Weight of Evidence Approach for Skin Sensitization Potency Categorization of Fragrance Ingredients

Quantitative risk assessments of skin sensitization for 26 allergens in different consumer products in the Saudi market

Fragrance chemicals are ubiquitous in cosmetics; however, they have been linked to allergic contact dermatitis. Allergy prevention involves two main strategies. Firstly, consumers are protected by limiting the maximum concentration of fragrance in a given product to avoid inducing allergies. Secondly, consumers who are already sensitized are protected by having the presence of such fragrance communicated to them. In this study, a validated GC-MS method was employed to quantify 26 allergens in 108 products marketed in Saudi Arabia.Additionally, a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) was performed on the studied cosmetics to determine the risk of inducing allergies. The results indicated that most allergens were present at acceptable concentrations, while 19 products carried a risk of inducing allergies. Furthermore, Lilial and Lyral, two prohibited fragrances, were detected in 97 products. It should be emphasized that this is the first study conducted in Saudi Arabia to evaluate the safety of the well-known 26 fragrance allergens. Hence, this study can potentially serve as a regional standard for future research.

Predicting points of departure and potency categories for fragrance ingredients by integrating OECD in vitro models

Continuous potency assessment is crucial for conducting quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of sensitizers. Quantitative regression models, based on in vitro methods, have been developed to calculate points of departure for use in skin sensitization QRA. These models calculate a point of departure as a predicted value for Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) EC3 or potency value (PV), integrating data from the kinetic Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (kDPRA), KeratinoSens (KS) assay, and human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT). The goal of this study was to determine how in vitro predicted EC3s and PVs compare to published reference data. In vitro data were combined in point of departure regression models to predict EC3s and PVs. These points of departure were then grouped into sensitization potency categories, such as extreme, strong, moderate, weak, very weak, or non-sensitizer, as previously described. Trends in potency distribution and high concordance between predicted EC3 and PV categories and published potency categories were observed. Furthermore, the median absolute fold-misprediction ranged between 1.8 and 2.5 for models predicting EC3 and between 1.7 and 3.4 for those predicting PVs. These regression models are a promising animal alternative for determining sensitization quantitative potency for fragrance ingredients, thereby facilitating QRA.

In Vitro Prediction of Skin-Sensitizing Potency Using the GARDskin Dose-Response Assay: A Simple Regression Approach

Toxicological assessments of skin sensitizers have progressed towards a higher reliance on non-animal methods. Current technological trends aim to extend the utility of non-animal methods to accurately characterize skin-sensitizing potency. The GARDskin Dose-Response assay has previously been described; it was shown that its main readout, cDV0 concentration, is associated with skin-sensitizing potency. The ability to predict potency from cDV0 in the form of NESILs derived from LLNAs or human NOELs was evaluated. The assessment of a dataset of 30 chemicals showed that the cDV0 values still correlated strongly and significantly with both LLNA EC3 and human NOEL values (ρ = 0.645-0.787 [p < 1 × 10-3]). A composite potency value that combined LLNA and human potency data was defined, which aided the performance of the proposed model for the prediction of NESILs. The potency model accurately predicted sensitizing potency, with cross-validation errors of 2.75 and 3.22 fold changes compared with NESILs from LLNAs and humans, respectively. In conclusion, the results suggest that the GARDskin Dose-Response assay may be used to derive an accurate quantitative continuous potency estimate of skin sensitizers.

Deriving a point of departure for assessing the skin sensitization risk of wearable device constituents with in vitro methods

Wearable devices are in contact with the skin for extended periods. As such, the device constituents should be evaluated for their skin sensitization potential, and a Point of Departure (PoD) should be derived to conduct a proper risk assessment. Without historical in vivo data, the PoD must be derived with New Approach Methods (NAMs). To accomplish this, regression models trained on LLNA data that use data inputs from OECD-validated in vitro tests were used to derive a predicted EC3 value, the LLNA value used to classify skin sensitization potency, for three adhesive monomers (Isobornyl acrylate (IBOA), N, N- Dimethylacrylamide (NNDMA), and Acryloylmorpholine (ACMO) and one dye (Solvent Orange 60 (SO60)). These chemicals can be used as constituents of wearable devices and have been associated with causing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Using kinetic DPRA and KeratinoSens™ data, the PoDs obtained with the regression model were 180, 215, 1535, and 8325 μg/cm2 for IBOA, SO60, ACMO, and NNDMA, respectively. The PoDs derived with the regression model using NAMs data will enable a proper skin sensitization risk assessment without using animals.

Amino Chemoassay Profiling of Aromatic Aldehydes-Unraveling Drivers of Their Skin Sensitization Potency

Aromatic aldehydes are ubiquitous in humans' everyday life. As aldehydes, they can form imines (Schiff bases) with amino groups of skin proteins, leading to immune response-triggered allergic contact dermatitis. Many known aromatic aldehydes are considered as weak or nonsensitizers, but others like atranol and chloratranol, two components of the fragrance oak moss absolute, show strong sensitization potency. This large discrepancy in potency and, in particular, the underlying reaction mechanisms are only little understood so far. To reduce this knowledge gap, our chemoassay employing glycine-para-nitroanilide (Gly-pNA) as an amino model nucleophile was applied to 23 aromatic aldehydes. The determined Gly-pNA second-order rate constants for imine formation (k₁ ≤ 2.85 L·mol^-1·min^-1) and the imine stability constant (K ≤ 333 L·mol^-1) are on the lower end of the known amino reactivity scale for aldehydes, confirming many aromatic aldehydes as less potent sensitizers in line with animal and human data. The substantially higher sensitization potency of atranol and chloratranol, in turn, is reflected by their unique reaction chemistry profiles, inter alia, identifying them as cross-linkers able to form thermodynamically more stable epitopes with skin proteins (despite low formation kinetics, k₁). The discussion further includes a comparison of experimentally determined k₁ values with computed reactivity data (Taft σ*), the impact of the substitution pattern of the aryl ring on the reactivity with Gly-pNA, and analytically determined adduct patterns. Overall, this work provides new insights into the reaction of aromatic aldehydes with amino groups under aqueous conditions and fosters a better understanding of the chemistry underlying skin sensitization.

Specificity of the local lymph node assay (LLNA) for skin sensitisation

The local lymph node assay (LLNA) has provided a large dataset against which performance of non-animal approaches for prediction of skin sensitisation potential and potency can be assessed. However, a recent comparison of LLNA results with human data has argued that LLNA specificity is low, with many human non-sensitisers, particularly hydrophobic chemicals, being false positives. It has been suggested such putative false positives result from hydrophobic chemicals causing cytotoxicity, which induces irritancy, in turn driving non-specific lymphocyte proliferation. This paper finds that the apparent reduced specificity of the LLNA largely reflects differences in definitions of the boundaries between weak skin sensitisers and non-sensitisers. A small number of LLNA false positives may be due to lymphocyte proliferation without skin sensitisation, but most alleged 'false' positives are in fact very weak sensitisers predictable from structure-activity considerations. The evidence does not support the hypothesis for hydrophobicity-induced false positives. Moreover, the mechanistic basis is untenable. Sound LLNA data, appropriately interpreted, remain a good measure of sensitisation potency, applicable across a wide hydrophilicity-lipophilicity range. The standard data interpretation protocol enables detection of very low levels of sensitisation, irrespective of regulatory significance, but there is scope to interpret the data to give focus on regulatory significance.

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.

Reference Chemical Potency List (RCPL): A new tool for evaluating the accuracy of skin sensitisation potency measurements by New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)

Considerable progress has been made in the design of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) for the hazard identification of skin sensitising chemicals. However, effective risk assessment requires accurate measurement of sensitising potency, and this has proven more difficult to achieve without recourse to animal tests. One important requirement for the development and adoption of novel approaches for this purpose is the availability of reliable databases for determining the accuracy with which sensitising potency can be predicted. Some previous approaches have relied on comparisons with potency estimates based on either human or animal (local lymph node assay) data. In contrast, we here describe the development of a carefully curated Reference Chemical Potency List (RCPL) which is based on consideration of the best available human and animal data. The RCPL is comprised of 33 readily available chemicals that span a wide range of chemistry and sensitising potency, and contain examples of both direct and indirect (pre- and pro-) haptens. For each chemical a potency value (PV) was derived, and chemicals ranked according to PV without the use of potency categories. It is proposed that the RCPL provides an effective resource for assessment of the accuracy with which NAMs can measure skin sensitising potency.

Skin Sensitization Testing: The Ascendancy of Non-Animal Methods

A century ago, toxicology was an empirical science identifying substance hazards in surrogate mammalian models. Over several decades, these models improved, evolved to reduce animal usage, and recently have begun the process of dispensing with animals entirely. However, despite good hazard identification, the translation of hazards into adequately assessed risks to human health often has presented challenges. Unfortunately, many skin sensitizers known to produce contact allergy in humans, despite being readily identified as such in the predictive assays, continue to cause this adverse health effect. Increasing the rigour of hazard identification is inappropriate. Regulatory action has only proven effective via complete bans of individual substances. Since the problem applies to a broad range of substances and industry categories, and since generic banning of skin sensitizers would be an economic catastrophe, the solution is surprisingly simple—they should be subject to rigorous safety assessment, with the risks thereby managed accordingly. The ascendancy of non-animal methods in skin sensitization is giving unparalleled opportunities in which toxicologists, risk assessors, and regulators can work in concert to achieve a better outcome for the protection of human health than has been delivered by the in vivo methods and associated regulations that they are replacing.