Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Assessment for Contact Allergens

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Environment and Skin

  • 677 Accesses

Abstract

Contact allergens are chemical skin sensitisers which have the capacity to induce in humans a state of immunological hypersensitivity, such that subsequent exposures carry the risk of the elicitation of the skin disease allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). A substantial minority of chemicals possess this hazard (alongside other much more useful properties), meaning that it is essential to assess their risks to human health. In this chapter, comparative and quantitative risk assessment approaches are examined, together with practical examples. The application and performance of these methods also is discussed, since, unusually in toxicology, the diagnostic procedures associated with clinical assessment of ACD provide a direct feedback loop. The reality is that there remains substantial scope for improvement, a situation unlikely to be helped by the introduction of current in vitro alternatives for the hazard identification of chemical skin sensitisers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Honda T, Egawa G, Grabbe S, et al. Update of immune events in the murine contact hypersensitivity model: toward the understanding of allergic contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol. 2013;133:303–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Martin SF. New concepts in cutaneous allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:2–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Andersen KE, Maibach HI. Current problems in dermatology 14: contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. Basel: Karger; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Thyssen JP, Giménez-Arnau E, Lepoittevin JP, et al. The critical review of methodologies and approaches to assess the inherent skin sensitization potential (skin allergies) of chemicals. Part I. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66(Suppl 1):11–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Basketter DA, Andersen KE, Lidén C, et al. Evaluation of the skin sensitising potency of chemicals using existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:39–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Basketter DA, Clapp C, Jefferies D, et al. Predictive identification of human skin sensitisation thresholds. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;53:260–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van Loveren H, Cockshott A, Gebel T, et al. Skin sensitization in chemical risk assessment: report of a WHO/IPCS international workshop focusing on dose-response assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2008;50:155–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kimber I, et al. Local lymph node assay: validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Contact Dermat. 2000;11:3–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kimber I, Basketter DA. The murine local lymph node assay; collaborative studies and new directions: a commentary. Food Chem Toxicol. 1992;30:165–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kimber I, Basketter DA. Contact sensitization: a new approach to risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 1997;3:385–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Basketter DA, Lea L, Cooper K, et al. A comparison of statistical approaches to derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol. 1999;19:261–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, et al. Compilation of historical local lymph node data for evaluation of skin sensitization alternative methods. Dermatitis. 2005;16:157–202.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kern PS, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, et al. Historical local lymph node data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives: a second compilation. Dermatitis. 2010;21:8–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. The local lymph node assay EC3 value: status of validation. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:70–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Basketter DA, McFadden JP. Cutaneous allergies. In: Dietert RR, Luebke RW, editors. Immunotoxicity, immune dysfunction and chronic disease. New York: Humana Press; 2012. p. 103–26.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Ryan CA, Gerberick GF, Cruse LW, et al. Activity of human contact allergens in the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;43:95–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schneider K, Akkan Z. Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2004;39:245–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Api AM, Basketter DA, Lalko J. Correlation between experimental human and murine skin sensitization induction thresholds. Cut Ocul Toxicology. 2014;28:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Basketter DA, Alepee N, Ashikaga T, et al. Categorisation of chemicals according to their relative human skin sensitizing potency. Dermatitis. 2014;25:11–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Basketter DA, Lemoine S, McFadden JP. Skin sensitisation to fragrance ingredients: is there a role for household cleaning/maintenance products? Eur J Dermatol. 2015;25(1):7–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Basketter DA, McFadden JF, Gerberick F, et al. Nothing is perfect, not even the local lymph node assay: a commentary and the implications for REACH. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:65–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Robinson M. Risk assessment. In: Kimber I, Maurer T, editors. The toxicology of contact hypersensitivity. London: Taylor and Francis; 1996. p. 152–64.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Robinson MK, Nusair TL, Fletcher ER, et al. A review of the Buehler guinea pig skin sensitization test and its use in a risk assessment process for human skin sensitization. Toxicology. 1990;61:91–107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Basketter DA. The human repeated insult patch test in the 21st century: a commentary on ethics and validity. Cut Ocul Toxicol. 2009;28:49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Api AM, Basketter DA, Cadby PA, et al. Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2008;52:3–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Felter SP, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, et al. Application of the risk assessment paradigm to the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2003;37:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gerberick GF, Robinson MK, Felter S, et al. Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure-based risk assessment approach. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:333–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Api AM, Vey M. Implementation of the dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2008;52:53–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Corea N, Basketter DA, van Asten A, et al. Fragrance allergy: assessing the risk from fabric washing products. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:48–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Basketter DA. Methyldibromo glutaronitrile, skin sensitisation and quantitative risk assessment. Cut Ocul Toxicol. 2010;29:4–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Basketter DA, Clapp CJ, Safford BJ, et al. Preservatives and skin sensitisation quantitative risk assessment: risk benefit considerations. Dermatitis. 2008;19:20–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Farage MA, Bjerke DL, Mahony C, et al. Quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis: uncertainty factors for mucosal exposures. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49:140–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Basketter DA, Safford RJ. Skin sensitisation quantitative risk assessment; a review of underlying assumptions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;74:105–16.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Safford RJ. The dermal sensitisation threshold- a TTC approach for allergic contact dermatitis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2008;51:195–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Safford RJ, Aptula AO, Gilmour N. Refinement of the dermal sensitisation threshold (DST) approach using a larger dataset and incorporating mechanistic chemistry domains. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011;60:218–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jowsey IR, Clapp CJ, Safford B, et al. The impact of vehicle on the relative potency of skin sensitising chemicals in the local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008;27:67–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Felter SP, Robinson MK, Basketter DA, et al. A review of the scientific basis for uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:257–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T, et al. The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population--prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:287–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lindberg M, Matura M. Chapter 13: Patch testing. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PF, Lepoittevin JP, editors. Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 439–64.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Marie Api A, Belsito D, Bickers D. Quantitative risk assessment of contact sensitization: clinical data to assess utility of the model. Dermatitis. 2010;21:207–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Basketter DA, White IR. Diagnostic patch testing – does it have a wider relevance? Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. ECHA. European chemicals agency classification and labelling inventory. 2015. http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/information-on-chemicals/cl-inventory-database. Accessed 14 Jan 2015.

  43. Alani JI, Davis MD, Yiannias JA. Allergy to cosmetics: a literature review. Dermatitis. 2013;24:283–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bruze M, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, et al. Contact allergy to the active ingredients of Kathon CG in the guinea pig. Acta Derm Venereol. 1987;67:315–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Basketter DA, Kimber I. Chapter 13: Predictive tests for irritants and allergens and their use in quantitative risk assessment. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PF, Lepoittevin JP, editors. Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 229–40.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. EU. The scientific committee on cosmetic products and non-food products intended for consumers. Opinion concerning methylisothiazolinone. 2003. http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/sccp/out_201.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2015.

  47. EU. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products. 2003. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:066:0026:0035:en:PDF. Accessed 16 Dec 2013.

  48. Gonçalo M, Goossens A. Whilst Rome burns: the epidemic of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:257–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lundov MD, Opstrup MS, Johansen JD. Methylisothiazolinone contact allergy: a growing epidemic. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:271–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Basketter DA, White IR, McFadden JP, et al. Skin sensitization: integration of clinical data into hazard identification and risk assessment. Human Exp Toxicol. 2015;34(12):1222–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Crème RIFM. 2014. http://www.Cremeglobal.Com/Modelling-software/creme-care-cosmetics/creme-rifm. Accessed 18 Jan 2015.

  52. Crème Global. Aggregate exposure from real consumer data. 2014. http://www.cremeglobal.com/modelling-software/creme-care-cosmetics/. Accessed 18 Jan 2015.

  53. Hall B, Tozer S, Safford B, et al. European consumer exposure to cosmetic products, a framework for conducting population exposure assessments. Food Chem Toxicol. 2007;45:2097–108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hall B, Steiling W, Safford B, et al. European consumer exposure to cosmetic products, a framework for conducting population exposure assessments part 2. Food Chem Toxicol. 2011;49:408–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. McNamara C, Rohan D, Golden D, et al. Probabilistic modelling of European consumer exposure to cosmetic products. Food Chem Toxicol. 2007;45:2086–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dillarstone A. Cosmetic preservatives. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:190.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cosmetics Europe. Cosmetics Europe Recommendation on MIT. 2013. https://www.cosmeticseurope.eu/news-a-events/news/647-cosmetics-europe-recommendation-on-mit.html. Accessed 18 Jan 2015.

  58. EU. Scientific committee on consumer safety opinion on methylisothizzolinone. Adopted 12 December 2013 and revised on 27 March 2014. 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_145.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2015.

  59. Anderson SE, Meade BJ. Potential health effects associated with dermal exposure to occupational chemicals. Environ Health Insights. 2014;8(Suppl 1):51–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Basketter DA. Skin sensitization: strategies for the assessment and management of risk. Br J Dermatol. 2008;159:267–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Holness DL. Occupational skin allergies: testing and treatment (the case of occupational allergic contact dermatitis). Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2014;14:410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Cheng J, Zug KA. Fragrance allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2014;25:232–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. EU. European Detergents Regulation (EC) No. 648/2004 as amended 14/03/2012. 2012. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2004R0648:20120419:EN:PDF. Accessed 7 Jun 2013.

  64. Fischer LA, Menné T, Voelund A, et al. Can exposure limitations for well-known contact allergens be simplified? An analysis of dose-response patch test data. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:337–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Fischer LA, Johansen JD, Menné T. Nickel allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157:723–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Fischer LA, Johansen JD, Menné T. Methyldibro-moglutaronitrile allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol. 2008;159:1138–43.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Schnuch A, Uter W, Dickel H, et al. Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing in hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde sensitive-patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61:152–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Garg S, Thyssen JP, Uter W, et al. Nickel allergy following European Union regulation in Denmark, Germany, Italy and the U.K. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:854–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DABMEB Consultancy Ltd., Sharnbrook, MK44 1PR, UK

    David A. Basketter

Authors
  1. David A. Basketter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Basketter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IUF – Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Jean Krutmann

  2. Universitätsklinikum Aachen Klinik für Dermatologie u. Allergologie, Aachen, Germany

    Hans F. Merk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Basketter, D.A. (2018). Risk Assessment for Contact Allergens. In: Krutmann, J., Merk, H. (eds) Environment and Skin. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43102-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43102-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43100-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43102-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation