Wareing Britta, Aktalay Hippchen Ayse, Kolle Susanne N, Birk Barbara, Funk-Weyer Dorothee, Landsiedel Robert
BASF SE, Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, 67057 Ludwigshafen, Germany.
BASF SE, Agriculture Solutions, 67117 Limburgerhof, Germany.
Toxics. 2024 Aug 21;12(8):616. doi: 10.3390/toxics12080616.
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 CeO, BaSO, TiO or SiO, 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.
自2020年以来,《化学品注册、评估、授权和限制法规》(REACh法规)要求提供材料纳米形式的毒理学数据,包括对其皮肤致敏特性的评估。小分子的皮肤致敏潜力可通过新方法学(NAMs)进行评估,这些方法学涉及经合组织(OECD)指南497中描述的特定方法(DA)组合的三个关键事件(KE:蛋白质相互作用、树突状细胞激活和角质形成细胞激活)。在本研究中,评估了三种NAMs(直接肽反应性测定法(DPRA)、鲁米诺敏感化试验(LuSens)和人细胞系激活试验(h-CLAT))对九种材料(八种无机纳米材料(NM),包括氧化铈(CeO)、硫酸钡(BaSO)、二氧化钛(TiO)或二氧化硅(SiO)以及石英)的适用性。通过特定的样品制备(纳米遗传毒性分散方案)和方法修改,以减少纳米材料与光度法和流式细胞术读数的相互作用,这些NAMs在技术上适用于纳米材料。根据经合组织指南第497号中描述的特定方法,将三种试验的结果进行了综合;两种无机纳米材料被鉴定为皮肤致敏剂。然而,动物研究数据(对于氧化锌(ZnO),也包括人体数据)表明没有皮肤致敏潜力。其余七种受试物质被评估为“不确定”,因为所有无机纳米材料都超出了DPRA的范围,并且根据所有三种NAMs的现行测试指南,可达到的测试浓度不够高。这些NAMs用于(无机)纳米材料以及结果的总体相关性在三个方面受到挑战:(i)NAMs需要修改才能适用于不溶性无机物;(ii)现行测试指南缺乏适用于纳米材料的足够浓度指标和可达到的最高浓度;(iii)纳米材料引起皮肤致敏的分子和细胞关键事件可能与小分子不同;事实上,T细胞介导的超敏反应可能不是免疫系统对纳米材料最相关的反应。我们得出结论,经合组织测试指南采用的NAMs目前不太适合测试无机纳米材料。