Limitations and Modifications of Skin Sensitization NAMs for Testing Inorganic Nanomaterials
Author:
Wareing Britta1, Aktalay Hippchen Ayse1ORCID, Kolle Susanne N.1ORCID, Birk Barbara2ORCID, Funk-Weyer Dorothee1, Landsiedel Robert13
Affiliation:
1. BASF SE, Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, 67057 Ludwigshafen, Germany 2. BASF SE, Agriculture Solutions, 67117 Limburgerhof, Germany 3. Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Toxicology, Free University of Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany
Abstract
Since 2020, the REACh regulation requires toxicological data on nanoforms of materials, including the assessment of their skin-sensitizing properties. Small molecules’ skin sensitization potential can be assessed by new approach methodologies (NAMs) addressing three key events (KE: protein interaction, activation of dendritic cells, and activation of keratinocytes) combined in a defined approach (DA) described in the OECD guideline 497. In the present study, the applicability of three NAMs (DPRA, LuSens, and h-CLAT) to nine materials (eight inorganic nanomaterials (NM) consisting of CeO2, BaSO4, TiO2 or SiO2, and quartz) was evaluated. The NAMs were technically applicable to NM using a specific sample preparation (NANOGENOTOX dispersion protocol) and method modifications to reduce interaction of NM with the photometric and flowcytometric read-outs. The results of the three assays were combined according to the defined approach described in the OECD guideline No. 497; two of the inorganic NM were identified as skin sensitizers. However, data from animal studies (for ZnO, also human data) indicate no skin sensitization potential. The remaining seven test substances were assessed as “inconclusive” because all inorganic NM were outside the domain of the DPRA, and the achievable test concentrations were not sufficiently high according to the current test guidelines of all three NAMs. The use of these NAMs for (inorganic) NM and the relevance of the results in general are challenged in three ways: (i) NAMs need modification to be applicable to insoluble, inorganic matter; (ii) current test guidelines lack adequate concentration metrics and top concentrations achievable for NM; and (iii) NM may not cause skin sensitization by the same molecular and cellular key events as small organic molecules do; in fact, T-cell-mediated hypersensitivity may not be the most relevant reaction of the immune system to NM. We conclude that the NAMs adopted by OECD test guidelines are currently not a good fit for testing inorganic NM.
Funder
BMBF project Aerosafe
Reference69 articles.
1. Nanoparticles: Properties, applications and toxicities;Khan;Arab. J. Chem.,2019 2. Jagiello, K., Sosnowska, A., Stępnik, M., Gromelski, M., and Płonka, K. (2023). Nano-Specific Alternative Methods in Human Hazard/Safety Assessment under Different EU Regulations, Considering the Animal Testing Bans Already in Place for Cosmetics and Their Ingredients, QSAR Lab Ltd. 3. EFSA Scientific Committee, More, S., Bampidis, V., Benford, D., Bragard, C., Halldorsson, T., Hernández-Jerez, A., Hougaard Bennekou, S., Koutsoumanis, K., and Lambré, C. (2021). Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials to be applied in the food and feed chain: Human and animal health. EFSA J., 19, e06768. 4. Alternative test methods for (nano)materials hazards assessment: Challenges and recommendations for regulatory preparedness;Gomes;Nano Today,2021 5. Integrated approaches to testing and assessment for grouping nanomaterials following dermal exposure;Janer;Nanotoxicology,2022
|
|