The Experts below are selected from a list of 6 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Andreas Willing - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
oleochemical esters environmentally compatible raw materials for oils and lubricants from renewable resources
Fett-lipid, 1999Co-Authors: Andreas WillingAbstract:Due to the increasing market relevance of environmentally labelled products, the ecological properties of oleochemical esters have been intensively studied within the last couple of years. In general, their aquatic toxicity is very low or almost negligible, and they are readily biodegradable in most cases. They have not to be labelled as Dangerous for the environment according to the EU Dangerous Substance Directive. Their origin from renewable resources results in lower net CO 2 -emissions (global warming) compared to petrochemical products. Not many lubricants have such rather positive ecological profiles. Thus, most of them are classified in the most favourable water hazard class, i.e. in WGK 0. In addition, they fulfill the requirements of several European environmental labels, e.g. Blauer Engel. These favourable ecological properties together with their well established technical performance recommend the oleochemical esters as suitable base oils for the development of high performance green oil and lubricant products.
Albrecht Wendel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of the skin sensitizing potential of unsaturated compounds as assessed by the murine local lymph node assay llna and the guinea pig maximization test gpmt
Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2008Co-Authors: Reinhard Kreiling, Heli M Hollnagel, Lars Hareng, Dorothea Eigler, Peter Griem, Birte Dreesen, Marcus Kleber, Achim Albrecht, Christine Garcia, Albrecht WendelAbstract:Abstract The skin sensitization potential of eight unsaturated and one saturated lipid (bio)chemicals was tested in both the LLNA and the GPMT to address the hypothesis that chemicals with unsaturated carbon–carbon double bonds may result in a higher number of unspecific (false positive) results in the LLNA compared to the GPMT. Seven Substances (oleic acid, linoleic acid, linolenic acid, undecylenic acid, maleic acid, squalene and octinol) gave clear positive results in the LLNA (stimulation index (SI) ⩾ 3) and thus would require labelling as skin sensitizer. Fumaric acid and succinic acid gave clearly negative results. In the GPMT, besides some sporadic skin reactions, reproducible skin reactions indicating an allergic response were found in a few animals for four test Substances. Based on the GPMT results, only undecylenic acid would have to be classified and labelled as a skin sensitizer according to the European Dangerous Substance Directive (67/548/EEC) (results for linoleic acid were inconclusive), while the other seven test Substances would not require labelling. Possible mechanisms for unspecific skin cell stimulation and lymph node responses are discussed. In conclusion, the suitability of the LLNA for unsaturated compounds bearing structural similarity to the tested Substances should be carefully considered and the GPMT should remain available as an accepted test method for skin sensitization hazard identification.
Reinhard Kreiling - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of the skin sensitizing potential of unsaturated compounds as assessed by the murine local lymph node assay llna and the guinea pig maximization test gpmt
Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2008Co-Authors: Reinhard Kreiling, Heli M Hollnagel, Lars Hareng, Dorothea Eigler, Peter Griem, Birte Dreesen, Marcus Kleber, Achim Albrecht, Christine Garcia, Albrecht WendelAbstract:Abstract The skin sensitization potential of eight unsaturated and one saturated lipid (bio)chemicals was tested in both the LLNA and the GPMT to address the hypothesis that chemicals with unsaturated carbon–carbon double bonds may result in a higher number of unspecific (false positive) results in the LLNA compared to the GPMT. Seven Substances (oleic acid, linoleic acid, linolenic acid, undecylenic acid, maleic acid, squalene and octinol) gave clear positive results in the LLNA (stimulation index (SI) ⩾ 3) and thus would require labelling as skin sensitizer. Fumaric acid and succinic acid gave clearly negative results. In the GPMT, besides some sporadic skin reactions, reproducible skin reactions indicating an allergic response were found in a few animals for four test Substances. Based on the GPMT results, only undecylenic acid would have to be classified and labelled as a skin sensitizer according to the European Dangerous Substance Directive (67/548/EEC) (results for linoleic acid were inconclusive), while the other seven test Substances would not require labelling. Possible mechanisms for unspecific skin cell stimulation and lymph node responses are discussed. In conclusion, the suitability of the LLNA for unsaturated compounds bearing structural similarity to the tested Substances should be carefully considered and the GPMT should remain available as an accepted test method for skin sensitization hazard identification.
Heli M Hollnagel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of the skin sensitizing potential of unsaturated compounds as assessed by the murine local lymph node assay llna and the guinea pig maximization test gpmt
Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2008Co-Authors: Reinhard Kreiling, Heli M Hollnagel, Lars Hareng, Dorothea Eigler, Peter Griem, Birte Dreesen, Marcus Kleber, Achim Albrecht, Christine Garcia, Albrecht WendelAbstract:Abstract The skin sensitization potential of eight unsaturated and one saturated lipid (bio)chemicals was tested in both the LLNA and the GPMT to address the hypothesis that chemicals with unsaturated carbon–carbon double bonds may result in a higher number of unspecific (false positive) results in the LLNA compared to the GPMT. Seven Substances (oleic acid, linoleic acid, linolenic acid, undecylenic acid, maleic acid, squalene and octinol) gave clear positive results in the LLNA (stimulation index (SI) ⩾ 3) and thus would require labelling as skin sensitizer. Fumaric acid and succinic acid gave clearly negative results. In the GPMT, besides some sporadic skin reactions, reproducible skin reactions indicating an allergic response were found in a few animals for four test Substances. Based on the GPMT results, only undecylenic acid would have to be classified and labelled as a skin sensitizer according to the European Dangerous Substance Directive (67/548/EEC) (results for linoleic acid were inconclusive), while the other seven test Substances would not require labelling. Possible mechanisms for unspecific skin cell stimulation and lymph node responses are discussed. In conclusion, the suitability of the LLNA for unsaturated compounds bearing structural similarity to the tested Substances should be carefully considered and the GPMT should remain available as an accepted test method for skin sensitization hazard identification.
Lars Hareng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of the skin sensitizing potential of unsaturated compounds as assessed by the murine local lymph node assay llna and the guinea pig maximization test gpmt
Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2008Co-Authors: Reinhard Kreiling, Heli M Hollnagel, Lars Hareng, Dorothea Eigler, Peter Griem, Birte Dreesen, Marcus Kleber, Achim Albrecht, Christine Garcia, Albrecht WendelAbstract:Abstract The skin sensitization potential of eight unsaturated and one saturated lipid (bio)chemicals was tested in both the LLNA and the GPMT to address the hypothesis that chemicals with unsaturated carbon–carbon double bonds may result in a higher number of unspecific (false positive) results in the LLNA compared to the GPMT. Seven Substances (oleic acid, linoleic acid, linolenic acid, undecylenic acid, maleic acid, squalene and octinol) gave clear positive results in the LLNA (stimulation index (SI) ⩾ 3) and thus would require labelling as skin sensitizer. Fumaric acid and succinic acid gave clearly negative results. In the GPMT, besides some sporadic skin reactions, reproducible skin reactions indicating an allergic response were found in a few animals for four test Substances. Based on the GPMT results, only undecylenic acid would have to be classified and labelled as a skin sensitizer according to the European Dangerous Substance Directive (67/548/EEC) (results for linoleic acid were inconclusive), while the other seven test Substances would not require labelling. Possible mechanisms for unspecific skin cell stimulation and lymph node responses are discussed. In conclusion, the suitability of the LLNA for unsaturated compounds bearing structural similarity to the tested Substances should be carefully considered and the GPMT should remain available as an accepted test method for skin sensitization hazard identification.
