Limitations and Modifications of Skin Sensitization NAMs for Testing Inorganic Nanomaterials

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<sub>2</sub>, BaSO<sub>4</sub>, TiO<sub>2</sub> or SiO<sub>2</sub>, 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Toxics
Published
2024-08-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12080616
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.67

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Limitations and Modifications of Skin Sensitization NAMs for Testing Inorganic Nanomaterials

Ayse Aktalay, Susanne Noreen Kolle, Dorothee Funk-Weyer, Barbara Birk et al.
5 citations
Toxics
Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
2.67
article

Limitations and Modifications of Skin Sensitization NAMs for Testing Inorganic Nanomaterials

Ayse Aktalay, Susanne Noreen Kolle, Dorothee Funk-Weyer, Barbara Birk, Britta Wareing, Robert Landsiedel
article en
5 citations

Abstract

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<sub>2</sub>, BaSO<sub>4</sub>, TiO<sub>2</sub> or SiO<sub>2</sub>, 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.

ToxicsVol. 12(8)
BASF (Germany) (DE), Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
2.67
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.