Article

Preservatives and skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment.

Unilever, Colworth House, Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, UK.
Dermatitis (Impact Factor: 0.93). 01/2008; 19(1):20-7.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Preservatives are an unfortunately common cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Often, this is in association with exposure to cosmetics or medicaments. Recently, a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) approach to the quantitation of safe exposure levels for sensitizers has been promulgated as a more effective tool for the identification of acceptable levels of potential sensitizers in consumer products.
To assess this QRA approach, which facilitates the prediction of acceptable exposure levels to skin sensitizers in consumer products, levels that are normally below the threshold for the induction of skin sensitization.
Retrospective QRA analysis on four preservatives in five consumer product types.
The analysis shows that functional levels of preservatives may be somewhat above an ideal exposure level for some product types, an outcome that is consistent with the clinical picture.
QRA represents a new tool that in the future should be used in combination with the assessment of microbiologic protection needs of specific product types to limit the problem of preservative ACD.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
79 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The identification, characterisation, risk assessment and risk management of materials that cause allergic sensitisation is an important requirement for human health protection. It has been proposed that for some chemical and protein allergens, and in particular for those that cause sensitisation of the respiratory tract (associated with occupational asthma), it may be appropriate to regard them as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) under the provisions of REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals). We have argued previously that categorisation of sensitising agents as SVHC should be used only in exceptional circumstances. In the present article, the subject of SVHC is addressed from another perspective. Here the information that would be required to provide a compelling case for categorisation of a skin sensitising substance as a SVHC is considered. Three skin sensitising chemicals have been identified to serve as working examples. These are chromate, a potent contact allergen, and the skin sensitisers formaldehyde and isoeugenol. The key criterion influencing the decision regarding a skin sensitiser being categorized as SVHC is the extent to which impacts on the quality of life are reversible. Consequently, SVHC categorisation for skin sensitising chemicals should be used only in exceptional circumstances.
    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 01/2014; · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The identification, characterisation, risk assessment and risk management of materials that cause allergic sensitisation is an important requirement for human health protection. It has been proposed that for some chemical and protein allergens, and in particular for those that cause sensitisation of the respiratory tract (associated with occupational asthma), it may be appropriate to regard them as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) under the provisions of REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals). We have argued previously that categorisation of sensitising agents as SVHC should be used only in exceptional circumstances. In the present article, the subject of SVHC is addressed from another perspective. Here the information that would be required to provide a compelling case for categorisation of a skin sensitising substance as a SVHC is considered. Three skin sensitising chemicals have been identified to serve as working examples. These are chromate, a potent contact allergen, and the skin sensitisers formaldehyde and isoeugenol. The key criterion influencing the decision regarding a skin sensitiser being categorized as SVHC is the extent to which impacts on the quality of life are reversible. Consequently, SVHC categorisation for skin sensitising chemicals should be used only in exceptional circumstances.
    Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP. 05/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Dimethylfumarate (DMF) was the cause of a major outbreak of allergic contact dermatitis as a consequence of its use as an antifungal agent in leather products, particularly in furniture, with what became known as 'toxic sofa dermatitis'. Objectives. To determine whether the frequency and severity of reactions to DMF arose as a function of its intrinsic potency and/or the nature and extent of exposure. Methods. The intrinsic potency of DMF was measured with the standard local lymph node assay (LLNA), with determination of an EC3 value, which is the threshold in the LLNA and serves as an indicator of relative skin-sensitizing potency in humans. Results. The EC3 value for DMF was 0.35% when tested in dimethylformamide as a vehicle, indicating that DMF is a strong, but not an extreme, skin sensitizer in this mouse model. Conclusions. DMF appears to have a sensitizing potency in the mouse that is very similar to that of formaldehyde, which is also a strong human skin sensitizer. However, the frequency and intensity of allergic contact dermatitis reactions to DMF suggest that it was the prolonged, repeated and occlusive exposure to this chemical over large skin areas, combined with the strong sensitizing potency, that generated the 'perfect storm' conditions that caused the DMF epidemic.
    Contact Dermatitis 04/2013; · 2.93 Impact Factor