Four products were equally Selleckchem Cisplatin detected as not irritating in CCM, AR and HSM (MPT products 1, 2, 7, and 10). Five products (MPT products 6–10) contain varying concentrations of dihydrogen hexafluorozirconate(2−) and hydrogen fluoride, which are presumed to be the major constituents responsible for corrosive/irritating effects. A systematic comparison of these products shows that overall the difference in concentration is reflected quite well in the results of the in vitro methods ( Table 5). The complete results for the nine individual compounds are shown in Table 2. The selection comprises

inorganic acids (sulphuric acid, 5%; phosphoric acid, 10% and Y-27632 manufacturer 25%), an inorganic acid salt (sodium silicate × 5H2O, 5%), an organic acid (citric acid × H2O, 20%), a salt of an organic acid (nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) sodium salt, 10%), an alkanolamine (methanolamine (MEA), 5%), a solvent (diethylene glycol monobutyl ether (DEGBE), 20%) and a detergent (alkyl ether sulphate, C12–C14 with EO, sodium salt, 7%). Results from in vivo studies are listed as well in Table 2. In contrast to the testing strategy for products, the testing of individual compounds started for the majority of the compounds with the EpiDerm™ skin irritation test (all except for the detergent and 25% phosphoric

acid), based on the anticipated properties of the compound at the chosen concentration according to DSD. Regarding the latter aspect an exemption was made for the detergent since

it was of specific interest to investigate how this class of compound behaves in the in vitro corrosivity test Megestrol Acetate although a corrosive effect was not expected from DSD or in vivo data. Combinations of results from the different non-animal methods, grouped according to the outcomes for skin hazard classes (Table 6), show that from the seven samples with an extreme pH the classification based on in vitro methods matched directly with DSD classification in three cases (the inorganic compounds phosphoric acid, 10% and 25% and sodium silicate × 5H2O, 5%); in two cases the results of the in vitro methods indicated a more severe classification (the organic compounds citric acid × H2O, 20% and NTA sodium salt, 20%), in another two cases a less severe classification (an inorganic acid, (sulphuric acid, 5%) and the alkanolamine (MEA, 5%)). For the two samples with no extreme pH (the solvent DEGBE, 20% and the detergent alkyl sulphate C12–C14 with EO, sodium salt, 7%) the in vitro test confirmed the DSD-based classification as not irritating. Two of the HET-CAM results directly matched with DSD predictions (an inorganic and an organic acid (sulphuric acid, 5%; citric acid × H2O, 20%), cf. Table 2).