{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01709986320109439, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.560538116591928, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, '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}}
Methyl methacrylate and respiratory sensitisation: a comprehensive review

Abstract Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is classified under GHS as a weak skin sensitiser and a skin and respiratory irritant. It has recently been proposed that MMA be classified as a respiratory sensitiser (a designation that in a regulatory context embraces both true respiratory allergens, as well as chemicals that cause asthma through non-immunological mechanisms). This proposal was based primarily upon the interpretation of human data. This review, and a detailed weight of evidence analysis, has led to another interpretation of these data. The conclusion drawn is that persuasive evidence consistent with the designation of MMA as a respiratory sensitiser is lacking. It is suggested that one reason for different interpretations of these data is that occupational asthma poses several challenges with respect to establishing causation. Among these is that it is difficult to distinguish between allergic asthma, non-allergic asthma, and work-related exacerbation of pre-existing asthma. Moreover, there is a lack of methods for the identification of true chemical respiratory allergens. The characterisation and causation of occupational asthma is consequently largely dependent upon interpretation of human data of various types. Recommendations are made that are designed to improve the utility and interpretation of human data for establishing causation in occupational asthma.