Contact sensitivity to acrylate compounds in guinea pigs

Assessment of the skin sensitising potency of the lower alkyl methacrylate esters

There is continued interest in, and imperatives for, the classification of contact allergens according to their relative skin sensitising potency. However, achieving that end can prove problematic, not least when there is an apparent lack of concordance between experimental assessments of potency and the prevalence allergic contact dermatitis as judged by clinical experience. For the purpose of exploring this issue, and illustrating the important considerations that are required to reach sound judgements about potency categorisation, the lower alkyl methacrylate esters (LAM) have been employed here as a case study. Although the sensitising potential of methyl methacrylate (MMA) has been reviewed previously, there is available new information that is relevant for assessment of skin sensitising potency. Moreover, for the purposes of this article, analyses have been extended to include also other LAM for which relevant data are available: ethyl methacrylate (EMA), n-butyl methacrylate (nBMA), isobutyl methacrylate (iBMA), and 2-ethylhexyl methacrylate (EHMA). In addressing the skin sensitising activity of these chemicals and in drawing conclusions regarding relative potency, a number of sources of information has been considered, including estimates of potency derived from local lymph node assay (LLNA) data, the results of guinea pig assays, and data derived from in silico methods and from recently developed in vitro approaches. Moreover, clinical experience of skin sensitisation of humans by LAM has also been evaluated. The conclusion drawn is that MMA and other LAM are contact allergens, but that none of these chemicals has any more than weak skin sensitising potency. We have also explored here the possible bases for this modest sensitising activity. Finally, the nature of exposure to LAM has been reviewed briefly and on the basis of that information, together with an understanding of skin sensitising potency, a risk assessment has been prepared.

Species and gender differences in the carcinogenic activity of trimethylolpropane triacrylate in rats and mice

Trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA) is a multifunctional monomer with industrial applications. To determine the carcinogenic potential, male and female F344/N rats and B6C3F1/N mice were administered TMPTA (0, 0.3, 1.0, or 3.0mg/kg) in acetone dermally for 2 years. There were no differences in the body weights and survival in the treated animals compared to controls. Nonneoplastic skin lesions at the site of application included epidermal hyperplasia and hyperkeratosis in both rats and mice. There were no incidences of tumors at the site of application in rats and mice. Rare malignant liver neoplasms were observed in female mice that included hepatoblastoma in the 0.3 and 3.0mg/kg groups, and hepatocholangiocarcinoma in the 1.0 and 3.0mg/kg groups. The incidences of uterine stromal polyp and stromal polyp or stromal sarcoma (combined) in female mice occurred with positive trends and the incidences were significantly increased in the 3.0mg/kg group. A marginal increase in the incidences of malignant mesothelioma in male rats may have been related to TMPTA treatment. In conclusion, our studies show that TMPTA is a dermal irritant in both rats and mice of either sex. Increased incidences of tumor formation were observed in female mice and male rats.

Methyl methacrylate and respiratory sensitization: a critical review

Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is a respiratory irritant and dermal sensitizer that has been associated with occupational asthma in a small number of case reports. Those reports have raised concern that it might be a respiratory sensitizer. To better understand that possibility, we reviewed the in silico, in chemico, in vitro, and in vivo toxicology literature, and also epidemiologic and occupational medicine reports related to the respiratory effects of MMA. Numerous in silico and in chemico studies indicate that MMA is unlikely to be a respiratory sensitizer. The few in vitro studies suggest that MMA has generally weak effects. In vivo studies have documented contact skin sensitization, nonspecific cytotoxicity, and weakly positive responses on local lymph node assay; guinea pig and mouse inhalation sensitization tests have not been performed. Cohort and cross-sectional worker studies reported irritation of eyes, nose, and upper respiratory tract associated with short-term peaks exposures, but little evidence for respiratory sensitization or asthma. Nineteen case reports described asthma, laryngitis, or hypersensitivity pneumonitis in MMA-exposed workers; however, exposures were either not well described or involved mixtures containing more reactive respiratory sensitizers and irritants. The weight of evidence, both experimental and observational, argues that MMA is not a respiratory sensitizer.

Hand/face/neck localized pattern: sticky problems--resins

Plastic resin systems have an increasingly diverse array of applications but also induce health hazards, the most common of which are allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. Contact urticaria, pigmentary changes, and photoallergic contact dermatitis may occasionally occur. Other health effects, especially respiratory and neurologic signs and symptoms, have also been reported. These resin systems include epoxies, the most frequent synthetic resin systems to cause contact dermatitis, (meth)acrylics, polyurethanes, phenol-formaldehydes, polyesters, amino resins (melamine-formaldehydes, urea-formaldehydes), polyvinyls, polystyrenes, polyolefins, polyamides and polycarbonates. Contact dermatitis usually occurs as a result of exposure to the monomers and additives in the occupational setting, although reports from consumers, using the raw materials or end products periodically surface. Resin- and additive-induced direct contact dermatitis usually presents on the hands, fingers, and forearms, while facial, eyelid, and neck involvement may occur through indirect contact, eg, via the hands, or from airborne exposure. Patch testing with commercially available materials, and in some cases the patient's own resins, is important for diagnosis. Industrial hygiene prevention techniques are essential to reduce contact dermatitis when handling these resin systems.

Skin sensitization potency of methyl methacrylate in the local lymph node assay: comparisons with guinea-pig data and human experience

There is compelling evidence that contact allergens differ substantially (by 4 or 5 orders of magnitude) with respect to their inherent skin-sensitizing potency. Relative potency can now be measured effectively using the mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA) and such data form the basis of risk assessment and risk management strategies. Such determinations also facilitate distinctions being drawn between the prevalence of skin sensitization to a particular contact allergen and inherent potency. The distinction is important because chemicals that are implicated as common causes of contact allergy are not necessarily potent sensitizers. One example is provided by nickel that is undoubtedly a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis, but is a comparatively weak sensitizer in predictive tests. In an attempt to explore other examples of contact allergens where there may exist a discrepancy between prevalence and potency, we describe here analyses conducted with methyl methacrylate (MMA). Results of LLNA studies have been interpreted in the context of historical clinical data on occupational allergic contact dermatitis associated with exposure to MMA.

Final report of the safety assessment of methacrylic acid

Methacrylic Acid is an organic acid used at concentrations between 50 and 88 percent to pretreat the nail and maximize the adhesion between the nail and artificial nail extender. Methacrylic Acid is readily absorbed through mucous membranes of the lungs, the gastrointestinal tract, and the skin; and is distributed to all major tissues. Oral LD50 values for rats ranged from 277 to 2260 mg/kg; acute toxicity symptoms included severe gastric irritation, gasping, labored respiration, prostration and hematuria. In a short-term inhalation study, rats exposed to Methacrylic Acid at 1300 ppm showed nose and eye irritation and weight loss, while necropsy results and blood and urine tests were normal. Methacrylic Acid is an ocular toxicant in animals. Undiluted Methacrylic Acid is corrosive to the skin of rabbits and guinea pigs. Exposure as limited as 3 minutes can cause severe erythema and slight to moderate edema. Exposure from 15 minutes to 24 hours under occlusive patches can cause marked to severe discoloration, slight to severe subcutaneous hemorrhages, necrosis, ulcerations, severe erythema, edema and concave eschar. Methacrylic Acid was irritating and caused strong rubefaction and scab formation in a guinea pig maximization test at challenge concentrations from 10 to 100 percent. It was difficult to determine if the results were type IV hypersensitivity reactions or simple irritation. In three other studies, guinea pigs were not sensitized. Methacrylic Acid was not a reproductive/developmental toxicant in rats or mice. Methacrylic Acid was negative in Salmonella typhimurium mutagenicity tests using strains TA98, TA100, TA1535 and TA1537 both with and without metabolic activation, but was positive in a DNA-cell-binding assay. Case reports involving Methacrylic Acid often involve children. Effects from ingestion include drooling, gagging, and vomiting. Children exposed to Methacrylic Acid as a result of accidental spills caused first and second degree burns to the eyes, face, hands, arms, and chest. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has required child-resistant packaging for liquid household products containing more than 5 percent Methacrylic Acid (weight-to-volume) in a single package. Since Methacrylic Acid is an extremely corrosive chemical, a primary concern about its use as a cosmetic ingredient was the ability to limit exposure to the nail when pretreating the nail prior to application of an artificial nail extender. A videotape presentation demonstrated that a trained professional could use a small applicator brush to dab a limited volume of Methacrylic Acid only to the center of the nail, allowing the monomer liquid to diffuse down the nail without any exposure to the skin. There were no available data to demonstrate that an individual consumer could apply Methacrylic Acid and avoid inadvertent skin contact. In order to minimize any exposure to the acid, the Expert Panel concluded that nail primers containing Methacrylic Acid could be used safely by trained individuals instructed to ensure that there be no contact with the skin. The CIR Expert Panel recognized that there are no chronic inhalation toxicity data on Methacrylic Acid, but was concerned that inhalation of Methacrylic Acid could affect the respiratory tract. Since the inhalation exposure time is significantly increased in a commercial setting, the Panel was more concerned about the safety of the nail technician than the consumer. The Expert Panel concluded that the current NIOSH recommended exposure limit of 20 ppm would provide adequate protection.

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.

Cross-reactions of multifunctional methacrylates and acrylates

Dental acrylic monomers (that is, acrylates and methacrylates) are important occupational sensitizers. Acrylic monomers may also cause allergic reactions in dental care. Unfortunately, acrylic monomers cross-react--that is, allergic sensitization induced by one acrylic compound extends to one or more other acrylic compounds. Therefore, sensitized individuals are often multiallergic and, accordingly, cannot be exposed to any of the compounds. In the present review aspects of cross-reactivity in general and data from animal studies of cross-reactivity of multifunctional methacrylates and acrylates are summarized. A multitude of acrylic monomers is used in dentistry, and when patients or dental personnel become sensitized, it is of great importance to identify the dental acrylic preparations to which the sensitized individual can be exposed. Sensitized dental workers are known to have ceased working in dentistry owing to occupational allergic contact dermatitis or asthma, caused by dental acrylic monomers. Unfortunately, cross-reactivity of acrylic monomers used in dentistry is not sufficiently mapped to enable selection of an appropriate compound for the sensitized person. Another important aspect is that product declarations of dental acrylic materials should show all acrylic compounds present in the products--even acrylic monomers/impurities with lower concentrations than 1%. This could help to select a product that the sensitized individual could use.

Contact sensitivity to selected acrylate compounds in B6C3F1 mice: relative potency, cross reactivity, and comparison of test methods

Given the increasing prevalence of occupational sensitization to acrylate compounds, n-butyl acrylate (BAC), ethyl acrylate (EAC), and trimethylol propane triacrylate (TMT) were recommended by the National Toxicology Program for hypersensitivity testing in female B6C3F1 mice. The objectives of these studies were to determine the irritating and sensitizing potential of these three compounds using an irritation assay, the murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), and the Mouse Ear Swelling Test (MEST). The minimal irritating concentration for TMT was determined to be 1.0%, whereas BAC and EAC demonstrated no irritation up to 30%, the highest concentration tested. TMT tested positive in the LLNA at concentrations as low as 0.1% whereas an induction concentration of 0.3% was required to elicit a positive response in the MEST. Furthermore, BAC tested negative in the MEST at induction concentrations as high as 30%, but yielded positive results in the LLNA at concentrations as low as 20%. EAC, at all concentrations tested, was negative in both the MEST and the LLNA. Cross reactivity was only seen when mice were sensitized with TMT and challenged with BAC. In these studies, the LLNA was a more sensitive indicator of the allergic potential of these three acrylates when compared to the MEST.

Cross-reactivity patterns of contact-sensitizing methacrylates

Methacrylates are well-known contact sensitizers with increasing frequency of contact leading to occupational skin disease. Here, we developed an animal model to facilitate studies on the sensitizing capacities and cross-reactivity patterns between four clinically most important allergens: methacrylate (MMA), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (2-HPMA) and ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA). Inbred guinea pigs were immunized by ic injections of 300 microliters of 1.0 M methacrylate solutions in Freund's complete adjuvant into both flanks, both ears, and the neck. After 14 days open skin tests were performed with 50% MMA, 2-HEMA, or 2-HPMA or 10% EGDMA solutions in 40% DMSO in ethanol. Cross-reactivities were investigated 14 days later by skin testing with all four methacrylates. Using this newly developed protocol, strongly positive skin tests for methacrylates could be induced in almost all guinea pigs (MMA 26/26, 2-HEMA 16/18, 2-HPMA 15/16 and EGDMA 11/11). Whereas EGDMA induced only weak or infrequent cross-reactivities, 2-HEMA sensitization led to strong cross-reactions to all other methacrylates. Both MMA and 2-HPMA induced strong cross-reactivity to EGDMA but only weak to moderate reactivities to the other methacrylates. The absence of strong cross-reactions with monomethacrylates in EGDMA (dimethacrylate)-sensitized animals may be explained by the predominance of highly EGDMA-specific T-cells in these animals. In contrast, sensitization with MMA, 2-HEMA, and 2-HPMA would lead to recruitment of T-cells cross-reactive to the other monomethacrylates, according to their molecular similarities. The strong skin hypersensitivities observed for EGDMA in these latter groups are ascribed to enzymatic degradation into monomethacrylate compounds, notably 2-HEMA, at a rate sufficient to elicit cognate effector T-cells. The results of this study offer new insights in the development of methacrylate hypersensitivities and common cross-sensitization patterns in clinical practice.

10 years of patch testing with the (meth)acrylate series

Statistics on 10 years of patch testing with 30 (meth)acrylates were compiled. Altogether 275 patients were patch tested and 48 patients (17.5%) had an allergic reaction to at least 1 (meth)acrylate. The (meth)acrylates most often provoking an allergic patch test reaction were 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (2-HEA; 12.1%), 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate (2-HPMA; 12.0%) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA; 11.4%). No allergic reactions were caused by 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (2-EHA), 2,2-bis[4-(methacryloxy)phenyl]propane (BIS-MA), trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA), oligotriacrylate 480 (OTA 480), N,N-methylenebisacrylamide (MBAA), or ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA). The frequency of allergic patch test reactions presented cannot be considered as a "ranking" list of the most sensitizing (meth)acrylate compounds. In order to be able to judge the sensitization capacity of various (meth)acrylate compounds in humans, it would be necessary to have detailed information on the exposure history of the patients studied, including the purity of the (meth)acrylate compounds. Currently, this is not possible because (meth)acrylate-containing products regularly contain undeclared (meth)acrylate compounds.

A delayed hypersensitivity reaction to dentine primer in the guinea-pig

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to examine the possibility of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction or contact dermatitis occurring in the guinea-pig in response to methacrylate derivatives used as experimental dentine primers.

METHODS

The dentine primers 2-HEMA, GM, MA and MMA were tested in a guinea-pig maximization test.

RESULTS

All the dentine primers tested produced positive delayed hypersensitivity reactions in the guinea-pig. MMA produced the most severe reaction.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that in the clinical situation, clinicians and other members of the dental team should be aware of the need for careful handling of the dentine primers tested.

Concomitant sensitization to triglycidyl isocyanurate, diaminodiphenylmethane and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate from silk-screen printing coatings in the manufacture of circuit boards

A 48-year-old female silk-screen printer had worked in the manufacture of circuit boards for 12 years before she got the first symptoms of dermatitis on her wrists and lower arms. On the 1st patch test session, epoxy resin and the remainder of the standard series were negative, while a plastics and glues series gave an allergic reaction to 4,4'-diaminodiphenylmethane (DDM). The 2nd test session revealed allergic reactions to several acrylics, several epoxy compounds and 3 ink components. According to the material safety data sheets, 1 ink hardener contained DDM, but the causative agent in 1 ink and 1 ink hardener remained uncertain. The manufacturers of the 2 inks kindly provided us with their components for further patch tests. 2 of these components gave allergic reactions: triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA). Our case report shows that the manufacture of circuit boards involves exposure to highly sensitizing chemicals. DDM, TGIC and 2-HEMA should be remembered as silk-screen printers' potential contact sensitizers in the manufacture of circuit boards.

Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by exposure to acrylates during work with dental prostheses

Between 1974 and 1992, we were consulted by 4 patients (an orthodontist, 2 dental technicians and a dental worker trained in-house) who had developed occupational allergic contact dermatitis from working with dental prostheses. All patients had positive allergic patch test reactions to methyl methacrylate (MMA), the acrylate which is the most widely used in work with prostheses. All but the orthodontist also reacted to dimethacrylates, which are used in cross-linked dental prostheses. The last patient, investigated in 1992, had been exposed mainly to light-cured acrylics, which are similar in composition to dental composite resins. These acrylics, only recently introduced into prosthetic work, contain more potent acrylic sensitizers than MMA. Accordingly, dental personnel working with prostheses may face a higher risk of sensitization than previously. To detect cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis, we suggest that patients working with dental prostheses should be patch tested with MMA, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, dimethacrylates, epoxy acrylates and urethane acrylates.

Occupational risks of (meth)acrylate compounds in embedding media for electron microscopy

(Meth)acrylates are the main constituents of embedding media widely used in electron microscopy research for low-temperature embedding of biological tissue. (Meth)acrylates toxicology is still incompletely understood and therefore an estimation of health hazards involved in handling must be inaccurate. (Meth)acrylate monomers are known to be harmful to skin and other tissues and may sensitize workers. Since low-temperature electron microscopy techniques have gained popularity in research laboratories, it is important to establish safety rules for handling the (meth)acrylate-containing solutions. The aim of our report is to review briefly the toxicological properties and occupational hazards of the chemicals involved, summarize our own experiences with resins and protective devices in this respect, give guidelines for safe embedding and pass on these data to all interested researchers in order that workers are not discouraged from using (meth)acrylate embedding media, but know the risks and how to minimize them.

Contact dermatitis from acrylate and methacrylate compounds in Lowicryl embedding media for electron microscopy

This report is about occupational contact dermatitis found in 3 out of 6 workers of a chemistry laboratory using Lowicryl embedding media, which contain (meth)acrylate monomer mixtures of known composition. The notation (meth)acrylates is used to refer to both acrylates and methacrylates. (Meth)acrylate monomers will polymerize in the absence of oxygen when induced by metal ions, peroxides, heat or ultraviolet light. The monomers are of low viscosity and remain in the liquid state at temperatures far below 0 degree C. The volatile compounds, some of which exhibit a most pungent odour, have a tendency to penetrate all tissue and to permeate into the finest fissures, a property which makes them suitable as sealants, glues, embedding material, etc. This and their toxicity may represent a danger to the health of individuals who need to work with them, especially if no precautions are taken. We show with patch testing that one patient reacted strongly to the compound 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate at the dilutions tested (0.5 and 1% v/v), but not at all to 10 other (meth)acrylates. In the same test, 3 volunteer controls were negative to 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate. We demonstrate that at maximum working concentration, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate penetrates both latex and vinyl gloves and elicits irritant/allergic reactions on the patient and irritant reactions on a control. Finally, we discuss the necessary protective measures.

Release of formaldehyde from dental composites

Polymeric composite materials may contain releasable degradation products or unreacted constituents. Release of formaldehyde from nine different composites was investigated by means of HCHO-hydrazone derivative analyzed with high-performance liquid chromatography. Formation of formaldehyde was found in all the investigated materials. The highest concentrations were observed in specimens polymerized in contact with air. A correlation coefficient, r = 0.83, was found between released formaldehyde and the thickness of the unpolymerized surface inhibition layer. The formaldehyde concentrations were reduced when the inhibition layer was removed prior to testing. A continuous release of formaldehyde was evident during the first ten days. The release decreased with time, but was still detectable after 115 days.

Review of the toxicity of multifunctional acrylates

Multifunctional acrylates and methacrylates (MFA) represent a class of materials with considerable chemical reactivity that are used in many applications with opportunity for contact exposure. They represent appreciable eye and skin contact hazards, and several members of the class may be absorbed from skin to cause systemic effects. A number of MFAs have been identified as sensitizers. While the acute toxicity of MFAs is certain, the effects of repeated or chronic exposure are less clear. Data are presented that suggest that MFAs are not appreciable fetotoxic or teratogenic hazards and do not elicit a strong carcinogenic response following chronic dermal exposure. The use of these data for product safety purposes and research needs is discussed.

Predictive value of assessment of lymph node weight and T-lymphocyte proliferation in contact sensitivity in acrylates

An assessment of T-lymphocyte proliferation and lymph node weight is proposed as a predictive test for contact sensitizers of industrial origin. Data are presented showing increased T-lymphocyte proliferation following epicutaneous application of a variety of industrially important acrylate-like chemicals which appear to correlate well with their ability to sensitize in the guinea pig. These data were compared with those obtained after application of 2,4-dinitro-1-fluorobenzene (DNFB) a strong sensitizer, and 2,4-dinitrothiocyanatebenzene (DNTB) a nonsensitizer when given epicutaneously. It is suggested that this quantitative approach, in parallel with a simple one-dose immunization, may provide a better picture of sensitization potential than the longer multidose immunizations currently in use.

Sensitizing potential of 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate

Guinea pigs exhibited none or slight responses to sensitization with low concentrations of 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate in the guinea pig maximization test, while 60-100% reacted to high concentrations regardless of the vehicle used for induction. Petrolatum, water, soybean oil and a mixture of oil and 2-butanone (sbomek) were used as vehicles for elicitation. The neat methacrylate was less effective than dilutions in any vehicle, petrolatum being the best. The major determinant of the frequency of response was the concentration used for intradermal induction. An increase in frequency and in duration of responsiveness after treatment with cyclophosphamide 3 days before challenge suggests that hydroxyethylmethacrylate preferentially stimulates the suppressor cell function.

Epicutaneous induction of tolerance with acrylates and related compounds

Epicutaneous application of acrylates and related compounds 14 and 7 days before sensitization with either methyl acrylate or trimethylol propane triacrylate induced tolerance to the resultant contact reactions. This tolerance could not be correlated with either the degree of cross reactivity between these compounds or with their ability to react covalently with amino or sulphydryl groups of proteins. These results are discussed in relation to other epicutaneous tolerizers in the dinitrobenzene and poison ivy systems.

The sensitizing capacity of multifunctional acrylates in the guinea pig

The multifunctional acrylates used in ultraviolet (UV) curable resins act as cross-linkers and "diluents". They are usually based on di(meth)acrylate esters of dialcohols or tri- and tetra-acrylate esters of polyalcohols. In UV-curable coatings, the most commonly used are pentaerythritol triacrylate (PETA), trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA) and 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate (HDDA). In other uses, such as dental composite resin materials, the dimethacrylic monomers based on n-ethylene glycol are the most useful. The sensitizing capacity of various multifunctional acrylates and their cross-reactivity pattern have been investigated with the guinea pig maximization test. The tests show that BUDA (1,4-butanediol diacrylate) and HDDA are moderate to strong sensitizers and that they probably cross-react with each other. The n-ethylene glycol diacrylates and methacrylates tested are weak or non-sensitizers. Tripropylene glycol diacrylate (TPGDA) is a moderate and neopentyl glycol diacrylate (NPGDA) a strong sensitizer, whereas neopentyl glycol dimethacrylate is a non-sensitizer. The commercial PETA is a mixture of pentaerythritol tri- and tetra-acrylate (PETA-3 and PETA-4). PETA-3 is a much stronger sensitizer than PETA-4. Simultaneous reactions were seen between PETA-3, PETA-4 and TMPTA. The oligotriacrylate OTA 480 is a moderate sensitizer, but no concomitant reactions were seen with PETA-3, PETA-4 or TMPTA. Of the multifunctional acrylates tested, the di- and triacrylic compounds should be regarded as potent sensitizers. The methacrylated multifunctional acrylic compounds are weak or non-sensitizers.

Cross-reaction patterns in guinea pigs sensitized to acrylic monomers

The cross-reaction patterns of selected acrylate and methacrylate esters were investigated using the guinea pig maximization test. Methacrylates were less potent sensitizers than acrylates. Cross-sensitization was found between (meth)acrylates with closely related core structures, most extensively between hydroxyethyl and hydroxypropyl congeners. The importance of considering not only the functional group but also the core structure when assessing potential interactions was emphasized as butanedioldiglycidylether, hexamethylenediisocyanate and hexanedioldiacrylate--all with linear 6-atom cores and different functional group--cross-reacted.