Induction of tolerance and cross-tolerance to methacrylate contact sensitizers

How important is inadvertent ingestion of hazardous substances at work?

Much is known about human exposure to workplace hazardous substances by inhalation and from skin contact, but there has been little systematic research into ingestion of hazardous substances used at work. This review attempts to identify whether inadvertent ingestion of hazardous substances is an important route of exposure in the workplace and examines possible methods that could be used to quantify ingestion exposure. A number of papers highlight jobs and substances where inadvertent ingestion may be important, typically through case reports or from a theoretical analysis. These scenarios involve exposure to some metals or metal compounds, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, some infectious agents, unsealed radioactive sources and some high molecular weight allergens. In total we estimate that about 4.5 million workers in the UK could have some regular non-trivial intake of hazardous substances by inadvertent ingestion. A conceptual analysis of inadvertent ingestion exposure highlights the role of hand-to-mouth and object-to-mouth events as the primary exposure processes. Two exposure 'compartments' are defined: the peri-oral area (i.e. the area of skin around the outside of the mouth) and the oral cavity. Several options are highlighted for exposure-related measurements, including peri-oral wipes, saliva samples, mouth-rinse samples, hand-wipes and under-nail scrapings. Further research is necessary to define which measurements may be most informative. Human behaviour has a key role in determining inadvertent ingestion exposure. For example, some people are habitual nail biters or repeatedly touch their mouth, both of which will increase the chance of ingesting contaminants on their hands. The frequency that people touch their face is dependant on the circumstances of their work and probably the degree of psychological stress they are under. A proper understanding of the importance of these factors will help in designing interventions to reduce the risks from ingesting hazardous substances at work. When making inhalation or dermal exposure measurements we recommend that details of personal behaviours should be recorded so that some estimate of ingestion risks can be inferred. It is possible that inadvertent ingestion of hazardous substances at work may become more important as employers put more emphasis on controlling inhalation and dermal exposures. Further research is necessary to ensure that risk reduction strategies for inadvertent ingestion of hazardous substances are appropriate and effective.

Final report of the safety assessment of methacrylate ester monomers used in nail enhancement products

Methacrylate ester monomers are used in as artificial nail builders in nail enhancement products. They undergo rapid polymerization to form a hard material on the nail that is then shaped. While Ethyl Methacrylate is the primary monomer used in nail enhancement products, other methacrylate esters are also used. This safety assessment addresses 22 other methacrylate esters reported by industry to be present in small percentages as artificial nail builders in cosmetic products. They function to speed up polymerization and/or form cross-links. Only Tetrahydrofurfuryl Methacrylate was reported to the FDA to be in current use. The polymerization rates of these methacrylate esters are within the same range as Ethyl Methacrylate. While data are not available on all of these methacrylate esters, the available data demonstrated little acute oral, dermal, or i.p. toxicity. In a 28-day inhalation study on rats, Butyl Methacrylate caused upper airway irritation; the NOAEL was 1801 mg/m3. In a 28-day oral toxicity study on rats, t-Butyl Methacrylate had a NOAEL of 20 mg/kg/day. Beagle dogs dosed with 0.2 to 2.0 g/kg/day of C12 to C18 methacrylate monomers for 13 weeks exhibited effects only in the highest dose group: weight loss, emesis, diarrhea, mucoid feces, or salivation were observed. Butyl Methacrylate (0.1 M) and Isobutyl Methacrylate (0.1 M) are mildly irritating to the rabbit eye. HEMA is corrosive when instilled in the rabbit eye, while PEG-4 Dimethacrylate and Trimethylolpropane Trimethacrylate are minimally irritating to the eye. Dermal irritation caused by methacrylates is documented in guinea pigs and rabbits. In guinea pigs, HEMA, Isopropylidenediphenyl Bisglycidyl Methacrylate, Lauryl Methacrylate, and Trimethylolpropane Trimethacrylate are strong sensitizers; Butyl Methacrylate, Cyclohexyl Methacrylate, Hexyl Methacrylate, and Urethane Methacrylate are moderate sensitizers; Hydroxypropyl Methacrylate is a weak sensitizer; and PEG-4 Dimethacrylate and Triethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate are not sensitizers. Ethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate was not a sensitizer in one guinea pig study, but was a strong sensitizer in another. There is cross-reactivity between various methacrylate esters in some sensitization tests. Inhaled Butyl Methacrylate, HEMA, Hydroxypropyl Methacrylate, and Trimethylolpropane Trimethacrylate can be developmental toxicants at high exposure levels (1000 mg/kg/day). None of the methacrylate ester monomers that were tested were shown to have any endocrine disrupting activity. These methacrylate esters are mostly non-mutagenic in bacterial test systems, but weak mutagenic responses were seen in mammalian cell test systems. Chronic dermal exposure of mice to PEG-4 Dimethacrylate (25 mg, 2 x weekly for 80 weeks) or Trimethylolpropane Trimethacrylate (25 mg, 2 x weekly for 80 weeks) did not result in increased incidence of skin or visceral tumors. The carcinogenicity of Triethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate (5, 25, or 50%) was assessed in a mouse skin painting study (50 microl for 5 days/week for 78 weeks), but was not carcinogenic at any dose level tested. The Expert Panel was concerned about the strong sensitization and crossor co-reactivity potential of the methacrylate esters reviewed in this report. However, data demonstrated the rates of polymerization of these Methacrylates were similar to that of Ethyl Methacrylate and there would be little monomer available exposure to the skin. In consideration of the animal toxicity data, the CIR Expert Panel decided that these methacrylate esters should be restricted to the nail and must not be in contact with the skin. Accordingly, these methacrylate esters are safe as used in nail enhancement products when skin contact is avoided.

Application of HEMA on intact mouse skin - effects on the immune system

Previously, we have shown that 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA) can bind to protein and that autoantibodies were induced in mice by immunization with a self-protein in vitro conjugated with HEMA. The present study aimed to develop a model for HEMA-induced sensitivity by the application of the substance on intact skin. Female BALB/c mice were painted on the dorsum of each ear with 50% HEMA in vehicle twice a week for 6 weeks. The anti-CD3epsilon-stimulated lymph node production and the spontaneous spleen-cell production of the cytokines interleukin (IL)-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10 and interferon-gamma were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In another experiment, the cytokines were followed after subcutaneous HEMA injections. Animals painted with HEMA had a significantly higher IL-6 production by anti-CD3epsilon-stimulated lymph node cells and significantly suppressed IL-10 production by spleen cells compared to vehicle-treated mice. This correlated to some extent with the spontaneous spleen-cell production induced by subcutaneously administered HEMA. An injection of 20 micromol of HEMA induced an increased production of IL-6, while injection of 40 micromol depressed both IL-6 and IL-10 production. Although there was no sign of inflammation on the ears, findings suggest that HEMA had penetrated the skin and induced a reaction in the immune system.