Cross-reaction patterns in guinea pigs sensitized to acrylic monomers

UV-curable gels as topical nail medicines:In vivo residence, anti-fungal efficacy and influence of gel components on their properties

UV-curable gels, used as nail cosmetics for their in vivo durability, were reported to be promising as topical nail medicines. Our first aim was thus to investigate whether such durability applies to drug-loaded formulations. This was found to be true. However, ethanol inclusion in the pharmaceutical formulation (to enable drug loading) reduced the in vivo residence. The second aim was therefore to determine any other effects of ethanol, and if ethanol could be avoided by the choice of monomers. Thus, three methacrylate monomers, ethyl methacrylate, isobornyl methacrylate and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) were selected, and their influence on the formulation properties were determined. Ethanol and the methacrylate monomer influenced some (but not all) of the formulation properties. The most significant was that HEMA could dissolve drug and enable the preparation of ethanol-free, drug-loaded formulations, which would benefit in vivo residence. The absence of ethanol reduced drug loading, release and ungual flux, but had no negative impact on the in vitro anti-fungal efficacy. Thus, judicious selection of gel components enabled the exclusion of ethanol. The long in vivo residence, little residual monomers, sufficient ungual permeation and in vitro anti-fungal activity of the gels indicates their potential as anti-onychomycotic topical medicines.

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.

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.

Glycidyloxy compounds used in epoxy resin systems: a toxicology review

The glycidyloxy compounds constitute an important group of chemicals used extensively in the formulation of epoxy resin systems employed in coatings, electronics, structural composites, and adhesives. Although extensive toxicological data are available on glycidyloxy compounds, use and understanding of the data have been hampered by two major problems: (1) proper identification and complexity of the epoxy systems in question, and (2) absence of meaningful classification of epoxy materials. This paper provides a classification scheme with CAS numbers and reviews the mammalian toxicology of the most common glycidyloxy derivatives used in epoxy resin systems based on both published and proprietary information. Although the toxicity of many of the glycidyloxy compounds used in epoxy resin systems can be characterized as low, the diversity of compounds found within this group precludes broad generalizations for the class. This comprehensive account should facilitate a clearer understanding of the potential health effects and allow for easier comparison among compounds containing the glycidyloxy moiety.

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.

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.