Derivation of thresholds for inhaled chemically reactive irritants: Searching for substance-specific common denominators for read-across prediction.

Emergency response planning guideline values are used to protect the public when there has been a short-term chemical release. These values serve the purpose of identifying areas where a hazard exists if the concentration of hazardous chemicals is exceeded for the specified exposure duration. This paper focuses on carbonyl chlorides, a class of highly irritant/corrosive chemical intermediates characterized by the reactive moiety R-COCl. Despite their unifying property of reacting with nucleophilic biopolymers/peptides lining the airways of the respiratory tract, their adverse outcome pathway (AOP), in addition to surface area dose, appears to be dominated by their site(s) of major deposition (liquid) or retention (gas) within the respiratory tract. Thus, the physicochemical properties "phase" and "lipophilicity" become more decisive for the AOP than the chemical structure. This complicates the grouping of portal-of-entry irritant chemicals for the read-across prediction of chemicals, especially those with semivolatile properties. Phosgene (COCl2) served as a template to predict emergency response planning levels 2 (non-incapacitating, reversible injury) and 3 (nonlethal) for related chemicals such as SOCl2, formates, and acid chlorides. A rationale and guide to the systematic characterization of uncertainties associated with the lung region, water solubility of the vapor phase, and chemical specificity is given. The approach described in this paper highlights the regional differences and outcomes that are phenotypically described as irritation of the respiratory tract. Especially for such a data-lean group of chemicals, reliable read-across predictions could reduce the uncertainty associated with the derivation of values used for emergency-related risk assessment and management. Likewise, the approach suggested could improve the grouping and categorization of such chemicals, providing a means to reduce animal testing with potentially corrosive chemicals. Overall, the course taken for read-across predictions provided valid estimates as long as emphasis was directed to the physicochemical properties determining the most critical regional injury within the respiratory tract.

Are asthmatics more sensitive to irritants?

Asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease characterized by increased airway hyper-responsiveness to external stimuli such as irritants. One may speculate that asthmatics are more sensitive to irritants in the air than healthy subjects, i.e. react at lower concentrations. We reviewed the scientific support for this speculation and investigated to what extent asthma is considered when setting exposure limits and guidance values. We found that the experimental studies comparing healthy and asthmatic subjects are often inconclusive. Still, the available studies are underused, by expert committees and industry alike. Data for a few irritants suggest that asthmatics are up to three-fold more sensitive than the healthy. The most abundant data were found for sulfur dioxide. Here, a benchmark concentration analysis suggests a nine-fold difference in sensitivity. Based on these data a default assessment factor of 10 is suggested when setting exposure limits and guidance values for irritants.

Regarding the references for reference chemicals of alternative methods.

The selection of reference and proficiency chemicals is an important basis for method validation and proficiency evaluations. Reference chemicals are a set of test substances used by a method developer to evaluate the reliability and relevance of a new method, in comparison to reference data (usually to a validated reference method). Proficiency chemicals, as defined in OECD Guidance Document on Good In Vitro Method Practices, are defined post validation as a subset of the reference chemicals or other chemicals with sufficient supporting data that are used by naïve laboratories to demonstrate technical competence with a validated test method. Proficiency chemicals should cover different physical states, several chemical classes within the applicability domain of the method and yield the full range of responses (in the validated reference method and in vivo), they shall be commercially available (at non-prohibitive costs) and have high quality reference data. If reference and subsequent proficiency chemicals are chosen without sufficient evidence for their inclusion, both test method evaluation and demonstration of technical proficiency can be hampered. In this report we present cases in which the selection of reference chemicals led to problems in the reproduction of the reference results and demonstration of technical proficiency: The variability of results was not always taken into account in selection of several reference substances of the LLNA (OECD TG 429). Based on the available reference data one proficiency chemical for the Corrositex skin corrosion test (OECD TG 435) should be replaced. Likewise, the expected in vitro result for one of the proficiency chemicals for the BCOP (OECD TG 437) was difficult to reproduce in several labs. Furthermore, it was not possible to obtain one of the proficiency chemicals for the Steroidogenesis Assay (OECD TG 456) at non-prohibitive costs at a reasonable purity. Based on these, we recommend changes of current proficiency chemicals lists with established OECD Test Guidelines and provide recommendations for developing future sets of reference chemicals.

Concentration-time extrapolation of short-term inhalation exposure levels: dimethyl sulfide, a case study using a chemical-specific toxic load exponent.

OBJECTIVE: Dimethyl sulfide (DMS, CAS 75-18-3) is an industrial chemical. It is both an irritant and neurotoxicant that may be life-threatening because of accidental release. The effects of DMS on public health and associated public health response depend on the exposure concentration and duration. However, currently, public health advisory information exists for only a 1 h exposure duration, developed by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). In the present work, the AIHA-reviewed data were computationally extrapolated to other common short-term durations. METHODS: The extrapolation was carried out using the toxic load equation, Cn × t = TL, where C and t are exposure concentration and duration, TL is toxic load, and n is a chemical-specific toxic load exponent derived in the present work using probit meta-analysis. The developed threshold levels were vetted against the AIHA database of clinical and animal health effects induced by DMS. RESULTS: Tier-1 levels were derived based on human exposures that resulted in an easily detectable odor, because DMS is known to have a disagreeable odor that may cause nausea. Tier-2 levels were derived from the lower 95% confidence bounds on a benchmark concentration that caused 10% incidence (BMCL10) of coma in rats during a 15 min inhalation exposure to DMS. Tier-3 levels were based on a BMCL05 for mortality in rats. CONCLUSION: Emergency responders and health assessors may consider these computationally derived threshold levels as a supplement to traditional chemical risk assessment procedures in instances where AIHA developed public health advisory levels do not exist.

Human exposure to acrolein: Time-dependence and individual variation in eye irritation.

The aim of the study was to examine the time dependence on sensory irritation detection following exposure to threshold levels of acrolein, in humans. The exposures occurred in an exposure chamber and the subjects were breathing fresh air through a mask that covered the nose and mouth. All participants participated in four exposure conditions, of which three consisted of a mixture of acrolein and heptane and one of only heptane. Exposure to acrolein at a concentration half of the TLV-C lead to sensory irritation. The perceived sensory irritation resulted in both increased detectability and sensory irritation after about 6.8min of exposure in 58% of the participants. The study confirm the previously suggested LOAEL of about 0.34mg/m(3) for eye irritation due to acrolein exposure. The sensory irritation was still significant 10min after exposure. These results have implications for risk assessment and limit setting in occupational hygiene.

Derivation of an occupational exposure limit for inorganic borates using a weight of evidence approach.

Inorganic borates are encountered in many settings worldwide, spurring international efforts to develop exposure guidance (US EPA, 2004; WHO, 2009; ATSDR, 2010) and occupational exposure limits (OEL) (ACGIH, 2005; MAK, 2011). We derived an updated OEL to reflect new data and current international risk assessment frameworks. We assessed toxicity and epidemiology data on inorganic borates to identify relevant adverse effects. International risk assessment frameworks (IPCS, 2005, 2007) were used to evaluate endpoint candidates: reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, and sensory irritation. For each endpoint, a preliminary OEL was derived and adjusted based on consideration of toxicokinetics, toxicodynamics, and other uncertainties. Selection of the endpoint point of departures (PODs) is supported by dose-response modeling. Developmental toxicity was the most sensitive systemic effect. An OEL of 1.6mgB/m(3) was estimated for this effect based on a POD of 63mgB/m(3) with an uncertainty factor (UF) of 40. Sensory irritation was considered to be the most sensitive effect for the portal of entry. An OEL of 1.4mgB/m(3) was estimated for this effect based on the identified POD and an UF of 1. An OEL of 1.4mgB/m(3) as an 8-h time-weighted average (TWA) is recommended.

An approach for the delineation of a generic cut-off value for local respiratory tract irritation by irritating or corrosive substances as a pragmatic tool to fulfill REACH requirements.

Under the current European legislation for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals (REACHs) a Derived No Effect Level (DNEL) has to be delineated for acute and chronic inhalation effects. The majority of available experimental studies are performed by the oral route of exposure. Route to route extrapolation poses particular problems for irritating or corrosive substances but the necessity for additional animal studies with inhalation exposure needs to be balanced with the regulatory information requirements. Existing occupational exposure limits (OEL) as surrogate for cut-off limits representing safe exposure under working conditions were grouped under certain criteria for substances that are legally classified in Europe as irritating or corrosive. As a result, it was shown that the OEL for irritating substances in this dataset is not lower than 10mg/m(3) and for corrosives not lower than 1mg/m(3). Under certain conditions these generic limits could be applied as a pragmatic, but still sufficiently reliable and protective upper cut-off limit approach to avoid additional animal tests with irritating or corrosive chemicals. The respective systemic toxicity profiles and physical-chemical properties need to be considered. Specific exclusion criteria for the discussed concept apply.

Hypothesis-based weight-of-evidence evaluation of methyl methacrylate olfactory effects in humans and derivation of an occupational exposure level.

Over 40 years of scientific evidence indicates that methyl methacrylate (MMA) causes olfactory effects in rodents that are relevant to humans. More recent scientific studies have focused on understanding the apparent lack of species concordance between the rodent and human studies. Toxicokinetic studies and a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model describing inhalation dosimetry of MMA in the upper respiratory tract (URT) of rats and humans point to differences in nasal morphology and biochemistry that could explain and reconcile these differences as species-specific manifestations of a common toxicological process. We have applied the hypothesis-based weight-of-evidence (HBWoE) approach to evaluate the concordance of the available data and the hypothesis that the observed difference in sensitivity between rats and humans may be the expected result of physiological and biochemical differences. Our WoE analysis indicates that when the several lines of evidence (i.e., animal, human, mode-of-action, and toxicokinetics data) are integrated, they inform interpretation of one another and, overall, support use of the human data for derivation of an MMA occupational exposure level (OEL) of 50 ppm.

Weight factors in an Integrated Testing Strategy using adjusted OECD principles for (Q)SARs and extended Klimisch codes to decide on skin irritation classification.

The Integrated Assessment Scheme (IAS) defines weight factors for each piece of toxicological information under REACH in an Integrated Testing Strategy. This IAS is illustrated on skin irritation for Classification and Labelling (C&L) for five substances and using mostly (Q)SAR models. The models are the BfR Rulebase, Derek for Windows and TOPKAT, read across and pH-rules. The weight factors derived in the IAS show that for peracetic-acid and pentabromodiphenylether the C&L decision could be easily made. For bisphenol A additional information on read across was used to finalise a decision on C&L, while for methylphenyl-diisocyanate additional expert judgement was needed. For allylheptanoate only the TOPKAT prediction was in the applicability domain, which was insufficient on its own. Therefore, other non guideline testing information was used and in vitro testing results. The above examples on skin irritation information show how the IAS can aid in the decision making process and how it adds to the ToxRTool and the ITS of Hoffmann et al. on the same endpoint and similar methods.

Contaminación por agentes químicos / Contamination by chemical agents

La contaminación por productos químicos es una situación clínica cuyo manejo precisa de una serie de conocimientos muy concretos por parte de los médicos de emergencias, al tener que conocer los tipos de agentes químicos más frecuentes y su mecanismo de acción. Este tipo de contaminación exige la existencia de unos planes concretos de actuación en el ámbito hospitalario y en coordinación con los mecanismos extrahospitalarios de emergencias. Al riesgo que supone el estar diariamente rodeados de productos químicos a escala industrial, con riesgo de escapes y accidentes durante su transporte e incluso en los domicilios, se une la posibilidad de utilización de diversos agentes químicos como armas de destrucción masiva, tanto en conflictos bélicos, como en actos terroristas (AU)

Approaches and considerations for setting occupational exposure limits for sensory irritants: report of recent symposia.

Over the past 50 years significant strides have been made in reducing occupational exposure to airborne chemicals. To a large extent, the impetus behind the reductions has been the identification of presumably safe levels of exposure, or occupational exposure limits (OELs). Most of the reduction in exposure has been to chemicals such as hepatotoxins, neurotoxins, nephrotoxins, and carcinogens that cause frank toxic effects. Recently, however, a number of industrial hygiene and occupational medicine initiatives have sought to identify acceptable levels of exposure to sensory irritants and reduce exposure to this class of chemicals. This article presents an overview of the field with emphasis on the work presented at two symposia sponsored by the Chemical Manufacturers Association: "How Do We Set an Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) for Irritation?" (1998) at the American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition and "Respiratory Tract Irritation and Olfaction Conference" (1997). The two symposia reviewed clinical and experimental methods used to assess odor and sensory irritation, to increase understanding of the research needed to establish OELs for sensory irritants, and to discuss how to use this information to identify appropriate values. The symposia illustrated that research in this area is evolving quickly and that there is already sufficient understanding to permit scientists to identify chemicals likely to be sensory irritants. Further, there appears to be an ample number of research methods for identification of airborne concentrations that should protect most workers. This article summarizes some of the key points raised at these symposia and suggests areas deserving of future study.

Approach to setting occupational exposure limits for sensory irritants in The Netherlands.

This article describes how scientists in the Netherlands set occupational exposure limits (OELs) for sensory irritants. When they tackle this issue, a number of key questions need to be answered. For example, did the studies indeed measure sensory irritation and not cytotoxicity? When the irritant is an odorant, can interference of olfactory stimulation be excluded? In the case of subjective measurements, can psychological irritation be excluded? When adaptation is an issue, did the studies indeed measure adaptation and not habituation? When OELs are established in the Netherlands, each of these issues is carefully addressed before a value is suggested. When setting an OEL in the Netherlands, human data carry more weight than animal data of comparable quality. As in the United States, documentation for the recommended OEL is written and a discussion of all available relevant and reliable data culminating in the selection of the key study for deriving the health-based recommended occupational exposure limit is provided. Special effort is dedicated to reconciling differences between the animal and human data. If the toxicological database is considered to be inadequate, the committee acknowledges this limitation and will not recommend a limit value due to insufficient data.

Setting occupational exposure limits for sensory irritants: the approach in the European Union.

Beginning in 1990, the European Commission initiated a program to establish European Union (EU)-wide occupational exposure limits (OELs). As in the United States and other countries, a panel of experts known as the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) was identified and brought together to identify the proper values. This article describes the approach used by SCOEL to identify appropriate values for sensory irritants. The EU panel believes that irritant effects in the eyes and respiratory tract can produce symptoms that range from trivial to serious, and that responses to irritants may be viewed as belonging to a continuum. One of the interesting differences between the approach used by the ACGIH TLV committee and the SCOEL is the use of five grades of irritation to evaluate this class of chemicals. For purposes of setting an OEL, the SCOEL makes no distinction between irritation or nuisance and related somatic effects such as headache. How the committee established an OEL for ethyl acetate is offered as an illustrative example.

Proposal of limit concentrations for skin irritation within the context of a new EEC directive on the classification and labeling of preparations.

In this study, solvents belonging to different chemical families were tested for their irritating properties to the skin. The irritating potential of a chemical is expressed as its concentration in a nonirritant diluent beyond which irritation of the skin may be expected in the sense of EEC Directive 79/831/EEC. The substances were applied onto the shaved skin of rabbits by means of a modified Finn chamber for 4 hr. Afterward the exposure chamber was removed and the skin cleaned. Reading of erythema and edema was performed according to the scale of Draize at 1, 24, 48, and 72 hr after the removal of the patch. On the basis of the readings obtained the different dilutions of the organic solvents tested were classified as irritant or not according to the interpretation rules laid down in EEC Directive 83/467/EEC. On the basis of the structure-activity relationships found within each chemical family the irritation potential of the other members of the family could be derived via interpolation.