Universiẗat, Diss., 2002--Marburg.

Zugl.: Giessen, Univ., Diss., 2009

Skin sensitization resulting for allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an occupational and environmental health issue. The allergic hazard for workers and consumers is a serious problem for individuals, employers and marketing certain products. Consequently, it is necessary to accurately identify chemicals skin sensitization potential. According to the new EU chemical regulation REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals), information of skin sensitization of chemicals manufactured or imported at or above 1 ton/year should be available. Currently, valid approaches assessing skin sensitization rely on animal testing, such as local lymph node assay (LLNA). However, it now ultimately eliminates using animals for this purpose. Based on the fact that a key step in the skin sensitization process is formatting a covalent adduct between allergic sensitizers and proteins and/or peptides in skin, a lot of additional approaches are proposed and developed for replacing or reducing animal used. In this research, three bioassays, 24 h growth inhibition toward Tetrahymena pyriformis, long term (24 h) and short term (30 min) bacterial toxicity (to Vibrio fischeri), and a kinetic glutathione chemoassay are applied for predicting the organic chemicals’ skin sensitization potential. The major results and conclusions obtained are listed as follows: 1. Toxicity enhancement (Te) of 55 chemicals comprising different sensitization potencies were determined and compared with their narcotic toxicity to predict their skin sensitization. Three linear regressions yielded for all allergic sensitizer without nonsensitizers for each bioassay. The linear regressions are improved after classifying sensitizers into five different reaction mechanistic domains. Correspondingly, five different slopes from various reaction mechanisms indicate a decreased sensitivity of toxicity enhancement to skin sensitization potential with order SNAr > SN2 > acylation ≈ Schiff base > aromatic Michael addition. Based on the fact that a key step in the skin sensitization process is forming a covalent adduct between allergic sensitizers and proteins and/or peptides, Te > 10 as a threshold is applied to discriminate these allergic sensitizers, with 100% accuracy for strong (with extreme) and weaker sensitizers, up to 72% accuracy for moderate sensitizers and less than 69% accuracy for nonsensitizers. Compared with these bioassays, a decreasing order of sensitivities is 24 h growth inhibition (Tetrahymena pyriformis) > 24 h growth inhibition (Vibrio fischeri) > 30 min bioluminescence inhibition (Vibrio fischeri). These three bioassays are useful tools for screening sensitization potency of allergic chemicals, and the toxicity enhancement (Te) can be used to discriminate sensitizers from weak or nonsensitizers. However, in this context we should separate aromatic from aliphatic Mas (Michael acceptors). Moreover, metabolic biotransformation should be considered during predicting nonsensitizers’ skin sensitization. 2. Chemical reactivity of selected 55 compounds measuring through kinetic glutathione chemoassay applies to predict their skin sensitization. This chemoassay confirms the fact that the key step of sensitizers eliciting skin sensitization is formatting a covalent adduct between sensitizers and skin proteins or peptides. The chemical reactivity of tested sensitizers strongly relates with their sensitization potential, with strong (extreme) sensitizers presenting the highest reactivity as followed with moderate sensitizers, weak sensitizers as well as nonsensitizers. Moreover, an integrated platform of this chemoassay data and three bioassays data is performed, and this performance shows good sensitivity for monitoring skin sensitization potency, with more rational accuracy for each sensitizing classifications. 3. Thiol reactivity (kGSH) as well as toxicity enhancement (Te) of additional 21 aliphatic α,β-unsaturated compounds are determined for predicting their skin sensitization potential. The linear regressions of skin sensitization versus thiol reactivity and skin sensitization versus toxicity enhancement are significantly improved after classifying these 21 compounds to four chemical subgroups (acrylates, other esters, ketones and aldehydes). Thiol reactivity of these subgroups presented different sensitivity to skin sensitization, with a decreasing order as acrylates (－2.05) > other esters (－1.26) > ketones (－0.43) > aldehydes (－0.21). Moreover, thiol reactivity is confirmed to be a more sensitive tool for predicting skin sensitization, compared with toxicity enhancement. Although the datasets are probably too small to give a definite decision, hydrophobicity reveals contribution to skin sensitization for aliphatic MAs, which is different with literature report. This study suggests that aliphatic MAs should be treated separately into different chemical subgroups for analysis, and their skin sensitization potency can be predicted using kinetic glutathione chemoassay as well as toxicity enhancement bioassay.

Skin sensitization resulting for allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an occupational and environmental health issue. The allergic hazard for workers and consumers is a serious problem for individuals, employers and marketing certain products. Consequently, it is necessary to accurately identify chemicals skin sensitization potential. According to the new EU chemical regulation REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals), information of skin sensitization of chemicals manufactured or imported at or above 1 ton/year should be available. Currently, valid approaches assessing skin sensitization rely on animal testing, such as local lymph node assay (LLNA). However, it now ultimately eliminates using animals for this purpose. Based on the fact that a key step in the skin sensitization process is formatting a covalent adduct between allergic sensitizers and proteins and/or peptides in skin, a lot of additional approaches are proposed and developed for replacing or reducing animal used. In this research, three bioassays, 24 h growth inhibition toward Tetrahymena pyriformis, long term (24 h) and short term (30 min) bacterial toxicity (to Vibrio fischeri), and a kinetic glutathione chemoassay are applied for predicting the organic chemicals’ skin sensitization potential. The major results and conclusions obtained are listed as follows: 1. Toxicity enhancement (Te) of 55 chemicals comprising different sensitization potencies were determined and compared with their narcotic toxicity to predict their skin sensitization. Three linear regressions yielded for all allergic sensitizer without nonsensitizers for each bioassay. The linear regressions are improved after classifying sensitizers into five different reaction mechanistic domains. Correspondingly, five different slopes from various reaction mechanisms indicate a decreased sensitivity of toxicity enhancement to skin sensitization potential with order SNAr > SN2 > acylation ≈ Schiff base > aromatic Michael addition. Based on the fact that a key step in the skin sensitization process is forming a covalent adduct between allergic sensitizers and proteins and/or peptides, Te > 10 as a threshold is applied to discriminate these allergic sensitizers, with 100% accuracy for strong (with extreme) and weaker sensitizers, up to 72% accuracy for moderate sensitizers and less than 69% accuracy for nonsensitizers. Compared with these bioassays, a decreasing order of sensitivities is 24 h growth inhibition (Tetrahymena pyriformis) > 24 h growth inhibition (Vibrio fischeri) > 30 min bioluminescence inhibition (Vibrio fischeri). These three bioassays are useful tools for screening sensitization potency of allergic chemicals, and the toxicity enhancement (Te) can be used to discriminate sensitizers from weak or nonsensitizers. However, in this context we should separate aromatic from aliphatic Mas (Michael acceptors). Moreover, metabolic biotransformation should be considered during predicting nonsensitizers’ skin sensitization. 2. Chemical reactivity of selected 55 compounds measuring through kinetic glutathione chemoassay applies to predict their skin sensitization. This chemoassay confirms the fact that the key step of sensitizers eliciting skin sensitization is formatting a covalent adduct between sensitizers and skin proteins or peptides. The chemical reactivity of tested sensitizers strongly relates with their sensitization potential, with strong (extreme) sensitizers presenting the highest reactivity as followed with moderate sensitizers, weak sensitizers as well as nonsensitizers. Moreover, an integrated platform of this chemoassay data and three bioassays data is performed, and this performance shows good sensitivity for monitoring skin sensitization potency, with more rational accuracy for each sensitizing classifications. 3. Thiol reactivity (kGSH) as well as toxicity enhancement (Te) of additional 21 aliphatic α,β-unsaturated compounds are determined for predicting their skin sensitization potential. The linear regressions of skin sensitization versus thiol reactivity and skin sensitization versus toxicity enhancement are significantly improved after classifying these 21 compounds to four chemical subgroups (acrylates, other esters, ketones and aldehydes). Thiol reactivity of these subgroups presented different sensitivity to skin sensitization, with a decreasing order as acrylates (－2.05) > other esters (－1.26) > ketones (－0.43) > aldehydes (－0.21). Moreover, thiol reactivity is confirmed to be a more sensitive tool for predicting skin sensitization, compared with toxicity enhancement. Although the datasets are probably too small to give a definite decision, hydrophobicity reveals contribution to skin sensitization for aliphatic MAs, which is different with literature report. This study suggests that aliphatic MAs should be treated separately into different chemical subgroups for analysis, and their skin sensitization potency can be predicted using kinetic glutathione chemoassay as well as toxicity enhancement bioassay.