Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Toxicol.
Sec. In Vitro Toxicology
Volume 7 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/ftox.2025.1426132
This article is part of the Research Topic Advances in inhalation safety assessment View all 9 articles

Evaluation of a non-animal toolbox informed by adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for human inhalation safety

Provisionally accepted
  • 1 Safety and Environmental Assurance Center at Unilever, Bedford, United Kingdom
  • 2 Charles River Laboratory Edinburgh Ltd, Tranent, United Kingdom
  • 3 Epithelix, Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
  • 4 Institute for In Vitro Sciences, Inc. (IIVS), Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    This work evaluated a non-animal toolbox to be used within a next-generation risk assessment (NGRA) framework to assess chemical-induced lung effects using human upper and lower respiratory tract models, namely MucilAir™-HF and EpiAlveolar™ systems, respectively. A 12-day substance repeated exposure scheme was established to explore potential lung effects through analysis of bioactivity readouts from the tissue integrity and functionality, cytokine/chemokine secretion, and transcriptomics. Eleven benchmark chemicals were tested, including inhaled materials and drugs that may cause lung toxicity following systemic exposure, covering 14 human exposure scenarios classified as low-or high-risk based on historical safety decisions. For calculation of bioactivity exposure ratios (BERs), obtained chemical-induced bioactivity data were used to derive in vitro points of departures (PoDs) using a nonlinear state space model. PoDs were then combined with human exposure estimates, i.e., predicted lung deposition for benchmark inhaled materials using multiple path particle dosimetry (MPPD) exposure computational modeling or literature maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for systemically available benchmark drugs. In general, PoDs occurred at higher concentrations than the corresponding human exposure values for the majority of the low-risk chemical-exposure scenarios. For all the high-risk chemical-exposure scenarios, there was a clear overlap between the PoDs and lung deposited mass and Cmax for the benchmark inhaled materials and therapeutic drugs, respectively. Our findings suggest that combining computational and in vitro new approach methodologies (NAMs) informed by adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) associated with pulmonary toxicity can provide relevant biological coverage for chemical lung safety assessment.Akemi -AKEMI ® anti-fleck super ALI -air-liquid interface AOP -adverse outcome pathway BAC -Benzalkonium chloride BE PVM/MA -Butyl ester of poly(methyl vinyl ether-alt-maleic acid monoethyl ester) copolymer BER -bioactivity exposure ratio Cmax -maximum plasma concentration CBF -cilia beating frequency CCL -chemokine (C-C motif) ligand CDS -Concentration Dependency Scores CFPD -computational fluid-particle dynamics Chlorocresol -4-Chloro-3-methylphenol CMC -Carboxymethylcellulose sodium salt COPD -chronic obstructive pulmonary disease CXCL -C-X-C motif chemokine ligand DART -development and reproductive toxicity FCS -fetal calf serum GSH -Reduced glutathione GSSH -oxidized glutathione HBSS -Hanks' Balanced Salt solution ICAM-1 -intercellular adhesion molecule-1 ICRP -International Commission on Radiological Protection

    Keywords: inhalation risk assessment, lung exposure modelling, lung toxicity, New approach methodologies, nonanimal testing, Point of departure, Bioactivity exposure ratio

    Received: 30 Apr 2024; Accepted: 13 Jan 2025.

    Copyright: © 2025 Baltazar, Ivan De Ávila, Mueller, Barlow, Middleton, Theiventhran, Basili, Bowden, Saib, Engi, Pietrenko, Wallace, Boda, Constant, Behrsing and Patel. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Maria Teresa Baltazar, Safety and Environmental Assurance Center at Unilever, Bedford, United Kingdom
    Renato Ivan De Ávila, Safety and Environmental Assurance Center at Unilever, Bedford, United Kingdom

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.