“CCM = corrosive” however must not necessarily mean that the product is indeed corrosive due to the fact that the generic cut-off limits are usually not based on experimental data of individual compounds and that the additivity approach may not always be justified with regard to the real physiological situation in human skin. Further testing in such cases is also possible to verify or falsify the initial outcomes. Since such products were excluded from this
study, no judgment can be made from the available data about a possible correlation between CCM classifications Navitoclax as corrosive in comparison to the respective in vitro results. Human skin model tests have undergone extensive formal validation and acceptance procedures in order to be broadly applicable. Since the validation was performed with a specific and limited set of compounds, it
seems useful to further substantiate Cobimetinib their applicability by practical experience. Since there are no in vivo studies available for the products tested in this study, a direct comparison to in vivo data is not possible. For the individual compounds, a comparison to in vivo data is possible only in a limited way since testing conditions may have been different, or were not available in detail (e.g. pH adjustment). A crude plausibility check shows that the in vitro results in some cases seem to be matching or may have overestimated or, in very few cases (skin and eye effects of monoethanolamine), may have underestimated the effects in vivo. This study is
not a direct follow-up of the validation where well-documented in vivo data was available for the tested reference compounds. Nevertheless, valuable information could be obtained by comparing the results from the various non-animal methods. For example, the results obtained with a subset of products with varying contents of zirconate and hydrofluoric acid indicate that discrimination between the degrees of irritancy is possible by in vitro methods. With regard to eye irritation, the situation is still more complex since there are no validated and accepted methods available for the whole range of irritancy. Therefore, additional information Avelestat (AZD9668) to the in vitro results is needed within a weight of evidence assessment. In cases were the overall knowledge of the ingredients is considered insufficient to allow for a WoE assessment, data from other assays like the BCOP test can be useful in addition to the HET-CAM. It has previously been discussed that combination with additional methods (e.g. models with stroma like the BCOP) in a battery approach could be a solution ( Scott et al., 2010). An observation form our study was also that from the 14 products that were tested in the HET-CAM, only in two cases the HET-CAM resulted in a less severe classification than the AR.