Hexyl cinnamal: consideration of skin-sensitizing properties and suitability as a positive control

References

• Basketter DA, Selbie E, Scholes EW, et al. Results with OECD recommended positive control sensitizers in the maximisation, Buehler and local lymph node assays. Food Chem Toxicol 1993;31:63–67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Gerberick GF. Interlaboratory evaluation of the Buehler test. Contact Dermat 1996;35:146–151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA. Skin immunology and sensitization. In: Chilcott RP, Price S, eds. Principles and practice of skin toxicology. Chichester: Wiley; 2008:149–168
   Google Scholar
• International Fragrance Association. IFRA Standard α-Hexyl Cinnamic Aldehyde. Dated 10 June 2013. Available from: http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/standards-library/s/hexyl#.Uja9MxY2lKI [last accessed 16 Sep 2013]
   Google Scholar
• OECD. Guideline for the testing of chemicals, Guideline 429: Skin Sensitization: Local Lymph Node Assay. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2002
   Google Scholar
• Dearman RJ, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, et al. The suitability of hexyl cinnamic aldehyde as a calibrant for the using local lymph node assay. Contact Dermat 2001;44:357–361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler S, Basketter DA, Creton S, et al. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects – 2010. Arch Toxicol 2011;85:367–485
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vocanson M, Nicolas J-F, Basketter DA. In vitro approaches to the identification and characterization of skin sensitizers. Exp Rev Dermatol 2013;8:395–405
   Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Scholes EW, Wahlkvist H, Montelius J. An evaluation of the suitability of benzocaine as a positive control skin sensitizer. Contact Dermat 1995;33:28–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Divkovic M, Pease CM, Gerberick GF, Basketter DA. Hapten-protein binding: from theory to practical application in the in vitro prediction of skin sensitization. Contact Dermat 2005;53:189–200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lepoittevin J-P. Molecular aspects in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. In: Johansen J, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P, eds. Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2011:91–110
   Google Scholar
• Smith CK, Hotchkiss SAM. Xenobiotics as skin sensitizers: metabolic activation and detoxification, and protein-binding mechanisms, In: Allergic contact dermatitis: chemical and metabolic mechanisms. London: Taylor and Francis; 2001:119–205
   Google Scholar
• Patlewicz G, Basketter DA, Smith CK, et al. Skin sensitization structure activity relationships for aldehydes. Contact Dermat 2001;44:331–336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patlewicz GY, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, et al. Structure activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermat 2002;47:219–226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natsch A, Ryan CA, Foertsch L, et al. A dataset on 145 chemicals tested in alternative assays for skin sensitization undergoing prevalidation. J Appl Toxicol 2013;33:1337–1352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, Vassallo JD, Bailey RE, et al. Development of a peptide reactivity assay for screening contact allergens. Toxicol Sci 2004;81:332–343
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, Vassallo JD, Foertsch LM, et al. Quantification of chemical peptide reactivity for screening contact allergens: a classification tree model approach. Toxicol Sci 2007;97:417–427
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aleksic M, Thain E, Roger D, et al. Reactivity profiling: covalent modification of single nucleophile peptides for skin sensitization risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 2009;108:401–411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Clewell H, Kimber I, et al. A roadmap for the development of alternative (non-animal) methods for systemic toxicity testing. ALTEX 2012;29:5–91
   Google Scholar
• Basketter D, Angers-Loustau A, Casati S, ECVAM. ECVAM: progressing skin sensitization alternatives for hazard identification. Contact Dermat 2012;66:24
   Google Scholar
• Ashikaga T, Sakaguchi H, Sono S, et al. A comparative evaluation of in vitro skin sensitization tests: the human cell-line activation test (h-CLAT) versus the local lymph node assay (LLNA). Altern Lab Anim 2012;38:275–284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2011. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Part 3: Health Hazards. Available from: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_rev04/English/03e_part3.pdf [last accessed 22 Oct 2012]
   Google Scholar
• Dearman RJ, Hilton J, Evans P, et al. Temporal stability of local lymph node assay responses to hexyl cinnamic aldehyde. J Appl Toxicol 1998;18:281–284
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I. The local lymph node assay EC3 value: status of validation. Contact Dermat 2007;57:70–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Loveren H, Cockshott A, Gebel T, et al. Skin sensitization in chemical risk assessment: report of a WHO/IPCS international workshop focusing on dose-response assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008;50:155–199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loveless SE, Api AM, Crevel RW, et al. Potency values from the local lymph node assay: application to classification, labelling and risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2010;56:54–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimber I, Basketter DA. Contact sensitization: a new approach to risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 1997;3:385–395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Lea L, Cooper K, et al. A comparison of statistical approaches to derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose responses. J Appl Toxicol 1999;19:261–266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, Kern PS, et al. Compilation of historical local lymph node assay data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives. Dermatitis 2005;16:157–202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kern PS, Gerberick GF, Ryan CA, et al. Historical local lymph node data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives: a second compilation. Dermatitis 2010;21:8–32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jowsey IR, Clapp CJ, Safford B, et al. The impact of vehicle on the relative potency of skin sensitizing chemicals in the local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2008;27:67–75
   Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Alepee N, Ashikaga T, et al. Categorisation of chemicals according to their relative human skin sensitizing potency. Dermatitis 2014;25:11–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA. The human repeated insult patch test in the 21st century: a commentary on ethics and validity. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 2009;28:49–53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gefeller O, Pfahlberg AB, Uter W. What can be learnt from nothing? – A statistical perspective. Contact Dermat 2013;69:350–354
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. (2012) Opinion on Fragrance Allergens in Consumer Products. Dated 31 July 2012. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_102.pdf [last accessed 13 Jan 2014]
   Google Scholar
• Frosch PJ, Rastogi SC, Pirker C, et al. Patch testing with a new fragrance mix – reactivity to the individual constituents and chemical detection in relevant cosmetic products. Contact Dermat 2005;52:216–225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, et al. Sensitization to 26 fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation. Results of the IVDK and review of the literature. Contact Dermat 2007;57:1–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pónyai G, Németh I, Altmayer A, et al. Hungarian Contact Dermatitis Group. Patch tests with fragrance mix II and its components. Dermatitis 2012;23:71–74
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ECHA. Guidance on the application of the CLP criteria. Version 4.0 November 2013. Available from: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13562/clp_en.pdf [last accessed 28 Nov 2013]
   Google Scholar