ERRATUM

Abstract

Volume 19, Number 1 (1992), in the article “Effect of Dose on the Disposition of Methoxyethanol, Ethoxyethanol, and Butoxyethanol Administered Dermally to Male F344/N Rats,” by P. J. Sabourin, M. A. Medinsky, F. Thurmond, L. S. Birnbaum, and R. F. Henderson, pages 124–132: Since the publication of the above article, we have found that the pH of the mobile phase (50 mM sodium formate, pH 4.0) used in the HPLC analysis of urinary metabolites was unstable due to the evaporation of formic acid during sparging of the solvent. The retention times of the 2-ethoxyethanol (EE) metabolites were very sensitive to changes in the pH of the mobile phase, which increased with time as formic acid evaporated, resulting in shorter retention times for the EE metabolites. iV-Ethoxyacetyl glycinate (EAG), the glycine conjugate of ethoxyacetic acid, was not detected by HPLC in urine from rats exposed to EE by either the dermal route (paper cited above) or the drinking water route (Medinsky et al., Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 102, 443–445, 1990) and it was suggested that lack of this glycine conjugate may have been due to the lower doses and dose rates used.