Juniper, Juniperus virginiana, ext.

Eye irritation

Administrative data

Endpoint:

eye irritation: in vitro / ex vivo

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

04 Apr 2017

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2017

Report date:

2017

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 437 (Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test Method for Identifying i) Chemicals Inducing Serious Eye Damage and ii) Chemicals Not Requiring Classification for Eye Irritation or Serious Eye Damage)

Version / remarks:

July 26, 2013

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Juniper, Juniperus virginiana, ext.

EC Number:

285-370-3

EC Name:

Juniper, Juniperus virginiana, ext.

Cas Number:

85085-41-2

Molecular formula:

Not available since an UVBC substance.

IUPAC Name:

Essential oil of Cedarwood obtained from the wood of Juniperus virginiana (Cupressaceae) by steam distillation

Test material form:

liquid

Remarks:

(could crystallize)

Details on test material:

Identification: Cedarwood Oil Virginia
Appearance: Pale yellow to yellow liquid
Batch: 1002960562
Purity/Composition: 100.0% (UVCB)
Test item storage: At room temperature
Stable under storage conditions until: 31 August 2017 (expiry date), extended expery date until: 28 February 2018 (21 Oct 2017)

Purity/composition correction factor: No correction factor required
Chemical name (IUPAC), synonym or trade name: Essential oil of Junipers Virginiana L. (Cupressaceae) obtained from the wood by steam distillation
CAS Number 85085-41-2
Molecular structure: UVCB
Molecular formula: UVCB
Highly reactive to water: Not indicated
Highly reactive to oxygen: Not indicated
Volatile: Not indicated
Solubility in water: Not available
Stability in water: Not available

Specific details on test material used for the study:

SOURCE OF TEST MATERIAL
- batch No.of test material: 1002960562 provided by sponsor
- Expiration date of the lot/batch: 31 August 2017, extended expery date until: 28 February 2018 (21 Oct 2017)
- Purity test date: 22 August 2017

STABILITY AND STORAGE CONDITIONS OF TEST MATERIAL
- Storage condition of test material: At room temperature
- Stability under test conditions: Not available

TREATMENT OF TEST MATERIAL PRIOR TO TESTING
- Treatment of test material prior to testing: The test item was tested neat.

Test animals / tissue source

Species:

cattle

Strain:

not specified

Details on test animals or tissues and environmental conditions:

Test System
- Source: Vitelco slaughterhouse, 's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
- Age at study initiation: young cattle
- Other info: the eyes were excised by a slaughterhouse employee as soon as possible after slaughter.

Test system

Vehicle:

unchanged (no vehicle)

Controls:

yes

yes, concurrent positive control

yes, concurrent negative control

Amount / concentration applied:

TEST MATERIAL
- Amount(s) applied (volume or weight with unit): The medium from the anterior compartment was removed and 750 µl of either the negative control, positive control (Ethanol) or test item was introduced onto the epithelium of the cornea.
- Concentration (if solution): Undiluted

Duration of treatment / exposure:

Corneas were incubated in a horizontal position for 10 +/- 1 minutes at 32 +/- 1*C. After the
incubation the solutions were removed and the epithelium was washed with MEM with phenol red (Earle’s Minimum Essential Medium, Life Technologies) and thereafter with cMEM.

Duration of post- treatment incubation (in vitro):

Corneas were incubated for 120 +/- 10 minutes at 32 +/- 1*C.

Number of animals or in vitro replicates:

triplicates

Details on study design:

SELECTION AND PREPARATION OF CORNEAS

The eyes were checked for unacceptable defects, such as opacity, scratches, pigmentation and neovascularization by removing them from the physiological saline and holding them in the light. Those exhibiting defects were discarded. The isolated corneas were stored in a petri dish with cMEM (Earle’s Minimum Essential Medium (Life Technologies, Bleiswijk, The Netherlands) containing 1% (v/v) L-glutamine (Life Technologies) and 1% (v/v) Foetal Bovine Serum (Life Technologies)). The isolated corneas were mounted in a corneal holder (one cornea per holder) of BASF (Ludwigshafen, Germany) with the endothelial side against the O-ring of the posterior half of the holder. The anterior half of the holder was positioned on top of the cornea and tightened with screws. The compartments of the corneal holder were filled with cMEM of 32 +/- 1*C. The corneas were incubated for the minimum of 1 hour at 32 +/- 1*C.

QUALITY CHECK OF THE ISOLATED CORNEAS

After the incubation period, the medium was removed from both compartments and replaced with fresh cMEM. Opacity determinations were performed on each of the corneas using an opacitometer (BASF-OP3.0, BASF, Ludwigshafen, Germany). The opacity of each cornea was read against a cMEM filled chamber, and the initial opacity reading thus determined was recorded. Corneas that had an initial opacity reading higher than 7 were not used. Three corneas were selected at random for each treatment group.

NUMBER OF REPLICATES: 3

NEGATIVE CONTROL USED:
A negative control, physiological saline (Eurovet Animal Health, Bladel, The Netherlands) was included to detect non-specific changes in the test system and to provide a baseline for the assay endpoints.

POSITIVE CONTROL USED:
Identification Ethanol
Identification number RS532
CAS Number 64-17-5
Molecular formula C2H5OH
Molecular weight 46.07
Appearance Clear colourless liquid
Batch K47177483
Purity >99.9%
Storage conditions At room temperature
Stable under storage conditions until 31 October 2020

APPLICATION DOSE AND EXPOSURE TIME: Undiluted, 10 minutes

TREATMENT METHOD: The isolated corneas were mounted in a corneal holder (one cornea per holder) of BASF (Ludwigshafen, Germany) with the endothelial side against the O-ring of the posterior half of the holder. The anterior half of the holder was positioned on top of the cornea and tightened with screws. The compartments of the corneal holder were filled with cMEM of 32 +/- 1*C. The corneas were incubated for the minimum of 1 hour at 32 +/- 1*C.

REMOVAL OF TEST SUBSTANCE
- Number of washing steps after exposure period:
- POST-EXPOSURE INCUBATION: yes; 120 +/- 10 minutes

METHODS FOR MEASURED ENDPOINTS: - Corneal opacity: The opacity of a cornea was measured by the diminution of light passing through the cornea.The light was measured as illuminance (I = luminous flux per area, unit: lux) by a light meter.
- Corneal permeability: passage of sodium fluorescein dye measured with the aid of a microplate reader (TECAN Infinite® M200 Pro Plate Reader).

SCORING SYSTEM: In Vitro Irritancy Score (IVIS)

DECISION CRITERIA: please specify if the decision criteria as indicated in the TG was used.
ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA
The assay is considered acceptable if:
1) The positive control gives an in vitro irritancy score that falls within two standard deviations of the current historical mean.
2) The negative control responses should result in opacity and permeability values that are less than the upper limits of the laboratory historical range.
All results presented in the tables of the report are calculated using values as per the raw data rounding procedure and may not be exactly reproduced from the individual data presented.
INTERPRETATION
The mean opacity and mean permeability values (OD490) were used for each treatment group to calculate an in vitro score:
In vitro irritancy score (IVIS) = mean opacity value + (15 x mean OD490 value)
Additionally the opacity and permeability values were evaluated independently to determine whether the test item induced irritation through only one of the two endpoints.
The IVIS cut-off values for identifying the test items as inducing serious eye damage (UN GHS Category 1) and test items not requiring classification for eye irritation or serious eye damage (UN GHS No Category) are given hereafter:
≤ 3 No Category
> 3; ≤ 55 No prediction can be made
>55 Category 1

Results and discussion

In vitro

Results

Irritation parameter:

in vitro irritation score

Run / experiment:

1

Value:

>= 0.6 - <= 2

Vehicle controls validity:

not applicable

Negative controls validity:

valid

Positive controls validity:

valid

Other effects / acceptance of results:

The negative control responses for opacity and permeability were less than the upper limits of the laboratory historical range indicating that the negative control did not induce irritancy on the corneas. The mean in vitro irritancy score of the positive control (Ethanol) was 51 and within two standard deviations of the current historical positive control mean. It was therefore concluded that the test conditions were adequate and that the test system functioned properly.

Any other information on results incl. tables

Treatment	Mean Opacity	Mean Permeability	MeanIn vitroIrritation Score
Negative control	0.1	0.007	0.2
Positive control (Ethanol)	19.8	2.056	50.6
Test item	1.0	0.024	1.4

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

other: not classified

Remarks:

based on CLP criteria (Annex I of 1272/2008/EC)

Conclusions:

Cedarwood Oil Virginia induced an IVIS ≤ 3. Based on these results, the test substance does not need to be classified as eye irritant according to the classification criteria outlined in Annex I of 1272/2008/EC (CLP).

Executive summary:

The eye irritation potential of Cedarwood Oil Virginia was measured by its ability to induce opacity and increase permeability in an isolated bovine cornea using the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability test (BCOP test). The study procedures described in this report were based on the most recent OECD test guideline 437.

Cedarwood Oil Virginia was applied as received to the test system, and did not induce ocular irritation through both endpoints, resulting in a mean in vitro irritancy score of 1.4 after 10 minutes of treatment. The negative control responses for opacity and permeability were less than the upper limits of the laboratory historical rangeindicating that the negative control did not induce irritancy on the corneas. The mean in vitro irritancy score of the positive control (Ethanol) was 51 and was within two standard deviations of the current historical positive control mean. It was therefore concluded that the test conditions were adequate and that the test system functioned properly.  In conclusion, since Cedarwood Oil Virginia induced an IVIS ≤ 3, no classification is required for eye irritation or serious eye damage according to the classification criteria outlined in Annex I of 1272/2008/EC (CLP).