The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials' human repeated insult patch test protocol

Abstract With implementation of the dermal sensitization QRA approach for fragrance ingredients, IFRA/RIFM are recommending use of the RIFM standard human repeated insult patch test (HRIPT) protocol for generation of confirmatory human data for the induction of dermal sensitization in a normal human population. Details of this standard HRIPT protocol are provided in this paper. The study protocol consists of two phases-Induction and Challenge. In the Induction phase, patches treated with fragrance ingredients in 75% diethyl phthalate/25% ethanol are applied to backs of volunteers for 24 h. Following patch removal there is a 24-h rest period and volunteers are patched again at the same site. This procedure is repeated to achieve 9 applications over a 3-week period. There is an approximate 2-week rest period followed by a Challenge phase of a single 24-h patch application of test article applied to a naïve site on the back. Skin reactions at the naïve site observed at Challenge may be suggestive of dermal sensitization, and a Rechallenge is performed to confirm the nature of the reactivity. This study is designed to confirm the No-Observed-Effect-Level for induction of dermal sensitization in a normal human population

t4 Workshop Report: Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) for Safety Assessment

Integrated testing strategies (ITS), as opposed to single definitive tests or fixed batteries of tests, are expected to efficiently combine different information sources in a quantifiable fashion to satisfy an information need, in this case for regulatory safety assessments. With increasing awareness of the limitations of each individual tool and the development of highly targeted tests and predictions, the need for combining pieces of evidence increases. The discussions that took place during this workshop, which brought together a group of experts coming from different related areas, illustrate the current state of the art of ITS, as well as promising developments and identifiable challenges. The case of skin sensitization was taken as an example to understand how possible ITS can be constructed, optimized and validated. This will require embracing and developing new concepts such as adverse outcome pathways (AOP), advanced statistical learning algorithms and machine learning, mechanistic validation and “Good ITS Practices”.JRC.I.5-Systems Toxicolog

Implementation of the dermal sensitization Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients

a b s t r a c t Significant developments have recently been incorporated in the way dermal sensitization risk assessments are conducted for fragrance ingredients. Based on the RIFM Expert Panel's recommendation, RIFM and IFRA have formally adopted the QRA approach, refined for fragrance ingredients identified as contact allergens, as the core strategy for primary prevention of dermal sensitization to these materials in consumer products. This new methodology is a major improvement over the former approach because it specifically addresses the elements of exposure-based risk assessment that are unique to the induction of dermal sensitization, while being consistent with the principles of toxicological risk assessment. This methodology will be used to determine global fragrance industry product management practices (IFRA Standards) for potentially sensitizing fragrance ingredients, the first of which was implemented in May 2006 with the 40th Amendment to the IFRA Code of Practice. It contained the first four IFRA Standards based on the QRA, limiting the use of the materials for 11 individual product categories. One of the first four IFRA Standards based on the QRA was on the fragrance material citral. The basis for the acceptable exposure limits are presented in this paper

Extension of the Dermal Sensitisation Threshold (DST) approach to incorporate chemicals classified as reactive

a b s t r a c t The evaluation of chemicals for their skin sensitising potential is an essential step in ensuring the safety of ingredients in consumer products. Similar to the Threshold of Toxicological Concern, the Dermal Sensitisation Threshold (DST) has been demonstrated to provide effective risk assessments for skin sensitisation in cases where human exposure is low. The DST was originally developed based on a Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) dataset and applied to chemicals that were not considered to be directly reactive to skin proteins, and unlikely to initiate the first mechanistic steps leading to the induction of sensitisation. Here we have extended the DST concept to protein reactive chemicals. A probabilistic assessment of the original DST dataset was conducted and a threshold of 64 lg/cm 2 was derived. In our accompanying publication, a set of structural chemistry based rules was developed to proactively identify highly reactive and potentially highly potent materials which should be excluded from the DST approach. The DST and rule set were benchmarked against a test set of chemicals with LLNA/human data. It is concluded that by combining the reactive DST with knowledge of chemistry a threshold can be established below which there is no appreciable risk of sensitisation for protein-reactive chemicals

Assessment of the Genotoxic Potential of Mintlactone

Mintlactone (chemical name 3,6-dimethyl-5,6,7,7a-tetrahydro-1-benzofuran-2(4H)-one, CAS Number 13341-72-5) is a fragrance and flavor ingredient with reported uses in many different cosmetics, personal care, and household products. In order to evaluate the genotoxic potential of mintlactone, in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests were conducted. Results from bacterial mutagenicity tests varied across different batches of differing purity with positive results observed in TA98 only. An in vivo comet assay was also considered to be positive in livers of female mice but negative in male mice. In contrast, in vitro and in vivo micronucleus tests, as well as 3D skin comet/micronucleus tests, were negative, indicating no chromosomal or DNA damage. The underlying causes for these contradictory results are not clear. It appears that the purity and/or stability of the test material may be an issue. In the absence of dependable scientific information on the purity and/or storage stability of mintlactone, its safety for use as a fragrance ingredient cannot be substantiated

Does the New Standard for Eugenol Designed to Protect Against Contact Sensitization Protect Those Sensitized From Elicitation of the Reaction?

Background: Potential fragrance allergens used in daily products should have a concentration limited to levels that are at, or below, acceptable exposure levels based on the quantitative risk assessment for the induction of dermal sensitization. To date, there are insufficient data to discern any quantitative relationship between induction and elicitation concentrations for fragrance ingredients that have a potential for dermal sensitization. When available, these data should be used to confirm the effectiveness of quantitative risk assessment-based risk management procedures. Objective: In this study, the relationship between the allergen concentration and the time to elicit allergic contact dermatitis in eugenol-sensitized patients was studied. The products used to elicit allergic contact dermatitis had a concentration of eugenol that was equal to, or below, the International Fragrance Association standard. Methods: Volunteers with and without known sensitization to eugenol were patch tested with various concentrations of eugenol (dilution series) and also underwent repeated open application tests (ROATs). This study model has previously been successfully used with stronger sensitizers. Results: In this study, allergic contact dermatitis, as evidenced by a positive ROAT, could not be elicited by any of the concentrations studied, including in those patients where the patch tests were positive. Conclusions: When tested in a 3-week ROAT at, or below, its current International Fragrance Association Standard, eugenol did not induce reactions even in those known to be sensitized. Whether this represents a false-negative result for a weak allergen is unknown