Evaluating the sensitization potential of surfactants: integrating data from the local lymph node assay, guinea pig maximization test, and in vitro methods in a weight-of-evidence approach.

An integral part of hazard and safety assessments is the estimation of a chemical's potential to cause skin sensitization. Currently, only animal tests (OECD 406 and 429) are accepted in a regulatory context. Nonanimal test methods are being developed and formally validated. In order to gain more insight into the responses induced by eight exemplary surfactants, a battery of in vivo and in vitro tests were conducted using the same batch of chemicals. In general, the surfactants were negative in the GPMT, KeratinoSens and hCLAT assays and none formed covalent adducts with test peptides. In contrast, all but one was positive in the LLNA. Most were rated as being irritants by the EpiSkin assay with the additional endpoint, IL1-alpha. The weight of evidence based on this comprehensive testing indicates that, with one exception, they are non-sensitizing skin irritants, confirming that the LLNA tends to overestimate the sensitization potential of surfactants. As results obtained from LLNAs are considered as the gold standard for the development of new nonanimal alternative test methods, results such as these highlight the necessity to carefully evaluate the applicability domains of test methods in order to develop reliable nonanimal alternative testing strategies for sensitization testing.

Comparative testing for the identification of skin-sensitizing potentials of nonionic sugar lipid surfactants.

The Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) is the preferred test for the identification of skin-sensitizing potentials of chemicals in Europe and is also the first choice method within REACH. In the formal validation, only a very few surfactant chemicals were evaluated and SDS was identified as a false positive. In this study, 10 nonionic sugar lipid surfactants were tested in an LLNA, guinea pig maximization test (GPMT) and human repeated insult patch test. Of the 10 surfactants tested in the LLNA, 5 showed stimulation indices above 3.0. Three of five positive reactions were concomitant with signs of skin irritation indicated by an increase in ear thickness. In the GPMT, all test products were classified as nonsensitizers. In human volunteers, no skin reactions suggestive of sensitization were reported. In conclusion, these results are indicative of the LLNA overestimating sensitization potentials for this category of chemicals. This may in part be due to irritant effects generated by these surfactants. Until suitable nonanimal alternative tests obtain regulatory acceptance, use of other tests, e.g. GPMTs, may in cases be justified. Results such as these need be taken into account when developing nonanimal alternative methods to ensure reliable data sets for method validation purposes.

Application of a weight of evidence approach to assessing discordant sensitisation datasets: implications for REACH.

The local lymph node assay (LLNA) is the assay of choice in European regulatory toxicology. As with other toxicology/sensitisation assays, it has a potential for false results, the anionic surfactant sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) representing a classic example. In the work reported here, examples of false positives in the LLNA are compared to published "benchmarks" such as SLS. Clear false positives (e.g. oleic acid) are also contrasted with examples where data interpretation is more challenging. As the LLNA will be applicable to >30,000 chemicals under REACH, and in the light of animal welfare considerations to do no more than the absolute minimum of animal testing, results from a single LLNA often represent the only available data on sensitisation. This reinforces the need to ensure data from this assay are interpreted intelligently, using scientific analysis of results and considering the weight of evidence, before decisions are made on which substances should be classified as representing a skin sensitisation hazard. In chemical classes where the LLNA has been shown to be an inappropriate assay other standardised methods (e.g. the Buehler or Magnusson and Kligman guinea pig tests [OECD 406]) should be employed as the first choice assays.