Evaluation of in vitro assays for the assessment of the skin sensitization hazard of functional polysiloxanes and silanes.

The skin sensitization potential of chemicals has traditionally been evaluated in vivo according to OECD testing guidelines in guinea pigs or the mouse local lymph node assay. There has lately been a great emphasis on establishing in vitro test methods reflecting the key biological events in the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for skin sensitization as published by the OECD. Against this background, a group of 8 polysiloxanes and silanes, seven of them aminofunctionalised, for which in vivo data were already available, has been tested in vitro in the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), the KeratinoSens™ and the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT) and in the modified myeloid U937 skin sensitization test (mMUSST) as far as technically feasible. The main objective of the programme was to determine the utility of these systems for this heterogeneous group of silicone-based substances, recognizing that some substances are outside the assays applicability domains. The presented data provided some interesting mechanistical insights into the performance of these assays for functionalised siloxanes and silanes. The data also allow for a preliminary evaluation of proposed integrated testing strategies (ITS) to determine the skin sensitization potential of chemicals which were not considered in the training sets of the respective ITS.

An assessment of the skin sensitisation hazard of a group of polyfunctional silicones using a weight of evidence approach.

Discordant results were observed when testing five prototype polyfunctional silicone materials for skin sensitization potential in the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and in the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT). While all five silicone materials were consistently negative in the GPMT, the testing in the LLNA revealed weak to moderate skin sensitisation potential for four of the five test materials. Neither study quality nor other known chemical factors could explain these findings. Further analysis did not provide sufficient evidence for a link between the LLNA responses and the irritancy of the test substances. Only in the case of one of the test materials, the occurrence of an excessive level of irritation could be linked to the positive LLNA result. Considering all existing information including physico-chemical and structure activity and animal data as well as existing human experience from silicone exposures at the workplace or their use in cosmetic products, the weight of evidence suggests that none of the examined silicone materials represents a significant skin sensitization hazard to humans. The suitability of the LLNA appears questionable for this class of materials. In case of any additional data needs for other or new silicone materials, the skin sensitization testing strategy will require careful evaluation and will need to be set up on a case by case basis.