- Latest available (Revised)
- Point in Time (29/04/2004)
- Original (As adopted by EU)
Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (Text with EEA relevance)
When the UK left the EU, legislation.gov.uk published EU legislation that had been published by the EU up to IP completion day (31 December 2020 11.00 p.m.). On legislation.gov.uk, these items of legislation are kept up-to-date with any amendments made by the UK since then.
Legislation.gov.uk publishes the UK version. EUR-Lex publishes the EU version. The EU Exit Web Archive holds a snapshot of EUR-Lex’s version from IP completion day (31 December 2020 11.00 p.m.).
EU Directives are published on this site to aid cross referencing from UK legislation. Since IP completion day (31 December 2020 11.00 p.m.) no amendments have been applied to this version.
In the interests of sound science and animal welfare, it is important to avoid the unnecessary use of animals, and to minimise testing that is likely to produce severe responses in animals. All information on a substance relevant to its potential ocular irritation/corrosivity should be evaluated prior to considering in vivo testing. Sufficient evidence may already exist to classify a test substance as to its eye irritation or corrosion potential without the need to conduct testing in laboratory animals. Therefore, utilizing a weight-of-the-evidence analysis and sequential testing strategy will minimise the need for in vivo testing, especially if the substance is likely to produce severe reactions.
It is recommended that a weight-of-the-evidence analysis be used to evaluate existing information pertaining to eye irritation and corrosion of substances and to determine whether additional studies, other than in vivo eye studies, should be performed to help characterise such potential. Where further studies are needed, it is recommended that the sequential testing strategy be utilised to develop the relevant experimental data. For substances which have no testing history, the sequential testing strategy should be utilised to develop the data needed to evaluate its eye corrosion/irritation. The testing strategy described in this Annex was developed at an OECD workshop (1). It was subsequently affirmed and expanded in the Harmonised Integrated Hazard Classification System for Human Health and Environmental Effects of Chemical Substances, as endorsed by the 28th Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, in November 1998 (2).
Although this testing strategy is not an integrated part of testing method B.5, it expresses the recommended approach for the determination of eye irritation/corrosion properties. This approach represents both best practice and an ethical benchmark for in vivo testing for eye irritation/corrosion. The Testing method provides guidance for the conduct of the in vivo test and summarises the factors that should be addressed before considering such a test. The sequential testing strategy provides a weight-of-the-evidence approach for the evaluation of existing data on the eye irritation/corrosion properties of substances and a tiered approach for the generation of relevant data on substances for which additional studies are needed or for which no studies have been performed. The strategy includes the performance first of validated and accepted in vitro or ex vivo tests and then of testing method B.4 skin irritation/corrosion studies under specific circumstances (3)(4).
Prior to undertaking tests as part of the sequential testing strategy (Figure), all available information should be evaluated to determine the need for in vivo eye testing. Although significant information might be gained from the evaluation of single parameters (e.g., extreme pH), the totality of existing information should be assessed. All relevant data on the effects of the substance in question, and its structural analogues, should be evaluated in making a weight-of-the-evidence decision, and a rationale for the decision should be presented. Primary emphasis should be placed upon existing human and animal data on the substance, followed by the outcome of in vitro or ex vivo testing. In vivo studies of corrosive substances should be avoided whenever possible. The factors considered in the testing strategy include:
Evaluation of existing human and animal data (Step 1). Existing human data, e.g. clinical and occupational studies, and case reports, and/or animal test data from ocular studies should be considered first, because they provide information directly related to effects on the eyes. Thereafter, available data from human and/or animal studies investigating dermal corrosion/irritation should be evaluated. Substances with known corrosivity or severe irritancy to the eye should not be instilled into the eyes of animals, nor should substances showing corrosive or irritant effects to the skin; such substances should be considered to be corrosive and/or irritating to the eyes as well. Substances with sufficient evidence of non-corrosivity and non-irritancy from previously performed ocular studies should also not be tested in in vivo eye studies.
Analysis of structure activity relationships (SAR) (Step 2). The results of testing of structurally related chemicals should be considered, if available. When sufficient human and/or animal data are available on structurally related substances or mixtures of such substances to indicate their eye corrrosion/irritancy potential, it can be presumed that the test substance will produce the same responses. In those cases, the substance may not need to be tested. Negative data from studies of structurally related substances or mixtures of such substances do not constitute sufficient evidence of non-corrosivity/non-irritancy of a substance under the sequential testing strategy. Validated and accepted SAR approaches should be used to identify the corrosion and irritation potential for both dermal and ocular effects.
Physicochemical properties and chemical reactivity (Step 3). Substances exhibiting pH extremes such as ≤2.0 or ≥11.5 may have strong local effects. If extreme pH is the basis for identifying a substance as corrosive or irritant to the eye, then its acid/alkaline reserve (buffering capacity) may also be taken into consideration (5)(6). If the buffering capacity suggests that a substance may not be corrosive to the eye, then further testing should be undertaken to confirm this, preferably by the use of a validated and accepted in vitro or ex vivo test (see section step 5 and 6).
Consideration of other existing information (Step 4). All available information on systemic toxicity via the dermal route should be evaluated at this stage. The acute dermal toxicity of the test substance should also be considered. If the test substance has been shown to be very toxic by the dermal route, it may not need to be tested in the eye. Although there is not necessarily a relationship between acute dermal toxicity and eye irritation/corrosion, it can be assumed that if an agent is very toxic via the dermal route, it will also exhibit high toxicity when instilled into the eye. Such data may also be considered between Steps 2 and 3.
Results from in vitro or ex vivo tests (Steps 5 and 6). Substances that have demonstrated corrosive or severe irritant properties in an in vitro or ex vivo test (7)(8) that has been validated and accepted for the assessment specifically of eye or skin corrosivity/irritation, need not be tested in animals. It can be presumed that such substances will produce similar severe effects in vivo. If validated and accepted in vitro/ex vivo tests are not available, one should bypass Steps 5 and 6 and proceed directly to Step 7.
Assessment of in vivo dermal irritancy or corrosivity of the substance (Step 7). When insufficient evidence exists with which to perform a conclusive weight-of-the-evidence analysis of the potential eye irritation/corrosivity of a substance based upon data from the studies listed above, the in vivo skin irritation/corrosion potential should be evaluated first, using testing method B.4 (4) and its accompanying Annex (9). If the substance is shown to produce corrosion or severe skin irritation, it should be considered to be a corrosive eye irritant unless other information supports an alternative conclusion. Thus, an in vivo eye test would not need to be performed. If the substance is not corrosive or severely irritating to the skin, an in vivo eye test should be performed.
In vivo test in rabbits (Steps 8 and 9): In vivo ocular testing should begin with an initial test using one animal. If the results of this test indicate the substance to be a severe irritant or corrosive to the eyes, further testing should not be performed. If that test does not reveal any corrosive or severe irritant effects, a confirmatory test is conducted with two additional animals.
The Whole Directive you have selected contains over 200 provisions and might take some time to download. You may also experience some issues with your browser, such as an alert box that a script is taking a long time to run.
Would you like to continue?
The Schedules you have selected contains over 200 provisions and might take some time to download. You may also experience some issues with your browser, such as an alert box that a script is taking a long time to run.
Would you like to continue?
Latest Available (revised):The latest available updated version of the legislation incorporating changes made by subsequent legislation and applied by our editorial team. Changes we have not yet applied to the text, can be found in the ‘Changes to Legislation’ area.
Original (As adopted by EU): The original version of the legislation as it stood when it was first adopted in the EU. No changes have been applied to the text.
Point in Time: This becomes available after navigating to view revised legislation as it stood at a certain point in time via Advanced Features > Show Timeline of Changes or via a point in time advanced search.
Geographical Extent: Indicates the geographical area that this provision applies to. For further information see ‘Frequently Asked Questions’.
Show Timeline of Changes: See how this legislation has or could change over time. Turning this feature on will show extra navigation options to go to these specific points in time. Return to the latest available version by using the controls above in the What Version box.
Access essential accompanying documents and information for this legislation item from this tab. Dependent on the legislation item being viewed this may include:
This timeline shows the different versions taken from EUR-Lex before exit day and during the implementation period as well as any subsequent versions created after the implementation period as a result of changes made by UK legislation.
The dates for the EU versions are taken from the document dates on EUR-Lex and may not always coincide with when the changes came into force for the document.
For any versions created after the implementation period as a result of changes made by UK legislation the date will coincide with the earliest date on which the change (e.g an insertion, a repeal or a substitution) that was applied came into force. For further information see our guide to revised legislation on Understanding Legislation.
Use this menu to access essential accompanying documents and information for this legislation item. Dependent on the legislation item being viewed this may include:
Click 'View More' or select 'More Resources' tab for additional information including: