Quantitative risk assessment of skin sensitising pesticides: Clinical and toxicological considerations.

Like many other consumer and occupational products, pesticide formulations may contain active ingredients or co-formulants which have the potential to cause skin sensitisation. Currently, there is little evidence they do, but that could just reflect lack of clinical investigation. Consequently, it is necessary to carry out a safety evaluation process, quantifying risks so that they can be properly managed. A workshop on this topic in 2022 discussed how best to undertake quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for pesticide products, including learning from the experience of industries, notably cosmetics, that already undertake such a process routinely. It also addressed ways to remedy the matter of clinical investigation, even if only to demonstrate the absence of a problem. Workshop participants concluded that QRA for skin sensitisers in pesticide formulations was possible, but required careful justification of any safety factors applied, as well as improvements to the estimation of skin exposure. The need for regulations to stay abreast of the science was also noted. Ultimately, the success of any risk assessment/management for skin sensitisers must be judged by the clinical picture. Accordingly, the workshop participants encouraged the development of more active skin health monitoring amongst groups most exposed to the products.

SCCS Scientific Opinion on Acid Yellow 3 (submission II) - SCCS/1631/21.

Opinion to be cited as: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Opinion on Acid Yellow 3 - C054 (CAS Number 8004-92-0, EC No 305-897-5), submission II, preliminary version of 7 May 2021, final version of 23 July 2021, SCCS/1631/21.

SCCS scientific opinion on Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) - SCCS/1636/21.

OPINION TO BE CITED AS: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), scientific opinion on Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), preliminary version of September 27, 2021, final version of December 2, 2021, SCCS/1636/21.

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Part II. Hazard assessment of carcinogenic effects.

Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) compounds have been studied extensively and several agencies have described their toxicological profile. In the past, personnel of the Dutch Ministry of Defence may have been exposed to Cr(VI) during maintenance activities on NATO equipment. To investigate if this exposure may have caused irreversible adverse health effects, the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) summarized all available knowledge from previous evaluations. This information was complemented with a scoping review to retrieve new scientific literature. All scientific evidence was evaluated in workshops with external experts to come to an overview of irreversible adverse health effects that could be caused by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) compounds. This review provides the hazard assessment for occupational exposure to Cr(VI) and carcinogenic effects by integrating and weighting evidence provided by international agencies complemented with newly published studies. It was concluded that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) can cause lung cancer, nose and nasal sinus cancer in humans. Cr(VI) is suspected to cause stomach cancer and laryngeal cancer in humans. It is currently insufficiently clear if Cr(VI) can cause cancer of the small intestine, oral cavity, pancreas, prostate or bladder in humans.

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Part I. Hazard assessment of non-cancer health effects.

Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) compounds have been studied extensively and several agencies have described their toxicological profile. In the past, personnel of the Dutch Ministry of Defence may have been exposed to Cr(VI) during maintenance activities. To investigate if this exposure may have caused irreversible adverse health effects, the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) summarized all available knowledge from previous evaluations. This information was complemented with a scoping review to retrieve new scientific literature. All scientific evidence was evaluated in workshops with external experts to come to an overview of irreversible adverse health effects that could be caused by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) compounds. This review focuses on non-cancer health effects. It was concluded that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) can cause perforation of the nasal septum by chromium ulcers, chronic lung diseases, including asthma, rhinitis, pulmonary fibrosis and COPD, skin ulcers and allergic contact dermatitis in humans. It is currently insufficiently clear if Cr(VI) can cause irreversible diseases due to disturbances of the immune system (other than allergic contact eczema, allergic asthma and rhinitis and chronic lung diseases) or adverse effects on fertility or prenatal development in humans.

The way forward for assessing the human health safety of cosmetics in the EU - Workshop proceedings.

Although the need for non-animal alternatives has been well recognised for the human health hazard assessment of chemicals in general, it has become especially pressing for cosmetic ingredients due to the full implementation of testing and marketing bans on animal testing under the European Cosmetics Regulation. This means that for the safety assessment of cosmetics, the necessary safety data for both the ingredients and the finished product can be drawn from validated (or scientifically-valid), so-called "Replacement methods". In view of the challenges for safety assessment without recourse to animal test data, the Methodology Working Group of the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety organised a workshop in February 2019 to discuss the key issues in regard to the use of animal-free alternative methods for the safety evaluation of cosmetic ingredients. This perspective article summarises the outcomes of this workshop and reflects on the state-of-the-art and possible way forward for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for which no experimental animal data exist. The use and optimisation of "New Approach Methodology" that could be useful tools in the context of the "Next Generation Risk Assessment" and the strategic framework for safety assessment of cosmetics were discussed in depth.

Erratum to Template for the description of cell-based toxicological test methods to allow evaluation and regulatory use of the data.

In this manuscript, which appeared in ALTEX (2019), 36(4), 682- 699, doi:10.14573/altex.1909271 , the affiliation of Hennicke Kamp should be Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, BASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany. Further, the reference to an article by Bal-Price et al. (2015) should have the following doi:10.1007/s00204-015-1464-2 .

Template for the description of cell-based toxicological test methods to allow evaluation and regulatory use of the data.

Only few cell-based test methods are described by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines or other regulatory references (e.g., the European Pharmacopoeia). The majority of toxicity tests still falls into the category of non-guideline methods. Data from these tests may nevertheless be used to support regulatory decisions or to guide strategies to assess compounds (e.g., drugs, agrochemicals) during research and development if they fulfill basic requirements concerning their relevance, reproducibility and predictivity. Only a method description of sufficient clarity and detail allows interpretation and use of the data. To guide regulators faced with increasing amounts of data from non-guideline studies, the OECD formulated Guidance Document 211 (GD211) on method documentation for the purpose of safety assessment. As GD211 is targeted mainly at regulators, it leaves scientists less familiar with regulation uncertain as to what level of detail is required and how individual questions should be answered. Moreover, little attention was given to the description of the test system (i.e., cell culture) and the steps leading to it being established in the guidance. To address these issues, an annotated toxicity test method template (ToxTemp) was developed (i) to fulfill all requirements of GD211, (ii) to guide the user concerning the types of answers and detail of information required, (iii) to include acceptance criteria for test elements, and (iv) to define the cells sufficiently and transparently. The fully annotated ToxTemp is provided here, together with reference to a database containing exemplary descriptions of more than 20 cell-based tests.

Applying non-animal strategies for assessing skin sensitisation report from an EPAA/cefic-LRI/IFRA Europe cross sector workshop, ECHA helsinki, February 7th and 8th 2019.

Four years on since the last cross sector workshop, experience of the practical application and interpretation of several non-animal assays that contribute to the predictive identification of skin sensitisers has begun to accumulate. Non-animal methods used for hazard assessments increasingly are contributing to the potency sub-categorisation for regulatory purposes. However, workshop participants generally supported the view that there remained a pressing need to build confidence in how information from multiple methods can be combined for classification, sub-categorisation and potency assessment. Furthermore, the practical experience gained over the last few years, highlighted the overall high potential value of using the newly validated methods and testing strategies, but also that limitations for certain substance/product classes may become evident with further use as had been the case with other new regulatory methods. As the available information increases, review of the data and collated experience could further determine strengths and limitations leading to more confidence in their use. Finally, the need for a substantial and universally accepted dataset of non-sensitisers and substances of different sensitising potencies, based on combined human and in vivo animal data for validation of methods and test strategies was re-emphasised.

An in vitro coculture system for the detection of sensitization following aerosol exposure.

The aim of the study was to develop an in vitro model that mimics the alveolar-capillary barrier and that allows assessment of the respiratory sensitizing potential of respiratory sensitizers. The 3D in vitro model cultured at the air liquid interface consists of alveolar type II epithelial cells (A549), endothelial cells (EA.hy926), macrophage-like cells (PMA-differentiated THP-1) and dendritic-like cells (non-differentiated THP-1). This alveolar model was exposed apically to nebulized chemical respiratory sensitizers (Phthalic Anhydride (PA) and TriMellitic Anhydride (TMA)) or irritants (Methyl Salicylate (MeSa) and Acrolein (Acr)) at concentrations inducing at maximum 25% of cytotoxicity. The exposure to respiratory sensitizers induced dendritic cells activation and a specific cytokine release pattern, while the irritants did not. In addition, the cell surface marker OX40L was determined for dendritic like cells activation to identify high molecular weight allergens. With this in vitro model we can postulate a set of promising markers based on the studied compounds that allow the discrimination of chemical respiratory sensitizers from irritants.

Predicting Chemically Induced Skin Sensitization by Using In Chemico / In Vitro Methods.

Over the recent years development toward assessing skin sensitization hazard has moved toward non-animal testing methods. These methods are based on the key events as described in the OECD Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization initiated by covalent binding to proteins. As these individual methods address mainly one mechanistic event (key event) in the initiation of skin sensitization, combination of different methods are needed to conclude on the skin sensitization hazard. Validated and regulatory adopted (EU and OECD) in chemico/in vitro methods are available for KEs 1-3 and are presented here. This chapter also illustrates how individual test methods can be combined by providing two examples of defined approaches to testing and assessment for skin sensitization hazard identification and assessment.

State of the art in non-animal approaches for skin sensitization testing: from individual test methods towards testing strategies.

The hazard assessment of skin sensitizers relies mainly on animal testing, but much progress is made in the development, validation and regulatory acceptance and implementation of non-animal predictive approaches. In this review, we provide an update on the available computational tools and animal-free test methods for the prediction of skin sensitization hazard. These individual test methods address mostly one mechanistic step of the process of skin sensitization induction. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization describes the key events (KEs) that lead to skin sensitization. In our review, we have clustered the available test methods according to the KE they inform: the molecular initiating event (MIE/KE1)-protein binding, KE2-keratinocyte activation, KE3-dendritic cell activation and KE4-T cell activation and proliferation. In recent years, most progress has been made in the development and validation of in vitro assays that address KE2 and KE3. No standardized in vitro assays for T cell activation are available; thus, KE4 cannot be measured in vitro. Three non-animal test methods, addressing either the MIE, KE2 or KE3, are accepted as OECD test guidelines, and this has accelerated the development of integrated or defined approaches for testing and assessment (e.g. testing strategies). The majority of these approaches are mechanism-based, since they combine results from multiple test methods and/or computational tools that address different KEs of the AOP to estimate skin sensitization potential and sometimes potency. Other approaches are based on statistical tools. Until now, eleven different testing strategies have been published, the majority using the same individual information sources. Our review shows that some of the defined approaches to testing and assessment are able to accurately predict skin sensitization hazard, sometimes even more accurate than the currently used animal test. A few defined approaches are developed to provide an estimate of the potency sub-category of a skin sensitizer as well, but these approaches need further independent evaluation with a new dataset of chemicals. To conclude, this update shows that the field of non-animal approaches for skin sensitization has evolved greatly in recent years and that it is possible to predict skin sensitization hazard without animal testing.

Developing a framework for assessing chemical respiratory sensitization: A workshop report.

Respiratory tract sensitization can have significant acute and chronic health implications. While induction of respiratory sensitization is widely recognized for some chemicals, validated standard methods or frameworks for identifying and characterizing the hazard are not available. A workshop on assessment of respiratory sensitization was held to discuss the current state of science for identification and characterization of respiratory sensitizer hazard, identify information facilitating development of validated standard methods and frameworks, and consider the regulatory and practical risk management needs. Participants agreed on a predominant Th2 immunological mechanism and several steps in respiratory sensitization. Some overlapping cellular events in respiratory and skin sensitization are well understood, but full mechanism(s) remain unavailable. Progress on non-animal approaches to skin sensitization testing, ranging from in vitro systems, -omics, in silico profiling, and structural profiling were acknowledged. Addressing both induction and elicitation phases remains challenging. Participants identified lack of a unifying dose metric as increasing the difficulty of interpreting dosimetry across exposures. A number of research needs were identified, including an agreed list of respiratory sensitizers and other asthmagens, distinguishing between adverse effects from immune-mediated versus non-immunological mechanisms. A number of themes emerged from the discussion regarding future testing strategies, particularly the need for a tiered framework respiratory sensitizer assessment. These workshop present a basis for moving towards a weight-of-evidence assessment.

Can the Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay Be Used for the Identification of Respiratory Sensitization Potential of Chemicals?

Prospective identification of low molecular weight respiratory sensitizers is difficult due to the current lack of adequate test methods. The direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA) seems to be a promising method to determine the sensitization potential of chemicals because it determines the intrinsic characteristic of sensitizers to bind to proteins. It is already applied in the field of skin sensitization, and adaptation to respiratory sensitization has started recently. This article further evaluates the ability of the DPRA to predict the respiratory sensitization potential of chemicals. In addition, the added value of applying High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)-MS and measurements after 20 minutes and 24 hours of incubation was evaluated. Eighteen respiratory sensitizers (10 haptens, 3 prehaptens, and 5 prohaptens) and 14 nonsensitizers were tested with 2-model peptides. Based on peptide depletion, a prediction model was proposed for the identification of (respiratory) sensitizers. Application of mass spectrometry and measurements at 2 time-points increased prediction accuracy of the assay by resolving discordant results. The prediction model correctly identified all haptens and prehaptens as sensitizers. The 5 prohaptens were not identified as sensitizers, most likely due to lack of metabolic activity in the DPRA. All but 1 nonsensitizer was correctly predicted. The model, therefore, shows an accuracy of 78% for the tested dataset. Unfortunately, this assay cannot be used to distinguish respiratory from skin sensitizers. To make this distinction, the DPRA needs to be combined with other test methods that are able to identify respiratory sensitizers.

Assessment of recent developmental immunotoxicity studies with bisphenol A in the context of the 2015 EFSA t-TDI.

Humans are exposed to bisphenol A (BPA) mainly through the diet, air, dust, skin contact and water. There are concerns about adverse health effects in humans due to exposure to bisphenol A (BPA). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has extensively reviewed the available literature to establish a temporary Tolerable Daily Intake (t-TDI). This exposure level was based on all available literature published before the end of 2012. Since then, new experimental animal studies have emerged, including those that identified effects of BPA on the immune system after developmental exposure. These studies indicate that developmental immunotoxicity might occur at lower dose levels than previously observed and on which the current EFSA t-TDI is based. The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) organized an expert workshop in September 2015 to consider recently published studies on the developmental immunotoxicity of bisphenol A (BPA). Key studies were discussed in the context of other experimental studies. The workshop concluded that these new experimental studies provide credible evidence for adverse immune effects after developmental exposure to BPA at 5µg/kg BW/day from gestation day 15 to postnatal day 21. Supportive evidence for adverse immune effects in similar dose ranges was obtained from other publications that were discussed during the workshop. The dose level associated with adverse immune effects is considerably lower than the dose used by EFSA for deriving the t-TDI. The workshop unanimously concluded that the current EFSA t-TDI warrants reconsideration in the context of all currently available data.

The involvement of the Toll-like receptor signaling and Nrf2-Keap1 pathways in the in vitro regulation of IL-8 and HMOX1 for skin sensitization.

In vitro gene profiling studies have associated the molecular pathways of Nrf2-Keap1 and Toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling with skin sensitization. In this study, the role of these pathways in the regulation of protein biomarkers for skin sensitization was further elucidated using transient gene knock-down of key components of the signaling cascades in HaCaT cells after exposure to dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB). The effect of targeting these pathways was established through evaluation of heme oxygenase1 (HMOX1) and interleukin (IL)-8 production. These experiments showed that Nrf2 is not involved in regulating HMOX1 after exposure to DNCB, but that activation of TLR signaling moderates the expression of HMOX1. The regulation of IL-8 depended on Nrf2, but also on the Toll/interleukin-1 receptor (TIR)-domain-containing adapter-inducing interferon-ß (TRIF) adaptor protein in TLR signaling. This study provides new insights into the regulation of HMOX1 and IL-8, but the exact regulating mechanisms remain to be further elucidated.

Development of an in vitro test to identify respiratory sensitizers in bronchial epithelial cells using gene expression profiling.

Chemicals that induce asthma at the workplace are substances of concern. At present, there are no widely accepted methods to identify respiratory sensitizers, and classification of these substances is based on human occupational data. Several studies have contributed to understanding the mechanisms involved in respiratory sensitization, although uncertainties remain. One point of interest for respiratory sensitization is the reaction of the epithelial lung barrier to respiratory sensitizers. To elucidate potential molecular effects of exposure of the epithelial lung barrier, a gene expression profile was created based on a DNA microarray experiment using the bronchial epithelial cell line 16 HBE14o(-). The cells were exposed to 12 respiratory sensitizers and 10 non-sensitizers. For statistical analysis, we used a class prediction approach that combined three machine learning algorithms, leave-one-compound-out cross validation, and majority voting per tested compound. This approach allowed for a prediction accuracy of 95%. Identified predictive genes were mainly associated with the cytoskeleton and barrier function of the epithelial cell. Several of these genes were reported to be associated with asthma as well. Taken together, this indicates that pulmonary barrier function is an important target for respiratory sensitizers and associated genes can be used to predict the respiratory sensitization potential of chemicals.

A Dose-Response Modeling Approach Shows That Effects From Mixture Exposure to the Skin Sensitizers Isoeugenol and Cinnamal Are in Line With Dose Addition and Not With Synergism.

Currently, hazard characterization of skin sensitizers is based on data obtained from studies examining single chemicals. Many consumer products, however, contain mixtures of sensitizers that might interact in such a way that the response induced by a substance is higher than predicted in the hazard assessment. To assess interaction of skin sensitizers in a mixture, a dose-response modeling approach is applied. With this approach, it is possible to assess whether or not responses from mixtures of sensitizers can be predicted from the dose-response information obtained from individual chemicals using dose addition. We selected the skin sensitizers isoeugenol and cinnamal, frequently occurring together in consumer products, to be examined in an adjusted local lymph node assay (LLNA). Cell number and cytokine production (IL-10 and IFN-γ) of the auricular lymph nodes were measured as hallmarks of the skin sensitization response. We found that dose addition for these 2 skin sensitizers closely predicted the effects from mixtures of both chemicals across the broad dose range tested. Hence, isoeugenol and cinnamal show no synergistic effects in the LLNA. Therefore, hazard assessment and risk assessment of these substances can be performed without taking into account mixture exposure.