Skin Sensitization Risk Research Articles

Probing skin photoallergens in reconstructed human epidermis: An EPR spin trapping investigation.

Photoallergic contact dermatitis is a skin disease caused by combined exposure to photoreactive chemicals and sunlight. Exposure to allergens and the risk of skin sensitization is an essential regulatory issue within the industry. Yet, only few non-validated assays for photoallergy assessment exist as the pathogenesis is not fully deciphered. Improving such assays and/or developing new ones require an understanding of the chemical mechanisms involved. The first key event in the photosensitization process, namely chemical binding of the photoallergen to endogenous proteins, is thought to proceed via photo-mediated radicals arising from the photoallergen. Moreover, the mechanism of action of these radicals if formed in the epidermis is not known and far from being unraveled. We present here an original proof-of-concept methodology to probe radical generation from allergens in contact with photoexposed skin, using electron paramagnetic resonance and spin trapping in a reconstructed human epidermis model mimicking real-life exposure scenarios.

Deriving a Continuous Point of Departure for Skin Sensitization Risk Assessment Using a Bayesian Network Model.

Regulations of cosmetic ingredients and products have been the most advanced in embracing new approach methodologies (NAMs). Consequently, the cosmetic industry has assumed a forerunner role in the development and implementation of animal-free next-generation risk assessment (NGRA) that incorporates defined approaches (DAs) to assess the skin sensitization potency of ingredients. A Bayesian network DA predicting four potency categories (SkinSens-BN) was constructed against reference Local Lymph Node Assay data for a total of 297 substances, achieving a predictive performance similar to that of other DAs. With the aim of optimally informing risk assessment with a continuous point of departure (PoD), a weighted sum of the SkinSens-BN probabilities for four potency classes (non-, weak, moderate, and strong/extreme sensitizer) was calculated, using fixed weights based on associated LLNA EC3-values. The approach was promising, e.g., the derived PoDs for substances classified as non-sensitizers did not overlap with any others and 77% of PoDs were similar or more conservative than LLNA EC3. In addition, the predictions were assigned a level of confidence based on the probabilities to inform the evaluation of uncertainty in an NGRA context. In conclusion, the PoD derivation approach can substantially contribute to reliable skin sensitization NGRAs.

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.

A botanical reference set illustrating a weight of evidence approach for skin sensitization risk assessment

Recent years have seen an increase in the use of botanicals and natural substances (BNS) in consumer products such as cosmetics and household care products. Most work conducted to date to assess botanicals for human safety has focused their use as dietary supplements and thus on systemic toxicity. However, the induction of skin sensitization is a possible adverse effect of natural products in particular those that come into skin contact, especially for cosmetics that remain on the skin and are not rinsed off following use. Assessments of BNS ingredients are often challenging for a number of reasons: the BNS are complex mixtures that can be of mostly unknown composition; the composition can be highly variable even within the same plant species and dependent on how processed; the physical form of the BNS raw material can vary from a highly concentrated powdered extract to a liquid extract containing only a small percentage of the BNS; testing of the BNS raw materials in New Approach Methods (NAM) has uncertainty as these methods are often not developed or validated for complex mixtures. In this study, a reference set of 14 selected BNS which span the range of skin sensitization potential was complied. These data were used in a Weight of Evidence (WoE) approach to evaluate their skin sensitization potential with each of the data rich BNS being classified as either having strong evidence of inducing skin sensitization based on human topical use history, animal data, clinical data, composition data and NAM data, or having some but more limited (weak) evidence of inducing skin sensitization, or having strong evidence of no skin sensitization potential. When available data have sufficient potency related information, sensitization potency assessment is also provided based on WoE, classifying these BNS as either strong, moderate, or weak sensitizers, or non-sensitizers. An outline for a BNS skin sensitization risk assessment framework is proposed starting with exposure-based waiving and WoE assessment for higher exposures. In addition to demonstrating the application of the WoE approach, the reference set presented here provides a set of ‘data rich’ botanicals which cover a range of sensitization potencies that could be used for evaluating existing test methods or aid in the development of new predictive models for skin sensitization.

Retrospective quantitative risk assessment of skin sensitization caused by an antimicrobial agent used in a consumer product: 2,3,5,6-Tetrachloro-4-(methylsulfonyl) pyridine.

Serious cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by exposure to 3,5,6-tetrachloro-4-(methylsulfonyl)pyridine (TCMSP; CAS no. 13108-52-6) used as an antimicrobial agent for desk mats have been reported in Japan. A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of TCMSP contained in desk mats was performed retrospectively. A local lymph node assay (LLNA): BrdU-ELISA was conducted to determine a reliable EC1.6 value for TCMSP. The acceptable exposure level (AEL) for TCMSP was derived from the EC1.6 value by applying sensitization assessment factors (SAFs). The exposure level was estimated based on the assumption referring to the use conditions of thiabendazole in the same purpose. Then, the estimated exposure level was compared with the AEL to evaluate the skin sensitization risk. The AEL was calculated as 0.00458 μg/cm2 based on the EC1.6 value (0.011%, 2.75 μg/cm2 ) by applying a composite SAF of 600. The estimated TCMSP exposure level from the desk mat was 500 times greater than the AEL, indicating a serious skin sensitization risk. Assessments of skin sensitization potencies of chemicals to be used in consumer products are strongly recommended, and QRAs should be performed at the pre-marketing stage to avoid the skin sensitization risk in consumers.

Comparison of the acceptable surface limits derived from the skin sensitization potency for workers and swab residue limits determined from the permitted daily exposure derived from the systemic effects.

Allergic contact dermatitis is a common occupational and environmental health problem and setting of health-based exposure limits (HBELs) to prevent induction of skin sensitization is strongly desired. When manufacturing pharmaceuticals in a shared facility, cleaning validation using surface residue levels (SRLs) derived from permitted daily exposures (PDEs) is conducted to avoid cross-contamination from the perspective of protecting patients; however, it is unclear whether the SRLs are sufficient to prevent induction of skin sensitization for workers as well. In this study, we compared acceptable surface limits (ASLs) derived from acceptable exposure levels (AELs) based on EC1.6 obtained from local lymph node assay (LLNA): BrdU-ELISA for occupational risk management of skin sensitizers with PDE-based SRLs. ASLs for 1,4-phenylenediamine (GHS skin sensitization sub-category 1A), isoeugenol (sub-category 1A), and methyl methacrylate (sub-category 1B) were compared with SRLs based on the PDEs derived from their systemic effects. The results yielded an SRL for 1,4-phenylenediamine (PDE: 0.8 mg/day) of 30 mg/100 cm2, almost 1,000 times higher than ASL (0.031 mg/100 cm2) derived from its skin sensitization potency. SRL for isoeugenol (PDE: 3.1 mg/day) was 130 mg/100 cm2, over 500 times higher than ASL (0.18 mg/100 cm2). For methyl methacrylate (PDE: 5 mg/day) as well, SRL (200 mg/100 cm2) was higher, but it was within 20 times the ASL (10 mg/100 cm2). These results showed that ASL-based risk management is extremely important especially for strong sensitizers classified as GHS sub-category 1A for occupational skin sensitization risk management.

Prevalence of skin sensitization and dermatitis among epoxy-exposed workers in the wind turbine industry.

A high prevalence of skin sensitization and dermatitis has been reported among workers exposed to epoxy components. To estimate the risk of skin sensitization and dermatitis among workers exposed to epoxy components during production of wind turbine blades while using comprehensive safety measures. A cross-sectional study of 180 highly epoxy-exposed production workers and 41 nonexposed office workers was conducted at two wind turbine blade factories in Denmark. Participants underwent a skin examination, were tested with a tailored patch test panel including epoxy-containing products used at the factories, and answered a questionnaire. Sixteen production workers (8·9%) were sensitized to an epoxy component compared with none of the office workers. Skin sensitization was more frequent within the first year of exposed employment. Strong selection bias by atopic status was indicated. Among nonatopic workers, the prevalence of dermatitis was higher among production workers (16·4%) than among office workers [6·5%, odds ratio (OR) 2·3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·6-9·1] and higher among the sensitized workers (43·8%) than the nonsensitized workers (14·6%, OR 4·5, 95% CI 1·6-12·7). Resins based on diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A and F were the most frequent sensitizers. One of the four workers sensitized to epoxy components used at the factories did not react to the epoxy resin of the TRUE test® panel. Despite comprehensive skin protection, sensitization and dermatitis are prevalent among highly epoxy-exposed workers in the wind turbine industry in Denmark. Our findings document the need for intensified preventive efforts and emphasize the importance of tailored patch testing. What is already known about this topic? Epoxy components are well-known sensitizers of the skin. A high prevalence of skin sensitization and dermatitis has been reported among workers exposed to epoxy components. Comprehensive protective equipment is recommended when working with epoxy components. What does this study add? Despite comprehensive skin protection, skin sensitization and dermatitis are prevalent among epoxy-exposed workers. We found that 40% of workers sensitized to epoxy products had dermatitis. Only 75% of the sensitized workers were detected by the epoxy resin of the TRUE test® , which emphasizes the importance of tailored testing.

Updating the Dermal Sensitisation Thresholds using an expanded dataset and an in silico expert system

The Dermal Sensitisation Thresholds (DST) are Thresholds of Toxicological Concern, which can be used to justify exposure-based waiving when conducting a skin sensitisation risk assessment. This study aimed to update the published DST values by expanding the size of the Local Lymph Node Assay dataset upon which they are based, whilst assigning chemical reactivity using an in silico expert system (Derek Nexus). The potency values within the expanded dataset fitted a similar gamma distribution to that observed for the original dataset. Derek Nexus was used to classify the sensitisation activity of the 1152 chemicals in the expanded dataset and to predict which chemicals belonged to a High Potency Category (HPC). This two-step classification led to three updated thresholds: a non-reactive DST of 710 μg/cm2 (based on 79 sensitisers), a reactive (non-HPC) DST of 73 μg/cm2 (based on 331 sensitisers) and an HPC DST of 1.0 μg/cm2 (based on 146 sensitisers). Despite the dataset containing twice as many sensitisers, these values are similar to the previously published thresholds, highlighting their robustness and increasing confidence in their use. By classifying reactivity in silico the updated DSTs can be applied within a skin sensitisation risk assessment in a reproducible, scalable and accessible manner.

Integrated skin sensitization assessment based on OECD methods (II): Hazard and potency by combining kinetic peptide reactivity and the “2 out of 3” Defined Approach_suppl1

Depending on regulatory requirements, the skin sensitization risk for new chemicals with potential consumer skin contact must be assessed by experimental testing by (i) binary hazard assessment to identify sensitizers, (ii) subclassification of sensitizers according to the Global Harmonized System (GHS), and (iii) derivation of a point of departure (PoD) for risk assessment. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently published a test guideline incorporating the “2 out of 3” defined approach (2o3 DA) for skin sensitization hazard assessment and added the kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) as a stand-alone test guideline method for GHS subclassification. The 2o3 DA requires that at least two in vitro tests are conducted. The cell-based tests and the kDPRA generate, next to a binary outcome with a fixed threshold, continuous concentration-response data, which can be used in quantitative regression models to derive a PoD. The sequence of testing for the 2o3 DA is flexible. Here we compare different testing sequences and how they can be combined with kDPRA data to provide a PoD in parallel to hazard identification (hazard ID) and GHS subclassification. A set of 188 chemicals with available in vitro data was evaluated for the final PoD using these different testing sequences. The results indicate that testing can start with DPRA / kDPRA and either of the cell-based assays, and that testing can stop after two congruent tests without major impact on the final PoD for chemicals within the applicability domain of the kDPRA.

Integrated skin sensitization assessment based on OECD methods (II): Hazard and potency by combining kinetic peptide reactivity and the “2 out of 3” Defined Approach_suppl4

Depending on regulatory requirements, the skin sensitization risk for new chemicals with potential consumer skin contact must be assessed by experimental testing by (i) binary hazard assessment to identify sensitizers, (ii) subclassification of sensitizers according to the Global Harmonized System (GHS), and (iii) derivation of a point of departure (PoD) for risk assessment. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently published a test guideline incorporating the “2 out of 3” defined approach (2o3 DA) for skin sensitization hazard assessment and added the kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) as a stand-alone test guideline method for GHS subclassification. The 2o3 DA requires that at least two in vitro tests are conducted. The cell-based tests and the kDPRA generate, next to a binary outcome with a fixed threshold, continuous concentration-response data, which can be used in quantitative regression models to derive a PoD. The sequence of testing for the 2o3 DA is flexible. Here we compare different testing sequences and how they can be combined with kDPRA data to provide a PoD in parallel to hazard identification (hazard ID) and GHS subclassification. A set of 188 chemicals with available in vitro data was evaluated for the final PoD using these different testing sequences. The results indicate that testing can start with DPRA / kDPRA and either of the cell-based assays, and that testing can stop after two congruent tests without major impact on the final PoD for chemicals within the applicability domain of the kDPRA.

Integrated skin sensitization assessment based on OECD methods (II): Hazard and potency by combining kinetic peptide reactivity and the "2 out of 3" Defined Approach.

Depending on regulatory requirements, the skin sensitization risk for new chemicals with potential consumer skin contact must be assessed by experimental testing by (i) binary hazard assessment to identify sensitizers, (ii) subclassification of sensitizers according to the Global Harmonized System (GHS), and (iii) derivation of a point of departure (PoD) for risk assessment. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently published a test guideline incorporating the “2 out of 3” defined approach (2o3 DA) for skin sensitization hazard assessment and added the kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) as a stand-alone test guideline method for GHS subclassification. The 2o3 DA requires that at least two in vitro tests are conducted. The cell-based tests and the kDPRA generate, next to a binary outcome with a fixed threshold, continuous concentration-response data, which can be used in quantitative regression models to derive a PoD. The sequence of testing for the 2o3 DA is flexible. Here we compare different testing sequences and how they can be combined with kDPRA data to provide a PoD in parallel to hazard identification (hazard ID) and GHS subclassification. A set of 188 chemicals with available in vitro data was evaluated for the final PoD using these dif-ferent testing sequences. The results indicate that testing can start with DPRA / kDPRA and either of the cell-based assays, and that testing can stop after two congruent tests without major impact on the final PoD for chemicals within the applica-bility domain of the kDPRA.

Integrated skin sensitization assessment based on OECD methods (II): Hazard and potency by combining kinetic peptide reactivity and the “2 out of 3” Defined Approach_suppl2

Depending on regulatory requirements, the skin sensitization risk for new chemicals with potential consumer skin contact must be assessed by experimental testing by (i) binary hazard assessment to identify sensitizers, (ii) subclassification of sensitizers according to the Global Harmonized System (GHS), and (iii) derivation of a point of departure (PoD) for risk assessment. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently published a test guideline incorporating the “2 out of 3” defined approach (2o3 DA) for skin sensitization hazard assessment and added the kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) as a stand-alone test guideline method for GHS subclassification. The 2o3 DA requires that at least two in vitro tests are conducted. The cell-based tests and the kDPRA generate, next to a binary outcome with a fixed threshold, continuous concentration-response data, which can be used in quantitative regression models to derive a PoD. The sequence of testing for the 2o3 DA is flexible. Here we compare different testing sequences and how they can be combined with kDPRA data to provide a PoD in parallel to hazard identification (hazard ID) and GHS subclassification. A set of 188 chemicals with available in vitro data was evaluated for the final PoD using these different testing sequences. The results indicate that testing can start with DPRA / kDPRA and either of the cell-based assays, and that testing can stop after two congruent tests without major impact on the final PoD for chemicals within the applicability domain of the kDPRA.

Integrated skin sensitization assessment based on OECD methods (II): Hazard and potency by combining kinetic peptide reactivity and the “2 out of 3” Defined Approach_suppl3

Depending on regulatory requirements, the skin sensitization risk for new chemicals with potential consumer skin contact must be assessed by experimental testing by (i) binary hazard assessment to identify sensitizers, (ii) subclassification of sensitizers according to the Global Harmonized System (GHS), and (iii) derivation of a point of departure (PoD) for risk assessment. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently published a test guideline incorporating the “2 out of 3” defined approach (2o3 DA) for skin sensitization hazard assessment and added the kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) as a stand-alone test guideline method for GHS subclassification. The 2o3 DA requires that at least two in vitro tests are conducted. The cell-based tests and the kDPRA generate, next to a binary outcome with a fixed threshold, continuous concentration-response data, which can be used in quantitative regression models to derive a PoD. The sequence of testing for the 2o3 DA is flexible. Here we compare different testing sequences and how they can be combined with kDPRA data to provide a PoD in parallel to hazard identification (hazard ID) and GHS subclassification. A set of 188 chemicals with available in vitro data was evaluated for the final PoD using these different testing sequences. The results indicate that testing can start with DPRA / kDPRA and either of the cell-based assays, and that testing can stop after two congruent tests without major impact on the final PoD for chemicals within the applicability domain of the kDPRA.

27027 Mitigation of damage induced by environmental pollution by feverfew extract

Consumers are constantly looking for more from their sun care products, thus a sun protection platform was created to provide invisible protection and expand the definition of protection beyond sun to total defense from the environment. One interacts with a plethora of different environmental aggressors daily, namely: 1) UV radiation, 2) atmospheric pollutants, 3) cigarette combustion products, 4) indoor heating and cooling (decrease humidity and can lead to drier skin), and 5) environmental ozone (a powerful oxidant). The products in this sun protection platform were created with an antioxidant complex comprised of feverfew extract and vitamin E to help protect skin from these environmental aggressors. Testing was performed by quantifying the barrier function of the skin through transepithelial electric resistance (TEER) testing in a human epidermal skin-equivalent model. The feverfew extract in this platform is a patented parthenolide-free extract (PFE), which enables feverfew to be used in topical skincare without risk of skin sensitization. The external aggressors of heat, cold, ozone, cigarette smoke, and UV radiation were shown to disrupt the barrier function of the skin equivalents. Skin equivalents treated with feverfew extract were shown to have significantly better barrier function (P < .01) and inhibition of IL-1α than untreated skin equivalents (P < .05). By mitigating these markers of inflammation and mitigating disruption of the skin barrier function, feverfew was shown to help reinforce the natural defenses of the skin against the cumulative damage caused by environmental aggressors.

Validation of Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) and Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) approaches as alternatives to skin sensitization risk assessment

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was conducted to validate the physicochemical properties of a total of 362 chemicals [305 skin sensitizers (212 in the previous study + 93 additional new chemicals), 57 non-skin sensitizers (38 in the previous study + 19 additional new chemicals)] for skin sensitization risk assessment using quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR)/quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) approaches. The average melting point (MP), surface tension (ST), and density (DS) of the 305 skin sensitizers and 57 non-sensitizers were used to determine the cutoff values distinguishing positive and negative sensitization, and correlation coefficients were employed to derive effective 3-fold concentration (EC3 (%)) values. QSAR models were also utilized to assess skin sensitization. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 80, 15, and 70%, respectively, for the Toxtree QSAR model; 88, 46, and 81%, respectively, for Vega; and 56, 61, and 56%, respectively, for Danish EPA QSAR. Surprisingly, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 60, 80, and 64%, respectively, when MP, ST, and DS (MP+ST+DS) were used in this study. Further, MP+ST+DS exhibited a sensitivity of 77%, specificity 57%, and accuracy 73% when the derived EC3 values were classified into local lymph node assay (LLNA) skin sensitizer and non-sensitizer categories. Thus, MP, ST, and DS may prove useful in predicting EC3 values as not only an alternative approach to animal testing but also for skin sensitization risk assessment.

Read-across can increase confidence in the Next Generation Risk Assessment for skin sensitisation: A case study with resorcinol

Historically skin sensitisation risk assessment for cosmetic ingredients was based on animal models, however regulatory demands have led to Next Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA), using data from New Approach Methodologies (NAM) and Defined Approaches (DA). This case study was meant to investigate if the use of resorcinol at 0.2% in a face cream was safe and a maximum use concentration could be defined. The NAM data and DA predictions could not provide sufficient confidence to determine a point of departure (POD). Therefore, the application of read-across was explored to increase the level of confidence. Analogue searches in various tools and databases using “mode of action” and “chemical structural features” retrieved 535 analogues. After refinement by excluding analogues without a defined structure, similar reactivity profile and skin sensitisation data, 39 analogues remained. A final selection was made based on three approaches: expert judgment, chemical similarity or Local Lymph Node Assay data (LLNA). All read-across approaches supported a moderate potency. A POD derived from the LLNA EC3 of 3.6% was determined leading to a favourable NGRA conclusion and a maximum use concentration of 0.36%. This was supported by a traditional risk assessment based on the available animal data for resorcinol.

Application of the dermal sensitization threshold concept to chemicals classified as high potency category for skin sensitization assessment of ingredients for consumer products

Skin sensitization evaluation is a key part of the safety assessment of ingredients in consumer products, which may have skin sensitizing potential. The dermal sensitization threshold (DST) concept, which is based on the concept of the thresholds of toxicological concern, has been proposed for the risk assessment of chemicals to which skin exposure is very low level. There is negligible risk of skin sensitization if a skin exposure level for the substance of interest was below the reactive DST which would protect against 95% of protein-reactive chemicals. For the remaining 5%, the substance with the defined knowledge of chemical structure (i.e., High Potency Category (HPC) rules) needs to be excluded from the application. However, the DST value for HPC chemicals has not yet been proposed. In this study, we calculated the 95th percentile probabilities estimate from distributions of skin sensitization potency data and derived a novel DST for HPC chemicals (HPC DST) of 1.5 μg/cm2. This value presents a useful default approach for unidentified substances in ingredients considering, as a worst-case scenario, that the unidentified compound may be a potent skin sensitizer. Finally, we developed a novel risk assessment workflow incorporating the HPC DST along with the previously published DSTs.

Development of a next generation risk assessment framework for the evaluation of skin sensitisation of cosmetic ingredients

All cosmetic products placed onto the market must undergo a risk assessment for human health to ensure they are safe for consumers, including an assessment of skin sensitisation risk. Historically, in vivo animal test methods were used to identify and characterise skin sensitisation hazard, however non-animal and other new approach methodologies (NAMs) are now the preferred and mandated choice for use in risk assessment for cosmetic ingredients. The experience gained over the last three decades on how to conduct risk assessments based upon NAMs has allowed us to develop a non-animal, next generation risk assessment (NGRA) framework for the assessment of skin sensitisers. The framework presented here is based upon the principles published by the International Cooperation on Cosmetic Regulation (ICCR) and is human relevant, exposure led, hypothesis driven and designed to prevent harm. It is structured in three tiers and integrates all relevant information using a weight of evidence (WoE) approach that can be iterated when new information becomes available. The initial tier (TIER 0) involves a thorough review of the existing information including; identification of the use scenario/consumer exposure; characterisation of the chemical purity and structure; in silico predictions; existing data pertaining to skin sensitisation hazard (historical or non-animal); the identification of suitable read-across candidates with supporting hazard identification/characterisation information and application of exposure-based waiving. Considering all information identified in TIER 0, the next step is the generation of a hypothesis (TIER 1). All data are considered in an exposure-led WoE approach, taking into account an initial view on whether a chemical is likely to be a skin sensitiser or not, choice of defined approach (DA) and availability of read-across candidates. If existing information is insufficient for concluding the risk assessment, the generation of additional information may be required to proceed (TIER 2). Such targeted testing could involve refinement of the exposure estimation or generation of data from in vitro or in chemico NAMs. Once sufficient information is available, the final stage of the NGRA framework is the determination of a point of departure (POD), characterising uncertainty and comparing to the consumer exposure in a WoE. Thorough evaluation of the sources of uncertainty is essential to ensure transparency and build trust in new risk assessment approaches. Although significant progress has been made, industry must continue to share its experience in skin sensitisation NGRA via case studies to demonstrate that this new risk assessment approach is protective for consumers. Dialogue and collaboration between key stakeholders, i.e. risk assessors, clinicians and regulators are important to gain mutual understanding and grow confidence in new approaches.

Adjustment of a no expected sensitization induction level derived from Bayesian network integrated testing strategy for skin sensitization risk assessment.

Skin sensitization is a key adverse effect to be addressed during hazard identification and risk assessment of chemicals, because it is the first step in the development of allergic contact dermatitis. Multiple non-animal testing strategies incorporating in vitro tests and in silico tools have achieved good predictivities when compared with murine local lymph node assay (LLNA). The binary test battery of KeratinoSensTM and h-CLAT could be used to classify non-sensitizers as the first part of bottom-up approach. However, the quantitative risk assessment for sensitizing chemicals requires a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL), the dose not expected to induce skin sensitization in humans. We used Bayesian network integrated testing strategy (BN ITS-3) for chemical potency classification. BN ITS-3 predictions were performed without a pre-processing step (selecting data from their physic-chemical applicability domains) or post-processing step (Michael acceptor chemistry correction), neither of which necessarily improve prediction accuracy. For chemicals within newly defined applicability domain, all under-predictions fell within one potency class when compared with LLNA results, indicating no chemicals that were incorrectly classified by more than one class. Considering the potential under-prediction by one class, a worst case value to each class from BN ITS-3 was used to derive a NESIL. When in vivo and human data from suitable analogs cannot be used to estimate the uncertainty, adjusting the NESIL derived from BN ITS-3 may help perform skin sensitization risk assessment. The overall workflow for risk assessment was demonstrated by incorporating the binary test battery of KeratinoSensTM and h-CLAT.

Toxicological risk assessment using the example of potential contact sensitization to resorcinol

Resorcinol is afrequently used hair dye, whose quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for hair color products is presented in this review as an example to assess its skin sensitization risk after topical application. Its purpose is to determine the maximum concentration that can be used without expecting skin sensitization to occur. The focus is to prevent the de novo development of a contact allergy. Epidemiological data which are provided via dermatological surveillance, e.g., by the IVDK (Information Network of Departments of Dermatology) in Germany, are an important source of information that help to assess the quality and the effectivity of the QRA.