Agrochemical formulations have been underrepresented in validation efforts for implementing alternative eye irritation approaches but represent a significant opportunity to reduce animal testing. This study assesses the utility of the neutral red release assay (NRR) and EpiOcular™ assay (EO) for predicting the eye irritation potential of 64 agrochemical formulations relative to Draize data. In the NRR, formulations with an NRR50 value ≤ 50 mg/mL were categorized as UN GHS Cat 1 and those >250 mg/mL were classified as UN GHS Non Classified (NC). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 78, 85 and 76% and 73, 85 and 61% for identifying UN GHS 1 and NC formulations, respectively. Specificity was poor for formulations with NRR50 > 50 to ≤250 mg/mL. The EO (ET-40 method) was explored to differentiate formulations that were UN GHS 1/2 and UN GHS NC. The EO resulted in accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 65%, 58% and 75% for identifying UN GHS NC formulations. To improve the overall performance, the assays were implemented using a tiered-approach where the NRR was run as a first-tier followed by the EO. The tiered-approach resulted in improved accuracy (75%) and balanced sensitivity (73%) and specificity (77%) for distinguishing between irritating and non-irritating agrochemical formulations.
Keywords: Agrochemical formulations; EpiOcular assay; Eye irritation; In vitro; Neutral red release assay; Ocular irritation.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.