To test predictions that barbiturates which are long-acting sedatives and/or strong inducers of CYP2B-mediated monooxygenase activities would be effective promoters of hepatocarcinogenesis, a series of clinically-useful barbiturates and structural analogs were tested for ability to promote hepatocellular carcinogenesis in male F344/NCr rats initiated with N-nitrosodiethylamine and for efficacy as inducers of CYP2B activity in non-initiated rats of the same sex and strain. The barbiturates were administered in the diet at concentrations equimolar to 500 p.p.m. of the known liver tumor promoter phenobarbital, which served as the positive control for this study. Phenobarbital, which has the longest duration of sedative action of this series of compounds, caused the greatest induction of CYP2B activity, and displayed strong liver tumor promoting effects. Allobarbital and aprobarbital, two intermediate-duration sedatives, were found to promote hepatocarcinogenesis, with allobarbital proving to be as effective as phenobarbital in this respect and aprobarbital being somewhat weaker as a promoter. These intermediate-duration sedatives were each relatively weak CYP2B-type inducers, causing approximately 25% of the induction displayed by phenobarbital. The nonsedatives, 5-phenyl- and 5-ethyl-barbituric acids, were essentially inactive as CYP2B-type inducers and were also found to be relatively inactive as promoters of hepatocarcinogenesis. Of the shorter-duration sedatives, pentobarbital was found to promote, and was relatively effective as a CYP2B-type inducer, while secobarbital showed little or no promoting activity and was less effective as an inducer of CYP2B activities. Pentobarbital thus proved an important exception to our hypothesis that only long-acting sedative barbiturates would promote hepatocarcinogenesis. Although both the durations of sedative action and the degrees of CYP2B-type induction exhibited by these compounds correlate with a quantitative parameter for liver tumor-promoting activity (relative promotion index), neither parameter appears to be sufficient, by itself, as a predictor of promoting activity for rat liver.