tris(branched-alkyl) borate

Eye irritation

Administrative data

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

05 March 2014 to 24 March 2014

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

other: GLP Guideline study

Cross-reference

Reason / purpose for cross-reference:

reference to other study

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2014

Report date:

2014

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Test guideline 1

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 405 (Acute Eye Irritation / Corrosion)

Deviations:

no

Test guideline 2

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

EU Method B.5 (Acute Toxicity: Eye Irritation / Corrosion)

Deviations:

no

Principles of method if other than guideline:

No

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Test material

Reference

Name:

Unnamed

Type:

Constituent

Test material form:

liquid

Details on test material:

- Appearance/physical state: Clear colourless liquid
- Storage conditions: Room temperature in the dark

Test animals / tissue source

Species:

rabbit

Strain:

New Zealand White

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

Three New Zealand White strain rabbits were supplied by Harlan Laboratories UK Ltd., Leicestershire, UK. At the start of the study the animals weighed 2.51 to 3.29 kg and were twelve to twenty weeks old. After an acclimatization period of at least five days each animal was given a unique number .

The animals were individually housed in suspended cages. Free access to mains drinking water and food was allowed throughout the study. The diet and drinking water were considered not to contain any contaminant of a level that might have affected the purpose or integrity of the study.

The temperature and relative humidity were set to achieve limits of 17 to 23 °C and 30 to 70% respectively. The rate of air exchange was at least fifteen changes per hour and the lighting was controlled by a time switch to give twelve hours continuous light (06:00 to 18:00) and twelve hours darkness.

The animals were provided with environmental enrichment items which were considered not to contain any contaminant of a level that might have affected the purpose or integrity of the study.

Test system

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Controls:

other: own control with other eye

Amount / concentration applied:

0.1 mL of the test item was placed into the conjunctival sac of the right eye

Duration of treatment / exposure:

Assessment of ocular damage/irritation was made approximately 1 hour and 24, 48 and 72 hours following treatment, according to the numerical evaluation (Draize, J.H, 1977)

Observation period (in vivo):

Assessment of ocular damage/irritation was made approximately 1 hour and 24, 48 and 72 hours following treatment, according to the numerical evaluation (Draize, J.H, 1977)

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

3
After consideration of the ocular responses produced in the first treated animal, two additional animals were similarly treated.

Details on study design:

Immediately before the start of the test, both eyes of the provisionally selected test rabbits were examined for evidence of ocular irritation or defect with the aid of a light source from a standard ophthalmoscope. Only animals free of ocular damage were used.
Initially, a single rabbit was treated. A subcutaneous injection of buprenorphine 0.01 mg/kg was administered 60 minutes prior to test item application to provide a therapeutic level of systemic analgesia. Five minutes prior to test item application, a pre-dose anesthesia of ocular anesthetic (two drops of 0.5% tetracaine hydrochloride) was applied to each eye.
Initially, a single rabbit was treated. A volume of 0.1 mL of the test item was placed into the conjunctival sac of the right eye, formed by gently pulling the lower lid away from the eyeball. The upper and lower eyelids were held together for about one second immediately after treatment, to prevent loss of the test item, and then released. The left eye remained untreated and was used for control purposes. Immediately after administration of the test item, an assessment of the initial pain reaction was made.
Eight hours after test item application, a subcutaneous injection of post-dose analgesia, buprenorphine 0.01 mg/kg and meloxicam 0.5 mg/kg, was administered to provide a continued therapeutic level of systemic analgesia. The treated animal was checked for signs of pain and suffering approximately 12 hours later. No further analgesia was required.
Any other ocular effects were also noted. Examination of the eye was facilitated by the use of the light source from a standard ophthalmoscope.
Any clinical signs oftoxicity, if present, were also recorded.
An additional observation was made in one treated eye on Day 7 to assess the reversibility of the ocular effects.
Individual body weights were recorded on Day 0 (the day of dosing) and at the end of the observation period.

Results and discussion

In vivo

Results

Results 1

Irritation parameter:

cornea opacity score

Basis:

animal #1

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

other: not applicable

Remarks on result:

other: 74009 Female

Results 2

Irritation parameter:

cornea opacity score

Basis:

animal #2

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

other: not applicable

Remarks on result:

other: 74042 Male

Results 3

Irritation parameter:

cornea opacity score

Basis:

animal #3

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0.67

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 72 h

Remarks on result:

other: 74059 Male

Results 4

Irritation parameter:

iris score

Basis:

animal #1

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

2

Reversibility:

other: not applicable

Remarks on result:

other: 74009 Female

Results 5

Irritation parameter:

iris score

Basis:

animal #2

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0

Max. score:

2

Reversibility:

other: not applicable

Remarks on result:

other: 74042 Male

Results 6

Irritation parameter:

iris score

Basis:

animal #3

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0.67

Max. score:

2

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 72 h

Remarks on result:

other: 74059 Male

Results 7

Irritation parameter:

conjunctivae score

Remarks:

redness

Basis:

animal #1

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

1

Max. score:

3

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 72 h

Remarks on result:

other: 74009 Female

Results 8

Irritation parameter:

conjunctivae score

Remarks:

redness

Basis:

animal #2

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0.67

Max. score:

3

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 72 h

Remarks on result:

other: 74042 Male

Results 9

Irritation parameter:

conjunctivae score

Remarks:

redness

Basis:

animal #3

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

1.67

Max. score:

3

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 7 d

Remarks on result:

other: 74059 Male

Results 10

Irritation parameter:

chemosis score

Basis:

animal #1

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0.33

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 48 h

Remarks on result:

other: 74009 Female

Results 11

Irritation parameter:

chemosis score

Basis:

animal #2

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

0.33

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 48 h

Remarks on result:

other: 74042 Male

Results 12

Irritation parameter:

chemosis score

Basis:

animal #3

Remarks:

mean score

Time point:

24/48/72 h

Score:

1

Max. score:

4

Reversibility:

fully reversible within: 7 d

Remarks on result:

other: 74059 Male

Irritant / corrosive response data:

Diffuse comeal opacity and iridial inflammation were noted in one treated eye at the 24 and 48-Hour observations.
Moderate conjunctival irritation was noted in all treated eyes one hour after treatment. Moderate conjunctival irritation was noted in two treated eyes with minimal conjunctival irritation noted in one treated eye at the 24-Hour observation. Moderate conjunctival irritation was noted in one treated eye with minimal conjunctival irritation noted in two treated eyes at the 48-Hour observation. Minimal conjunctival irritation was noted in one treated eye at the 72-Hour observation.
Two treated eyes appeared normal at the 72-Hour observation and one treated eye appeared normal at the 7-Day observation

Other effects:

One animal showed body weight loss and two animais showed expected gain in body weight during the study.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

The test item produced a maximum group mean score of 10.0 and was classified as a mild irritant (Class 4 on a 1 to 8 scale) to the rabbit eye according to a modified Kay and Calandra classification system. The substance is not classified for eye irritation in regard to Regulation No. 1272/2008.

Executive summary:

Introduction

The study was performed to assess the irritancy potential of the test item to the eye of the New Zealand White rabbit.

Method

In the absence of information on the ocular irritancy potential of the test item, a Rabbit Enucleated Eye Test was performed prior to the in vivo test. The results indicated that the test item was unlikely to cause severe ocular irritancy.

A volume of 0.1 mL of the test item was placed into the conjunctival sac of the right eye, formed by gently pulling the lower lid away from the eyeball. The upper and lower eyelids were held together for about one second immediately after treatment, to prevent loss of the test item, and then released. The left eye remained untreated and was used for control purposes. Immediately after administration of the test item, an assessment of the initial pain reaction was made . Eight hours after test item application, a subcutaneous injection of post-dose analgesia, buprenorphine 0.01 mg/kg and meloxicam 0.5 mg/kg, was administered to provide a continued therapeutic level of systemic analgesia. The treated animal was checked for signs of pain and suffering approximately 0.5 hours later. No further analgesia was required. After consideration of the ocular responses produced in the first treated animal, a second animal was similarly treated. Assessment of ocular damage/irritation was made approximately 1 hour and 24, 48 and 72 hours following treatment, according to the numerical evaluation (Draize, J.H, 1977).

Results

A single application of the test item to the non-irrigated eye of three rabbits produced diffuse corneal opacity, iridial inflammation and moderate conjunctival irritation. Two treated eyes appeared normal at the 72-Hour observation and one treated eye appeared normal at the 7-Day observation.

Conclusion

The test item produced a maximum group mean score of 10.0 and was classified as a mild irritant (Class 4 on a 1 to 8 scale) to the rabbit eye according to a modified Kay and Calandra classification system. The substance does not meet the criteria for classification as an eye irritant under the terms of Regulation No. 1272/2008.