Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients

Based on chemical, cellular, and molecular understanding of dermal sensitization, an exposure-based quantitative risk assessment (QRA) can be conducted to determine safe use levels of fragrance ingredients in different consumer product types. The key steps are: (1) determination of benchmarks (no expected sensitization induction level (NESIL)); (2) application of sensitization assessment factors (SAF); and (3) consumer exposure (CEL) calculation through product use. Using these parameters, an acceptable exposure level (AEL) can be calculated and compared with the CEL. The ratio of AEL to CEL must be favorable to support safe use of the potential skin sensitizer. This ratio must be calculated for the fragrance ingredient in each product type. Based on the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) Expert Panel's recommendation, RIFM and the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) have adopted the dermal sensitization QRA approach described in this review for fragrance ingredients identified as potential dermal sensitizers. This now forms the fragrance industry's core strategy for primary prevention of dermal sensitization to these materials in consumer products. This methodology is used to determine global fragrance industry product management practices (IFRA Standards) for fragrance ingredients that are potential dermal sensitizers. This paper describes the principles of the recommended approach, provides detailed review of all the information used in the dermal sensitization QRA approach for fragrance ingredients and presents key conclusions for its use now and refinement in the future.     

Quantitative risk assessment for skin sensitization: Success or failure?

Skin sensitization is unique in the world of toxicology. There is a combination of reliable, validated predictive test methods for identification of skin sensitizing chemicals, a clearly documented and transparent approach to risk assessment, and effective feedback from dermatology clinics around the world delivering evidence of the success or failure of the hazard identification/risk assessment/management process. Recent epidemics of contact allergy, particularly to preservatives, have raised questions of whether the safety/risk assessment process is working in an optimal manner (or indeed is working at all!). This review has as its focus skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA). The core toxicological principles of QRA are reviewed, and evidence of use and misuse examined. What becomes clear is that skin sensitization QRA will only function adequately if two essential criteria are met. The first is that QRA is applied rigourously, and the second is that potential exposure to the sensitizing substance is assessed adequately. This conclusion will come as no surprise to any toxicologist who appreciates the basic premise that “risk = hazard x exposure”. Accordingly, use of skin sensitization QRA is encouraged, not least because the essential feedback from dermatology clinics can be used as a tool to refine QRA in situations where this risk assessment tool has not been properly used.     

Quantitative risk assessment for skin sensitisation: Consideration of a simplified approach for hair dye ingredients

With the availability of the local lymph node assay, and the ability to evaluate effectively the relative skin sensitizing potency of contact allergens, a model for quantitative-risk-assessment (QRA) has been developed. This QRA process comprises: (a) determination of a no-expected-sensitisation-induction-level (NESIL), (b) incorporation of sensitization-assessment-factors (SAFs) reflecting variations between subjects, product use patterns and matrices, and (c) estimation of consumer-exposure-level (CEL). Based on these elements an acceptable-exposure-level (AEL) can be calculated by dividing the NESIL of the product by individual SAFs. Finally, the AEL is compared with the CEL to judge about risks to human health.We propose a simplified approach to risk assessment of hair dye ingredients by making use of precise experimental product exposure data. This data set provides firmly established dose/unit area concentrations under relevant consumer use conditions referred to as the measured-exposure-level (MEL). For that reason a direct comparison is possible between the NESIL with the MEL as a proof-of-concept quantification of the risk of skin sensitization. This is illustrated here by reference to two specific hair dye ingredients p-phenylenediamine and resorcinol. Comparison of these robust and toxicologically relevant values is therefore considered an improvement versus a hazard-based classification of hair dye ingredients.     

Quantitative risk assessment for skin sensitisation: Consideration of a simplified approach for hair dye ingredients

With the availability of the local lymph node assay, and the ability to evaluate effectively the relative skin sensitizing potency of contact allergens, a model for quantitative-risk-assessment (QRA) has been developed. This QRA process comprises: (a) determination of a no-expected-sensitisation-induction-level (NESIL), (b) incorporation of sensitization-assessment-factors (SAFs) reflecting variations between subjects, product use patterns and matrices, and (c) estimation of consumer-exposure-level (CEL). Based on these elements an acceptable-exposure-level (AEL) can be calculated by dividing the NESIL of the product by individual SAFs. Finally, the AEL is compared with the CEL to judge about risks to human health.     

Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment.

The purpose of this article is to review, and make recommendations for, the use of relevant skin sensitization test methods, for the purposes of determination of relative potency and the threshold dose necessary for the induction of skin sensitization, and for risk assessment. In addressing the first area, the utility of three guinea pig tests (the guinea pig maximization test, the occluded patch test, and the open epicutaneous test) of the local lymph node assay (LLNA) and of human volunteer testing for the assessment of relative potency and identification of thresholds for sensitization were considered. The following conclusions were drawn. (1) Although attempts have been made to modify the guinea pig maximization test for the purposes of deriving dose-response relationships, this method is usually unsuitable for determination of relative sensitizing potency. (2) Guinea pig methods that do not require the use of adjuvant and which employ a relevant route of exposure (the occluded patch test and the open epicutaneous test) are more appropriate for the assessment of relative skin-sensitizing potency. (3) The LLNA is suitable for the determination of relative skin sensitizing potency, and the adaptation of this method for derivation of comparative criteria such as EC3 values (the estimated concentration of test chemical required to induce a stimulation index of 3 in the LLNA) provides an effective and quantitative basis for such measurements. (4) For all the methods identified above, potency is assessed relative to other chemical allergens of known skin sensitizing potential. The estimation of likely threshold concentrations is dependent upon the availability of suitable benchmark chemicals of known potency for human sensitization. (5) Human testing (and specifically, the Human Repeat Insult Patch Test) can provide information of value in confirming the absence of skin sensitizing activity of formulations and products under specific conditions of use and exposure. Based on the above, the following recommendations are made. (1) If results are already available from suitable guinea pig tests, then judicious interpretation of the data may provide information of value in assessing relative skin sensitizing potency. This option should be explored before other analyses are conducted. (2) The LLNA is the recommended method for new assessments of relative potency, and/or for the investigation of the influence of vehicle or formulation on skin sensitizing potency. (3) Whenever available, human skin sensitization data should be incorporated into an assessment of relative potency. With respect to risk assessment, the conclusion drawn is that all the available data on skin-sensitizing activity in animals and man should be integrated into the risk-assessment process. Appropriate interpretation of existing data from suitable guinea pig studies can provide valuable information with respect to potency, as the first step in the development of a risk assessment. However, for de novo investigations, the LLNA is the method favored for providing quantitative estimations of skin-sensitizing potency that are best suited to the risk assessment process. Finally, human testing is of value in the risk assessment process, but is performed only for the purposes of confirming product safety.     

Application of the risk assessment paradigm to the induction of allergic contact dermatitis

The National Academy of Science (NAS) risk assessment paradigm has been widely accepted as a framework for estimating risk from exposure to environmental chemicals (NAS, 1983). Within this framework, quantitative risk assessments (QRAs) serve as the cornerstone of health-based exposure limits, and have been used routinely for both cancer and noncancer endpoints. These methods have focused primarily on the extrapolation of data from laboratory animals to establish acceptable levels of exposure for humans. For health effects associated with a threshold, uncertainty and variability inherent in the extrapolation process is generally dealt with by the application of "uncertainty factors (UFs)." The adaptation of QRA methods to address skin sensitization is a natural and desirable extension of current practices. Based on our chemical, cellular and molecular understanding of the induction of allergic contact dermatitis, one can conduct a QRA using established methods of identifying a NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) or other point of departure, and applying appropriate UFs. This paper describes the application of the NAS paradigm to characterize risks from human exposure to skin sensitizers; consequently, this method can also be used to establish an exposure level for skin allergens that does not present an appreciable risk of sensitization.     

Skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment: A review of underlying assumptions

Toxicological risk assessment informs exposure limits, so the potential for adverse effects to human health are minimised or avoided. For skin sensitisers, the situation is complicated by asymptomatic induction of contact allergy, a necessary prerequisite for expression of the disease allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). For fragrance skin sensitisers, the development of quantitative risk assessment (QRA) arose from the need to improve the extent to which contact allergy occurred. However, the perceived impact has been less than anticipated. Accordingly, the science and assumptions upon which QRA was founded have been scrutinised and proposals for refinement have been made. In addition, areas of uncertainty have been made explicit, e.g. inter-individual variability and the impact of concomitant disease, clarifying where numerical safety assessment factors are based on expert judgement. Also, the relatively small contribution of factors eg. age, gender, ethnic origin, vehicle matrix and skin permeability are highlighted by reference to the (now controversial) human experiments carried out in the second half of the last century. Adoption and widespread implementation of the current recommendations for QRA, taken in concert with improved assessment of aggregate exposure from multiple sources, should ensure that the frequency of contact allergy will decrease over the coming years.     

Application of in vitro skin penetration measurements to confirm and refine the quantitative skin sensitization risk assessment of methylisothiazolinone

Use of quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for assessing the skin sensitization potential of chemicals present in consumer products requires an understanding of hazard and product exposure. In the absence of data, consumer exposure is based on relevant habits and practices and assumes 100% skin uptake of the applied dose. To confirm and refine the exposure, a novel design for in vitro skin exposure measurements was conducted with the preservative, methylisothiazolinone (MI), in beauty care (BC) and household care (HHC) products using realistic consumer exposure conditions. A difference between measured exposure levels (MELs) for MI in leave-on versus rinse-off BC products, and lower MELs for MI in HHC rinse-off compared to BC products was demonstrated. For repeated product applications, the measured exposure was lower than estimations based on summation of applied amounts. Compared to rinse-off products, leave-on applications resulted in higher MELs, correlating with the higher incidences of allergic contact dermatitis associated with those product types. Lower MELs for MI in rinse-off products indicate a lower likelihood to induce skin sensitization, also after multiple daily applications. These in vitro skin exposure measurements indicate conservatism of default exposure estimates applied in skin sensitization QRA and might be helpful in future risk assessments.     

Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data

In this paper, we propose a quantitative risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization aiming at the derivation of 'safe' exposure levels for sensitizing chemicals, used e.g., as ingredients in consumer products. Given the limited number of sensitizers tested in human sensitization tests, such as the human repeat-insult patch test (HRIPT) or the human maximization test (HMT), we used EC3 values from the local lymph node assay (LLNA) in mice because they provide the best quantitative measure of the skin sensitizing potency of a chemical. A comparison of LLNA EC3 values with HRIPT and HMT LOEL, and NOEL values was carried out and revealed that the EC3, expressed as area dose, can be used as a surrogate value for the human NOEL in risk assessment. The uncertainty/extrapolation factor approach was used to derive (a) an 'acceptable non-sensitizing area dose' (ANSAD) to protect non-allergic individuals against skin sensitization and (b) an 'acceptable non-eliciting area dose' (ANEAD) to protect allergic individuals against elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis. For ANSAD derivation, interspecies, intraspecies and time extrapolation factors are applied to the LLNA EC3. For ANEAD derivation, additional application of a variable sensitization-elicitation extrapolation factor is proposed. Values for extrapolation factors are derived and discussed, the proposed methodology is applied to the sensitizers methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, cinnamic aldehyde and nickel and results are compared to published risk assessments.     

Citral: identifying a threshold for induction of dermal sensitization

Citral [CAS# 5392-40-5; EINECS# 226-394-6; RIFM # 116; cis- and trans-3,7-dimethyl-2,6-Octadienal] is an important fragrance ingredient appreciated for its powerful lemon-aroma. It is widely used in fragrance formulations and incorporated into numerous consumer products. A comprehensive review of the dermal sensitization data available for citral was undertaken with the goal of identifying a threshold for the induction of dermal sensitization. In 2007, a complete literature search was conducted. On-line databases that were surveyed included Chemical Abstract Services and the National Library of Medicine. In addition, the toxicologic database of the Research Institute for Fragrance materials, Inc. (RIFM) was searched, which includes numerous unpublished reports. Based on a weight of evidence approach, the data from this survey demonstrate that the human NOEL (No Observed Effect Level) for induction of dermal sensitization to citral is 1400 microg/cm(2). The identification of this induction threshold will allow for risk assessments to focus on primary prevention of contact allergy to citral based on a new Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) paradigm. This subsequent assessment will form the basis of a risk management approach; specifically a new IFRA (International Fragrance Association) standard on the use of citral in consumer products.     

Correlation between experimental human and murine skin sensitization induction thresholds

Quantitative risk assessment for skin sensitization is directed towards the determination of levels of exposure to known sensitizing substances that will avoid the induction of contact allergy in humans. A key component of this work is the predictive identification of relative skin sensitizing potency, achieved normally by the measurement of the threshold (the “EC3” value) in the local lymph node assay (LLNA). In an extended series of studies, the accuracy of this murine induction threshold as the predictor of the absence of a sensitizing effect has been verified by conduct of a human repeated insult patch test (HRIPT). Murine and human thresholds for a diverse set of 57 fragrance chemicals spanning approximately four orders of magnitude variation in potency have been compared. The results confirm that there is a useful correlation, with the LLNA EC3 value helping particularly to identify stronger sensitizers. Good correlation (with half an order of magnitude) was seen with three-quarters of the dataset. The analysis also helps to identify potential outlier types of (fragrance) chemistry, exemplified by hexyl and benzyl salicylates (an over-prediction) and trans-2-hexenal (an under-prediction).     

Methyldibromoglutaronitrile: skin sensitization and quantitative risk assessment

Preservatives can be a frequent cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) method for identifying safe exposure levels has been suggested as a more effective tool for this purpose. This work assesses the validity of QRA by its retrospective application to the sensitizing preservative methyldibromoglutaronitrile (MDGN), which has recently been associated with unacceptable exposure levels in consumer products. Using a recently published QRA analysis of 4 preservatives in 5 consumer product types, the accuracy of the predictions for MDGN was assessed in light of what is known clinically about the nature and incidence of ACD to this material. Based on a local lymph node assay (LLNA) EC3 value (concentration of test chemical required to provoke a 3-fold increase in lymph node cell proliferation) of 0.9% in a weight-of-evidence approach to the identification of thresholds for the induction of skin sensitization, it can be determined that the acceptable levels of exposure to MDGN in a range of products range from as little as 25 ppm to in excess of 10,000 ppm. Thus, proactive use of QRA, used conservatively and in combination with expert judgment, would have limited the problem of ACD to this new preservative that is known to have caused problems on the consumer market.     

Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (II): an assessment of defined approaches**

Skin sensitization is a toxicity endpoint of widespread concern, for which the mechanistic understanding and concurrent necessity for non-animal testing approaches have evolved to a critical juncture, with many available options for predicting sensitization without using animals. Cosmetics Europe and the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods collaborated to analyze the performance of multiple non-animal data integration approaches for the skin sensitization safety assessment of cosmetics ingredients. The Cosmetics Europe Skin Tolerance Task Force (STTF) collected and generated data on 128 substances in multiple in vitro and in chemico skin sensitization assays selected based on a systematic assessment by the STTF. These assays, together with certain in silico predictions, are key components of various non-animal testing strategies that have been submitted to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as case studies for skin sensitization. Curated murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and human skin sensitization data were used to evaluate the performance of six defined approaches, comprising eight non-animal testing strategies, for both hazard and potency characterization. Defined approaches examined included consensus methods, artificial neural networks, support vector machine models, Bayesian networks, and decision trees, most of which were reproduced using open source software tools. Multiple non-animal testing strategies incorporating in vitro, in chemico, and in silico inputs demonstrated equivalent or superior performance to the LLNA when compared to both animal and human data for skin sensitization.     

Implementation of the dermal sensitization Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients

Significant developments have recently been incorporated in the way dermal sensitization risk assessments are conducted for fragrance ingredients. Based on the RIFM Expert Panel's recommendation, RIFM and IFRA have formally adopted the QRA approach, refined for fragrance ingredients identified as contact allergens, as the core strategy for primary prevention of dermal sensitization to these materials in consumer products. This new methodology is a major improvement over the former approach because it specifically addresses the elements of exposure-based risk assessment that are unique to the induction of dermal sensitization, while being consistent with the principles of toxicological risk assessment. This methodology will be used to determine global fragrance industry product management practices (IFRA Standards) for potentially sensitizing fragrance ingredients, the first of which was implemented in May 2006 with the 40th Amendment to the IFRA Code of Practice. It contained the first four IFRA Standards based on the QRA, limiting the use of the materials for 11 individual product categories. One of the first four IFRA Standards based on the QRA was on the fragrance material citral. The basis for the acceptable exposure limits are presented in this paper.     

Alternative skin sensitization prediction and risk assessment using proinflammatory biomarkers,interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS)

As an alternative to animal tests for skin sensitization potency and risk assessment, cell viability and biomarkers related to skin sensitization were analyzed in THP-1 human monocytic leukemia cells. Cell viabilities of 90% (CV90) and 75% (CV75) were determined for 24 selected test chemicals. Further biomarkers related to skin sensitization were also determined under equivalent comparative conditions. In cell viability analyses, potent skin sensitizers exhibited high cytotoxicity, but non-sensitizers did not display this tendency. In biomarker analyses, interleukin-I beta (IL-1β), inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), IL-1β+iNOS, and THP-1 IL-1β+Raw 264.7 IL-1β were found to be suitable for prediction of skin sensitization potency following classification as either skin sensitizers or non-sensitizers (accuracies of 91.7%, 87.5%, 83.3%, and 82.6%, respectively). A significant positive correlation was found between biomarkers and skin sensitization potency, with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.7 or more (correlation coefficients of 0.77, 0.72, 0.7, and 0.84, respectively). Finally, the skin sensitization potency effective threefold concentration (EC) 3% was predicted using a biomarker equation, with resulting prediction rates (match rate with actual data) of 58.3%, 54.2%, 62.5%, and 60.9%, respectively. The prediction accuracy for the EC3 value obtained from animal data was calculated as 83.3%, 79.2%, 79.2%, and 73.9%, respectively. Thus, these biomarkers, IL-1β and iNOS, may be alternatively used to predict skin sensitization potency and risk assessment.     

Skin sensitization risk assessment model using artificial neural network analysis of data from multiple in vitro assays

The sensitizing potential of chemicals is usually identified and characterized using in vivo methods such as the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA). Due to regulatory constraints and ethical concerns, alternatives to animal testing are needed to predict skin sensitization potential of chemicals. For this purpose, combined evaluation using multiple in vitro and in silico parameters that reflect different aspects of the sensitization process seems promising.We previously reported that LLNA thresholds could be well predicted by using an artificial neural network (ANN) model, designated iSENS ver.1 (integrating in vitro sensitization tests version 1), to analyze data obtained from two in vitro tests: the human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT) and the SH test. Here, we present a more advanced ANN model, iSENS ver.2, which additionally utilizes the results of antioxidant response element (ARE) assay and the octanol–water partition coefficient (Log P, reflecting lipid solubility and skin absorption). We found a good correlation between predicted LLNA thresholds calculated by iSENS ver.2 and reported values. The predictive performance of iSENS ver.2 was superior to that of iSENS ver.1. We conclude that ANN analysis of data from multiple in vitro assays is a useful approach for risk assessment of chemicals for skin sensitization.     

Anchoring molecular mechanisms to the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization: Analysis of existing data

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a hypersensitivity immune response induced by small protein-reactive chemicals. Currently, the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) provides hazard identification and quantitative estimation of sensitizing potency. Given the complexity of ACD, a single alternative method cannot replace the LLNA, but it is necessary to combine methods through an integrated testing strategy (ITS). In the development of an ITS, information regarding mechanisms and molecular processes involved in skin sensitization is crucial. The recently published adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization captures mechanistic knowledge into key events that lead to ACD. To understand the molecular processes in ACD, a systematic review of murine in vivo studies was performed and an ACD molecular map was constructed. In addition, comparing the molecular map to the limited human in vivo toxicogenomic data available suggests that certain processes are similarly triggered in mice and humans, but additional human data will be needed to confirm these findings and identify differences. To gain insight in the molecular mechanisms represented by various human in vitro systems, the map was compared to in vitro toxicogenomic data. This analysis allows for comparison of emerging in vitro methods on a molecular basis, in addition to mathematical predictive value. Finally, a survey of the current in silico, in chemico, and in vitro methods was used to indicate which AOP key event is modeled by each method. By anchoring emerging classification methods to the AOP and the ACD molecular map, complementing methods can be identified, which provides a cornerstone for the development of a testing strategy that accurately reflects the key events in skin sensitization.     

Evaluation for skin sensitization based on published literatures (existing information) of major PRTR designated chemical substances in Japan

Of the 354 substances designated as class I under the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) law in Japan, we reviewed the sensitization data of the selected 144 substances and analyzed it from various aspects comparing human and animal data, determining the relationship between skin sensitization and chemical structure and comparing the various international organizations.Although most of them were expected to be hazardous substances, 49 out of the 144 substances lacked both human and animal sensitization data. Positive substances accounted for 69% and 42% of the substances for which sensitization data were available in the case of humans and animals, respectively.A correlation was observed between the chemical structures of the substances and sensitization, despite the relatively few substances examined in this study and the limited homogeneity of the collected data. In particular, epoxides clearly had sensitizing potentials and more than half of carboxylic esters or dicarboxyl anhydrides, aliphatic aldehydes, and aromatic compounds with at least two hydroxyl groups also had sensitizing potentials.Also, this study clearly demonstrated the lack of consistency across the sensitization assessment criteria adopted by different countries or among those adopted by the same country on the basis of different laws or administrative measures.     

IL-1α and IL-1β as alternative biomarkers for risk assessment and the prediction of skin sensitization potency

Potential biomarkers of skin sensitization in RAW264.7 mouse macrophages were investigated as alternatives to animal experiments and risk assessment. The concentrations that resulted in a cell viability of 90% (CV90) and 75% (CV75) were calculated by using a water-soluble tetrazolium salt (WST)-1 assay and used to analyze the skin sensitization potency of 23 experimental materials under equivalent treatment conditions. In addition, the expression of interleukin (IL)-1α, IL-1β, IL-31, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) was analyzed utilizing Western blotting. In the cell viability analysis, skin sensitizers were generally more cytotoxic and exhibited increased skin sensitization potency. However, nonsensitizers did not show any marked cytotoxic tendency. Biomarker analysis demonstrated that IL-1α, IL-1β, and the combination of IL-1α and IL-1β (IL-1α + IL-1β) predicted reliably skin sensitization potential (1) sensitivities of 94.4%, 83.3%, and 83.3%, specificities of 100%, 100%, and 100%, and (2) accuracies of 95.7%, 87%, and 87%, respectively. These observations correlated most reliably as indicators for skin sensitization potency. Data suggest that IL-1α and IL-1β may serve as potential biomarkers for skin sensitization and provide an alternative method to animal experiments for prediction of skin sensitization potency and risk assessment.