Reliable human potency data are necessary for conducting quantitative risk assessments, as well as development and validation of new nonanimal methods for skin sensitization assessments. Previously, human skin sensitization potency of fragrance materials was derived primarily from human data or the local lymph node assay.
Objectives
This study aimed to define skin sensitization potency of fragrance materials via weight of evidence approach, incorporating all available human, animal, in vitro, in chemico, and in silico data.
Methods
All available data on 106 fragrance materials were considered to assign each material into 1 of the 6 defined potency categories (extreme, strong, moderate, weak, very weak, and nonsensitizer).
Results
None of the 106 materials were considered an extreme sensitizer, whereas a total of 6, 23, 41, and 26 materials were categorized as strong, moderate, weak, and very weak sensitizers, respectively. Ten materials lacked evidence for the induction of skin sensitization.
Conclusions
Skin sensitization potency categorization of the 106 fragrance materials based on the described weight of evidence approach can serve as a useful resource in evaluation of nonanimal methods, as well as in risk assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ApiAM, ParakhiaR, O'BrienD, et al.Fragrances categorized according to relative human skin sensitization potency. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(5):299–307.
2.
GerberickGF, RyanCA, KernPS, et al.A chemical dataset for evaluation of alternative approaches to skin-sensitization testing. Contact Dermatitis, 2004; 50(5):274–288.
3.
KernPS, GerberickGF, RyanCA, et al.Local lymph node data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives: a second compilation. Dermatitis, 2010; 21(1):8–32.
4.
FriedmannPS. The relationships between exposure dose and response in induction and elicitation of contact hypersensitivity in humans. Br J Dermatol, 2007; 157(6):1093–1102.
5.
KimberI, DearmanRJ, BasketterDA, et al.Dose metrics in the acquisition of skin sensitization: thresholds and importance of dose per unit area. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008; 52(1):39–45.
6.
BasketterDA, AlepeeN, AshikagaT, et al.Categorization of chemicals according to their relative human skin sensitizing potency. Dermatitis. 2014; 25(1):11–21.
7.
BasketterDA, LeaLJ, DickensA, 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(4):261–266.
8.
BasketterDA, GerberickF, KimberI. The local lymph node assay and the assessment of relative potency: status of validation. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 57(2):70–75.
9.
HoffmannS, KleinstreuerN, AlepeeN, et al.Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (I): the Cosmetics Europe database. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2018; 48(5):344–358.
10.
RyanCA, GerberickGF, CruseLW, et al.Activity of human contact allergens in the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 43(2):95–102.
11.
GerberickGF, RobinsonMK, RyanCA, et al.Contact allergenic potency: correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. Am J Contact Dermat, 2001; 12(3):156–161.
12.
GriemP, GoebelC, SchefflerH. Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2003; 38(3):269–290.
13.
SchneiderK, AkkanZ. Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2004; 39(3):245–255.
14.
ApiAM, BasketterD, LalkoJ. Correlation between experimental human and murine skin sensitization induction thresholds. Cutan Ocul Toxicol, 2015; 34(4):298–302.
15.
McNameePM, ApiAM, BasketterDA, et al.A review of critical factors in the conduct and interpretation of the human repeat insult patch test. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008; 52(1):24–34.
16.
NaM, RitaccoG, O'BrienD, et al.Fragrance skin sensitization evaluation and human testing: 30-year experience. Dermatitis, 2021; 32:339–352.
17.
FarageMA, BjerkeDL, MahonyC, et al.Quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis: uncertainty factors for mucosal exposures. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49(3):140–147.
18.
FelterSP, RobinsonMK, BasketterDA, et al.A review of the scientific basis for uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2002; 47(5):257–266.
19.
FelterSP, RyanCA, BasketterDA, et al.Application of the risk assessment paradigm to the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2003; 37(1):1–10.
20.
GerberickGF, RobinsonMK, FelterSP, et al.Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure-based risk assessment approach. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 45(6):333–340.
21.
ApiAM. The use of human data when conducting dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessments for fragrance ingredients. Skin sensitization in chemical risk assessment. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical, Safety; Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008; 50:163–165.
22.
ApiAM, VeyM. Implementation of the dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008; 52(1):53–61.
23.
ApiAM, BasketterD, BridgesJ, et al.Updating exposure assessment for skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment for fragrance materials. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2020; 118:104805.
24.
ApiAM, BasketterDA, CadbyPA, et al.Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008; 52(1):3–23.
25.
ApiAM, BelsitoD, BruzeM, et al.Criteria for the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients. Food Chem Toxicol, 2015; 82(suppl):S1–S19.
26.
DateMS, O'BrienD, BotelhoDJ, et al.Clustering a chemical inventory for safety assessment of fragrance ingredients: identifying read-across analogs to address data gaps. Chem Res Toxicol, 2020; 33(7):1709–1718.
27.
PolitanoVT, ApiAM. The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials' human repeated insult patch test protocol. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008; 52(1):35–38.
28.
SchwartzL. The skin testing of new cosmetics. J Soc Cosmet Chem, 1951; 2:321–324.
29.
SchwartzL. Twenty-two years' experience in the performance of 200,000 prophetic patch tests. South Med J, 1960; 53:478–483.
30.
ShelanskiHA, ShelanskiMV. A new technique of human patch tests. Proc Sci Sect Toilet Goods Assoc, 1953; 19(46):4–7.
31.
ShelanskiH. Experience with and considerations of the human patch test method. J Cosmet Sci, 1951; 2(5):324–331.
MarzulliFN, MaibachHI. Further studies of effects of vehicles and elicitation concentration in experimental contact sensitization testing in humans. Contact Dermatitis, 1980; 6(2):131–133.
34.
StottsJ. Planning, conduct and interpretation of human predictive sensitization patch tests. Curr Concepts Cut Toxic, 1980; 41:41–53.
35.
KligmanAM. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. 3. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol, 1966; 47(5):393–409.
36.
KligmanAM, EpsteinW. Updating the maximization test for identifying contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis, 1975; 1(4):231–239.
37.
OECD. Test No. 429: Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4. Paris, France: OECD Publishing; 2010.
38.
GerberickGF, RyanCA, KernPS, et al.Compilation of historical local lymph node data for evaluation of skin sensitization alternative methods. Dermatitis. 2005; 16(4):157–202.
39.
GerberickGF, VassalloJD, BaileyRE, et al.Development of a peptide reactivity assay for screening contact allergens. Toxicol Sci, 2004; 81(2):332–343.
40.
GerberickGF, VassalloJD, FoertschLM, et al.Quantification of chemical peptide reactivity for screening contact allergens: a classification tree model approach. Toxicol Sci, 2007; 97(2):417–427.
41.
OECD. The Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation Initiated by Covalent Binding to Proteins. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No168. Paris, France: OECD Publishing; 2014.
42.
OECD. Test No. 442C: In Chemico Skin Sensitisation. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4. Paris, France: OECD Publishing; 2021.
43.
NatschA, GfellerH, RothauptM, et al.Utility and limitations of a peptide reactivity assay to predict fragrance allergens in vitro. Toxicol In Vitro, 2007; 21(7):1220–1226.
44.
NatschA, GfellerH. LC-MS-based characterization of the peptide reactivity of chemicals to improve the in vitro prediction of the skin sensitization potential. Toxicol Sci, 2008; 106(2):464–478.
45.
NatschA, RyanCA, FoertschL, et al.A dataset on 145 chemicals tested in alternative assays for skin sensitization undergoing prevalidation. J Appl Toxicol, 2013; 33(11):1337–1352.
46.
TakenouchiO, FukuiS, OkamotoK, et al.Test battery with the human cell line activation test, direct peptide reactivity assay and DEREK based on a 139 chemical data set for predicting skin sensitizing potential and potency of chemicals. J Appl Toxicol, 2015; 35(11):1318–1332.
47.
BauchC, KolleSN, RamirezT, et al.Putting the parts together: combining in vitro methods to test for skin sensitizing potentials. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2012; 63(3):489–504.
48.
UrbischD, MehlingA, GuthK, et al.Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015; 71(2):337–351.
49.
EmterR, EllisG, NatschA. Performance of a novel keratinocyte-based reporter cell line to screen skin sensitizers in vitro. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 2010; 245(3):281–290.
50.
OECD. Test No. 442D: In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4. Paris, France: OECD Publishing; 2018.
51.
OtsuboY, NishijoT, MiyazawaM, et al.Binary test battery with KeratinoSens and h-CLAT as part of a bottom-up approach for skin sensitization hazard prediction. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2017; 88:118–124.
52.
AshikagaT, YoshidaY, HirotaM, et al.Development of an in vitro skin sensitization test using human cell lines: the human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT). I. Optimization of the h-CLAT protocol. Toxicol In Vitro, 2006; 20(5):767–773.
53.
AshikagaT, SakaguchiH, SonoS, et al.A comparative evaluation of in vitro skin sensitisation tests: the human cell-line activation test (h-CLAT) versus the local lymph node assay (LLNA). Altern Lab Anim, 2010; 38(4):275–284.
54.
OECD. Test No. 442E: In Vitro Skin Sensitisation assays addressing the Key Event on activation of dendritic cells on the Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4. Paris, France: OECD Publishing; 2018.
55.
NukadaY, AshikagaT, SakaguchiH, et al.Predictive performance for human skin sensitizing potential of the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT). Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 65(6):343–353.
56.
ECETOC. Contact Sensitization: Classification According to Potency Technical Report No. 87. Brussels, Belgium: European Centre for Ecotoxicology & Toxicology of Chemicals; 2003.
57.
SchnuchA, UterW, GeierJ, et al.Sensitization to 26 fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation. Results of the IVDK and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 57(1):1–10.
58.
HausenBM. Contact allergy to balsam of Peru. II. Patch test results in 102 patients with selected balsam of Peru constituents. Am J Contact Dermat, 2001; 12(2):93–102.
59.
RIFM. Skin Sensitization in the Guinea-Pig of Clarycet. 1992.
60.
GerberickGF, CruseLW, RyanCA, et al.Use of a B cell marker (B220) to discriminate between allergens and irritants in the local lymph node assay. Toxicol Sci, 2002; 68(2):420–428.
61.
de GrootAC, CoenraadsPJ, BruynzeelDP, et al.Routine patch testing with fragrance chemicals in the Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 42(3):184–185.
62.
RomagueraC, GrimaltF. Statistical and comparative study of 4600 patients tested in Barcelona (1973–1977). Contact Dermatitis, 1980; 6(5):309–315.
63.
ApiAM, BelsitoD, BotelhoD, et al.RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 1-(3-methyl-2-benzofuranyl)ethanone, CAS Registry Number 23911-56-0. Food Chem Toxicol, 2021; 153Suppl 1:112300.
ApiAM, BelsitoD, BisertaS, et al.RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-methyldecanenitrile, CAS Registry Number 69300-15-8. Food Chem Toxicol, 2021; 153Suppl 1:112296.
66.
RIFM. Delayed Dermal Sensitization Study in Guinea Pig. Unpublished work. RIFM report number 31689. 1989.
67.
ApiAM, BelsitoD, BhatiaS, et al.RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Linalool, CAS registry number 78-70-6. Food Chem Toxicol, 2015; 82(suppl):S29–S38.
68.
SkoldM, BorjeA, MaturaM, et al.Studies on the autoxidation and sensitizing capacity of the fragrance chemical linalool, identifying a linalool hydroperoxide. Contact Dermatitis, 2002; 46(5):267–272.
69.
SkoldM, BorjeA, HarambasicE, et al.Contact allergens formed on air exposure of linalool. Identification and quantification of primary and secondary oxidation products and the effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol, 2004; 17(12):1697–1705.
70.
KarlbergAT, BomanA, MelinB. Animal experiments on the allergenicity of D-limonene—the citrus solvent. Ann Occup Hyg, 1991; 35(4):419–426.
71.
UterW, GeierJ, FroschP, et al.Contact allergy to fragrances: current patch test results (2005–2008) from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 63(5):254–261.
72.
BasketterD, BekenS, BenderH, et al.Building confidence in skin sensitisation potency assessment using new approach methodologies: report of the 3rd EPAA Partners Forum, Brussels, 28th October 2019. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2020; 117:104767.
73.
OECD. Guidance Document on the Reporting of Defined Approaches and Individual Information Sources to be Used within Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) for Skin Sensitisation. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No 256. Paris, France: OECD Publishing; 2017.
74.
GilmourN, KernPS, AlepeeN, et al.Development of a next generation risk assessment framework for the evaluation of skin sensitisation of cosmetic ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2020; 116:104721.
75.
KleinstreuerNC, HoffmannS, AlepeeN, et al.Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (II): an assessment of defined approaches (*). Crit Rev Toxicol, 2018; 48(5):359–374.
76.
NatschA, EmterR, HauptT, et al.Deriving a no expected sensitization induction level for fragrance ingredients without animal testing: an integrated approach applied to specific case studies. Toxicol Sci, 2018; 165(1):170–185.
77.
CottrezF, BoitelE, AuriaultC, et al.Genes specifically modulated in sensitized skins allow the detection of sensitizers in a reconstructed human skin model. Development of the SENS-IS assay. Toxicol In Vitro, 2015; 29(4):787–802.
78.
CottrezF, BoitelE, OurlinJC, et al.SENS-IS, a 3D reconstituted epidermis based model for quantifying chemical sensitization potency: reproducibility and predictivity results from an inter-laboratory study. Toxicol In Vitro, 2016; 32:248–260.
79.
ZellerKS, ForrerydA, LindbergT, et al.The GARD platform for potency assessment of skin sensitizing chemicals. ALTEX, 2017; 34(4):539–559.
80.
WareingB, UrbischD, KolleSN, et al.Prediction of skin sensitization potency sub-categories using peptide reactivity data. Toxicol In Vitro, 2017; 45(Pt 1):134–145.
81.
NatschA, HauptT, WareingB, et al.Predictivity of the kinetic direct peptide reactivity assay (kDPRA) for sensitizer potency assessment and GHS subclassification. ALTEX, 2020; 37(4):652–664.
82.
NatschA, EmterR, GfellerH, et al.Predicting skin sensitizer potency based on in vitro data from KeratinoSens and kinetic peptide binding: global versus domain-based assessment. Toxicol Sci, 2015; 143(2):319–332.
83.
HirotaM, FukuiS, OkamotoK, et al.Evaluation of combinations of in vitro sensitization test descriptors for the artificial neural network-based risk assessment model of skin sensitization. J Appl Toxicol, 2015; 35(11):1333–1347.
84.
HirotaM, AshikagaT, KouzukiH. Development of an artificial neural network model for risk assessment of skin sensitization using human cell line activation test, direct peptide reactivity assay, KeratinoSens™ and in silico structure alert parameter. J Appl Toxicol, 2018; 38(4):514–526.
85.
JaworskaJS, NatschA, RyanC, et al.Bayesian integrated testing strategy (ITS) for skin sensitization potency assessment: a decision support system for quantitative weight of evidence and adaptive testing strategy. Arch Toxicol, 2015; 89(12):2355–2383.
86.
KolleSN, LandsiedelR, NatschA. Replacing the refinement for skin sensitization testing: considerations to the implementation of adverse outcome pathway (AOP)-based defined approaches (DA) in OECD guidelines. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2020; 115:104713.
