibility with eye irritation thresholds in humans: a quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis.
Abraham MH; Hassanisadi M; Jalali-Heravi M; Ghafourian T; Cain WS; Cometto-Muniz JE
Toxicol Sci; 2003 Dec; 76(2):384-91. PubMed ID: 14514959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The use of HET-CAM test in detecting the ocular irritation.
Tavaszi J; Budai P
Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci; 2007; 72(2):137-41. PubMed ID: 18399434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
