Abstract

Acceptable surface limits (ASLs) are developed in order to establish a quantitative measure for the potential risk from exposure by dermal contact. In the pharmaceuticals industry, ASLs are used for protection against active pharmaceutical ingredients that are known to cause pharmacological or toxicological effects. An ASL can be used, together with appropriate analytical methods and industrial hygiene monitoring, to assess workplaces for potential dermal exposure and to protect the health and safety of individuals who might come in direct contact with contaminated surfaces in the workplace. ASLs are also used to evaluate the adequacy of housekeeping measures and the effectiveness of engineering containment approaches, or to determine whether a chemical is present on surfaces where it is not intended to be (e.g., in lunch rooms or offices, or on the outside surfaces of packaging materials). However, they should not be confused with cleaning limits for the surfaces of manufacturing devices that might come into contact with the drug product, which are set to minimize cross contamination between drug products and to protect end-users (e.g., patients taking drug products) as opposed to workers. A number of parameters must be evaluated in order to accurately develop appropriate and scientifically supportable limits. These include the dose or concentration that will cause the potential effect, the degree of chemical transfer from contaminated surfaces to the skin, and the rate or amount of percutaneous absorption. In practice, this information is usually limited or unavailable. Additionally, there has been very little regulatory guidance on the setting of ASLs. Consequently, in order to calculate an ASL, various assumptions must be made by health and safety professionals regarding how dermal exposures might occur. As quantitative data become available, the ASL can be adjusted accordingly. An overview of the setting of health-based and performance-based ASLs for pharmaceutical substances from animal and human toxicological data is provided.

References

1.
Degim
,
I. T.
, “
New Tools and Approaches for Predicting Skin Permeability
,”
Drug Discovery Today
, Vol.
11(11/12)
,
2006
, pp.
517
523
. https://doi.org/10.1013/j.drudis.2006.04.006
2.
Exposure Assessment Group, Office of Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
,
1992
, “
Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications
,” Interim Report EPA/600/8-91/011B, oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=438674 (Last accessed 1 Oct 2010).
3.
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
,
2007
, “
Dermal Exposure Assessment: A Summary of EPA Approaches
,” EPA/600/R-07/040F, oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=469581 (Last accessed 1 Oct 2010).
4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
,
1997
, “
Exposure Factors Handbook (Final Report) 1997
,” EPA/600/P-95/002F a-c, http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12464#Download (Last accessed 1 Oct
2010
).
5.
American Industrial Health Council, “Dermal
,”
AIHC Exposure Factors Sourcebook
,
The American Industrial Health Council
,
Washington, D.C.
,
1994
.
6.
Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, European Commission
,
2004
, “
Guidance Document on Dermal Absorption
,” http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/guidance/wrkdoc20_rev_en.pdf (Last accessed 1 Oct 2010).
7.
European Food Safety Authority
,
2010
, “
EFSA External Report: Proposal for a Revision of the Guidance Document on Dermal Absorption (Question No. EFSA-Q-2009-00554)
,” http://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/scdocs/scdoc/52e.htm (Last accessed 1 Oct 2010).
8.
Ader
,
A. W.
,
Farris
,
J. P.
and
Ku
,
R. H.
Occupational Health Categorization Handling Practice Systems—Roots, Application and Future
,”
Chemical Health and Safety
, Vol.
12
(
4
),
2005
, pp.
20
26
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chs.2005.01.016
9.
Farris
,
J. P.
,
Ader
,
A. W.
, and
Ku
,
R. H.
, “
History, Implementation and Evolution of the Pharmaceutical Hazard Categorization and Control System
,”
Chemistry Today
, Vol.
24
(
2
),
2006
, pp.
5
10
.
10.
Naumann
,
B. D.
,
Sargent
,
E. V.
,
Starkman
,
B. S.
,
Fraser
,
W. J.
,
Becker
,
G. T.
, and
Kirk
,
G. D.
, “
Performance-Based Exposure Control Limits for Pharmaceutical Active Ingredients
,”
Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J.
, Vol.
1
,
1996
, pp.
33
42
. https://doi.org/10.1080/15428119691015197
11.
Fourman
,
G. L.
and
Mullen
,
M. V.
, “
Determining Cleaning Validation Acceptance Limits for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Operations
,”
Pharmaceutical Technology
, Vol.
17
(
4
),
1993
, pp.
54
60
.
12.
Paull
,
J. M.
,
1997
, “
A Proposed Risk-Based Model for the Evaluation of Surface Contamination, and the Assessment of Potential Dermal Exposure
,” Ph.D. thesis,
School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University
, Baltimore.
13.
Fiserova-Bergerova
,
V.
, and
Pierce
,
T.
, “
Dermal Absorption
,”
Topics in Biological Monitoring, ACGIH BEI Committee
,
ACGIH
,
Cincinnati,
1995
, pp.
33
44
.
14.
Bronaugh
,
R. L.
and
Barton
,
C. N.
, “
Prediction of Human Percutaneous Absorption with Physicochemical Data
,”
Health Risk Assessment, Dermal and Inhalation Exposure and Absorption of Toxicants
,
R. G. M.
Wang
,
J. B.
Knaak
, and
H. I.
Maibach
, Eds.,
CRC
,
Boca Raton, FL
,
1992
, pp.
117
134
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.