I am reproducing the cause to effect continuum graphic from
a few weeks ago because it is going to help us understand a point about this week’s
blog; namely, after contact a material
has to be absorbed within the systemic circulation of the body in order to
exert a toxic effect.
I have mostly worked in the realm of bioavailability of
chemicals via dermal exposure. This was
a natural result of my employment by a company that made a Type IV contact
allergen that was used as an effective biocide but needed to control the
exposure so that the risk of contact allergy to users was likely to be deemed
to be “not unacceptable”.
You may find the double negative term “not unacceptable” to
be strange; however, I use it for a reason.
My sense is that acceptability of risk is very much a political
determination. As such it is a
somewhat subjective judgment made by the body politic. Indeed, I see it as part of the democratic
process that is more of less open to those making and being subject to the
decisions of that process. I see that
piece as more management and less science.
I see our job as risk assessors to do the best we can to estimate the
risk and, when forced to do so, provide levels of exposure that we believe may
not be unacceptable to the body politic. Indeed, I see it as analogous to the null hypothesis
in statistics. One does not accept it,
one simply fails to reject it at some level of confidence.
OK, so much for philosophy, the purpose of this blog is to
discuss bioavailability via dermal exposure.
During my analysis of bioavailability for product safety I studied two mechanisms
that effect or control the amount of a topically applied dose of contact
allergen that might make it to the systemic circulation of the body. Indeed, it is commonly accepted that the contact allergen has to pass through the stratum cornium (SC) or top layer of our skin
in order to elicit a contact dermatitis allergic response.
The first mechanism that I thought about, but never got the
opportunity to test in the laboratory was the limited bioavailability contact
allergens caused by the continuous shedding of our skin.
The SC layer of our skin is composed of about a dozen or so
layers of essentially flat dead cells.
These are shedding from the top as they are replaced
from the bottom in a process known as desquamation. That rate of shedding is about one layer of cells per
day. The “ring” around the bath tub at
the end of a bath is composed of some of these dead cells. Indeed, a lot of house dust is also composed
of these skin cells constantly being shed from our body.
Contact allergens are reactive and theoretically bind with
protein to form an immunologically active species that goes on to cause an
allergic response. As it turns out even
dead cells in the SC layer have protein bonds that can theoretically react and
bind with the allergen. It is my
opinion and hypothesis that this binding essentially detoxifies the allergen
because it is not mobile (being locked into the desiccated dead SC cell) and the
cell is making its way to the surface to be shed. When the rate of allergen application
overwhelms this process, the allergen makes it past the SC and into the viable
dermis to do its thing; however, if the rate of application of contact allergen
is low enough it cannot “swim” again the up-welling current of SC cells fast enough to reach the viable dermis. In this hypothesis we have a natural and
demonstrable threshold of toxic effect for dermally applied contact allergens.
I know that the concept of any threshold for allergic
response will spawn some comment from those who do not believe they exist for
allergens but I think the above logic is pretty solid and certainly testable as
a hypothesis. It simply has not been tested as far as I can
determine.
The other mechanism of bioavailability for allergens in
products comes from the partitioning of allergens in products with polymeric
aqueous emulsions. Depending on how
lipophilic the allergen is, it will partition more or less into the polymeric
emulsion particles, leaving significantly less of the antigen to go into and through the SC.
We did get to study this second mechanism in the laboratory
and wrote a paper about it. I would be
happy to send a copy of this paper to whomever requests it from me at mjayjock@gmail.com.
Hello Mike,
ReplyDeleteI really like your approach based on scientific thinking AND on common sense the latter being absent in so many other blogs and discussions. All the talk about "toxic chemicals" in cosmetics (vs. the benefits of "natural" ingredients) makes particularly no sense when seen in the light of your chart! But why bother with science and logic when "cancerogenic parabens" sell so much better...
What you say about the allergens is of course true for any ingredient put on the skin.
Thanks!