ABSTRACT
This study evaluated the applicability of a modified Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA) (OECD N° 442C, 2015) through the 10-fold reduction of reaction volume (micro-DPRA, mDPRA) for skin sensitization evaluation of six commercial glyphosate-containing formulations. In addition, another modification of DPRA was proposed by adding a UVA (5J/cm2) irradiation step, namely photo-mDPRA, to better characterize (photo)sensitizer materials. The phototoxicity profile of pesticides was also evaluated using the 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test (3T3-NRU-PT) (OECD N° 432, 2004). The mDPRA could represent an environmentally acceptable test approach, since it reduces costs and organic waste. Peptide depletion was greater in photo-mDPRA and changed the reactivity class of each test material, in comparison to mDPRA. Thus, the association of mDPRA with photo-mDPRA was better for correctly characterizing human (photo)sensitizer substances and pesticides. In general, cysteine depletion was greater than that of lysine for all materials tested in both mDPRA and photo-mDPRA. Furthermore, while 3T3-NRU-PT is unable to predict (photo)sensitizers, it was capable of correctly identifying the phototoxic potential of the tested agrochemical formulations. In conclusion, mDPRA plus photo-mDPRA and 3T3-NRU-PT seem to be preliminary non-animal test batteries for skin (photo)sensitization/phototoxicity assessment of chemicals, agrochemical formulations and their ingredients.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Phototoxic/pathology , Glycine/analogs & derivatives , Herbicides/toxicity , Photosensitivity Disorders/chemically induced , Skin/drug effects , Animal Testing Alternatives , Animals , BALB 3T3 Cells , Cysteine/metabolism , Drug Compounding , Glycine/toxicity , Humans , Lysine/metabolism , Mice , Neutral Red , Photosensitivity Disorders/pathology , Skin/pathology , Ultraviolet Rays , GlyphosateABSTRACT
Eye irritation evaluation is mandatory for predicting health risks in consumers exposed to textile dyes. The two dyes, Reactive Orange 16 (RO16) and Reactive Green 19 (RG19) are classified as Category 2A (irritating to eyes) based on the UN Globally Harmonized System for classification (UN GHS), according to the Draize test. On the other hand, animal welfare considerations and the enforcement of a new regulation in the EU are drawing much attention in reducing or replacing animal experiments with alternative methods. This study evaluated the eye irritation of the two dyes RO16 and RG19 by combining the Short Time Exposure (STE) and the Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability (BCOP) assays and then comparing them with in vivo data from the GHS classification. The STE test (first level screening) categorized both dyes as GHS Category 1 (severe irritant). In the BCOP, dye RG19 was also classified as GHS Category 1 while dye RO16 was classified as GHS no prediction can be made. Both dyes caused damage to the corneal tissue as confirmed by histopathological analysis. Our findings demonstrated that the STE test did not contribute to arriving at a better conclusion about the eye irritation potential of the dyes when used in conjunction with the BCOP test. Adding the histopathology to the BCOP test could be an appropriate tool for a more meaningful prediction of the eye irritation potential of dyes.
