Sensitizing potential of 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate

Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. 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.

Application of HEMA on intact mouse skin - effects on the immune system

Previously, we have shown that 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA) can bind to protein and that autoantibodies were induced in mice by immunization with a self-protein in vitro conjugated with HEMA. The present study aimed to develop a model for HEMA-induced sensitivity by the application of the substance on intact skin. Female BALB/c mice were painted on the dorsum of each ear with 50% HEMA in vehicle twice a week for 6 weeks. The anti-CD3epsilon-stimulated lymph node production and the spontaneous spleen-cell production of the cytokines interleukin (IL)-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10 and interferon-gamma were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In another experiment, the cytokines were followed after subcutaneous HEMA injections. Animals painted with HEMA had a significantly higher IL-6 production by anti-CD3epsilon-stimulated lymph node cells and significantly suppressed IL-10 production by spleen cells compared to vehicle-treated mice. This correlated to some extent with the spontaneous spleen-cell production induced by subcutaneously administered HEMA. An injection of 20 micromol of HEMA induced an increased production of IL-6, while injection of 40 micromol depressed both IL-6 and IL-10 production. Although there was no sign of inflammation on the ears, findings suggest that HEMA had penetrated the skin and induced a reaction in the immune system.

Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials

Increasing numbers of resin-based dental restorations have been placed over the past decade. During this same period, the public interest in the local and especially systemic adverse effects caused by dental materials has increased significantly. It has been found that each resin-based material releases several components into the oral environment. In particular, the comonomer, triethyleneglycol di-methacrylate (TEGDMA), and the 'hydrophilic' monomer, 2-hydroxy-ethyl-methacrylate (HEMA), are leached out from various composite resins and 'adhesive' materials (e.g., resin-modified glass-ionomer cements [GICs] and dentin adhesives) in considerable amounts during the first 24 hours after polymerization. Numerous unbound resin components may leach into saliva during the initial phase after polymerization, and later, due to degradation or erosion of the resinous restoration. Those substances may be systemically distributed and could potentially cause adverse systemic effects in patients. In addition, absorption of organic substances from unpolymerized material, through unprotected skin, due to manual contact may pose a special risk for dental personnel. This is borne out by the increasing numbers of dental nurses, technicians, and dentists who present with allergic reactions to one or more resin components, like HEMA, glutaraldehyde, ethyleneglycol di-methacrylate (EGDMA), and dibenzoyl peroxide (DPO). However, it must be emphasized that, except for conventional composite resins, data reported on the release of substances from resin-based materials are scarce. There is very little reliable information with respect to the biological interactions between resin components and various tissues. Those interactions may be either protective, like absorption to dentin, or detrimental, e.g., inflammatory reactions of soft tissues. Microbial effects have also been observed which may contribute indirectly to caries and irritation of the pulp. Therefore, it is critical, both for our patients and for the profession, that the biological effects of resin-based filling materials be clarified in the near future.

Allergic contact dermatitis to artificial fingernails prepared from UV light-cured acrylates

BACKGROUND

Contact dermatitis from artificial nails made from self-curing acrylic resins is occasionally reported. Recently, UV light-cured products introducing new acrylics have become available.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to identify relevant allergens in commercial light-curing products by patch tests and to evaluate the efficacy of "hypoallergenic" products by inclusion into the test series.

METHODS

Patients wearing photobonded acrylic nails who had perionychial and subonychial eczema were patch tested with an acrylate battery and "hypoallergenic" commercial products.

RESULTS

Triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, hydroxyfunctional methacrylates, and (meth)-acrylated urethanes proved to be relevant allergens in photobonded nail preparations. Methacrylated epoxy resin sensitization was not observed. All "hypoallergenic" products provoked positive reactions.

CONCLUSION

The omission of irritant methacrylic acid in UV-curable products does not reduce the high sensitizing potential of new acrylates. In contrast to the manufacturers' declarations, all "hypoallergenic" products continue to include acrylate functional monomers and therefore continue to cause allergic sensitization.

Bioavailability of components of resin-based materials which are applied to teeth

Chemical components of many materials used in dental practice can move into the local biophase, where they can have beneficial or adverse effects. The strongest indirect evidence that components of resin-based materials used in dentistry can move into the biophase are the many reports of allergic dermatitis in dental personnel. Direct measurement of component release has shown that triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), and, in the case of some orthodontic cements, bis-glycidyl methacrylate and benzoyl peroxide can move into an aqueous medium from a range of resin-based materials which are applied to teeth as part of oral care. In the case of resin composite restorations, HEMA and TEGDMA are available in microgram quantities via the salivary surface in the minutes and hours after clinical placement and via dentin and pulp in the hours and days after placement. Fortunately, moderate thickness of dentin protects pulp tissue against local toxicity. There are no data which suggest that systemic toxicity is a risk with any of these materials. There are some case reports of allergic responses to the monomers in patients, but the incidence of such responses appears at present to be much lower than that in dental personnel.

Occupational skin diseases in dental laboratory technicians. (I). Clinical picture and causative factors

In Germany, occupational skin disease (OSD) in dental technicians (DT) has been steadily rising in recent years and causing considerable costs for medical care and rehabilitation. Our objective in this study was to: (i) examine affected workers; (ii) perform patch tests to identify causative agents; (iii) develop strategies of prevention. 7 dental laboratories were inspected as to materials used, working habits, safety regulations, etc. A computer data base was developed for products (trade name, active ingredient, additives, etc.). A questionnaire regarding development of OSD was sent out to 1132 dental technicians (45 questions). 55 DT with suspected OSD were examined and patch tested with the standard series, an extensive series of methacrylates, and own materials. Working conditions, and knowledge of potential hazards, varied greatly in the laboratories visited. The safety data sheets of working materials were of little use and required supplementation by the computer data base, which provided rapid access to allergological information (e.g., type of acrylate, concentration). In the questionnaire (173 answers), 36% reported skin lesions attributed to work and 1/3 suspected plastic materials as their primary cause. Among the 55 DT examined, allergic contact dermatitis was diagnosed in 63.6% and irritant contact dermatitis in 23.6%. Most of the allergens identified (74%) were found in plastic materials (methyl methacrylate (MMA), 9 patients (16%); 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA), 18 patients (33%); ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), 15 patients (27%)). In 16 patients, multiple sensitizations to various methacrylates were found. The fingertips were primarily involved in allergic contact dermatitis (93%), whereas in irritant contact dermatitis, the dorsa of the fingers (especially of the dominant hand) were affected (80%). 9 patients also showed lesions on the face, neck and forearms. The main irritant factors included wet work, contact with plaster, mechanical friction and thermal changes. Based on experience with DT, various preventive measures have been tried and found to be effective (reduction of skin contact, 4H Gloves, etc.). In conclusion, better knowledge of OSD in dental laboratories (in physicians, DT and their employers) would lead to a reduced rate of new cases.

A new protocol and criteria for quantitative determination of sensitization potencies of chemicals by guinea pig maximization test

This paper presents precise sensitization test data of 15 chemicals with a wide spectrum of sensitization potencies, and proposes a new protocol and criteria for quantitative evaluation of sensitization potencies of chemicals. The tests were performed according to the design of Magnusson and Kligman, changing the application concentrations for induction as well as for challenge phases. 3-dimensional relationships between mean response (or sensitization rate), induction and challenge concentrations were found in all chemicals tested. The following 2 values are proposed as a quantitative measure of sensitization potency: (a) the minimum induction concentration that induces a positive response; (b) the challenge concentration that induces a mean response approximately equal to 1.0 among the animals applied with the highest concentration for induction. Both values coincided with each other within the range of 1 order of magnitude in every compound except 2. The values varied by 5 orders or more of magnitude among the compounds, showing a wide variation of sensitization potencies among chemicals. A good correlation was found for every chemical between the value of sensitization potency thus obtained and the residual levels in causative products in human cases of allergic contact dermatitis. A new experimental protocol for obtaining values (a) and (b) is proposed.

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.

Studies of new short-period method for delayed contact hypersensitivity assay in the guinea pig. (2). Studies of the enhancement effect of cyclophosphamide

The enhancement effect of cyclophosphamide on the delayed contact hypersensitivity reaction of chemical compounds was studied in Hartley albino guinea pigs. A series of assay procedures, combining the AP2 test (adjuvant and 24-h occlusive patch 2x test, as previously reported) with intraperitoneal cyclophosphamide administration, were examined. The newly developed method was as follows; cyclophosphamide 200 mg/kg intraperitoneal administration 3 days before the 1st sensitization of the AP2 test (cyclophosphamide, adjuvant and 24-h occlusive patch 2x test: CAP2 test). Comparing the CAP2 test with the AP2 test, the cumulative contact enhancement test (CCET) and the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT), the CAP2 test equally and/or better enabled the detection of allergenicities not only of strong allergens such as bromostyrol, citronellal, p-phenylenediamine and formaldehyde, but also of weak allergens such as benzyl salicylate and p-aminobenzoic acid ethyl ester. Acanthosis and spongiosis in the epidermis and mononuclear cell infiltration into the dermis at the skin reaction site were histopathologically observed. Cyclophosphamide effectively enhanced the delayed contact hypersensitivity reaction of weak allergens.

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.