The purpose of this article is to review, and make recommendations for, the use of relevant skin sensitization test methods, for the purposes of determination of relative potency and the threshold dose necessary for the induction of skin sensitization, and for risk assessment. In addressing the first area, the utility of three guinea pig tests (the guinea pig maximization test, the occluded patch test, and the open epicutaneous test) of the local lymph node assay (LLNA) and of human volunteer testing for the assessment of relative potency and identification of thresholds for sensitization were considered. The following conclusions were drawn. (1) Although attempts have been made to modify the guinea pig maximization test for the purposes of deriving dose-response relationships, this method is usually unsuitable for determination of relative sensitizing potency. (2) Guinea pig methods that do not require the use of adjuvant and which employ a relevant route of exposure (the occluded patch test and the open epicutaneous test) are more appropriate for the assessment of relative skin-sensitizing potency. (3) The LLNA is suitable for the determination of relative skin sensitizing potency, and the adaptation of this method for derivation of comparative criteria such as EC3 values (the estimated concentration of test chemical required to induce a stimulation index of 3 in the LLNA) provides an effective and quantitative basis for such measurements. (4) For all the methods identified above, potency is assessed relative to other chemical allergens of known skin sensitizing potential. The estimation of likely threshold concentrations is dependent upon the availability of suitable benchmark chemicals of known potency for human sensitization. (5) Human testing (and specifically, the Human Repeat Insult Patch Test) can provide information of value in confirming the absence of skin sensitizing activity of formulations and products under specific conditions of use and exposure. Based on the above, the following recommendations are made. (1) If results are already available from suitable guinea pig tests, then judicious interpretation of the data may provide information of value in assessing relative skin sensitizing potency. This option should be explored before other analyses are conducted. (2) The LLNA is the recommended method for new assessments of relative potency, and/or for the investigation of the influence of vehicle or formulation on skin sensitizing potency. (3) Whenever available, human skin sensitization data should be incorporated into an assessment of relative potency. With respect to risk assessment, the conclusion drawn is that all the available data on skin-sensitizing activity in animals and man should be integrated into the risk-assessment process. Appropriate interpretation of existing data from suitable guinea pig studies can provide valuable information with respect to potency, as the first step in the development of a risk assessment. However, for de novo investigations, the LLNA is the method favored fo...

In 1996 and 1997, ECVAM supported a formal validation study on in vitro methods for predicting skin corrosivity. Two of the in vitro tests included in the study employed human skin models, the Skin2™ ZK1350 and EPISKIN™ models. In the ECVAM validation study, BASF, Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) and ZEBET tested the Skin2 human skin model, production of which ceased in October 1996, while the validation study was still in progress. Since both of the skin models had shown basic usefulness for corrosivity testing and, in particular, the EPISKIN corrosivity test had proved to be a scientifically valid test, the three laboratories decided to conduct a study to determine whether another commercially available human skin model, EpiDerm™, could also be successfully used to predict skin corrosivity. The study was performed according to the ECVAM prevalidation scheme, to allow for refinement of the test protocol and the prediction model, as well as for independent assessment of the performance of the refined methodology in a final blind trial in the three laboratories. In phase I of the study, ZEBET (Laboratory 1) drafted a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), including a prediction model (PM1), and the project plan for the study. It was a major task to simplify an existing EpiDerm test protocol, which used the time-course of cytotoxicity as its endpoint. To evaluate the predictivity of the simplified method, which used only a 3-minute exposure to test chemicals, 50 chemicals representing a wide spectrum of chemical entities were tested, revealing that the test sensitivity was too low (65%), whereas the specificity was very high (88%). In addition, acceptance criteria for the negative and positive controls were established. Before proceeding to the next phase of the study, ZEBET distributed a refined SOP, data-recording software and documentation sheets, which allowed Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-compliant quality assurance for each assay. The main goal of phase II was to produce sufficient data to assess the reproducibility of the EpiDerm skin corrosivity test after transfer to Laboratory 2 (HLS). Repeated testing of several chemicals in both laboratories revealed excellent intralaboratory and interlaboratory reproducibility. In addition, chemicals classified as “non-corrosive” (NC) with a 3-minute exposure in phase I, were re-tested by ZEBET with extended exposure periods of 1 hour and 4 hours. The test sensitivity could be significantly increased, if chemicals classified NC with a 3-minute exposure were tested with a 1-hour exposure. Before proceeding to the final blind trial, a refined SOP was drafted, according to which all chemicals had to be tested with exposure times of 3 minutes and 1 hour, and data for these two exposure times were used in the refined hierarchical prediction model, PM2. In phase III, the blind trial, BASF (Laboratory 3) joined the study. ECVAM selected 24 chemicals from the test chemical set used in the ECVAM skin corrosivity validation study, and BIBRA International (UK) purchased, coded and di...

The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) Skin Irritation Task Force was established in 1996, to review the status of the development and validation of alternative tests for skin irritation and corrosion, and to identify appropriate non-animal tests for predicting human skin irritation that were sufficiently well-developed to be prevalidated and validated by ECVAM. The EpiDerm™ method, based on a reconstituted human skin model, was proposed as being sufficiently well advanced to enter a prevalidation (PV) study. Based on a review of test protocols, prediction models (PMs), and data submitted by test developers on ten specified chemicals, with 20% sodium lauryl sulphate as a reference standard, the task force recommended the inclusion of four other tests: EPISKIN™ and PREDISKIN™, based on reconstituted human epidermis or on human skin; the non-perfused pig-ear test, based on pig skin; and the skin integrity function test (SIFT), with ex vivo mouse skin. The prevalidation study on these methods was funded by ECVAM, and took place during 1999–2000. The outcome of the PV study was that none of the methods was ready to enter a formal validation study, and that the protocols and PMs of the methods had to be improved in order to increase their predictive abilities. Improved protocols and PMs for the EpiDerm and EPISKIN methods, the pig ear test, and the SIFT were presented at an extended Task Force meeting held in May 2001. It was agreed that, in the short term, the performance of the revised and harmonised EpiDerm and EPISKIN methods, as well as the modified SIFT, should be evaluated in a further study with a new set of 20 test chemicals. In addition, it was decided that the SIFT and the pig-ear test would be compared to see if common endpoints (transepidermal water loss, methyl green-pyronine stain) could be identified.

No abstract

Dermal absorption is a key parameter in non-dietary human safety assessments for agrochemicals. Conservative default values and other criteria in the EFSA guidance have substantially increased generation of product-specific in vitro data and in some cases, in vivo data. Therefore, data from 190 GLP- and OECD guideline-compliant human in vitro dermal absorption studies were published, suggesting EFSA defaults and criteria should be revised (Aggarwal et al., 2014). This follow-up article presents data from an additional 171 studies and also the combined dataset. Collectively, the data provide consistent and compelling evidence for revision of EFSA's guidance. This assessment covers 152 agrochemicals, 19 formulation types and representative ranges of spray concentrations. The analysis used EFSA's worst-case dermal absorption definition (i.e., an entire skin residue, except for surface layers of stratum corneum, is absorbed). It confirmed previously proposed default values of 6% for liquid and 2% for solid concentrates, irrespective of active substance loading, and 30% for all spray dilutions, irrespective of formulation type. For concentrates, absorption from solvent-based formulations provided reliable read-across for other formulation types, as did water-based products for solid concentrates. The combined dataset confirmed that absorption does not increase linearly beyond a 5-fold increase in dilution. Finally, despite using EFSA's worst-case definition for absorption, a rationale for routinely excluding the entire stratum corneum residue, and ideally the entire epidermal residue in in vitro studies, is presented.