Terephthalaldehyde

Skin sensitisation

Administrative data

Endpoint:

skin sensitisation: in vivo (LLNA)

Type of information:

experimental study

Adequacy of study:

key study

Study period:

21 Dec 2018 to 29 Jan 2019

Reliability:

1 (reliable without restriction)

Rationale for reliability incl. deficiencies:

guideline study

Data source

Reference

Reference Type:

study report

Title:

Unnamed

Year:

2019

Report date:

2019

Materials and methods

Test guideline

Qualifier:

according to guideline

Guideline:

OECD Guideline 429 (Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay)

Deviations:

no

GLP compliance:

yes (incl. QA statement)

Type of study:

mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA)

Test material

Test material information

Constituent 1

Reference substance name:

Terephthalaldehyde

EC Number:

210-784-8

EC Name:

Terephthalaldehyde

Cas Number:

623-27-8

Molecular formula:

C8H6O2

IUPAC Name:

benzene-1,4-dicarbaldehyde

Test material form:

solid: particulate/powder

Specific details on test material used for the study:

Identification: Terephthaldehyde
Batch (Lot) Number: 180401
Expiry date: 01 April 2020 (retest date)
Physical Description: Light yellow powder
Storage Conditions: At room temperature

In vivo test system

Test animals

Species:

mouse

Strain:

CBA:J

Sex:

female

Details on test animals and environmental conditions:

Test System
Species: Mouse
Strain: CBA/J
Condition: Inbred, SPF-Quality
Source: Janvier, Le Genest-Saint-Isle, France
Number of Animals: 20 Females (nulliparous and non-pregnant). Five females per group.
Age at the Initiation of Dosing: Young adult animals (approximately 12 weeks old) were selected.
Weight at the Initiation of Dosing: 21.8 to 26.3 g.

Justification for Test System and Number of Animals
The CBA/J mouse was chosen as the animal model for this study as recognized by international guidelines as a recommended test system (e.g. OECD, FDA, MHLW). The test method and number of animals were based on the test guidelines.

Animal Identification
At study assignment, each animal was identified using a tail mark with indelible ink.

Environmental Acclimation
The animals were allowed to acclimate to the Test Facility toxicology accommodation for at least 5 days before the commencement of dosing.

Selection, Assignment, Replacement, and Disposition of Animals
Animals were assigned to the study at the discretion of the coordinating biotechnician according to body weights, with all animals within ± 20% of the sex mean. Animals in poor health or at extremes of body weight range were not assigned to the study.
Before the initiation of dosing, a health inspection was performed and any assigned animal considered unsuitable for use in the study were replaced by alternate animals obtained from the same shipment and maintained under the same environmental conditions.
The disposition of all animals was documented in the study records.

Husbandry
Housing
On arrival and following assignment to the study, animals were group housed (up to 5 animals of the same sex and same dosing group together) in polycarbonate cages (Makrolon MIII type; height 18 cm.) containing sterilized sawdust as bedding material (Lignocel S 8-15, JRS - J.Rettenmaier & Söhne GmbH + CO. KG, Rosenberg, Germany) equipped with water bottles. The rooms in which the animals were kept were documented in the study records.
Animals were separated during designated procedures/activities. Each cage was clearly labeled.

Environmental Conditions
Target temperatures of 18 to 24°C with a relative target humidity of 40 to 70% were maintained. The actual daily mean temperature during the study period was 22 to 23°C with an actual daily mean relative humidity of 42 to 47%. A 12 hour light/12 hour dark cycle was maintained. Ten or greater air changes per hour with 100% fresh air (no air recirculation) were maintained in the animal rooms.

Food
Pelleted rodent diet (SM R/M-Z from SSNIFF® Spezialdiäten GmbH, Soest, Germany) was provided ad libitum throughout the study, except during designated procedures.
The feed was analyzed by the supplier for nutritional components and environmental contaminants. Results of the analysis were provided by the supplier and are on file at the Test Facility.
It is considered that there were no known contaminants in the feed that would interfere with the objectives of the study.

Water
Municipal tap-water was freely available to each animal via water bottles.
Periodic analysis of the water was performed, and results of these analyses are on file at the Test Facility.
It is considered that there were no known contaminants in the water that would interfere with the objectives of the study.

Animal Enrichment
For psychological/environmental enrichment, animals were provided with paper (Enviro-dri, Wm. Lillico & Son (Wonham Mill Ltd), Surrey, United Kingdom) and shelters (disposable paper corner home, MCORN 404, Datesand Ltd, USA), except when interrupted by study procedures/activities.

Veterinary Care
Veterinary care was available throughout the course of the study; however, no examinations or treatments were required.

Study design: in vivo (LLNA)

Vehicle:

acetone/olive oil (4:1 v/v)

Concentration:

Main study: 10, 25 or 50% w/w

No. of animals per dose:

5/f/dose

Details on study design:

Justification of Route and Dose Levels
Dose route and dose concentrations used are in compliance with the OECD test guidelines for LLNA studies.

Pre-screen Test
A pre-screen test was conducted in order to select the highest test item concentration to be used in the main study. In principle, this highest concentration should cause no systemic toxicity, may give well-defined irritation as the most pronounced response (maximum grade 2 and/or an increase in ear thickness < 25%) and/or is the highest possible concentration that can technically be applied. Two test item concentrations were tested; a 25% and 50% concentration. The highest concentration was the maximum concentration as required in the test guidelines. The test system, procedures and techniques were identical to those used in the main study except that the assessment of lymph node proliferation and necropsy were not performed. Two young adult females per concentration were selected. Each animal was treated with one concentration on three consecutive days. Animals were group housed in labeled Makrolon cages (MII type, height 14 cm). Ear thickness measurements were conducted using a digital thickness gauge (Kroeplin C110T-K) prior to dosing on Days 1 and 3, and on Day 6. Animals were sacrificed after the final observation.

Main Study
Three groups of five animals were treated with one test item concentration per group. The highest test item concentration was selected from the pre-screen test. One group of five animals was treated with the vehicle.

IInduction - Days 1, 2 and 3
The dorsal surface of both ears was topically treated (25 μL/ear) with the test item, at approximately the same time on each day. The concentrations were stirred with a magnetic stirrer immediately prior to dosing.
The control animals were treated in the same way as the experimental animals, except that the vehicle was administered instead of the test item.

Excision of the Nodes - Day 6
Each animal was injected via the tail vein with 0.25 mL of sterile phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) containing 20 μCi of 3H-methyl thymidine (PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences, Boston, MA, US).
After five hours, all animals were euthanized by intraperitoneal injection (0.2 mL/animal) of Euthasol® 20% (AST Farma BV, Oudewater, The Netherlands). The draining (auricular) lymph node of each ear was excised. The relative size of the nodes (as compared to normal) was estimated by visual examination and abnormalities of the nodes and surrounding area were recorded. The nodes were pooled for each animal in PBS.

Tissue Processing for Radioactivity - Day 6
Following excision of the nodes, a single cell suspension of lymph node cells (LNC) was prepared in PBS by gentle separation through stainless steel gauze (maze size: 200 µm, diameter: ± 1.5 cm). LNC were washed twice with an excess of PBS by centrifugation at 200g for 10 minutes at 4ºC. To precipitate the DNA, the LNC were exposed to 5% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and then stored in the refrigerator until the next day.

Radioactivity Measurements - Day 7
Precipitates were recovered by centrifugation, resuspended in 1 mL TCA and transferred to 10 mL of Ultima Gold cocktail (PerkinElmer Life and Analytical Sciences, Boston, MA, US) as the scintillation fluid. Radioactivity measurements were performed using a Packard scintillation counter (2910TR). Counting time was to a statistical precision of ± 0.2% or a maximum of 5 minutes whichever came first. The scintillation counter was programmed to automatically subtract background and convert Counts Per Minute (CPM) to Disintegrations Per Minute (DPM).

Mortality/Moribundity Checks
Throughout the study, animals were observed for general health/mortality and moribundity twice daily, in the morning and at the end of the working day. Animals were not removed from cage during observation, unless necessary for identification or confirmation of possible findings.

Postdose Observations
Postdose observations were performed once daily on Days 1-6 (on Days 1-3 between 3 and 4 hours after dosing).
All the animals were examined for reaction to dosing. The onset, intensity and duration of these signs was recorded (if appropriate), particular attention being paid to the animals during and for the first hour after dosing.

Body Weights
Animals were weighed individually on Day 1 (predose) and 6 (prior to necropsy).

Irritation
Erythema and eschar formation observations were performed once daily on Days 1-6 (on Days 1-3 within 1 hour after dosing), according to the following numerical scoring system. Furthermore, a description of all other (local) effects was recorded.
Erythema and eschar formation:
No erythema 0
Very slight erythema (barely perceptible) 1
Well-defined erythema 2
Moderate to severe erythema (beet redness) to slight eschar formation (injuries in depth) 3
Severe erythema (beet redness) to eschar formation preventing grading of erythema 4

Terminal procedures
No necropsy was performed, since all animals survived until the end of the observation period.

Positive control substance(s):

hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (CAS No 101-86-0)

Statistics:

Radioactivity measurements were performed using a Packard scintillation counter (2910TR). Counting time was to a statistical precision of ± 0.2% or a maximum of 5 minutes whichever came first. The scintillation counter was programmed to automatically subtract background and convert Counts Per Minute (CPM) to Disintegrations Per Minute (DPM).

Results and discussion

Positive control results:

The results indicated that HCA elicit a SI ≥ 3 following a dose response indicating that the test system was able to give a positive response to the positive control item.

In vivo (LLNA)

Results

Results 1

Key result

Parameter:

SI

Value:

ca. 2

Test group / Remarks:

10 % group

Results 2

Key result

Parameter:

SI

Value:

ca. 2.8

Test group / Remarks:

25 % group

Results 3

Key result

Parameter:

SI

Value:

ca. 2.3

Test group / Remarks:

50 % group

Cellular proliferation data / Observations:

Systemic Toxicity
No mortality occurred and no clinical signs of systemic toxicity were observed in the animals. Body weights and body weight gain of experimental animals remained in the same range as controls over the study period.

ANALYSIS
All results presented in the tables of the report are calculated using values as per the raw data rounding procedure and may not be exactly reproduced from the individual data presented.
DPM values are presented for each animal and for each dose group. A Stimulation Index (SI) is calculated for each group using the individual SI values. The individual SI is the ratio of the DPM/animal compared to the DPM/vehicle control group mean.
Consideration was given to the EC3 value (the estimated test item concentration that will give a SI =3)
If the results indicate a SI ≥ 3, the test item may be regarded as a skin sensitizer.

Applicant's summary and conclusion

Interpretation of results:

GHS criteria not met

Conclusions:

The SI values calculated for the test item dosed groups did not exceed 3. However, response to the dose was noted with the highest SI value bordering the threshold of 3 and high responders far exceeding an SI of 3. The response of the highest dose group did not follow the expected dose-response relationship which is more often seen in these kind of studies. The response might be less due to differences in skin penetration or viscosity. The study results should be considered inconclusive or would lead to a precautionary approach, by considering Terephthaldehyde as a possible skin sensitizer.
The six-month reliability check with Alpha-hexylcinnamaldehyde indicates that the Local Lymph Node Assay as performed at Charles River Den Bosch is an appropriate model for testing for contact hypersensitivity.

Executive summary:

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether Terephthaldehyde induces skin sensitization in mice after three epidermal exposures of the animals under the conditions described in this report.

The study was carried out based on the guidelines described in:

·        

·         "Skin Sensitization: Local Lymph Node Assay".

·        

Test item concentrations selected for the main study were based on the results of a pre-screen test. At a 25% and 50% test item concentration, no signs of systemic toxicity were noted and very slight irritation were observed. Therefore the 50% concentration was selected as highest concentration for the main study.

In the main study, three experimental groups of five female CBA/J mice were treated with test item concentrations of 10, 25 or 50% w/w on three consecutive days, by open application on the ears. Five vehicle control animals were similarly treated, but with the vehicle alone (Acetone/Olive oil (4:1 v/v)). Three days after the last exposure, all animals were injected with³H-methyl thymidine and after five hours the draining (auricular) lymph nodes were excised and pooled for each animal. After precipitating the DNA of the lymph node cells, radioactivity measurements were performed. The activity was expressed as the number of disintegrations per minute (DPM) and a stimulation index (SI) was subsequently calculated for each group.

The majority of auricular lymph nodes were considered normal in size, except for the nodes one animal treated at 25% (no. 11), which were considered enlarged. No macroscopic abnormalities of the surrounding area were noted for any of the animals.

Mean DPM/animal values for the experimental groups treated with test item concentrations 10, 25 and 50% were 714, 1008 and 833 DPM, respectively. The mean DPM/animal value for the vehicle control group was 356 DPM. The SI values calculated for the test item concentrations 10, 25 and 50% were 2.0, 2.8 and 2.3, respectively.

In conclusion, the SI values calculated for the test item dosed groups did not exceed 3. However, response to the dose was noted with the highest SI value bordering the threshold of 3 and high responders far exceeding an SI of 3. The response of the highest dose group did not follow the expected dose-response relationship which is more often seen in these kind of studies. The response might be less due to differences in skin penetration or viscosity. The study results should be considered inconclusive or would lead to a precautionary approach, by consideringTerephthaldehyde as a possible skin sensitizer.

The six-month reliability check with Alpha-hexylcinnamaldehyde indicates that the Local Lymph Node Assay as performed at Charles River Den Bosch is an appropriate model for testing for contact hypersensitivity.