Agrochemical formulations have been underrepresented in validation efforts for implementing alternative eye irritation approaches but represent a significant opportunity to reduce animal testing. This study assesses the utility of the neutral red release assay (NRR) and EpiOcular™ assay (EO) for predicting the eye irritation potential of 64 agrochemical formulations relative to Draize data. In the NRR, formulations with an NRR50 value ≤ 50 mg/mL were categorized as UN GHS Cat 1 and those >250 mg/mL were classified as UN GHS Non Classified (NC). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 78, 85 and 76% and 73, 85 and 61% for identifying UN GHS 1 and NC formulations, respectively. Specificity was poor for formulations with NRR50 > 50 to ≤250 mg/mL. The EO (ET-40 method) was explored to differentiate formulations that were UN GHS 1/2 and UN GHS NC. The EO resulted in accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 65%, 58% and 75% for identifying UN GHS NC formulations. To improve the overall performance, the assays were implemented using a tiered-approach where the NRR was run as a first-tier followed by the EO. The tiered-approach resulted in improved accuracy (75%) and balanced sensitivity (73%) and specificity (77%) for distinguishing between irritating and non-irritating agrochemical formulations.

Assessment of skin sensitization potential is an important component of the safety evaluation process for agrochemical products. Recently, non-animal approaches including the KeratinoSens™ assay have been developed for predicting skin sensitization potential. Assessing the utility of the KeratinoSens™ assay for use with multi-component mixtures such as agrochemical formulations has not been previously evaluated and is a significant need. This study was undertaken to evaluate the KeratinoSens™ assay prediction potential for agrochemical formulations. The assay was conducted for 8 agrochemical active ingredients (AIs) including 3 sensitizers (acetochlor, meptyldinocap, triclopyr), 5 non-sensitizers (aminopyralid, clopyralid, florasulam, methoxyfenozide, oxyfluorfen) and 10 formulations for which in vivo sensitization data were available. The KeratinoSens™ correctly predicted the sensitization potential of all the AIs. For agrochemical formulations it was necessary to modify the standard assay procedure whereby the formulation was assumed to have a common molecular weight. The resultant approach correctly predicted the sensitization potential for 3 of 4 sensitizing formulations and all 6 non-sensitizing formulations when compared to in vivo data. Only the meptyldinocap-containing formulation was misclassified, as a result of high cytotoxicity. These results demonstrate the promising utility of the KeratinoSens™ assay for evaluating the skin sensitization potential of agrochemical AIs and formulations.