Quantitative risk assessment for skin sensitization: Success or failure?

Use of guinea pig data to obtain starting points for skin sensitisation risk assessment - A commentary

The increasing drive to understand the likelihood of skin sensitisation from plant protection products (PPPs) in workers and the general public has resulted in recent initiatives to establish a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) methodology applicable to these products and their exposure scenarios. The effective evaluation of skin sensitising substances requires not only the identification of that toxicological hazard, but also determination of relative sensitising potency. Typically, this has been achieved by interpretation of local lymph node assay (LLNA) dose response data, delivering what is known as the EC3 value. This permitted regulatory division of skin sensitisers into defined potency sub-categories, but more importantly enabled derivation of a no expected sensitisation induction level (NESIL) as the point of departure for QRA. However, for many existing substances there is no LLNA data, only older guinea pig results exist. To avoid additional (in vivo) testing, an approach has been outlined to employ guinea pig data and existing regulatory guidelines on the determination of potency sub-categorisation to provide a guinea pig based NESIL. The approach adopts a conservative extrapolation from LLNA NESIL benchmarks to deliver points of departure as the basis for the type of QRA process already in successful use by other industries.

Quantitative risk assessment of skin sensitising pesticides: Clinical and toxicological considerations

Like many other consumer and occupational products, pesticide formulations may contain active ingredients or co-formulants which have the potential to cause skin sensitisation. Currently, there is little evidence they do, but that could just reflect lack of clinical investigation. Consequently, it is necessary to carry out a safety evaluation process, quantifying risks so that they can be properly managed. A workshop on this topic in 2022 discussed how best to undertake quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for pesticide products, including learning from the experience of industries, notably cosmetics, that already undertake such a process routinely. It also addressed ways to remedy the matter of clinical investigation, even if only to demonstrate the absence of a problem. Workshop participants concluded that QRA for skin sensitisers in pesticide formulations was possible, but required careful justification of any safety factors applied, as well as improvements to the estimation of skin exposure. The need for regulations to stay abreast of the science was also noted. Ultimately, the success of any risk assessment/management for skin sensitisers must be judged by the clinical picture. Accordingly, the workshop participants encouraged the development of more active skin health monitoring amongst groups most exposed to the products.

Assessing the risk of induction of skin sensitization to plant protection products: A quantitative approach

Exposure to skin sensitizers is common and regulated in many industry sectors. For cosmetics, a risk-based approach has been implemented, focused on preventing the induction of sensitization. First, a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) is derived, then modified by Sensitization Assessment Factors (SAFs) to derive an Acceptable Exposure Level (AEL). The AEL is used in risk assessment, being compared with an estimated exposure dose, specific to the exposure scenario. Since in Europe there is increased concern regarding exposure towards potentially sensitizing pesticides via spray drift, we explore how existing practice can be modified to allow Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) of pesticides for bystanders and residents. NESIL derivation by the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), the globally required in vivo assay for this endpoint, is reviewed alongside consideration of appropriate SAFs. Using a case study, the principle that the NESIL in μg/cm² can be derived by multiplying LLNA EC3% figure by a factor of 250 is adopted. The NESIL is then reduced by an overall SAF of 25 to establish an exposure level below which there is minimal bystander and resident risk. Whilst this paper focuses on European risk assessment and management, the approach is generic and universally applicable.

The Skin Sensitisation of Cosmetic Ingredients: Review of Actual Regulatory Status

All cosmetics products must be safe under foreseeable conditions of use. Allergenic responses are one of the most frequent adverse reactions noted for cosmetics. Thus, the EU cosmetics legislation requires skin sensitisation assessment for all cosmetics ingredients, including the regulated ones (for which the full toxicological dossier needs to be analysed by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS)) and those (perceived as less toxic) which are assessed by industrial safety assessors. Regardless of who performs the risk assessment, it should be carried out using scientifically and regulatory body-accepted methods. In the EU, reference methods for chemical toxicity testing are defined in the relevant Annexes (VII-X) of the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation. Recommendations for Skin Sensitization (Skin Sens) testing are provided in Annex VII, and this particular endpoint information is required for all EU-registered chemicals. Historically, in vivo animal and human methods have been used. Both raise ethical doubts, and some of them cause practical problems in the objective analysis of skin sensitising potency. Previous decades of huge effort have resulted in the regulatory acceptance of the alternative Skin Sens IATA (Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment) and NGRA (Next Generation Risk Assessment). Regardless of the testing issues, a serious sociological problem are observed within the market: the consumer assumes the presence of strong sensitisers in cosmetics formulations and insufficient risk management tools used by the industry. The present review aims to provide an overview of methods for assessing skin sensitisation. Additionally, it aims to answer the following question: what are the most potent skin sensitisers used in cosmetics? The answer considers the mechanistic background along with the actual regulatory status of ingredients and practical examples of responsible industry solutions in the area of risk management.

Risk management of skin sensitisers: A commentary

Historically, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to chemicals encouraged hazard identification improvements, more sophisticated risk assessment and implementation of regulatory strategies, including banning of specific sensitising substances. The validation process applied to hazard identification methods demonstrates their accuracy; their use to characterise sensitiser potency facilitates quantitative and transparent risk assessment. Diagnostic patch testing at dermatology clinics worldwide delivers feedback showing where risk assessment/management has been insufficient or did not target the exposure of concern, thereby facilitating improvements. When urgent action to protect human health was required, regulations limited/banned, specific skin sensitisers. This can be seen in practice with the fragrance industry, a known source of ACD, thus requiring risk management, usually restrictions to limit allergy induction, and very rarely specific bans on ingredients. Experience and development of more sophisticated tools, e.g. to assess aggregate exposure from multitude of consumer product types, has led to repeated adaptation of risk assessment and promulgation of updated fragrance use limits. Although targeted control may not always lead to rapid change in the overall clinical picture, it is preferable to a blanket undifferentiated regulatory control of all sensitisers, resulting in unwarranted restrictions for many uses of no health concern, with consequent substantial socio-economic impacts.

The 2-Methoxymethyl Modification of p-Phenylenediamine Reduces the Sensitization Risk for Hairdressers to Hair Dyes-An Occupational Hand Exposure-Based Risk Assessment

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis involving the hands is a common occupational skin disease for hairdressers and the potent sensitizers p-phenylenediamine (PPD) and toluene-2,5-diamine (PTD) are associated with the development of occupational allergic contact dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze whether the use of the moderate sensitizer 2-methoxymethyl-PPD (ME-PPD) in professional hair dyes is a suitable tool to reduce the occupational contact allergy risk for hairdressers.

METHODS

Hand exposure of hairdressers (N = 11) to ME-PPD was analyzed under routine hair coloring conditions in commercial salons. By accounting for wet work and uneven hand exposure, the daily hand exposure was derived and compared with the occupational acceptable exposure level (AEL), that is, the sensitization induction threshold of ME-PPD adjusted for interindividual variability among workers.

RESULTS

The daily hand exposure to ME-PPD was 1.6 μg/cm2, and the occupational AEL was 215 μg/cm2. The ratio of hand exposure to AEL was calculated as the margin of safety (MOS) against occupational sensitization. For ME-PPD, the MOS of 134 indicates a low likelihood of sensitization versus PPD and PTD with MOS values of 2.7 and 5.9, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data predict that the use of ME-PPD in professional hair color products improves the protection of hairdressers against hair dye-related contact allergy versus the use of PPD and PTD.

Updating the Dermal Sensitisation Thresholds using an expanded dataset and an in silico expert system

The Dermal Sensitisation Thresholds (DST) are Thresholds of Toxicological Concern, which can be used to justify exposure-based waiving when conducting a skin sensitisation risk assessment. This study aimed to update the published DST values by expanding the size of the Local Lymph Node Assay dataset upon which they are based, whilst assigning chemical reactivity using an in silico expert system (Derek Nexus). The potency values within the expanded dataset fitted a similar gamma distribution to that observed for the original dataset. Derek Nexus was used to classify the sensitisation activity of the 1152 chemicals in the expanded dataset and to predict which chemicals belonged to a High Potency Category (HPC). This two-step classification led to three updated thresholds: a non-reactive DST of 710 μg/cm² (based on 79 sensitisers), a reactive (non-HPC) DST of 73 μg/cm² (based on 331 sensitisers) and an HPC DST of 1.0 μg/cm² (based on 146 sensitisers). Despite the dataset containing twice as many sensitisers, these values are similar to the previously published thresholds, highlighting their robustness and increasing confidence in their use. By classifying reactivity in silico the updated DSTs can be applied within a skin sensitisation risk assessment in a reproducible, scalable and accessible manner.

Development of quantitative model of a local lymph node assay for evaluating skin sensitization potency applying machine learning CatBoost

The estimated concentrations for a stimulation index of 3 (EC3) in murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) is an important quantitative value for determining the strength of skin sensitization to chemicals, including cosmetic ingredients. However, animal testing bans on cosmetics in Europe necessitate the development of alternative testing methods to LLNA. A machine learning-based prediction method can predict complex toxicity risks from multiple variables. Therefore, we developed an LLNA EC3 regression model using CatBoost, a new gradient boosting decision tree, based on the reliable Cosmetics Europe database which included data for 119 substances. We found that a model using in chemico/in vitro tests, physical properties, and chemical information associated with key events of skin sensitization adverse outcome pathway as variables showed the best performance with a coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.75. In addition, this model can indicate the variable importance as the interpretation of the model, and the most important variable was associated with the human cell line activation test that evaluate dendritic cell activation. The good performance and interpretability of our LLNA EC3 predictable regression model suggests that it could serve as a useful approach for quantitative assessment of skin sensitization.

The activity of methacrylate esters in skin sensitisation test methods II. A review of complementary and additional analyses

Allergic contact dermatitis is an important occupational health issue, and there is a need to identify accurately those chemicals that have the potential to induce skin sensitisation. Hazard identification was performed initially using animal (guinea pig and mouse) models. More recently, as a result of the drive towards non-animal methods, alternative in vitro and in silico approaches have been developed. Some of these new in vitro methods have been formally validated and have been assigned OECD Test Guideline status. The performance of some of these recently developed in vitro methods, and of 2 quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) approaches, with a series of methacrylate esters has been reviewed and reported previously. In this article that first review has been extended further with additional data and complementary analyses. Results obtained using in vitro methods (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay, DPRA; ARE-Nrf2 luciferase test methods, KeratinoSens and LuSens; Epidermal Sensitisation Assay, EpiSensA; human Cell Line Activation Test, h-CLAT, and the myeloid U937 Skin Sensitisation test, U-SENS), and 2 QSAR approaches (DEREK™-nexus and TIMES-SS), with 11 methacrylate esters and methacrylic acid are reported here, and compared with existing data from the guinea pig maximisation test and the local lymph node assay. With this series of chemicals it was found that some in vitro tests (DPRA and ARE-Nrf2 luciferase) performed well in comparison with animal test results and available human skin sensitisation data. Other in vitro tests (EpiSensA and h-CLAT) proved rather more problematic. Results with DEREK™-nexus and TIMES-SS failed to reflect accurately the skin sensitisation potential of the methacrylate esters. The implications for assessment of skin sensitising activity are discussed.

[Toxicological risk assessment using the example of potential contact sensitization to resorcinol]

Resorcinol is a frequently used hair dye, whose quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for hair color products is presented in this review as an example to assess its skin sensitization risk after topical application. Its purpose is to determine the maximum concentration that can be used without expecting skin sensitization to occur. The focus is to prevent the de novo development of a contact allergy. Epidemiological data which are provided via dermatological surveillance, e.g., by the IVDK (Information Network of Departments of Dermatology) in Germany, are an important source of information that help to assess the quality and the effectivity of the QRA.

Skin Sensitization Induction Potential From Daily Exposure to Fragrances in Personal Care Products

BACKGROUND

Many chemicals used for fragrance purposes in a diversity of products have allergenic potential. Based on such concerns, industry groups developed concentration limits for use of fragrance chemicals in personal care and cosmetic products.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to use a quantitative risk assessment to evaluate the potential for skin sensitization induction resulting from daily exposure to fragrance chemicals present in personal care and cosmetic products.

METHODS

Product-specific dermal consumer exposure levels were calculated based on product use data in US adult females and benchmarked against acceptable exposure levels based on reported no expected sensitization induction levels to determine a margin of safety for each fragrance under evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate an increased risk of skin sensitization induction for several leave-on products (lipstick, solid antiperspirant, eye shadow, face cream) for most of the evaluated fragrance chemicals, particularly under high-use exposure scenarios. In contrast, rinse-off products (shampoo, conditioner, facial cleanser) were not associated with risk of skin sensitization induction. Because the approach was based on maximum use limits for fragrance chemicals with skin sensitization concerns, the results suggest these limits may not be protective, particularly in the United States.

The dermal sensitization threshold (DST) approach for mixtures evaluated as negative in in vitro test methods; mixture DST

Cosmetic ingredients often comprise complex mixtures, such as botanical extracts, which may contain skin sensitizing constituents. In our previous study for the sensitivity of the evaluations of skin sensitizing constituents in mixtures using the binary in vitro test battery with KeratinoSens^TM and h-CLAT, some sensitizers showed higher detection limits in in vitro test methods than in murine local lymph node assays (LLNA). Thus, to minimize the uncertainty associated with decreased sensitivity for these sensitizers, a risk assessment strategy was developed for mixtures with negative results from the binary test battery. Assuming that the no expected sensitization induction level of mixtures (mixture NESIL) can be derived for mixtures with negative in vitro test results, we assessed 146 sensitizers with in vitro and LLNA data according to the assumption of indeterminate constituents in mixtures. Finally, we calculated 95th percentile probabilities of mixture NESILs and derived dermal sensitization thresholds for mixtures (mixture DST) with negative in vitro test results of 6010 μg/cm². Feasibility studies indicated that this approach was practical for risk assessments of products in the cosmetic industry. This approach would be a novel risk assessment strategy for incorporating the DST approach and information from in vitro test methods.

Health impact assessment of a skin sensitizer: Analysis of potential policy measures aimed at reducing geraniol concentrations in personal care products and household cleaning products

A methodology to assess the health impact of skin sensitizers is introduced, which consists of the comparison of the probabilistic aggregated exposure with a probabilistic (individual) human sensitization or elicitation induction dose. The health impact of potential policy measures aimed at reducing the concentration of a fragrance allergen, geraniol, in consumer products is analysed in a simulated population derived from multiple product use surveys. Our analysis shows that current dermal exposure to geraniol from personal care and household cleaning products lead to new cases of contact allergy and induce clinical symptoms for those already sensitized. We estimate that this exposure results yearly in 34 new cases of geraniol contact allergy per million consumers in Western and Northern Europe, mainly due to exposure to household cleaning products. About twice as many consumers (60 per million) are projected to suffer from clinical symptoms due to re-exposure to geraniol. Policy measures restricting geraniol concentrations to <0.01% will noticeably reduce new cases of sensitization and decrease the number of people with clinical symptoms as well as the frequency of occurrence of these clinical symptoms. The estimated numbers should be interpreted with caution and provide only a rough indication of the health impact.