130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3803757)
1. Human and rabbit eye responses to chemical insult.
Freeberg FE; Nixon GA; Reer PJ; Weaver JE; Bruce RD; Griffith JF; Sanders LW
Fundam Appl Toxicol; 1986 Nov; 7(4):626-34. PubMed ID: 3803757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Eye irritation responses in rabbit and man after single applications of equal volumes of undiluted model liquid detergent products.
Roggeband R; York M; Pericoi M; Braun W
Food Chem Toxicol; 2000 Aug; 38(8):727-34. PubMed ID: 10908820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prediction of the eye irritation potential of shampoos using the in vitro SIRC cell toxicity test.
North-Root H; Yackovich F; Demetrulias J; Gacula M; Heinze JE
Food Chem Toxicol; 1985 Feb; 23(2):271-3. PubMed ID: 4040076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. (Phase III) surfactant-based formulations.
Gettings SD; Lordo RA; Hintze KL; Bagley DM; Casterton PL; Chudkowski M; Curren RD; Demetrulias JL; Dipasquale LC; Earl LK; Feder PI; Galli CL; Glaza SM; Gordon VC; Janus J; Kurtz PJ; Marenus KD; Moral J; Pape WJ; Renskers KJ; Rheins LA; Roddy MT; Rozen MG; Tedeschi JP; Zyracki J
Food Chem Toxicol; 1996 Jan; 34(1):79-117. PubMed ID: 8603801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Light microscopic comparison of surfactant-induced eye irritation in rabbits and rats at three hours and recovery/day 35.
Maurer JK; Parker RD
Toxicol Pathol; 1996; 24(4):403-11. PubMed ID: 8864182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Determination of the intra- and interlaboratory reproducibility of the low volume eye test and its statistical relationship to the Draize eye test.
Cormier EM; Parker RD; Henson C; Cruse LW; Merritt AK; Bruce RD; Osborne R
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 1996 Apr; 23(2):156-61. PubMed ID: 8661334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A more realistic animal technique for predicting human eye response.
Walker AP
Food Chem Toxicol; 1985 Feb; 23(2):175-8. PubMed ID: 4040060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A rapid cell culture technique for assessing the toxicity of detergent-based products in vitro as a possible screen for eye irritancy in vivo.
Kemp RB; Meredith RW; Gamble S; Frost M
Cytobios; 1983; 36(143-44):153-9. PubMed ID: 6851660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of an in vitro cell toxicity test using rabbit corneal cells to predict the eye irritation potential of surfactants.
North-Root H; Yackovich F; Demetrulias J; Gacula M; Heinze JE
Toxicol Lett; 1982 Dec; 14(3-4):207-12. PubMed ID: 7167981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The use of low-volume dosing in the eye irritation test.
Lambert LA; Chambers WA; Green S; Gupta KC; Hill RN; Hurley PM; Lee CC; Lee JK; Liu PT; Lowther DK
Food Chem Toxicol; 1993 Feb; 31(2):99-103. PubMed ID: 8449463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An in vitro cytotoxicity test to predict the ocular irritation potential of detergents and detergent products.
Scaife MC
Food Chem Toxicol; 1985 Feb; 23(2):253-8. PubMed ID: 4040073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Development of the short time exposure (STE) test: an in vitro eye irritation test using SIRC cells.
Takahashi Y; Koike M; Honda H; Ito Y; Sakaguchi H; Suzuki H; Nishiyama N
Toxicol In Vitro; 2008 Apr; 22(3):760-70. PubMed ID: 18248950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of in vitro eye irritation potential by bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) assay to erythema scores in human eye sting test of surfactant-based formulations.
Cater KC; Harbell JW
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2008; 27(2):77-85. PubMed ID: 18568892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Application of in vivo confocal microscopy to the understanding of surfactant-induced ocular irritation.
Jester JV; Maurer JK; Petroll WM; Wilkie DA; Parker RD; Cavanagh HD
Toxicol Pathol; 1996; 24(4):412-28. PubMed ID: 8864183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reducing the number of rabbits in the Draize eye irritancy test: a statistical analysis of 155 studies conducted over 6 years.
Talsma DM; Leach CL; Hatoum NS; Gibbons RD; Roger JC; Garvin PJ
Fundam Appl Toxicol; 1988 Jan; 10(1):146-53. PubMed ID: 3350224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Microscopic changes with acetic acid and sodium hydroxide in the rabbit low-volume eye test.
Maurer JK; Parker RD
Toxicol Pathol; 2000; 28(5):679-87. PubMed ID: 11026603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Toxicity of handcleaners.
van Ketel WG; Bruynzeel DP; Bezemer PD; Stamhuis HI
Dermatologica; 1984; 168(2):94-9. PubMed ID: 6698271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Amended final report of the safety assessment of cocamidopropylamine oxide.
Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel
Int J Toxicol; 2008; 27 Suppl 1():55-62. PubMed ID: 18569162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparative evaluation of five in vitro tests for assessing the eye irritation potential of hair-care products.
Jones PA; Budynsky E; Cooper KJ; Decker D; Griffiths HA; Fentem JH
Altern Lab Anim; 2001; 29(6):669-92. PubMed ID: 11709042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Analysis of formaldehyde in various chemical products for household use and in shampoos and bath liquids].
Piekacz H; Kiss E
Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig; 1989; 40(3):235-9. PubMed ID: 2634304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
