159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 4040056)
1. Acute irritation tests in risk assessment.
Schlatter C; Reinhardt CA
Food Chem Toxicol; 1985 Feb; 23(2):145-8. PubMed ID: 4040056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cosmetics Europe compilation of historical serious eye damage/eye irritation in vivo data analysed by drivers of classification to support the selection of chemicals for development and evaluation of alternative methods/strategies: the Draize eye test Reference Database (DRD).
Barroso J; Pfannenbecker U; Adriaens E; Alépée N; Cluzel M; De Smedt A; Hibatallah J; Klaric M; Mewes KR; Millet M; Templier M; McNamee P
Arch Toxicol; 2017 Feb; 91(2):521-547. PubMed ID: 26997338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Irritant contact dermatitis. Part II. Evaluation evaluation of skin irritation potential of chemicals].
Chomiczewska D; Kieć-Swierczyńska M; Krecisz B
Med Pr; 2009; 60(3):209-14. PubMed ID: 19746889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Review on skin and mucous-membrane irritation tests and their application.
Bosshard E
Food Chem Toxicol; 1985 Feb; 23(2):149-54. PubMed ID: 3891553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Human hemoglobin denaturation as an alternative to the Draize test for predicting eye irritancy of surfactants.
Mitjans M; Infante MR; Vinardell MP
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Nov; 52(2):89-93. PubMed ID: 18602964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of a tiered in vitro testing strategy for assessing the ocular and dermal irritation/corrosion potential of pharmaceutical compounds for worker safety.
Graham JC; Wilt N; Costin GE; Villano C; Bader J; Krawiec L; Sly E; Gould J
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2018 Dec; 37(4):380-390. PubMed ID: 30035615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Estimation of the chemical-induced eye injury using a weight-of-evidence (WoE) battery of 21 artificial neural network (ANN) c-QSAR models (QSAR-21): part I: irritation potential.
Verma RP; Matthews EJ
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2015 Mar; 71(2):318-30. PubMed ID: 25497990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Assessment of an ex vivo irritation test performed on human skin explants and comparison of its results with those of a 24-/48-h human patch test for the evaluation of cosmetics.
Patrick M; Gallic B; Laurent PM; Elian L; Richard F; Katell V
Toxicol In Vitro; 2021 Feb; 70():105030. PubMed ID: 33058998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation: selection of test chemicals.
Eskes C; Cole T; Hoffmann S; Worth A; Cockshott A; Gerner I; Zuang V
Altern Lab Anim; 2007 Dec; 35(6):603-19. PubMed ID: 18186668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation: report on the validity of the EPISKIN and EpiDerm assays and on the Skin Integrity Function Test.
Spielmann H; Hoffmann S; Liebsch M; Botham P; Fentem JH; Eskes C; Roguet R; Cotovio J; Cole T; Worth A; Heylings J; Jones P; Robles C; Kandárová H; Gamer A; Remmele M; Curren R; Raabe H; Cockshott A; Gerner I; Zuang V
Altern Lab Anim; 2007 Dec; 35(6):559-601. PubMed ID: 18186667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Establishment and evaluation of immortalized human epidermal keratinocytes for an alternative skin irritation test.
Kim CW; Kim CD; Choi KC
J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods; 2017; 88(Pt 2):130-139. PubMed ID: 28827132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Adverse reactions to cosmetics and methods of testing.
Nigam PK
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2009; 75(1):10-8; quiz 19. PubMed ID: 19172025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. New approaches to the assessment of eye and skin irritation.
Calvin G
Toxicol Lett; 1992 Dec; 64-65 Spec No():157-64. PubMed ID: 1471169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Quantitative assessment of irritation in the mouse skin test.
Walz D
Food Chem Toxicol; 1985 Feb; 23(2):199-203. PubMed ID: 4040066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Prediction of ocular irritancy of 26 chemicals and 26 cosmetic products with isolated rabbit eye (IRE) test.
Guo X; Yang XF; Yang Y; Hans R; Cai JH; Xue JY; Tan XH; Xie XP; Xiong XK; Huang JM
Biomed Environ Sci; 2012 Jun; 25(3):359-66. PubMed ID: 22840588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Distribution of eye irritation scores of industrial chemicals.
Kobel W; Gfeller W
Food Chem Toxicol; 1985 Feb; 23(2):311-2. PubMed ID: 4040082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
