Advertisement

Predictive Tests for Irritants and Allergens and Their Use in Quantitative Risk Assessment

  • David Basketter
  • Ian Kimber

Keywords

Contact Dermatitis Skin Irritation Allergic Contact Dermatitis Quantitative Risk Assessment Irritant Contact Dermatitis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andersen KE, Maibach HI (1985) Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. Karger, Basel (Current problems in dermatology, vol 14)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen KE, Volund A, Frankild S (1995) The guinea pig maximization test with a multiple dose design. Acta Derm Venereol 75:463–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basketter DA, Cadby P (2004) Reproducible prediction of contact allergenic potency using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 50:15–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, Loveless SE (1996) The local lymph node assay: a viable alternative to currently accepted skin sensitisation tests. Food Chem Toxicol 34:985–997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basketter DA, Chamberlain M, Griffiths HA, York M (1997a) The classification of skin irritants by human patch test. Food Chemical Toxicol 35:845–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basketter DA, Reynolds FS, York M (1997b) Predictive testing in contact dermatitis — irritant dermatitis. In: Goh CL, Koh D (eds) Clinics in dermatology — contact dermatitis, vol 15. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 637–644Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basketter DA, Gilpin GR, Kuhn M, Lawrence RS, Reynolds FS, Whittle E (1998) Patch tests versus use tests in skin irritation risk assessment. Contact Dermatitis 39:252–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, Willis C (1999a) The toxicology of contact dermatitis, chap 3. Wiley, Chichester, pp 39–56Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, Willis C (1999b) The toxicology of contact dermatitis, chap 4. Wiley, Chichester, pp 57–72Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, Willis CM (1999c) Toxicology of contact dermatitis. Allergy, irritancy and urticaria. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Basketter DA, Lea LJ, Dickens A, Briggs D, Pate I, Dearman RJ, Kimber I (1999d) A comparison of statistical approaches to derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol 19:261–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Basketter DA, Blaikie L, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Ryan CA, Gerberick GF, Harvey P, Evans P, White IR, Rycroft RJG (2000) Use of the local lymph node assay for the estimation of relative contact allergenic potency. Contact Dermatitis 42:344–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Basketter DA, Pease Smith CK, Patlewicz GY (2003) Contact allergy: the local lymph node assay for the prediction of hazard and risk. Clin Exp Dermatol 28:218–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buehler EV (1965) Delayed contact hypersensitivity in the guinea pig. Arch Dermatol 91:171–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chan PD, Baldwin RC, Parson RD, Moss JN, Sterotelli R, Smith JM, Hayes AW (1983) Kathon biocide: manifestation of delayed contact dermatitis in guinea pigs is dependent on the concentration for induction and challenge. J Invest Dermatol 81:409–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Groot AC (1990) Methylisothiazolinone/methylchloroisothiazolinone (Kathon CG) allergy: an updated review. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1:151–156Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Draize JH, Woodard G, Calvery HO (1944) Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 82:377–390Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    EC (1992) Annex to Commission Directive 92/69/EEC of 31 July 1992 adapting to technical progress for the seventeenth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Official J Eur Commun L383A:35Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Felter SP, Robinson MK, Basketter DA, Gerberick GF (2002) A review of the scientific basis for default uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment of the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 47:257–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Felter SP, Ryan CA, Basketter DA, Gerberick GF (2003) Application of the risk assessment paradigm to the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 37:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fentem JH, Archer GEB, Balls M, Botham PA, Curren RD, Earl LK, Esdaile DJ, Holzhutter H-G, Liebsch M (1998) The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for skin corrosivity. 2. Results and evaluation by the Management Team. Toxicol In Vitro 12:483–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frosch PJ, Kurte A, Pilz B (1993) Efficacy of skin barrier creams. III. The repetitive irritation test (RIT) in humans. Contact Dermatitis 29:113–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gabard B, Treffel P, Charton-Picard F, Eloy R (1995) Irritant reactions on hairless micropig skin: a model for testing barrier creams? Karger, Basel, pp 275–287 (Current problems in dermatology, vol 23)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gad SC, Dunn BJ, Dobbs DW, Reilly C, Walsh RD (1986) Development and validation of an alternative dermal sensitisation test: the mouse ear swelling test (MEST). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 84:93–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Lea LJ, Basketter DA (1999) Local lymph node assay: validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Cont Derm 11(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gerberick GF, Robinson MK, Felter S, White I, Basketter DA. (2001) Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure-based risk assessment approach. Contact Dermatitis 45:333–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Patlewicz GY, Basketter DA (2004) A chemical dataset for the evaluation of alternative approaches to skin sensitization testing. Contact Dermatitis 50:274–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Griem P, Goebel C, Scheffler H (2003) Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 38:269–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hall-Manning TJ, Holland GH, Basketter DA, Barratt MD (1995) Skin irritation potential of mixed surfactant systems in a human 4 hour covered patch test. Allergologie 18:465Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hannuksela A, Hannuksela M (1995) Irritant effects of a detergent in wash and chamber tests. Contact Dermatitis 32:163–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hilton J, Dearman RJ, Harvey P, Evans P, Basketter DA, Kimber I (1998) Estimation of relative skin sensitising potency using the local lymph node assay: a comparison of formaldehyde with glutaraldehyde. Am J Contact Derm 9:29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Holland G, York M, Basketter DA (1995) Irritants — corrosive materials, oxidising/reducing agents, acids and alkalis, concentrated salt solutions etc. In: Maibach HI, Coenraads PJ (eds) Irritant contact dermatitis syndrome. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 55–64Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jenkins HL, Adams MG (1989) Progressive evaluation of skin irritancy of cosmetics using human volunteers. Int J Cosmet Sci 11:141–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kimber I, Basketter DA (1992) The murine local lymph node assay: a commentary on collaborative studies and new directions. Food Chem Toxic 30:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kimber I, Basketter DA (1997) Contact sensitisation: a new approach to risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 3:385–395Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kimber I, Dearman RJ (1991) Investigation of lymph node cell proliferation as a possible immunological correlate of contact sensitizing potential. Food Chem Toxic 29:125–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Scholes EW, Basketter DA (1994) The local lymph node assay: developments and applications. Toxicology 93:13–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kimber I, Pichowski JP, Betts CJ, Cumberbatch M, Basketter DA, Dearman RJ (2001) Alternative approaches to the identification and charactersiation of chemical allergens. Toxicol In Vitro 15:307–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kimber I, Dearman RJ, Basketter DA, Ryan CA, Gerberick GF (2002) The local lymph node assay: past, present and future. Contact Derm 47:315–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lewis RW, Basketter DA (1995) Transcutaneous electrical resistance: application in predicting skin corrosives. In: Elsner P, Maibach HI (eds) Irritant dermatitis: new clinical and experimental aspects. Karger, Basel, pp 243–255Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Magnusson B, Kligman AM (1970) Allergic contact dermatitis in the Guinea pig. Thomas, Springfield, ILGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Maibach HI, Coenraads PJ (1995) The irritant contact dermatitis syndrome. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Malten KE (1981) Thoughts on irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 7:238–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (1975) The rabbit as a model for evaluating skin irritants: a comparison of results obtained on animals and man using repeated skin exposures. Food Cosmet Toxicol 13:533–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    NIH publication no 99-4494 (1999) The murine local lymph node assay: a test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemical compoundsGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Patil SM, Patrick E, Maibach HI (1996) Animal, human, and in vitro test methods for predicting skin irritation. In: Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (eds) Dermatotoxicology. Taylor and Francis, Washington, DC, pp 411–436Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Prins M, Swinkels OQ, Kolkman EG, Wuis EW, Hekster YA, van der Valk PG (1998) Skin irritation by dithranol cream. A blind study to assess the role of the cream formulation. Acta Derm Venereol 78:262–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schneider K, Akkan Z (2004) Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 39:245–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Simion FA (1995) In vivo models to predict skin irritation. In: Van der Valk PGM, Maibach HI (eds) The irritant contact dermatitis syndrome. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 329–334Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Walker AP, Basketter DA, Baverel M, Diembeck W, Matthies W, Mougin D, Paye M, Rothlisburger R, Dupuis J (1996) Test guideline for assessment of skin compatibility of cosmetic finished products in man. Food Chem Toxicol 34:551–560Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Walker AP, Basketter DA, Baverel M, Diembeck W, Matthies W, Mougin D, Paye M, Rothlisburger R, Dupuis J (1997) Test guidelines for assessment of skin tolerance of potentially irritant cosmetic ingredients in man. Food Chem Toxicol 35:1099–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Lea LJ, Basketter DA, Kimber I (1999) Local lymph node assay responses to paraphenylenediamine: intra-and inter-laboratory evaluations. J Appl Toxicol 19:255–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Weaver JE, Carding CW, Maibach HI (1985) Dose response assessments of Kathon biocide. I.Diagnostic use and diagnostic threshold patch testing with sensitised humans. Contact Dermatitis 12:141–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Welss T, Basketter DA, Schroder KR (2004) In vitro skin irritation: facts and future. State of the art review of mechanisms and models. Toxicol In Vitro 18:231–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wigger-Alberti W, Hinnen U, Elsner P (1997) Predictive testing of metalworking fluids: a comparison of 2 cumulative human irritation models and correlation with epidemiological data. Contact Dermatitis 36:14–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zachariae C, Rastogi S, Devantier C, Menne T, Johansen JD (2003) Methyldibromo glutaronitrile: clinical experience and exposure-based risk assessment. Contact Dermatitis 48:150–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Basketter
    • 1
  • Ian Kimber
    • 2
  1. 1.Unilever Environmental Safety LaboratorySharnbrook, BredfordUK
  2. 2.Syngenta Central Toxicology LaboratoryMacclesfield, CheshireUK

Personalised recommendations