Application of the risk assessment paradigm to the induction of allergic contact dermatitis

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-10

  Felter, Susan P ^a   Ryan, Cindy A ^a   Basketter, David A ^b   Gilmour, Nicola J ^b   Gerberick, G Frank ^a  

^a PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^b UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis; Exposure; Fragrances; Potency; Risk assessment; Sensitization

Indexed keywords

ALLERGEN; ANTIPERSPIRANT AGENT; CINNAMALDEHYDE; DEODORANT AGENT; HYDROXYCITRONELLAL;

CONSUMER; EXPOSURE; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; NONHUMAN; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0037299775     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0273-2300(02)00021-1     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Barratt M.D., et al. An expert system rulebase for identifying contact allergens. Toxicol. In Vitro. 8:1994;1053-1060.
2. Basketter D.A., Scholes E.W. Comparison of the local lymph node assay with the guinea-pig maximization test for the detection of a range of contact allergens. Fundam. Chem. Toxicol. 30:1992;65-69.
3. Basketter D.A., Gerberick G.F. An interlaboratory evaluation of the Buehler test for the identification and classification of skin sensitizers. Contact Derm. 35:1996;146-151.
4. Basketter D.A.et al. The performance of the local lymph node assay with chemicals identified as contact allergens in the human maximization test. Fundam. Chem. Toxicol. 32:1994;543-547.
5. Basketter D.A.et al. Risk assessment. Kimber I., Maurer T. Toxicology of Contact Hypersensitivity. 1996;152-164 Taylor & Francis, London.
6. Basketter D.A.et al. Skin sensitization thresholds: Determination in predictive models. Fundam. Chem. Toxicol. 35:1997;417-425.
7. Basketter D.A.et al. Toxicology of Contact Dermatitis: Allergy, Irritancy and Urticaria. 1999;Wiley, Chichester.
8. Basketter D.A.et al. Chemical allergy: estimation of potency, thresholds and risk assessments. Comments Toxicol. 7:1999;79-88.
9. Basketter D.A.et al. Use of the local lymph node assay for the estimation of relative contact allergenic potency. Contact Derm. 42:2000;344-348.
10. Buehler E.V. Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch. Dermatol. 91:1965;171-177.
11. Buehler E.V. Methods, approaches for assessment of contact hypersensitivity. Dean J.H., Luster M.I., Munson A.E., Amos H. Immunotoxicology and Immunopharmacology. 1985;123-131 Raven Press, New York.
12. Felter S.P.et al. An evaluation of the scientific basis for default uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment of the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Derm. 47:2002;257-266.
13. Fewings J., Menne T. An update of the risk assessment for methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) with focus on rinse-off products. Contact Derm. 41:1999;1-13.
14. Ford R.A.et al. Allergic contact sensitization potential of hydroxycitronellal in humans. Fundam. Chem. Toxicol. 26:1988;921-926.
15. Friedmann P.S.et al. Quantitation of sensitization and responsiveness to dinitrochlorobenzene in normal subjects. Br. J. Dermatol. 109(Suppl):1983;86-88.
16. Friedmann P.S.et al. Quantitative relationships between sensitizing dose of DNCB and reactivity in normal subjects. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 53:1983;709-715.
17. Gerberick G.F., Robinson M.K. Skin sensitization risk assessment of new products. Am. J. Contact Derm. 11:2000;65-73.
18. Gerberick G.F.et al. Local lymph node assay: validation for regulatory purposes. Am. J. Contact Derm. 11:2000;3-18.
19. Gerberick G.F.et al. Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure-based risk assessment approach. Contact Derm. 45:2001;333-340.
20. Gerberick G.F.et al. Contact allergenic potency: correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. Am. J. Contact Derm. 12:2001;156-161.
21. ICCVAM (Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods), 1999. The marine local lymph node assay: a test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals/compounds. NIH publication No. 99-4494.
22. IFRA (International Fragrance Association), 2000. Code of Practice: Hydroxycitronellal. Brussels.
23. Kimber I., Dearman R.J. Investigation of lymph node cell proliferation as a possible immunological correlate of contact sensitizing potential. Fundam. Chem. Toxicol. 29:1991;125-129.
24. Kimber I.et al. Development of a murine local lymph node assay for the determination of sensitization potential. Fundam. Chem. Toxicol. 24:1986;585-586.
25. Kimber I.et al. Thresholds in contact sensitization: theoretical and practical considerations. Fundam. Chem. Toxicol. 37:1999;553-560.
26. Kligman A.M. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. III. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J. Invest. Dermatol. 47:1966;393-409.
27. Magnusson B., Kligman A.M. The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test. J. Invest. Derm. 52:1969;268-276.
28. Magnusson B., Kligman A.M. Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig. Identification of Contact Allergens. 1970;Thomas, Springfield, IL.
29. Marzulli F., Maguire H.C. Usefulness and limitations of various guinea-pig test methods in detecting human skin sensitizers - validation of guinea-pig tests for skin hypersensitivity. Fundam. Chem. Toxicol. 20:1982;67-74.
30. NAS (National Academy of Science), 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
31. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2001. OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals. Draft New Guideline 429: Skin Sensitization: Local Lymph Node Assay. Paris, France. Online: www.oecd.org.
32. Rees J.L.et al. The influence of area of application on sensitization by dinitrochlorobenzene. Br. J. Dermatol. 122:1990;29-31.
33. Robinson M.K.et al. A risk assessment process for allergic contact sensitization. Fundam. Chem. Toxicol. 27:1989;479-489.
34. Robinson M.K.et al. The importance of exposure estimation in the assessment of skin sensitization risk. Contact Derm. 42:2000;251-259.
35. SCCNFP (The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products Intended for Consumers). Opinion Concerning: Fragrance Allergy in Consumers. SCCNFP/0017/98 Final. December, 1999. Online: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/sccp/out98_en.pdf.
36. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. August, 1997. Volume III: Activity Factors. Chapter 16: Consumer Products. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/exposfac.htm.
37. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2002a. Glossary of IRIS terms. Online: http://www.epa. gov/iris/gloss8.htm#r.
38. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2002b. A review of the reference dose and reference concentration processes (External Review Draft). EPA/630/P-02/002A. 22 May. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, 186 pp.
39. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2002c. IRIS Summary on Nickel, Soluble Salts. Online: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0271.htm.
40. White S.I., Freidmann P.S., Moss C., Simpson J.M. The effect of altering area of application and dose per unit area on sensitization by DNCB. Br. J. Dermatol. 115:1986;663-668.