ABSTRACT
Ammonium fluoride has been shown to improve sensitivity when using electrospray ionization (ESI) coupled with mass spectrometry (MS). Recent internal investigation furthered that claim, through the observation of improved sensitivity when analyzing steroid molecules. This work focuses on extending those observations to other small molecules to understand the impact ammonium fluoride has on detection sensitivity with optimized instrument conditions. Using conventional liquid chromatography ESI-MS we investigated sensitivity differences between ammonium fluoride, formic acid, or ammonium hydroxide as mobile phase additives. Full source optimization was performed for nine compounds at three different organic concentrations (30%, 60%, or 90%) with formic acid, ammonium fluoride, and ammonium hydroxide adjustment. Optimization results were compiled to generate individual methods by compound, polarity, mobile phase, and organic concentration. Flow injection analysis was performed with fully optimized methods to compare compounds across different solvent systems under optimal conditions. Negative ESI data showed 2-22-fold sensitivity improvements for all compounds with ammonium fluoride. Positive ESI data showed > 1-11-fold improvement in sensitivity for four of seven compounds and no change for three of seven compounds with ammonium fluoride. Ammonium fluoride improved ESI- sensitivity for all compounds studied when using optimized source conditions. Investigation with ESI+ analyses showed mixed results, with four of seven compounds showing improvement and others showing equivalency or slight loss in sensitivity, suggesting potential sensitivity gains for some analogs with ESI+.
ABSTRACT
Skin sensitization testing is a regulatory requirement for safety evaluations of pesticides in multiple countries. Globally harmonized test guidelines that include in chemico and in vitro methods reduce animal use, but no single assay is recommended as a complete replacement for animal tests. Defined approaches (DAs) that integrate data from multiple non-animal methods are accepted; however, the methods that comprise them have been evaluated using monoconstituent substances rather than mixtures or formulations. To address this data gap, we tested 27 agrochemical formulations in the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), the KeratinoSens™ assay, and the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT). These data were used as inputs to evaluate three DAs for hazard classification of skin sensitization potential and two DAs for potency categorization. When compared to historical animal results, balanced accuracy for the DAs for predicting in vivo skin sensitization hazard (i.e., sensitizer vs. nonsensitizer) ranged from 56 to 78%. The best performing DA was the "2 out of 3 (2o3)" DA, in which the hazard classification was based on two concordant results from the DPRA, KeratinoSens, or h-CLAT. The KE 3/1 sequential testing strategy (STS), which uses h-CLAT and DPRA results, and the integrated testing strategy (ITSv2), which uses h-CLAT, DPRA, and an in silico hazard prediction from OECD QSAR Toolbox, had balanced accuracies of 56-57% for hazard classification. Of the individual test methods, KeratinoSens had the best performance for predicting in vivo hazard outcomes. Its balanced accuracy of 81% was similar to that of the 2o3 DA (78%). For predicting potency categories defined by the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), the correct classification rate of the STS was 52% and that of the ITSv2 was 43%. These results demonstrate that non-animal test methods have utility for evaluating the skin sensitization potential of agrochemical formulations as compared to animal reference data. While additional data generation is needed, testing strategies such as DAs anchored to human biology and mechanistic information provide a promising approach for agrochemical formulation testing.