{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03492276695768973, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008059100067159167, 'mean_word_length': 5.394849785407725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative analysis of skin sensitization potency of acrylates (methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, and ethylhexyl acrylate) using the local lymph node assay

There are currently available no systematic experimental data on the skin sensitizing properties of acrylates that are of relevance in occupational settings. Limited information from previous guinea‐pig tests or from the local lymph node assay (LLNA) is available; however, these data are incomplete and somewhat contradictory. For those reasons, we have examined in the LLNA 4 acrylates: butyl acrylate (BA), ethyl acrylate (EA), methyl acrylate (MA), and ethylhexyl acrylate (EHA). The LLNA data indicated that all 4 compounds have some potential to cause skin sensitization. In addition, the relative potencies of these acrylates were measured by derivation from LLNA dose–response analyses of EC3 values (the effective concentration of chemical required to induce a threefold increase in proliferation of draining lymph node cells compared with control values). On the basis of 1 scheme for the categorization of skin sensitization potency, BA, EA, and MA were each classified as weak sensitizers. Using the same scheme, EHA was considered a moderate sensitizer. However, it must be emphasized that the EC3 value for this chemical of 9.7% is on the borderline between moderate (<10%) and weak (>10%) categories. Thus, the judicious view is that all 4 chemicals possess relatively weak skin sensitizing potential.