155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 4040076)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Prediction of ocular irritancy of prototype shampoo formulations by the isolated rabbit eye (IRE) test and bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP) assay.
Cooper KJ; Earl LK; Harbell J; Raabe H
Toxicol In Vitro; 2001 Apr; 15(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 11287169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Survey of ocular irritation predictive capacity using Chorioallantoic Membrane Vascular Assay (CAMVA) and Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) test historical data for 319 personal care products over fourteen years.
Donahue DA; Kaufman LE; Avalos J; Simion FA; Cerven DR
Toxicol In Vitro; 2011 Mar; 25(2):563-72. PubMed ID: 21147215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Validation of the red blood cell test system as in vitro assay for the rapid screening of irritation potential of surfactants.
Pape WJ; Pfannenbecker U; Hoppe U
Mol Toxicol; 1987-1988 Fall; 1(4):525-36. PubMed ID: 3509700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. HET-CAM test. Application to shampoos in developing countries.
Derouiche MTT; Abdennour S
Toxicol In Vitro; 2017 Dec; 45(Pt 3):393-396. PubMed ID: 28602853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison of low volume, Draize and in vitro eye irritation test data. III. Surfactant-based formulations.
Gettings SD; Lordo RA; Feder PI; Hintze KL
Food Chem Toxicol; 1998 Mar; 36(3):209-31. PubMed ID: 9609394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of eye and skin irritation of arginine-derivative surfactants using different in vitro endpoints as alternatives to the in vivo assays.
Martinez V; Corsini E; Mitjans M; Pinazo A; Vinardell MP
Toxicol Lett; 2006 Jul; 164(3):259-67. PubMed ID: 16472949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Further verification of an in vitro tier system for the identification of cosmetic ingredients that are not ocular irritants.
Hagino S; Okazaki Y; Kitagaki M; Itagaki H
Altern Lab Anim; 2010 May; 38(2):139-52. PubMed ID: 20507185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An in vitro tier evaluation for the identification of cosmetic ingredients which are not ocular irritants.
Hagino S; Okazaki Y; Itagaki H
Altern Lab Anim; 2008 Dec; 36(6):641-52. PubMed ID: 19154091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessment of ocular discomfort caused by 5 shampoos using the Slug Mucosal Irritation test.
Petit JY; Doré V; Marignac G; Perrot S
Toxicol In Vitro; 2017 Apr; 40():243-247. PubMed ID: 28063820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Toxicity of commercial products on cells in suspension culture: a possible screen for the Draize eye irritation test.
Kemp RB; Meredith RW; Gamble SH
Food Chem Toxicol; 1985 Feb; 23(2):267-70. PubMed ID: 4040075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
