No abstract

No abstract

There exists considerable historic experience of the relationship between exposure and both the induction of sensitization and the elicitation of respiratory symptoms from industrial enzymes of bacterial and fungal origin used in a wide variety of detergent products. The detergent industry in particular has substantial experience of how the control of exposure leads to limitation of sensitization with low risk of symptoms. However, the experience also shows that there are substantial gaps in knowledge, even when the potential occupational allergy problem is firmly under control, and also that the relationship between exposure and sensitization can be hard to establish. The latter aspect includes a poor appreciation of how peak exposures and low levels of exposure over time contribute to sensitization. Furthermore, while a minority of workers develop specific IgE, essentially none appear to have symptoms, a situation which appears to contradict the allergy dogma that, once sensitized, an individual will react to much lower levels of exposure. For enzymes, the expression of symptoms occurs at similar or higher levels than those that cause induction. In spite of some knowledge gaps, medical surveillance programs and constant air monitoring provide the tools for successful management of enzymes in the occupational setting. Ultimately, the knowledge gained from the occupational setting facilitates the completion of safety assessments for consumer exposure to detergent enzymes. Such assessments have been proven to be correct by the decades of safe use both occupationally and in consumer products.

The use of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) permits the combination of diverse types of chemical and toxicological data for the purposes of hazard identification and characterisation. In November 2008, the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA), together with the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), held a workshop on Overcoming Barriers to Validation of Non-animal Partial Replacement Methods/Integrated Testing Strategies, in Ispra, Italy, to discuss the extent to which current ECVAM approaches to validation can be used to evaluate partial replacement in vitro test methods (i.e. as potential ITS components) and ITS themselves. The main conclusions of these discussions were that formal validation was only considered necessary for regulatory purposes (e.g. the replacement of a test guideline), and that current ECVAM approaches to validation should be adapted to accommodate such test methods (1). With these conclusions in mind, a follow-up EPAA–ECVAM workshop was held in October 2009, to discuss the extent to which existing validation principles are applicable to the validation of ITS test methods, and to develop a draft approach for the validation of such test methods and/or overall ITS for regulatory purposes. This report summarises the workshop discussions that started with a review of the current validation methodologies and the presentation of two case studies (skin sensitisation and acute toxicity), before covering the definition of ITS and their components, including their validation and regulatory acceptance. The following main conclusions/recommendations were made: that the validation of a partial replacement test method (for application as part of a testing strategy) should be differentiated from the validation of an in vitro test method for application as a stand-alone replacement, especially with regard to its predictive capacity; that, in the former case, the predictive capacity of the whole testing strategy (rather than of the individual test methods) would be more important, especially if the individual test methods had a high biological relevance; that ITS allowing for flexible and ad hoc approaches cannot be validated, whereas the validation of clearly defined ITS would be feasible, although practically quite difficult; and that test method developers should be encouraged to develop and submit to ECVAM not only full replacement test methods, but also partial replacement methods to be placed as parts of testing strategies. The added value from the formal validation of testing strategies, and the requirements needed in view of regulatory acceptance of the data, require further informed discussion within the EPAA forum on the basis of case studies provided by industry.

Detergent enzymes have a very good safety profile, with almost no capacity to generate adverse acute or chronic responses in humans. The exceptions are the limited ability of some proteases to produce irritating effects at high concentrations, and the intrinsic potential of these bacterial and fungal proteins to act as respiratory sensitizers, demonstrated in humans during the early phase of the industrial use of enzymes during the 1960s and 1970s. How enzymes generate these responses are beginning to become a little clearer, with a developing appreciation of the cell surface mechanism(s) by which the enzymatic activity promotes the T-helper (T(H))-2 cell responses, leading to the generation of IgE. It is a reasonable assumption that the majority of enzyme proteins possess this intrinsic hazard. However, toxicological methods for characterizing further the respiratory sensitization hazard of individual enzymes remains a problematic area, with the consequence that the information feeding into risk assessment/management, although sufficient, is limited. Most of this information was in the past generated in animal models and in vitro immunoassays that assess immunological cross-reactivity. Ultimately, by understanding more fully the mechanisms which drive the IgE response to enzymes, it will be possible to develop better methods for hazard characterization and consequently for risk assessment and management.