The development of non-animal alternatives for skin sensitization potency prediction is dependent upon the availability of a sufficient dataset whose human potency is well characterized. Previously, establishment of basic categorization criteria for 6 defined potency categories, allowed 131 substances to be allocated into them entirely on the basis of human information.
Objectives
To supplement the original dataset with an extended range of fragrance substances.
Methods
A more fully described version of the original criteria was used to assess 89 fragrance chemicals, allowing their allocation into one of the 6 potency categories.
Results
None of the fragrance substances were assigned to the most potent group, category 1, whereas 11 were category 2, 22 were category 3, 37 were category 4, and 19 were category 5. Although none were identified as non-sensitizing, note that substances in category 5 also do not pass the threshold for regulatory classification.
Conclusions
The combined datasets of >200 substances placed into potency categories solely on the basis of human data provides an essential resource for the elaboration and evaluation of predictive non-animal methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallantyneB, MyersT, SyversenT. General and Applied Toxicology. 3rd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2009.
2.
ThyssenJP, Giménez-ArnauE, LepoittevinJP, et al.The critical review of methodologies and approaches to assess the inherent skin sensitization potential (skin allergies) of chemicals. Parts I and II. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 66(Suppl 1):11–24.
3.
KimberI, BasketterDA. Contact sensitization: a new approach to risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess, 1997; 3:385–395.
4.
BasketterDA, LeaLJ, CooperK, et al.A comparison of statistical approaches to the derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol, 1999; 19:261–266.
5.
BasketterDA, GerberickF, KimberI. The local lymph node assay EC3 value: status of validation. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 57:70–75.
6.
GerberickGF, RobinsonMK, FelterS, et al.Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure-based risk assessment approach. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 45:333–340.
7.
ApiAM, BasketterDA, CadbyPA, et al.Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008; 52:3–23.
BasketterDA, AlépéeN, AshikagaT, et al.Categorization of chemicals according to their relative human skin sensitizing potency. Dermatitis, 2014; 25:11–21.
12.
ApiAM, BasketterD, LalkoJ. Correlation between experimental human and murine skin sensitization induction thresholds. Cut Ocul Toxicol, 2015; 34:298–302.
13.
PolitanoVT, ApiAM. The research institute for fragrance materials' human repeated insult patch test protocol. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008; 52:35–38.
14.
KligmanAM. The identification of contact allergens by human assay: III. The Maximization Test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. 1966. J Invest Dermatol, 1989; 92:151S.
15.
De GrootAC. Patch Testing. 3rd ed. Wapserveen, the Netherlands: Acdegroot Publishing; 2008.
NardelliA, CarbonezA, DriegheJ, et al.Results of patch testing with fragrance mix 1, fragrance mix 2, and their ingredients, and Myroxylon pereirae and colophonium, over a 21-year period. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68:307–313.
18.
FroschPJ, JohansenJD, MennéT, et al.Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances: II. Reactivity to essential oils. Contact Dermatitis, 2002; 47:279–287.
19.
NishimuraM, IshiharaM, ItohM, et al.Results of patch tests conducted on cosmetic ingredients between 1979 and 1982. Skin Research, 1984; 26:945–954.
20.
VilaplanaJ, RomagueraC. Allergic contact dermatitis due to eucalyptol in an anti-inflammatory cream. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 43:118.
21.
WarshawEM, MaibachHI, TaylorJS, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2011–2012. Dermatitis, 2015; 26:49–59.
22.
de GrootAC, SchmidtE. Essential oils, part VI: sandalwood oil, ylang-ylang oil, and jasmine absolute. Dermatitis, 2017; 28:14–21.
23.
EnglishJS, RycroftRJ. Allergic contact dermatitis from methyl heptine and methyl octine carbonates. Contact Dermatitis, 1988; 18:174–175.
24.
RycroftRJ. Allergic contact dermatitis from dipentene in honing oil. Contact Dermatitis, 1980; 6:325–329.
25.
BothamPA, BasketterDA, MaurerT, et al.Skin sensitization—a critical review of predictive test methods in animals and man. Food Chem Toxicol, 1991; 29:275–286.
26.
GerberickGF, RyanCA, KimberI, et al.Local lymph node assay: validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 11:3–18.
27.
BasketterD, AshikagaT, CasatiS, et al.Alternatives for Skin sensitisation testing and assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015; 73:660–666.
28.
UrbischD, MehlingA, GuthK, et al.Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015; 71:337–351.
29.
van der VeenJW, RorijeE, EmterR, et al.Evaluating the performance of integrated approaches for hazard identification of skin sensitizing chemicals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2014; 69:371–379.
30.
AdlerS, BasketterDA, CretonS, et al.Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects—2010. Arch Toxicol, 2011; 85:367–485.
31.
LeistM, HasiwaN, RovidaC, et al.Consensus report on the future of animal-free systemic toxicity testing. ALTEX, 2014; 31:341–356.
32.
SchneiderK, AkkanZ. Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2004; 39:245–255.
33.
BasketterDA, ClappC, JefferiesD, et al.Predictive identification of human skin sensitization thresholds. Contact Dermatitis, 2005; 53:260–267.
34.
BasketterDA, McFaddenJP. Cutaneous allergies. In: Dietert RR, Luebke RW. eds. Immunotoxicity, Immune Dysfunction and Chronic Disease. New York, NY: Humana Press; 2012:103–126.
