ABSTRACT
Introduction: Isothiazolinones (ITs) are widely used as antimicrobial preservatives in cosmetics and as additives for preservation of consumer and industrial products to control bacteria, fungi, and algae. Although they are effective biocides, they have the potential to produce skin irritation and sensitization, which poses a human health hazard. In this project, we evaluated nonanimal defined approaches (DAs) for skin sensitization that can provide point-of-departure estimates for use in quantitative risk assessment for ITs. Materials and Methods: The skin sensitization potential of six ITs was evaluated using three internationally harmonized nonanimal test methods: the direct peptide reactivity assay, KeratinoSens™, and the human cell line activation test. Results from these test methods were then applied to two versions of the Shiseido Artificial Neural Network DA. Results: Sensitization hazard or potency predictions were compared with those of the in vivo murine local lymph node assay (LLNA). The nonanimal methods produced skin sensitization hazard and potency classifications concordant with those of the LLNA. EC3 values (the estimated concentration needed to produce a stimulation index of three, the threshold positive response) generated by the DAs had less variability than LLNA EC3 values, and confidence limits from the DAs overlapped those of the LLNA EC3 for most substances. Conclusion: The application of in silico models to in chemico and in vitro skin sensitization data is a promising data integration procedure for DAs to support hazard and potency classification and quantitative risk assessment.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Before community transmission of COVID-19 was recognized in the United States, cruise ship passengers with high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 were repatriated and quarantined. We describe cases of influenza-like illness (ILI) among responders. METHODS: We reviewed situation reports and responder illness reports to characterize ill responders, including illness onset date, symptoms, fever, diagnostic tests, potential breaches in PPE use, and return to work status. RESULTS: Among 339 responders, nine (3%) reported ILI. No breaches in PPE were reported. Three responders with ILI were tested for both SARS-CoV-2 infection and influenza A; none tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and two tested positive for influenza A. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an outbreak of ILI among responders, none were diagnosed with COVID-19, suggesting preventive measures in place might have been sufficient to prevent responders from SARS-CoV-2 exposure.