3[2]Patrick E, Maibach HI. Comparison of the time course, dose response, and mediators of chemically induced skin irritation in three species. In: Frosch PJ, et al. , eds. Current Topics in Contact Dermatitis. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989: 399-403.
4[3]Balls M, Riddell RJ, Worden AN. Animal and alternatives in Toxicity Testing. London: Academic Press, 1983. Balls M,Riddell R J, Worden A N, Animal and alternatives in Toxicity Testing. London: Academic Press, 1983.
5[4]Hayashi T, Itagaki H, Fukuda T, et al. Multivariate factorialanalysis of data obtained in seven in vitro test systems for predicting eye irritancy. Toxicology in vitro. 1994 ; 8: 215-220.
6[5]Balls M, et al. Report and recommendation of the CAAT/ERGATT workshop on the validation of toxicity test procedures.ATLA 1990; 18:318-338
7[6]Okamoto Y, Ohkoshi K, Itagaki H, et al. Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients.(3)Evaluation of the Haemolysis Test. Toxicology in vitro.1999; 13: 115-124.
8[7]Ohno Y, Kaneko T, Inoue T, Morikawa Y, et al. Interlaboratory validation of the in vitro eye irritation tests for cosmetic ingredients (1) Overview of the validation study and Draize scores for the evaluation of the tests. Toxicology in vitro. 1999; 13:73-98.
9[8]Bagley D, Booman KA, Bruner I, et al. The SDA alternatives program phase Ⅰ: comparison of in vitro data with animal eye irritation data on solvents, surfactants, oxidizing agents, and prototype cleaning products. Journal of Toxicology Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, 1994, 13: 127-155.
10Balls M, Goldberg AM, Julia H, et al. The three rs: the way forward. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 11 [J].ATLA, 1995, 23 (6): 838-866.
