Skin sensitization data for methyl esters of sulphonic acids—Corrections to published databases required

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundSeveral methyl esters of sulphonic acids are listed in murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) databases, with dose–response data and EC3 values. However, some of these entries are questionable—in one case the chemical tested is not the chemical named in the databases and in others the EC3 value has been derived by extrapolation from data that do not meet the applicability criteria for the approved extrapolation method.ObjectivesTo consider how LLNA data came to be attributed to the wrong chemical and to address the inappropriate extrapolated EC3 values.MethodsDose–response data for methyl hexadec‐3‐enesulphonate (wrongly named as methyl hexadec‐1‐enesulphonate), two other methyl sulphonates and hexadec‐1‐ene‐1,3‐sultone are re‐evaluated using the single dose probit extrapolation method (SDPEM). The different reaction chemistry profiles of methyl hexadec‐3‐enesulphonate and methyl hexadec‐1‐enesulphonate are discussed.ResultsExtrapolated EC3 values for hexadec‐1‐ene‐1,3‐sultone are the same by both methods but for the methyl sulphonates the differences are substantial.ConclusionsCurrent databases should be corrected and further analysed to identify other cases where EC3 values are likely to be unreliable due to inappropriate estimation by extrapolation.