Predicting skin permeability from complex chemical mixtures: dependency of quantitative structure permeation relationships on biology of skin model used

Abstract

Dermal absorption of topically applied chemicals usually occurs from complex chemical mixtures; yet, most attempts to quantitate dermal permeability use data collected from single chemical exposure in aqueous solutions. The focus of this research was to develop quantitative structure permeation relationships (QSPR) for predicting chemical absorption from mixtures through skin using two levels of in vitro porcine skin biological systems. A total of 16 diverse chemicals were applied in 384 treatment mixture combinations in flow-through diffusion cells and 20 chemicals in 119 treatment combinations in isolated perfused porcine skin. Penetrating chemical flux into perfusate from diffusion cells was analyzed to estimate a normalized dermal absorptive flux, operationally an apparent permeability coefficient, and total perfusate area under the curve from perfused skin studies. These data were then fit to a modified dermal QSPR model of Abraham and Martin including a sixth term to account for mixture interactions based on physical chemical properties of the mixture components. Goodness of fit was assessed using correlation coefficients (r²), internal and external validation metrics (q²L00, q²L25%, q²EXT), and applicable chemical domain determinations. The best QSPR equations selected for each experimental biological system had r² values of 0.69-0.73, improving fits over the base equation without the mixture effects. Different mixture factors were needed for each model system. Significantly, the model of Abraham and Martin could also be reduced to four terms in each system; however, different terms could be deleted for each of the two biological systems. These findings suggest that a QSPR model for estimating percutaneous absorption as a function of chemical mixture composition is possible and that the nature of the QSPR model selected is dependent upon the biological level of the in vitro test system used, both findings having significant implications when dermal absorption data are used for in vivo risk assessments.

FIG. 1.

Model of Abraham and Martins of the PSFT training and validation set data with no MF. r² = 0.53, adj. r² = 0.52, $q_{\text{LOO}}^{\text{2}}=0.51$, $q_{\text{L25\%}}^{\text{2}}=0.51$, and $q_{\text{EXT}}^{\text{2}}=0.41$.

FIG. 2.

Model of Abraham and Martins of the PSFT training and validation set data with MF = HBAcc (the number of hydrogen bond acceptors). r² = 0.73, adj. r² = 0.73, $q_{\text{LOO}}^{\text{2}}=0.73$, $q_{\text{L25\%}}^{\text{2}}=0.72$, and $q_{\text{EXT}}^{\text{2}}=0.61$.

FIG. 3.

Williams' leverage validation plot of the model of Abraham and Martins of the PSFT training and validation set data with MF = HBAcc (the number of hydrogen bond acceptors). h* = [3(6 + 1)]/473 = 0.044.

FIG. 4.

Model of Abraham and Martins of the IPPSF training and validation set data with no MF. r² = 0.60, adj. r² = 0.58, $q_{\text{LOO}}^{\text{2}}=0.56$, $q_{\text{L25\%}}^{\text{2}}=0.56$, and $q_{\text{EXT}}^{\text{2}}=0.72$.

FIG. 5.

Model of Abraham and Martins of the IPPSF training and validation set data with MF = 1/MP (the inverse of the MP). r² = 0.69, adj. r² = 0.68, $q_{\text{LOO}}^{\text{2}}=0.66$, $q_{\text{L25\%}}^{\text{2}}=0.66$, and $q_{\text{EXT}}^{\text{2}}=0.81$.

FIG. 6.

Williams' leverage validation plot of the model of Abraham and Martins of the IPPSF training and validation set data with MF = 1/MP (the inverse of the MP). h* = [3(6 + 1)]/159 = 0.1321.