An assessment of neurotoxicity of aroclors 1016, 1242, 1254, and 1260 administered in diet to Sprague-Dawley rats for one year.

As part of a comparative chronic toxicity/oncogenicity study of different Aroclors (1016, 1242, 1254, and 1260), neurotoxicity was assessed in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats using functional observational battery (FOB) and motor activity tests, and histopathologic evaluation of selected nervous system tissues. Doses varied by Aroclor and ranged from 25 to 200 ppm in the diet. Animals were evaluated prior to initiation of dosing and at 13, 26, 39, and 52 weeks of exposure. Clinical signs, body weights, and feed consumption were evaluated weekly. Data analysis of FOB and motor activity results revealed several instances where Aroclor-treated groups were different from control. However, these were considered incidental, as they lacked any consistent dose- or time-related pattern that would suggest Aroclor-induced neurotoxicity. The nonremarkable findings during each of the four assessments were supported by the absence of any treatment-related clinical signs or mortality. Decreased body weight gain was evident in the male 100 ppm Aroclor 1254 dose group and in all female Aroclor 1254 dose groups late in the study (when a linear relationship was assumed between body weight and time), correlating with decreased feed consumption. Although a variety of incidental, spontaneous, degenerative changes were found in nervous tissue evaluated histopathologically, these changes were seen with similar incidence and severity in treated and control groups. No lesions were found that could be attributed to Aroclor-related neurotoxicity. In summary, 52 weeks of exposure to Aroclors 1016, 1242, 1254, or 1260 mixed in the diet did not yield any functional or morphologic changes indicative of PCB-induced neurotoxicity.

Comparing and evaluating alternative (in vitro) tests on their ability to predict the Draize maximum average score.

The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) Evaluation of Alternatives Program comprised a multi-phased study of the relationship between Draize eye irritation test data and comparable data from a selection of promising alternative (in vitro) tests. The CTFA Program was designed to determine the effectiveness and limitations of several in vitro tests over a range of different cosmetic and personal-care product types. Test materials constituted experimental formulations representative of three distinct product types. Each material was tested in vivo (according to a modified Draize eye irritation test protocol) and in vitro (according to one of up to forty different protocols). A statistical ranking and selection procedure ("concordance analysis") was used to identify those in vitro tests where the relationships between in vitro and in vivo score was sufficiently well defined to warrant further statistical analysis. In vitro test performance was then evaluated by regression modelling of these relationships. Maximum average Draize score (MAS) was utilized as the primary quantitative measure of eye irritation potential in vivo. The goodness-of-fit of the observed data to the regression model and comparison of the magnitude of upper and lower prediction-bounds on the range of probable MAS values associated with the regression model fit (prediction intervals) provide a means by which the performance of each in vitro test may be measured relative to Draize test outcome. The narrower the prediction interval (i.e. the more precise the fit), the more predictive of in vivo score (MAS) is the in vitro test result. The prediction interval thus represents uncertainty associated with Draize test prediction. Such uncertainty depends heavily on the degree of irritancy. In Phases I and II, the widths of the prediction intervals were narrowest in the region corresponding to low irritation potential; increasing widths were observed as irritation potential increased. In Phase III, relatively narrow prediction interval widths were observed at both the low and high end of the observed range of irritation potential; wider intervals were observed in the middle of the observed range. In general, the selected endpoints in each phase had similar average prediction interval widths and thereby differed only slightly in their ability to predict MAS to a given level of precision; any differences between endpoints tended to occur at the low and/or high ends of the observed range of irritation potential. The primary contributor to total variability associated with prediction of MAS is the deviation between the Draize score as observed in the laboratory and what is predicted by the model for a given formulation. Consistently, this component is responsible for 70% to 95% of the total variability. The other components (i.e. variability among replicate MAS and in vitro scores) could be reduced simply by increasing the number of replicate tests performed on each test formulation. However, this would have relatively little impact on the overall precision of prediction.

A comparison of low volume, Draize and in vitro eye irritation test data. III. Surfactant-based formulations.

The third phase in a series of investigations of the relationship between low volume eye test (LVET) data, Draize eye irritation test data, and comparable data from in vitro assay protocols is presented. These investigations utilize Draize eye test and in vitro endpoint data generated previously as part of the CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program. LVET data were generated de novo using the same 25 representative surfactant-based personal-care formulations. In general, these formulations were minimally to moderately irritating. The linear correlation between maximum average score as determined by the Draize test (MAS) and the LVET (LVET-MAS) was 0.87; LVET-MAS values were typically about 30% lower then corresponding MAS values. Comparison of in vitro assay performance with that of the LVET was determined by statistical analysis of the relationship between LVET-MAS and in vitro endpoint. Regression modelling was the primary means of enabling such a comparison, the objective being to predict LVET-MAS for a given test material (and to place upper and lower prediction bounds on the range in which the LVET-MAS is anticipated to fall with high probability) based on observation of an in vitro score for that material. The degree of 95% confidence in prediction is quantified in terms of the relative widths of prediction intervals constructed about the fitted regression curves. Twenty in vitro endpoints were shown to have the greatest agreement with the LVET (these endpoints included those with low discordance rates relative to the Draize test) and were therefore selected for regression modelling. Although prediction interval widths tended to be narrower when predicting LVET-MAS compared with predicting MAS, the confidence with which the selected in vitro endpoints predicted both LVET-MAS and MAS for surfactant-based formulations was greatest when values were close to the lower or upper limits of the observed irritation range (i.e. 95% prediction interval widths were most narrow in these areas). Overall precision of LVET-MAS prediction for surfactant-based formulations was similar to that previously reported for hydroalcoholic formulations and considerably better than was reported for oil/water emulsions.

A comparison of low volume, draize and in vitro eye irritation test data. II. Oil/water emulsions.

The second phase in a series of investigations of the relationship between low volume eye test (LVET) data, Draize eye irritation test data, and comparable data from in vitro eye irritation test protocols is presented. These investigations utilize Draize eye test and in vitro endpoint data generated previously as part of the CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program. LVET data were generated de novo using the same 18 representative oil/water based personal-care formulations. In general, these formulations were minimally to mildly irritating; only three were classified as moderate eye irritants. The linear correlation between maximum average score as determined by the Draize test (MAS) and the LVET (LVET-MAS) was 0.85; LVET-MAS values were typically about half the corresponding MAS values. Comparison of in vitro assay performance with that of the LVET was determined by statistical analysis of the relationship between LVET-MAS and each in vitro endpoint. Regression modelling was the primary means of enabling such a comparison, the objective being to predict LVET-MAS for a given test material (and to place upper and lower 95% prediction bounds on the range in which the LVET-MAS is anticipated to fall with high probability) based on observation of an in vitro score for that material. The degree of confidence in prediction is quantified in terms of the relative widths of prediction intervals constructed about the fitted regression curves. Sixteen endpoints were shown to have the greatest agreement with the LVET (all but two were selected for modelling when compared with the Draize procedure). While the lower maximum average scores values (compared with the Draize test) in the LVET led to lower variability in LVET-MAS compared to MAS, the upper and lower bounds on predicted LVET-MAS values conditional on observed in vitro scores were still wide. Because there was overlap in the range of scores determined by the prediction bounds for many formulations, each of the selected endpoints was frequently unable to distinguish between test formulations in terms of statistically different predicted LVET-MAS values. In summary, none of the in vitro endpoints evaluated were able to reliably predict values of LVET-MAS among the set of oil/water emulsions considered here.

Semivolatile organic compounds in adipose tissue: estimated averages for the US population and selected subpopulations.

OBJECTIVES: The fiscal year (FY) 1986 Environmental Protection Agency National Human Adipose Tissue Survey (NHATS) was conducted to estimate average concentrations of 111 semivolatiles in human adipose tissue within the US general population and selected subpopulations. METHODS: Population and subpopulation estimates of average semivolatile concentrations were established from 671 adipose tissue specimens pooled across 50 analytical samples. RESULTS: Among polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), average concentrations for the group aged 45 and older were from 188% to 706% higher than for the 0- through 14-year-old age group. Similar increases with age were observed for pesticides. Geographic effects on average concentration were mixed, and no significant race or sex effects were observed. Statistically significant increases from FY 1982 NHATS results were observed for PCBs and hexachlorobenzene, whereas a decrease from FY 1982 was significant for beta-BHC (benzene hexachloride). Increases from FY 1984 NHATS results were significant for p,p-DDT (dichlordiphenylethylene), p,p-DDE (dichlordiphenyldichlor), hexachlorobenzene, and PCBs. CONCLUSIONS: The survey establishes baseline average levels of semivolatile compounds in the adipose tissue of US residents.

Comparison of low-volume, Draize and in vitro eye irritation test data. I. Hydroalcoholic formulations.

The first phase in a series of investigations of the relationship between low-volume eye test (LVET) data, Draize eye irritation test data, and comparable data from 25 in vitro assay protocols is presented. These investigations utilize Draize eye test and in vitro assay data generated previously as part of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA) Evaluation of Alternatives Program. LVET data were generated de novo using the same 10 representative hydroalcoholic personal-care formulations. The linear correlation between maximum average score (MAS) as determined by the Draize test and the LVET (LVET-MAS) was 0.93. Comparison of in vitro assay performance with that of the LVET was determined by statistical analysis of the relationship between LVET-MAS and in vitro endpoint. As in the CTFA program, regression modelling is the primary means of enabling such a comparison. The objective is to predict LVET-MAS for a given test material (and to place upper and lower prediction interval bounds in the range in which the LVET-MAS is anticipated to fall with high probability) conditional on observing an in vitro assay score for that material. The degree of confidence in prediction is quantified in terms of the relative widths of prediction intervals constructed about the fitted regression curves. Four assays [EYTEX MPA (membrane partition assay), HET-CAM (hen's egg test-chorioallantoic membrane HET-CAM) I, neutral red release and HET-CAM II] were shown to have the greatest agreement with the LVET. These assays were also among those with low discordance rates relative to the Draize test. Prediction of LVET-MAS values from experimentally determined in vitro scores was more accurate for hydroalcoholic formulations with lower rather than higher irritancy potential.

The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. (Phase III) surfactant-based formulations.

The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program is an evaluation of the relationship between data from the Draize primary eye irritation test and comparable data from a selection of promising in vitro eye irritation tests. In Phase III, data from the Draize test and 41 in vitro endpoints on 25 representative surfactant-based personal care formulations were compared. As in Phase I and Phase II, regression modelling of the relationship between maximum average Draize score (MAS) and in vitro endpoint was the primary approach adopted for evaluating in vitro assay performance. The degree of confidence in prediction of MAS for a given in vitro endpoint is quantified in terms of the relative widths of prediction intervals constructed about the fitted regression curve. Prediction intervals reflect not only the error attributed to the model but also the material-specific components of variation in both the Draize and the in vitro assays. Among the in vitro assays selected for regression modeling in Phase III, the relationship between MAS and in vitro score was relatively well defined. The prediction bounds on MAS were most narrow for materials at the lower or upper end of the effective irritation range (MAS = 0-45), where variability in MAS was smallest. This, the confidence with which the MAS of surfactant-based formulations is predicted is greatest when MAS approaches zero or when MAS approaches 45 (no comment is made on prediction of MAS > 45 since extrapolation beyond the range of observed data is not possible). No single in vitro endpoint was found to exhibit relative superiority with regard to prediction of MAS. Variability associated with Draize test outcome (e.g. in MAS values) must be considered in any future comparisons of in vivo and in vitro test results if the purpose is to predict in vivo response using in vitro data.