No abstract

No abstract

Sir -A recent commentary in this journal1 addressed the rationale behind the classification and subsequent designation of substances as skin sensitizing chemicals proposed by the 'MAK Commission't of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.2 Although appreciating the standardization effort, Kimber et a]. disagree with a number of criteria the MAK Commission employs in the classification process and propose an alternative algorithm. We assume that the apparently different approaches of Kimber et a]. and our group are due to a * different scope and context of classification and subsequently a * different understanding of the terms 'designation'and 'evidence'.

No abstract

In the List of MAK and BAT Values compounds are designated with `Sa’ (`sensitizing for the airways’) or `Sh’ (`sensitizing for the skin’) if, according to scientific evidence, they are allergens. Mainly based on suggestions by a WHO working group and based on our own experience, extended criteria have been elaborated by the working group `skin and allergy’ of the Commission of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area, which are presented in this article. They serve as guidelines for deciding which substances have to be labelled `Sa’ and `Sh’, respectively, for the prevention of sensitization and subsequent allergic diseases in workers. Although in some special cases their strict application may not be deemed necessary or possible, the proposed new criteria should be used to make the procedure of classification of substances: 1) more rational, 2) more consistent, 3) more comprehensible, and 4) more transparent. This paper informs readers working scientifically or administratively in this field and invites a critical discussion of the issue.