Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toxikologische Risikobewertung am Beispiel einer möglichen Kontaktsensibilisierung auf Resorcinol

Toxicological risk assessment using the example of potential contact sensitization to resorcinol

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Hautarzt Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Am Beispiel von Resorcinol, einem weitverbreiteten Haarfarbstoff, stellt dieser Übersichtbeitrag dar, wie die Daten zur Hautsensibilisierung und Hautexposition aus der SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) opinion (Wissenschaftliches Berater-Gremium bei der Europäischen Union [EU]) und aus anderen Quellen verwendet werden, um eine quantitative Risikobewertung (QRA) durchzuführen. Hierbei wird bewertet, welche Konzentration in Haarfarbprodukten maximal eingesetzt werden kann, ohne dass die Neuentstehung einer Hautsensibilisierung zu erwarten ist. Hierbei liegt der Fokus darauf, die Entstehung (Induktion) einer Kontaktallergie zu vermeiden. Epidemiologische Daten zur Kontaktallergie gegen Resorcinol – wie sie z. B. in Deutschland vom IVDK (Informationsverbund Dermatologischer Kliniken) erarbeitet werden, sind dabei eine wichtige Informationsquelle, die hilft, die Qualität und Effektivität des QRA zu beurteilen.

Abstract

Resorcinol is a frequently used hair dye, whose quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for hair color products is presented in this review as an example to assess its skin sensitization risk after topical application. Its purpose is to determine the maximum concentration that can be used without expecting skin sensitization to occur. The focus is to prevent the de novo development of a contact allergy. Epidemiological data which are provided via dermatological surveillance, e.g., by the IVDK (Information Network of Departments of Dermatology) in Germany, are an important source of information that help to assess the quality and the effectivity of the QRA.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Aeby P, Sieber T, Beck H, Gerberick GF, Goebel C (2009) Skin sensitization to p‑phenylenediamine: the diverging roles of oxidation and N‑acetylation for dendritic cell activation and the immune response. J Invest Dermatol 129(1):99–109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Barbaud A, Reichert-Penetrat S, Trechot P, Granel F, Schmutz JL (2001) Sensitization to resorcinol in a prescription verrucide preparation: unusual systemic clinical features and prevalence. Ann Dermatol Venereol 128(5):615–618

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Basketter DA, Sanders D, Jowsey IR (2007) The skin sensitization potential of resorcinol: experience with the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 56(4):196–200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. ECETOC (2009) Potency values from the local lymph node assay: application to classification, labelling and risk assessment ECETOC Dokument no. 46. Ecetoc, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eskes C, Hennen J, Schellenberger MT, Hoffmann S, Frey S, Goldinger-Oggier D, Peter N, Van Vliet E, Blömeke B (2019) The HaCaT/THP‑1 Cocultured Activation Test (COCAT) for skin sensitization: a study of intra-lab reproducibility and predictivity. ALTEX. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1905031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ezendam J, Braakhuis HM, Vandebriel RJ (2016) State of the art in non-animal approaches for skin sensitization testing: from individual test methods towards testing strategies. Arch Toxicol 90(12):2861–2883

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Genies C, Jamin EL, Debrauwer L, Zalko D, Person EN, Eilstein J, Gregoire S, Schepky A, Lange D, Ellison C, Roe A, Salhi S, Cubberley R, Hewitt NJ, Rothe H, Klaric M, Duplan H, Jacques-Jamin C (2019) Comparison of the metabolism of 10 chemicals in human and pig skin explants. J Appl Toxicol 39(2):385–397

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goebel C, Kosemund-Meyen K, Gargano EM, Politano V, von Bölcshazy G, Zupko K, Jaiswal N, Zhang J, Martin S, Neumann D, Rothe H (2017) Non-animal skin sensitization safety assessments for cosmetic ingredients—What is possible today? Curr Opin Toxicol 5:46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goebel C, Diepgen TL, Blomeke B, Gaspari AA, Schnuch A, Fuchs A, Schlotmann K, Krasteva M, Kimber I (2018) Skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment for occupational exposure of hairdressers to hair dye ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 95:124–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Goebel C, Diepgen TL, Krasteva M, Schlatter H, Nicolas JF, Blomeke B, Coenraads PJ, Schnuch A, Taylor JS, Pungier J, Fautz R, Fuchs A, Schuh W, Gerberick GF, Kimber I (2012) Quantitative risk assessment for skin sensitisation: consideration of a simplified approach for hair dye ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 64(3):459–465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Huth L, Moss E, Huth S, Skazik C, Karlberg A, Lepoittevin JP, Baron JM, Merk HF (2017) 429 prohapten-activation by human cutaneous cytochrome P450 isoenzymes—identified with a modified KeratinoSens assay. J Investig Dermatol 137(10):265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kimber I, Gerberick GF, Basketter DA (2017) Quantitative risk assessment for skin sensitization: success or failure? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 83:104–108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kolle SN, Natsch A, Gerberick GF, Landsiedel R (2019) A review of substances found positive in 1 of 3 in vitro tests for skin sensitization. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 106:352–368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Natsch A, Haupt T (2013) Utility of rat liver S9 fractions to study skin-sensitizing prohaptens in a modified KeratinoSens assay. Toxicol Sci 135(2):356–368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nukada Y, Ashikaga T, Sakaguchi H, Sono S, Mugita N, Hirota M, Miyazawa M, Ito Y, Sasa H, Nishiyama N (2011) Predictive performance for human skin sensitizing potential of the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT). Contact Dermatitis 65(6):343–353

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. SCCP (2005) Memorandum classification and categorization of skin sensitisers and grading of test reactions. 20 September 2005. SCCP/0919/05

    Google Scholar 

  17. SCCS (2010) Opinion on resorcinol (23 March 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  18. SCCS (2018) SCCS notes of guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation 10th revision, 24–25 October 2018, SCCS/1602/18

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sosted H, Rustemeyer T, Goncalo M, Bruze M, Goossens A, Gimenez-Arnau AM, Le Coz CJ, White IR, Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Agner T, Maibach H, Menne T, Johansen JD (2013) Contact allergy to common ingredients in hair dyes. Contact Dermatitis 69(1):32–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Uter W, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bircher AJ, Brans R, Bruze M, Diepgen TL, Foti C, Gimenez Arnau A, Goncalo M, Goossens A, McFadden J, Paulsen E, Svedman C, Rustemeyer T, White IR, Wilkinson M, Johansen JD (2019) The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Europe: follow-up on changing exposures. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. COTY Wella Toxicology, Berliner Allee 65, 64295, Darmstadt, Deutschland

    C. Goebel &  M. Kock

  2. Klinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie – Hautklinik, Universitätsklinikum Aachen, Aachen, Deutschland

    H. Merk

Authors
  1. C. Goebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Kock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Merk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Goebel.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

C. Goebel und M. Kock sind Mitarbeiter von COTY Wella Toxicology. H.F. Merk gibt an, Honorare für Beratungsleistungen von Johnson& Johnson, Grünenthal, COTY Wella und Meda erhalten zu haben.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goebel, C., Kock, M. & Merk, H. Toxikologische Risikobewertung am Beispiel einer möglichen Kontaktsensibilisierung auf Resorcinol. Hautarzt 70, 948–952 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00105-019-04510-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00105-019-04510-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation