Interspecies assessment factors and skin sensitization risk assessment

Risk assessment-based verification of the CertiPURTM limit values for toluene diamine and methylene dianiline in flexible polyurethane foam

Flexible polyurethane foams (PUF) are used in many consumer products. PUF may contain trace levels of aromatic diamine impurities that could represent a potential health risk. The risk associated with sleeping on a PUF mattress was evaluated. Toxicity benchmarks for sensitization and non-cancer endpoints were derived from the respective points-of-departure using standard assessment factors. For the cancer endpoints, toxicity benchmarks were derived from the 25th-percentile values of animal studies. Recently published emission and migration data allowed to link exposure with the CertiPURTM voluntary quality limits of ≤5 mg.kg-1 for 2,4-toluene diamine and 4,4'-methylene dianiline in PUF. Using conservative exposure scenarios, lifetime-average daily internal doses from the combined inhalation and dermal exposures were calculated. Margins of safety for non-cancer and sensitization endpoints were >104. The theoretical excess cancer risk was ≤1.5 × 10-7. It is concluded that sleeping on a mattress that satisfies the CertiPUR limit value does not pose undue risk to consumers.

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.

Semiquantitative sensitization safety assessment of extractable and leachables associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products

Extractable and leachables (E&Ls) associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products should be assessed for patient safety. One essential safety endpoint is local or systemic sensitization. However, there are no regulatory guidelines for quantitative sensitization safety assessment of E&Ls. A semiquantitative sensitization safety assessment workflow is developed to refine the sensitization safety assessment of E&Ls associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products. The workflow is composed of two sequential steps: local skin sensitization and systemic sensitization safety assessment. The local skin sensitization step has four tiers. The output from this step is the acceptable exposure level for local sensitization (AEL_ls) and this safety threshold can be used for local sensitization safety assessment. From the derived AEL_ls, the systemic sensitization safety assessment at step 2 proceeds in 2 tiers. The output from this workflow is the derivation of acceptable exposure level for systemic sensitization (AEL_ss). When the estimated human daily exposure (HDE) is compared with the AEL_ss, the margin of exposure is calculated to determine the sensitization safety of E&Ls following parenteral administration. The current work represents an initial effort to develop a scientifically robust process for sensitization safety assessment of E&Ls associated with parenteral pharmaceutical products.

Acceptable Surface Limits (ASLs) of skin sensitizers derived from the local lymph node assay (LLNA): BrdU-ELISA EC1.6 values and their relationships to known sensitization potency information

Skin sensitization is an extremely important risk factor for occupational health and safety and it would be desirable to set Health-Based Exposure Limits (HBELs) for the Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) based on the skin sensitizing potencies of chemical. We attempted to set Acceptable Surface Limits (ASLs) as HBELs for skin sensitizers in the workplace based on the local lymph node assay (LLNA): BrdU-ELISA EC1.6 values. To calculate the ASLs, a Safety Assessment Factor (SAF)_interspecies value of 6, based on the EC1.6 values/Human Repeat Insult Patch Test (HRIPT) NOEL ratios, a SAF_{inter-individual} value of 10, and a SAF_{frequency/duration} value of 3 were applied, referring to previous literatures on SAFs for skin sensitization QRA, and the composite SAF was calculated as 180. The ASLs (mg/100 cm² ) derived thus for 33 chemicals ranged from 0.001 to 10.417. Comparison of the ranges with known human sensitization potency classes and GHS subcategories revealed that use of GHS Category 1A chemicals needs to be controlled to ensure surface residue levels of less than 1 mg/100 cm² . To minimize sensitization risks, a quantitative sensitization risk assessment method for chemicals and appropriate risk management are necessary. This report provides a potentially useful ASL-based method of managing sensitization risk derived from LLNA: BrdU-ELISA EC1.6 values, comparison of the ASLs and known human sensitization potency data showed that GHS subcategorization results would be a primary information notifying ASL ranges to be required for minimizing the sensitization risk.

Development of a 96-Well Electrophilic Allergen Screening Assay for Skin Sensitization Using a Measurement Science Approach

The Electrophilic Allergen Screening Assay (EASA) has emerged as a promising in chemico method to detect the first key event in the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization. This assay functions by assessing the depletion of one of two probe molecules (4-nitrobenzenethiol (NBT) and pyridoxylamine (PDA)) in the presence of a test compound (TC). The initial development of EASA utilized a cuvette format resulting in multiple measurement challenges such as low throughput and the inability to include adequate control measurements. In this study, we describe the redesign of EASA into a 96-well plate format that incorporates in-process control measurements to quantify key sources of variability each time the assay is run. The data from the analysis of 67 TCs using the 96-well format had 77% concordance with animal data from the local lymph node assay (LLNA), a result consistent with that for the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), an OECD test guideline (442C) protein binding assay. Overall, the measurement science approach described here provides steps during assay development that can be taken to increase confidence of in chemico assays by attempting to fully characterize the sources of variability and potential biases and incorporate in-process control measurements into the assay.

Application of the dermal sensitization threshold concept to chemicals classified as high potency category for skin sensitization assessment of ingredients for consumer products

Skin sensitization evaluation is a key part of the safety assessment of ingredients in consumer products, which may have skin sensitizing potential. The dermal sensitization threshold (DST) concept, which is based on the concept of the thresholds of toxicological concern, has been proposed for the risk assessment of chemicals to which skin exposure is very low level. There is negligible risk of skin sensitization if a skin exposure level for the substance of interest was below the reactive DST which would protect against 95% of protein-reactive chemicals. For the remaining 5%, the substance with the defined knowledge of chemical structure (i.e., High Potency Category (HPC) rules) needs to be excluded from the application. However, the DST value for HPC chemicals has not yet been proposed. In this study, we calculated the 95th percentile probabilities estimate from distributions of skin sensitization potency data and derived a novel DST for HPC chemicals (HPC DST) of 1.5 μg/cm². This value presents a useful default approach for unidentified substances in ingredients considering, as a worst-case scenario, that the unidentified compound may be a potent skin sensitizer. Finally, we developed a novel risk assessment workflow incorporating the HPC DST along with the previously published DSTs.

Safety Test of Agarwood Leaves Tea (Aquilaria malaccencis Lamk.) Through Skin Sensitization Test on Albino Rabbit

BACKGROUND:

Agarwood tree (Aquilaria malaccensis Lamk) is a tree from the Thymeleaceae tribe that has a high selling value. The part that is often used is the sapwood of the agarwood tree, used as a base for perfumes and traditional medicines. Agarwood farmers in Langkat have used their leaves as tea drinks, brewing aloes leaves. Before being widely produced by the community, it is necessary to test the safety of agarwood leaf tea products through skin sensitization test.

AIM:

To find out whether steeping aloes leaves irritate the skin or not.

METHODS:

The test method using test animals namely albino rabbits as many as 15 tails, consisting of 4 test groups 1 group there were 3 test animals and 1 control group, induced with Freund’s Complete Adjuvant (FCA) by intradermal and topical injection with a test position of 1.3%, 2.6%, 3.9% and 5.2% to form an immune response, then a Challenge test. The level and degree of skin reaction were assessed based on the Magnusson and Kligman scales.

RESULTS:

From the observation for 72 hours there was no change in the skin of the test animals after exposure to the test doses, indicating that the agarwood leaf tea is safe to consume if the tea is on the skin, the skin will not experience irritation.

CONCLUSION:

Testing on albino rabbits with four different doses did not show an irritating effect on the skin. Observation also shows that there is not a single bit that can affect intradermal to challenge testing so it was safe for consumption.

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.