28.01.2014 Views

Pesticide residues in food — 2007: Toxicological ... - ipcs inchem

Pesticide residues in food — 2007: Toxicological ... - ipcs inchem

Pesticide residues in food — 2007: Toxicological ... - ipcs inchem

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

49<br />

to <strong>in</strong>tact sk<strong>in</strong>; and that no read<strong>in</strong>g was made at 48 h after application. However, the study is adequate<br />

for the purpose <strong>in</strong>tended. Very slight erythema was recorded on abraded sk<strong>in</strong> of three animals and,<br />

therefore, atraz<strong>in</strong>e is classified as a mild sk<strong>in</strong> irritant under EPA guidel<strong>in</strong>es but is not an irritant under<br />

OECD or EC criteria (Ullmann, 1976b).<br />

(c)<br />

Ocular irritation<br />

In a study on eye irritation potential, atraz<strong>in</strong>e powder (0.1 g) was applied <strong>in</strong>to the left eyes of<br />

three male and three female Himalayan rabbits, and after 30 s was r<strong>in</strong>sed out from three of these eyes.<br />

The eyes were closely exam<strong>in</strong>ed for reaction at <strong>in</strong>tervals after application. The study deviates from<br />

present OECD test guidel<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> that no record<strong>in</strong>g was performed at 1 h. In view of the results, this<br />

does not detract from the acceptability of the study. Atraz<strong>in</strong>e caused no reaction to the eye at 24, 48<br />

or 72 h, and therefore is non-irritant to the eye (Ullmann, 1976a).<br />

(d)<br />

Dermal sensitization<br />

In a study on sk<strong>in</strong> sensitization potential that was conducted <strong>in</strong> compliance with GLP and<br />

OECD test guidel<strong>in</strong>es (optimization test), 10 male and 10 female Pirbright White (Tif:DHP) gu<strong>in</strong>eapigs<br />

received a total of 10 <strong>in</strong>tradermal <strong>in</strong>jections (each of 0.1 ml of 0.1% atraz<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> 20% ethanol<br />

and 80% physiological sal<strong>in</strong>e) dur<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>duction period, while the control group (10 males and 10<br />

females) received the vehicle only. Two weeks later, a challenge dose of 0.1 ml of 0.1% atraz<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong><br />

a mixture of 20% ethanol and 80% physiological sal<strong>in</strong>e was <strong>in</strong>jected <strong>in</strong>tradermally. Ten days later, a<br />

sub-irritant level dose of 30% atraz<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> vasel<strong>in</strong>e was applied on the sk<strong>in</strong> under occlusive patches for<br />

24 h. Twenty-four and 48 h after removal of the patches, 10 out of 19 animals showed sk<strong>in</strong> reactions<br />

<strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g sensitization potential <strong>in</strong> the test system (Maurer, 1983).<br />

In a study on sk<strong>in</strong> sensitization potential that was conducted <strong>in</strong> compliance with GLP and OECD<br />

test guidel<strong>in</strong>es (Magnusson & Kligman test), 10 male and 10 female Pirbright White (Tif:DHP)<br />

gu<strong>in</strong>ea-pigs received three pairs of <strong>in</strong>tradermal <strong>in</strong>jections (adjuvant/sal<strong>in</strong>e 1 : 1, atraz<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> oleum<br />

arachidis 1% mixture, and atraz<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> adjuvant/sal<strong>in</strong>e mixture 1%). One week later, 0.4 g atraz<strong>in</strong>e<br />

<strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong> vasel<strong>in</strong>e (30%) was applied epidermally to the neck of the animals for 48 h. After a<br />

2-week rest period (week 3 and 4) the gu<strong>in</strong>ea-pigs were challenged by application of 0.2 g of atraz<strong>in</strong>e<br />

at a concentration of 30% <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong> vasel<strong>in</strong>e for 24 h. Twenty-four and 48 h after removal of<br />

the patches, 65% and 70% of the gu<strong>in</strong>ea-pigs showed sk<strong>in</strong> reactions <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g sensitization potential<br />

<strong>in</strong> the test system (Schoch, 1985).<br />

In a study on sk<strong>in</strong> sensitization potential, repeated-<strong>in</strong>sult patch tests were conducted on 50<br />

(otherwise undescribed) humans given 0.5 ml of a 0.5% suspension of atraz<strong>in</strong>e 80W formulation<br />

<strong>in</strong> water; the composition of the formulation was not given. Subjects received 15 consecutive 24-h,<br />

alternate-day treatments followed by a 14-day rest period before a challenge dose. None of the subjects<br />

reacted to any application or to the challenge. The tested spray dilution of atraz<strong>in</strong>e did not<br />

appear to be sensitiz<strong>in</strong>g to humans (Shelanski & Gittes, 1965).<br />

2.2 Short-term studies of toxicity<br />

Rats<br />

In a study of oral toxicity, groups of 10 male and 10 female Tif:RAIf (Sprague-Dawley derived)<br />

rats were fed diets conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g atraz<strong>in</strong>e (purity, 97.1%) at a concentration of 10, 50 or 500 ppm, equal<br />

to 0, 0.6, 3.3 and 34.0 mg/kg bw per day <strong>in</strong> males and 0, 0.66, 3.35 and 35.3 mg/kg bw per day <strong>in</strong><br />

females, for 13 weeks. An additional 10 males and 10 females were allocated to the groups at the<br />

ATRAZINE 37–138 JMPR <strong>2007</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!