REACH Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes … · ERC Data waiving argumentation for...
Transcript of REACH Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes … · ERC Data waiving argumentation for...
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
1 2010-04-20
REACH
Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes
April 2010
Content:
1. Introduction 2
2. Physico-chemical data (all enzymes) 2
3. Health hazard identification 4
3.1 Toxicokinetics 4
Absorption 4
Bioavailability 6
3.2 Skin and eye irritation 6
3.3 Skin sensitization 6
3.4 Acute toxicity 7
Dermal route 7
Inhalation route 8
Conclusions 9
3.5 Reproductive toxicology 9 3.6 Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity 10
3.7 Carcinogenicity 12
4. Environmental hazards 12
4.1 Enzymes and the eco-systems - potential for establishing of
waivers 12 Enzymes 12
Achieved knowledge on hazard by testing 12 Knowledge based on scientific reasons 13 Application of data waivers 13
5. Reference list 14
Last page 23
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
2 2010-04-20
1. Introduction Enzymes are used as e.g. processing aids for production of chemical substances
or as ingredients in chemical products. Such enzymes (hereinafter referred to as technical enzymes) are within the scope of registration under REACH regulation
(Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals). According to the Enzyme REACH Consortium (http://www.enzymes-reach.org/)
document “Safety evaluation of technical enzyme products with regards to the REACH legislation”, the safety documentation of an enzyme consists of two main
elements:
Safety of the enzyme
Safety of the production strain
The main safety issue of concern regarding the enzyme protein itself is
respiratory allergy and in a very few cases primary irritations. These are well known and described for the different enzymes produced. A review of the extensive literature which is concerned with the safety of enzymes from
microbial sources strongly supports the general assumption that enzyme preparations from non-toxigenic, non-pathogenic organisms are safe. Historical
toxicity data confirm this [1;2]. As a consequence, it is the safety of the production strain that is the primary
concern and thus, it is necessary to establish the safety of the production strains before enzymes within the same IUBMB number produced by different production
strains can be considered to be the same substance from a safety point of view. This is an important prerequisite for applying the concept of data waiving [3].
In the following, data waivers for both human health and environmental hazards
will be presented. Data waivers are generally applicable for all enzymes, unless otherwise described.
2. Physico-chemical data (all enzymes)
Melting point: Enzymes are polymers of 20 different naturally occurring amino acids in various length and order. The amino acids sequence
determines the structure of the enzyme since at biological conditions the structure of this polymer is defined by the energy minimum fold. The enzyme fold and structure is held together primarily by hydrogen bonds,
hydrophobic interactions, ion bonds and van der Waals forces between the different amino acids and cofactors. When heating the enzymes above the
biological conditions, typically 80°C and higher, the attracting forces within the enzymes are broken, the fold is disrupted and the enzyme denatures. Denatured the enzymes lose their activity and typically coagulate. Thus a
classical melting point is not relevant for enzymes.
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
3 2010-04-20
Boiling point: As just mentioned, heating leads to
denaturation/coagulation of the enzyme and it is thus not possible to determine the boiling point for enzymes.
Vapor pressure: < 1x10-6 Pa (25°C) [4;5]
Surface tension: Enzymes are proteins and have no surface tension. The surface tension study needs only be conducted if based on structure,
surface activity is expected or can be predicted.
Water solubility: Subtilisin: 100 – 800 g/L [5]
Amylase, lipase, cellulase: < 800 g/L [4]
Dissociation constant (only required for tonnages > 100 Ton/year): It is
not technically feasible to determine the dissociation constant of enzymes.
Log Kow (Octanol-water partition coefficient): Subtilisin: -3.1, indicating high hydrophilicity and low
lipophilicity (21°C Henkel 2005 according to HERA -Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on ingredients of
household cleaning products)[5] Amylase, lipase, cellulase: -2.95, indicating high
hydrophilicity and low lipophilicity (Henkel 2005, according to HERA [4])
Flash point: In the pure form, enzymes are solids at room temperature
and through a wide range of ambient temperature, and therefore this parameter is not relevant. The flash point is only a relevant property for
liquids, thus it does not need to be measured for substances that are solids or gases at room temperature.
Flammability:
o Flammability on contact with water: Enzymes are easily soluble in water and from experience of handling enzymes together with
consideration of the structure of enzymes it can be concluded that enzymes are not flammable on contact with water.
o Pyrophoricity: As they are proteins produced by fermentations, i.e.
usually in solution, enzymes are not pyrophoric. In the pure, lyophilized form, they might be pyrophoric, but will in such case
only exist in very small quantities for research purpose.
Explosive properties: As enzymes are proteins produced by fermentation, i.e. usually in solution, they are not associated with explosive properties.
Self-ignition temperature: Enzymes are proteins and do not possess the ability to ignite themselves.
Oxidizing properties: As for all other proteins this parameter is not
relevant for enzymes. However, oxidases might catalyze oxidation
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
4 2010-04-20
reactions, given that the proper substrate and physico-chemical conditions
are present.
Granulometry: The study does not need to be conducted if the substance is marketed or used in a form which does not give raise to the danger of
exposure e.g. non solid or granular form. Enzymes are primarily marketed in such a form; therefore this parameter is not relevant. Chemical Safety
Report of REACH enzyme dossiers will describe physical form of products placed on marked and provide documentation that exposure from inhalation route is below safety concern.
Stability in organic solvents and identity of relevant degradation products: Enzymes are insoluble in most organic solvents and usually form
suspensions when added to organic solvents, in which typically they also denature. To the extent that they are soluble they will not contain their active fold (see argument in melting point) and thus they will be inactive.
Therefore this parameter is not relevant.
Viscosity: Enzymes are solids in the pure form and this parameter is
therefore not relevant. However, enzyme solutions typically have a viscosity slightly higher than water.
3. Health hazard identification
Enzymes are in general considered to be of low toxicity with the exception of the allergenic potential of enzymes via inhalation and the limited irritation effects of
some proteases at high concentration. Toxicological knowledge has been collected during the last 40 years from in vivo animal studies as well as in vitro
studies. This, in combination with experience from human exposure, provides the basis for data waiving. In cases of known enzyme class(es), the majority of toxicological studies required under REACH would not provide any additional
knowledge. The safety of technical enzymes especially enzymes used in detergents has been evaluated before by HERA [4;5] and AMFEP
(www.amfep.org). Based on these evaluations and toxicological evidence from literature as well as industrial in-house reports, weight of evidence for data waiving of the individual toxicological parameters will be provided in the following
sections.
3.1 Toxicokinetics
Toxicokinetic studies performed on enzymes are very limited, but toxicokinetic information can be derived from the structure of enzymes combined with knowledge available for proteins in general since enzymes are proteins with
catalytic activity.
Absorption
Skin: The physico-chemical properties of a compound are decisive for the potential percutaneous penetration, in particular factors like ionization, molecular size and
lipophilicity. In general, non-ionized molecules easily penetrate the skin, with small molecules penetrating more easily than large molecules. Lipophilicity also
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
5 2010-04-20
facilitates penetration. Investigations of percutaneous absorption of peptides,
proteins and other molecules of large size revealed that percutaneous absorption of proteins is extremely low and of no toxicological relevance [6;7].
Gastrointestinal tract: Proteins are digested into amino acids by pancreatic proteolytic enzymes in the
lumen of the gastrointestinal tract [8]. As enzymes are simply a class of proteins, it can be expected that enzymes will undergo the same process, simply representing a tiny food source.
Furthermore, enzymes have been used for decades in treatment of both adults and children with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Typical enzymatic drugs (e.g.
Creon® from Solvay Pharmaceuticals or Pancrease Microtabs from Jansson/Cilaq) are a combination of the enzymes amylase, lipase and protease – enzymes, which are also used in a wide range of industrial applications. These
drugs are typically administered orally at therapeutic concentrations i.e. concentrations where a digestive effect can be expected. Clinical trials and
crossover studies confirmed the safe use of these compounds in patients, both adults and children, confirming the low toxicity of enzymes [9-20].
Additionally, in a study investigating the gastrointestinal absorption of enzymes in pigs with pancreatic insufficiency and treated with Creon®, analysis of plasma samples taken in the period of 0.5 to 48 hours after oral administration of the
drug, did not result in treatment related changes of plasma enzyme levels indicating no gastric absorption of the administered enzymes [21].
Furthermore, a variety of enzymes are added to animal feed with the purpose to increase nutrient digestibility in the gastrointestinal tract. The safety of such enzymes active in the gastrointestinal tract are thoroughly evaluated as part of
their approval process in the EU and elsewhere.
In conclusion,from the available data combined with the knowledge of the fate of proteins in the gastrointestinal system, it can be concluded that absorption of enzymes in toxicological significant amounts through the gastrointestinal tract is
unlikely.
Respiratory tract:
Enzymes can be inhaled in the form of small dust particles or aerosols i.e. adhered to solid dust particles or as droplets of fluid. Absorption of hydrophilic substances such as enzymes by lung tissue is determined by diffusion and
depends on molecular size. The transport channels in the alveolar membrane have a size of 1 nm (10Å) [8], which excludes the absorption of enzymes, since
their size is above 1 nm. Removal of deposits depends on the site of deposition. In the alveoli where the main removal is via phagocytosis [8], the macrophages carrying the deposits can move to the interstitium, the ciliated epithelium or the
lymphatic system indicating that there could be a risk of systemic exposure to enzymes by this route. However, due to the fact that enzymes are potential
respiratory allergens, stringent risk management strategies have been introduced for the working environment leading to very low pulmonary exposure excluding any chance of toxicologically significant absorption. Consumer
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
6 2010-04-20
exposure is even lower. Furthermore, no bioaccumulation will occur after
absorption due to rapid biological degradation and enzymes hydrophilic nature. In conclusion, absorption of enzymes by the respiratory tract can be considered insignificant.
Bioavailability
Due to the combined information that skin absorption of enzymes is at a toxicologically insignificant level, that enzymes are degraded in the gastrointestinal tract and that they are only absorbed to a very low extent by the
respiratory tract, the total bioavailability of enzymes can be concluded to be extremely low. This is further supported by the physico-chemical data, i.e.
enzymes have a low logKOW value, indicating that they have no bioaccumulation potential and can be anticipated to be readily biodegraded. Thus, systemic exposure following enzyme exposure at occupational and consumer exposure
levels is without toxicological significance.
3.2 Skin and eye irritation
There are substantial in vivo animal data on all industrially applied enzyme classes, as well as in vitro data performed before formal validation, for both skin
and eye irritancy. These data document that enzymes are not irritating, with the exception of proteases. Non-proteases lack the potential to be skin and eye irritants but proteases show a range of effects from no irritation to moderate
irritation. It is, however, only the most concentrated and reactive samples which show an effect which is transient in nature and commonly is classified as mild
irritation (3; 4; in-house industrial data). This is also the outcome of clinical investigations (6; 23; 26), confirming that enzymes at the product use concentration, even with exaggerated exposures, do not give rise to any
occupational or consumer risk of skin or eye irritation.
Given the above, „in vitro’ irritation testing is not considered to add any scientific
value nor lead to a change in the classification adopted from existing data (in-house industrial data).
3.3 Skin sensitization
The skin sensitization potential of enzymes has recently been reviewed by
Basketter et al. [6] and HERA [4;5] revealing that enzymes should not be considered skin sensitizers. In addition, there is an unequivocal statement from AMFEP (www.amfep.org) on this topic showing that enzymes do not have skin
sensitizing potential. The lack of skin sensitizing potential is substantiated by evidence from robust human experimental data and extensive in-use human
studies performed with detergents containing enzymes [22-26]. All of these studies confirmed that the presence of enzymes in the detergents did not result in contact skin sensitization, including those conducted with atopic individuals.
However, in spite of clear evidence that enzymes should not be considered skin sensitizers, animal skin sensitization models might give rise to positive results.
This is because, just like the previously used guinea pig skin sensitization
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
7 2010-04-20
models, the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), (OECD Test Guideline 429) is
inappropriate for the assessment of proteins. These animal models are validated for the testing of small chemicals, not for water soluble protein-based materials, known to be human respiratory allergens. The LLNA does not discriminate
between chemical and respiratory sensitizers [27], leading to the real risk of false-positive results with proteins, particularly those already known to be
sensitizing by the respiratory route, such as enzymes. Indeed, in our experience, all foreign proteins can be made to generate skin reactions in suitably treated animals, including the OECD recognized guinea pig tests and the LLNA [28]. This
makes the available animal models inappropriate when used with proteins. Therefore, the assessment of enzymes in any of the existing animal models can
be predicted not to provide new and useful knowledge. This conclusion is based on the following considerations:
The results of predictive testing in man demonstrate that enzymes do not have skin sensitization potential for man.
In clinical settings, enzymes have only very rarely been suggested as a possible cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Even in these few
cases, a causal relationship has never been proven. Further, several clinical studies have demonstrated that enzymes are not a cause of ACD [23;26;29-34].
ACD has never been reported in the detergent enzyme industries where there has been extensive occupational enzyme exposure which, in the
past, led to respiratory sensitization and/or irritant dermatitis. For more than 40 years, billions of consumers have had regular, often daily, skin exposure to enzymes during laundry by hand but there is no evidence that
this exposure has given rise to skin sensitization. The available skin sensitization test methods are not suitable for enzymes.
No animal model has been developed or validated for assessing proteins as contact skin sensitizers. So far, no in vitro models exist either.
Since enzyme products are well documented not to be skin sensitizers in man and because no suitable animal model or in vitro assay for protein skin
sensitization exists, we consider testing enzymes in animal models developed for chemical contact allergens as both scientifically and ethically unjustified. Finally,
the precautions recommended in the material safety data sheets should be sufficient to prevent even a theoretical hazard of skin sensitization.
3.4 Acute toxicity
In general, enzymes are of very low toxicity due to ready biodegradability and very low bioavailability. In traditional acute toxicity testing, mortality has been the endpoint. However, because enzymes show very low toxicity, extremely high
doses that are far above human exposure levels typically have been applied. Therefore, acute toxicity studies are not considered to provide appropriate
knowledge and are as such not a relevant test system for enzymes.
Dermal route
Systemic exposure by the dermal route is unlikely based upon the existing
toxicokinetic knowledge of enzymes, which due to their relatively large molecular
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
8 2010-04-20
weight, are not expected to be absorbed through the skin. Therefore, it can be
safely assumed that technical enzymes do not exert any acute dermal toxicity.
This conclusion is confirmed by the toxicological data available. Sub-acute dermal toxicity studies with protease in rabbits (Novozymes, unpublished data)
did not provide evidence for systemic effect to enzymes. This finding is confirmed by data from acute dermal toxicity studies (Novozymes, unpublished data) of
enzyme products in both rats and rabbits. None of these studies revealed any acute toxic effect through the dermal administration route. No clinical signs or adverse effects due to systemic exposure could be observed.
Data waivers will further be established through exposure scenarios, i.e. no significant dermal exposure to consumers and professionals due to the
toxicologically insignificant enzyme concentrations in end products and in the case of workers due to occupational hygiene measures associated with the prevention of respiratory allergy which includes protective clothing.
Inhalation route
Due to the fact that enzymes are respiratory allergens, DMEL (Derived Minimum
Effect Level) values have to be established to ensure that enzymes can be used safely. Appropriate exposure limits are being established to protect consumers,
professionals and workers. Respiratory allergy is considered the most sensitive toxic endpoint for enzymes and thus exposure limits will ensure that exposure levels are low and without any toxicological relevance. Commonly, occupational
exposure limit (OEL) values for workers are between 40-60 ng enzyme protein/m3 (8 hour time-weighted average values) for occupational settings in EU
countries. More than 30 studies on acute inhalation toxicity in rodents revealed that for the majority of enzymes, no harmful effect could be detected at concentrations up to several mg/l air or g/m3 representing the highest possible
concentrations administered and equivalent to nuisance dust levels. Only for a few proteases could LC50 values for inhalation be determined. LC50 values for
proteases are typically in the range of 0.05g/m3 up to 1g/m3 [5]. Thus most acute inhalation toxicity studies of both proteolytic and non-proteolytic enzymes in rodents showed a very low order of toxicity indicated by the fact that LC50
values could not be established (LC50 values above the highest applicable dose). In the few cases where LC50 values could be established, the values were more
than a factor of 106 above the actual OEL value (Consortium in-house data), indicating that concentrations used in acute inhalation toxicity studies are irrelevant to all known exposure scenarios. It has to be remembered also that
acute inhalation toxicity studies are designed to test for lethality, which is not relevant for enzymes and that the real endpoint of concern, allergenicity, cannot
be evaluated in this type of studies. Additionally, industry has documented that respiratory irritation due to enzyme
preparations is a very rare phenomenon which will not occur at the low concentrations of enzymes found in consumer products as for example
detergents. The risk to consumers is thus considered very low and regarded as toxicologically insignificant. This is supported by the positive safety outcome of a clinical study of the highest reported consumer exposure level with spot cleaning
by spray [35-37].
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
9 2010-04-20
The industry has taken measures to minimize occupational exposure. Subtilisin
preparations, depending on atmospheric concentration, may be irritating to the respiratory tract, but due to the risk of sensitization, these enzyme preparations are now specifically formulated to avoid exposure by inhalation. Worker safety is
further assured through current proper work practices, effective cleaning, engineering controls, and use of personal protective equipment. Acute inhalation
toxicity studies with lethality as endpoint makes this animal test system inappropriate in relation to relevant exposure to enzymes by inhalation and therefore lacking any capacity to provide new and/or useful knowledge.
Conclusions
Toxicokinetic data together with evidence from animal studies and historical
human experience derived from the use of detergent enzymes for decades confirm that exposure to technical enzymes will not result in any toxicologically relevant uptake by dermal or inhalation route. Acute systemic exposure to a
toxicologically significant amount of enzymes by those routes can therefore be excluded and will further be prohibited by the obligatory setting of a DMEL value
for enzymes, resulting in negligible exposure to enzymes. In vivo acute dermal and/or inhalation toxicity studies will not add any value and cannot be expected
to provide valuable knowledge and are thus considered scientifically and ethically unjustified.
3.5 Reproductive toxicology
From the toxicokinetic information available, it can be concluded that the bioavailability of enzymes is low due to the fact that no significant absorption can
be expected through the respiratory and/or gastrointestinal tract and/or through the skin. Exposure to enzymes will be limited because of the DMEL (derived minimum exposure levels) settings for workers, professionals and consumers to
prevent respiratory allergy (supported by exposure scenarios and DMEL values). Apart from the irritation potential of some proteases, respiratory allergy is
generally considered to be the only human health hazard of enzymes indicating that this is the most sensitive endpoint considering enzyme toxicity. Concentrations that are not expected to result in respiratory allergy will certainly
not result in any other toxic effect. This conclusion is substantiated by the material that follows.
Although endocrine disrupting chemicals are a broad group of chemicals consisting of man-made and natural compounds it is unlikely that enzymes have the potential to cause endocrine disruption. The enzymatic structure is different
from any endocrine disrupter known to date [38]. Indeed, enzymes are much larger than endocrine disrupters in general excluding mechanisms such as direct
action on hormone receptors (EDSTAC (Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee , US EPA), [39]). Due to the high biodegradability of enzymes, it is highly unlikely that they could reach target organs or sites to any
significant amount or of any significant period of time. Testing of enzymes in currently available screening assays typically based on hormone receptor binding
cannot be expected to provide any evidence for endocrine disruption due to the specific features of enzymes.
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
10 2010-04-20
Data from acute and subchronic oral toxicity studies provide evidence that
enzymes are of very low toxicological activity [18;40-90]. Typically, the derived NOAEL values are significantly higher than the maximum doses applied. None of the oral toxicity studies performed by members of the consortium in the past 40
years, as well as published data from other studies revealed any effect that indicates that enzymes could have an adverse effect on the reproduction system
in males or females.
Complementing the above information is data from 26 industrial studies (Novozymes, unpublished data) on fertility and/or teratogenicity and/or
reproduction studies primarily in rodents but also other species like dogs and rabbits which did not identify any evidence for reproductive toxicity of enzymes.
Both proteolytic and non-proteolytic enzymes have been investigated for their teratogenic and reproductive toxicity potential. Several of these studies have been published in peer reviewed articles [61;66;70;91].
Enzymes have been produced and used for many years without any evidence for reproductive potential in humans. OEL for workers is set to be 60ng/m3 to
protect against respiratory sensitization. Considering that endocrine disrupting chemicals in general are a factor of 100 000 less potent than physiologically
relevant hormones [92], the low worker exposure to enzymes due to rigorous application of airborne limit and very low exposure to consumers (below 15ng/m3, which is the highest known consumer exposure and only the case when
using pre-spotters [37]) and the low bioavailability together with the high biodegradability of enzymes, no reproductive toxicity effect can be expected in
humans. Furthermore, enzymes have been used for decades to treat pancreatic insufficiency in both children and adults without any evidence of reproductive
toxicity [93].
In conclusion, toxicokinetic data together with the enzymatic structure and the
weight of evidence from animal studies and human exposure provide no evidence for reproductive toxicity of enzymes. Investigations of enzymes in in vitro screening systems for endocrine disrupters cannot be expected to provide any
new knowledge due to the nature of enzymes, especially since the majority of screening studies deals with receptor mediated mechanism. It is most unlikely
that new animal studies will provide any new knowledge, because the results and conclusions of numerous animal studies, investigating effects on fertility and teratogenicity and the repeated dose oral toxicity studies in vivo have not
identified any adverse effects related to reproduction. Thus, reproductive toxicity studies are considered scientifically and ethically unjustified.
3.6 Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity
Enzyme proteins are not regarded as either genotoxic and/or carcinogenic.
Genotoxicity testing is in general performed to confirm that the production strain does not produce any genotoxic or carcinogenic metabolites. Basically all enzyme
substances have therefore been tested in the Ames test and in the chromosome aberration test in vitro and a few enzyme substances also in the mouse lymphoma test [40;42;44;45;48-50;52;53;55-61;63;66-
68;70;71;78;81;82;84;85;91;94;95]. In none of these test systems did enzyme proteins show evidence of genotoxicity.
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
11 2010-04-20
Enzymatic drugs have been used since the 19th century without providing any
evidence of a genotoxic or carcinogenic effect [9-11;15-20;75-77;96] confirming the results of large amounts of in vitro and in vivo data available.
It is our view that the inclusion of in vivo assay(s) for microbially produced enzymes is unjustified for scientific as well as ethical reasons, which is further
supported by the following arguments [3]:
Technical enzymes are produced by fermentation and contain not only
the principal enzyme protein but also residual growth medium from the fermentation and metabolites from the production strain. As with
other proteins, the enzymes are not genotoxic.
The enzymes are produced by microbial strains, which have been thoroughly characterized as non-pathogenic and non-toxigenic and in
most instances with a history of safe use in food enzyme manufacture. Therefore the primary concern, when evaluating the
genotoxic potential of an enzyme preparation, is the highly theoretical (albeit highly unlikely) possibility of the expression (and hence the
presence) of a hitherto unknown microbial metabolite with genotoxic potential and at a concentration of genotoxicological importance.
Within the field of drug development, a standard battery of genotoxicity tests is
required, including at least one in vivo test. During the conduct of these tests, blood samples are collected at pre-determined time points and the plasma is
analyzed for the concentration of the test article and metabolites to establish evidence of adequate concentration and duration of exposure. Without such data the study is considered completely inappropriate by the regulatory authorities.
Given the above, it is clear that in any test, it is the demonstration of adequate
in vivo exposure to the target organs or target cells which must be a fundamental prerequisite. Thus to adopt an assessment of genotoxicity similar to that employed in drug
development would be unsuitable for technical enzymes for the following reasons:
Enzymes dosed orally to rodents are readily digested and decomposed in the gastrointestinal tract and only a negligible
fraction, if any at all, of the intact enzyme molecule is absorbed systemically. The constitution, the kinetics and the dynamics of the
enzyme decomposition products and possible impurities from the fermentation are completely unknown. Therefore in the field of enzyme development, exposure data is never collected because it
is considered meaningless. Further, a review of the extensive literature, concerned with the
safety of enzymes from microbial sources, strongly support the general assumption that enzymes from non-toxigenic, non-pathogenic organisms are safe. Numerous tests for in vitro
genotoxicity have failed to reveal the presence of a single mutagen or clastogen. These aspects were reviewed by Pariza and Johnson
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
12 2010-04-20
[1], who presented a compelling argument for the position that
tests for genotoxic potential of enzyme preparations produced by well-characterized non-toxigenic microorganisms are unnecessary for safety evaluation.
Based on these considerations, we conclude that within the field of enzyme
development, the conduct of in vivo genotoxicity provides no added value. Such a requirement suffers from an obvious lack of scientific rationale and is considered scientifically and ethically unjustified.
In conclusion, the large amount of data on genotoxicity available together with structural knowledge, toxicokinetic and human data provide no evidence for
genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of enzymes. From this and from the lack of scientific rationale it can be concluded that neither the mouse lymphoma test nor in vivo mutagenicity tests (micronucleus) can be expected to provide any new
knowledge and will only result in the unnecessary use of animals.
3.7 Carcinogenicity
The low bioavailability of, as well as the low exposure to enzymes, the lack of genotoxic potential and the consequent absence of any evidence of carcinogenic
properties from both human and animal data do not justify any requirement for conducting carcinogenicity studies.
4. Environmental hazards
4.1 Enzymes and the eco-systems - potential for establishment of waivers
Enzymes
Enzymes are found in every living organism as an essential component of the digestive systems, and as a key tool in metabolism by breaking down proteins,
carbohydrates and lipids and as such, they are the basis for all life. Enzymes are proteins, hydrophilic and readily biodegradable. In nature, they are involved at
any level of the food chain and in the microbial biodegradation. For more than 40 years enzymes have been used in industrial processes to
replace chemicals and reduce requirements for water and energy. Furthermore they are widely distributed in household articles for laundering.
Achieved knowledge on hazard by testing
The widespread use of enzymes has been followed by investigations relevant for
ecotoxicity. Investigations are mainly performed to establish knowledge on short-term aquatic toxicity and on the rate of biodegradability of the enzyme.
The main results achieved can be listed as follows:
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
13 2010-04-20
1. All enzyme classes are readily biodegradable. Degradation products are
primarily peptides and amino acids, then carbon dioxide and water which cause no harm to nature.
2. Non-proteolytic enzymes should not be classified as harmful or toxic to the environment.
3. Proteolytic enzymes are acutely harmful or toxic, but should not be
considered environmentally hazardous due to their rapid elimination in the
environment.
Caution should be exercised for enzymes producing harmful by-products, e.g. hydrogen peroxide or ammonia from substrates. The classification of such enzymes cannot be based on analogy, but only on data obtained by relevant
tests and analyses. These tests have to consider that such enzymes are normally stored and transported separately from their substrates or in an inactivated
form, preventing the premature release of such by-products.
Knowledge based on scientific rationale
The rapid elimination from the eco-systems has made long-term testing less relevant. One long-term dynamic study with a protease on early life stage fish
was carried out, but revealed only dose related but no long-term effects.
1. Due to the hydrophilic properties and ready biodegradability of proteins,
bioaccumulation tests are considered unnecessary.
2. Since all enzyme classes are readily biodegradable, enzymes are
considered as having a low toxic potential to microorganisms.
3. Enzymes are primarily active in aqueous environment. Adverse effects to nature in dry environments are thus not expected, adverse effects to nature in wetlands etc. are demonstrated by the testing for acute aquatic
toxicity.
Application of data waivers
Below, an overview is given of the studies that can be waived, including a reason
why.
1. Long-term aquatic tests due to the rapid degradation of the enzyme
molecule resulting in short exposure time
2. Terrestrial tests due to the low activity of the enzyme in non-aqueous environment. Use in irrigation areas, wetlands etc. will be covered by the aquatic tests.
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
14 2010-04-20
3. Microbial sludge tests for Sewage treatment plants (OECD 209). The
shown readily biodegradability shown demonstrates the low toxicity of enzymes to microorganisms.
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
15 2010-04-20
5. Reference List
1. Pariza,M.W. and Johnson,E.A. (2001) Evaluating the safety of microbial enzyme
preparations used in food processing: Update for a new century. Regulatory
Toxicology and Pharmacology 33, 173-186
2. EFSA. QPS Qualified Presumption of Safety of Micro-organisms in Food and Feed.
2. 2004. Brussels, Belgium, EFSA. EFSA Scientific Colloquium.
3. AMFEP. Amfep paper on safety evaluation of technical enzyme products with
regards to the REACH legislation. 2009. AMFEP.
4. HERA Human and environmental risk assessment on ingredients of household
cleaning products - alpha-amylases, cellulases and lipases. 2005.
5. HERA Human and environmental risk assessment on ingredients of household
cleaning products - Subtilisins (Proteases). Edition 2.0. 2007.
6. Basketter,D.A., English,J.S., Wakelin,S.H., and White,I.R. (2008) Enzymes,
detergents and skin: facts and fantasies. British journal of dermatology 158,
1177-1181
7. Pease,C.K.S., White,I.R., and Basketter,D.A. (2002) Skin as a route of exposure
to protein allergens. Clinical and experimental dermatology 27, 296-300
8. Niesink,R.J.M., deVries,J., and Hollinger,M.A. (1996) Toxicology, Principles and
Applications CRC Press, Inc. and Open University of The Netherlands.
9. Barra,E., Stolarczyk,A., Socha,J., Oralewska,B., Kowalska,M., Skoczen,M., and
Wawer,Z. (1998) Efficacy of enzyme supplementation in children with cystic
fibrosis. Pediatria Polska 73, 177-182
10. Borowitz,D., Goss,C.H., Stevens,C., Hayes,D., Newman,L., O'Rourke,A.,
Konstan,M.W., Wagener,J., Moss,R., Hendeles,L., Orenstein,D., Ahrens,R.,
Oermann,C.M., Aitken,M.L., Mahl,T.C., Young,K.R., Dunitz,J., and Murray,F.T.
(2006) Safety and preliminary clinical activity of a novel pancreatic enzyme
preparation in pancreatic insufficient cystic fibrosis patients. Pancreas 32, 258-263
11. Borowitz,D., Goss,C.H., Limauro,S., Konstan,M.W., Blake,K., Casey,S.,
Quittner,A.L., and Murray,F.T. (2006) Study of a novel pancreatic enzyme
replacement therapy in pancreatic insufficient subjects with cystic fibrosis. Journal
of Pediatrics 149, 658-662
12. Dominguez,M., Iglesias-Garcia,J., Iglesias-Rey,M., Figueiras,A., and Vilarino-
Insua,M. (2005) Effect of the administration schedule on the therapeutic efficacy
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
16 2010-04-20
of oral pancreatic enzyme supplements in patients with exocrine pancreatic
insufficiency: A randomized, three- way crossover study. Alimentary
Pharmacology and Therapeutics 21, 993-1000
13. Halm,U., Löser,C., Löhr,M., Katschinski,M., and Mössner,J. (1999) A double-blind,
randomized, multicentre, crossover study to prove equivalence of pancreatin
minimicrospheres versus microspheres in exocrine pancreatic insufficiency.
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 13, 951-957
14. Heubi,J.E., Boas,S.R., Blake,K., Nasr,A.R.H., Woo,M.S., Graff,G.R., Hardy,K.A.,
maro-Galvez,R., Latino,M., and Lee,C. (2008) Zentase, a novel pancreatic enzyme
product (Pep), is effective in mild, moderate, and severe exocrine pancreatic
insufficiency (Epi). Gastroenterology 134, A583-A584
15. Keller,J. and Layer,P. (2006) Are monolithic enteric-coated enzyme preparations
effective in pancreatic exocrine insufficiency? A multicentre, double blind, placebo
controlled cross-over trial. Gastroenterology 130, A517
16. Konstan,M.W., Stern,R.C., Trout,J.R., Sherman,J.M., Eigen,H., Wagener,J.S.,
Duggan,C., Wohl,M.E.B., and Colin,P. (2004) Ultrase MT12 and ultrase MT20 in
the treatment of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency in cystic fibrosis: Safety and
efficacy. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 20, 1365-1371
17. Konstan,M.W., Liou,T.G., Strausbaugh,S., Ahrens,R.C., Kanga,J.F., Graff,G.R.,
Moffett,K.S., Millard,S., Nasr,S.Z., Vezina,M., Spenard,J., and Grondin,J. (2008)
Efficacy and safety of Ultrase (R) MT20 in treating pancreatic insufficiency in
cystic fibrosis. Gastroenterology 134, A228-A229
18. Laake,K. (1980) ENZYMIC DRUGS. Side Effects of Drugs Annual 222-225
19. Patchell,C.J., Desai,M., Weller,P.H., Macdonald,A., Smyth,R.L., Bush,A.,
Gilbody,J.S., and Duff,S.A. (2002) Creon 10,000 Minimicrospheres vs. Creon
8,000 microspheres--an open randomised crossover preference study. Journal of
cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society 1, 287-291
20. Saeed,Z., Wojewodka,G., Marion,D., Guilbault,C., and Radzioch,D. (2007) Novel
pharmaceutical approaches for treating patients with cystic fibrosis. Current
Pharmaceutical Design 13, 3252-3263
21. Gewert,K., Holowachuk,S.A., Rippe,C., Gregory,P.C., Erlanson-Albertsson,C.,
Olivecrona,G., Kruszewska,D., Piedra,J.V., Weström,B., and Pierzynowski,S.G.
(2004) The enzyme levels in blood are not affected by oral administration of a
pancreatic enzyme preparation (Creon 10,000) in pancreas-insufficient pigs.
Pancreas 28, 80-88
22. Bannan,E.A., Griffith,J.F., Nusair,T.L., and L.J.Sauers (1983) Skin testing of
laundered fabrics in the dermal safety assessment of enzyme containing
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
17 2010-04-20
detergents. Journal of Toxicology - Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology 11, 327-339
23. Griffith,J.F., Weaver,J.E., Whitehouse,H.S., Poole,R.L., and Newmann
EANixon,G.A. (1969) SAFETY EVALUATION OF ENZYME DETERGENTS ORAL AND
CUTANEOUS TOXICITY IRRITANCY AND SKIN SENSITIZATION STUDIES. Food and
Cosmetics Toxicology 7, 581-593
24. Rodriguez,C., Calvin,G., Lally,C., and LaChapelle,J.M. (1994) Skin effects
associated with wearing fabrics washed with commercial laundry detergents.
Journal of Toxicology - Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology 13, 39-45
25. Cormier,E.M., Sarlo,K., Scott,L.A., MacKenzie,D.P., Payne,N.S., Carr,G.J.,
Smith,L.A., Cua-Lim,F., Bunag,F.C., and Vasunia,K. (2004) Lack of type 1
sensitization to laundry detergent enzymes among consumers in the Philippines:
results of a 2-year study in atopic subjects. Annals of Allergy Asthma and
Immunology 92, 549-557
26. White,I.R., Lewis,J., and el,A.A. (1985) Possible adverse reactions to an enzyme-
containing washing powder. Contact Dermatitis 13, 175-179
27. Kimber,I., Agius,R., Basketter,D.A., Corsini,E., Cullinan,P., Dearman,R.J.,
Gimenez-Arnau,E., Greenwell,L., Hartung,T., Kuper,F., Maestrelli,P., Roggen,E.,
and Rovida,C. (2007) Chemical respiratory allergy: opportunities for hazard
identification and characterisation. The report and recommendations of ECVAM
workshop 60. Altern Lab Anim 35, 243-265
28. Festersen,U., Rasmussen,C., Kjaer,T.M.R., Soni,N.K., Roggen,E.L., and Berg,N.W.
(2008) Alternative application route in the LLNA provides crucial environmental
enrichement and broadens the usability of vehicles. AATEX 14, 433-436
29. Andersen,P.H., Bindslev-Jensen,C., Mosbech,H., Zachariae,H., and Andersen,K.E.
(1998) Skin symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis using enzyme-containing
detergents. A placebo-controlled study. Acta dermato-venereologica 78, 60-62
30. Belsito,D.V., Fransway,A.F., Fowler,J.F., Jr., Sherertz,E.F., Maibach,H.I.,
Mark,J.G., Jr., Mathias,C.G., Rietschel,R.L., Storrs,F.J., and Nethercott,J.R. (2002)
Allergic contact dermatitis to detergents: a multicenter study to assess
prevalence. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 46, 200-206
31. Lee,M.Y., Park,K.S., Hayashi,C., Lim,H.H., Lee,K.H., Kwak,I., and Laurie,R.D.
(2002) Effects of repeated short-term skin contact with proteolytic enzymes.
Contact Dermatitis 46, 75-80
32. Pepys,J., Wells,I.D., D'souza,M.F., and Greenberg,M. (1973) CLINICAL AND
IMMUNOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO ENZYMES OF BACILLUS-SUBTILIS IN FACTORY
WORKERS AND CONSUMERS. Clinical Allergy 3, 143-160
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
18 2010-04-20
33. Peters,G., Johnson,G.Q., and Golembiewski,A. (2001) Safe use of detergent
enzymes in the workplace. Appl.Occup Environ.Hyg. 16, 389-396
34. Zachariae,H., Thomsen,K., and Rasmussen,O.G. (1973) Occupational enzyme
dermatitis. Results of patch testing with Alcalase. Acta dermato-venereologica 53,
145-148
35. Weeks,J.A., Burdick,J.D., Harper,R.A., Smith,K., and Simon,R.A. (2001) A
controlled use study of a laundry prespotter containing protease in an atopic
population. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 107, S28
36. Weeks, J. A., Burdick, J. D., Rogers, R. E., and Prento, A. Assessment of
sensitization risk to consumers using a laundry prespotter product containing
protease. Toxicological Sciences 60(20). 2001.
37. US SDA. Risk assessment guidance for enzyme-containing products. 2005.
Washington, Soap and Detergent Association.
38. Whaley,D.A., Keyes,D., and Khorrami,B. (2001) Incorporation of endocrine
disruption into chemical hazard scoring for pollution prevention and current list of
endocrine disrupting chemicals. Drug and Chemical Toxicology an International
Journal for Rapid Communication 24, 359-420
39. Hong,H., Tong,W., Fang,H., Shi,L., Xie,Q., Wu,J., Perkins,R., Walker,J.D.,
Branham,W., and Sheehan,D.M. (2002) Prediction of estrogen receptor binding for
58,000 chemicals using an integrated system of a tree-based model with
structural alerts. Environmental Health Perspectives 110, 29-36
40. Ahmad,S.K., Brinch,D.S., Friis,E.P., and Pedersen,P.B. (2004) Toxicological
studies on Lactose Oxidase from Microdochium nivale expressed in Fusarium
venenatum. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP 39, 256-270
41. Amalfitano,A., Bengur,A.R., Morse,R.P., Majure,J.M., Case,L.E., Veerling,D.L.,
Mackey,J., Kishnani,P., Smith,W., Vie-Wylie,A., Sullivan,J.A., Hoganson,G.E.,
Phillips,J.A., Schaefer,G.B., Charrow,J., Ware,R.E., Bossen,E.H., and Chen,Y.T.
(2001) Recombinant human acid alpha-glucosidase enzyme therapy for infantile
glycogen storage disease type II: Results of a phase I/II clinical trial. Genetics in
Medicine 3, 132-138
42. Andersen,J.R., Diderichsen,B.K., Hjortkjaer,R.K., De Boer,A.S., Bootman,J.,
West,H., and Ashby,R. (1987) DETERMINING THE SAFETY OF MALTOGENIC
AMYLASE PRODUCED BY RECOMBINANT DNA TECHNOLOGY. Journal of Food
Protection 50, 521-526
43. Ankel,E.G., Zirneski,J., Ring,B.J., and Holcenberg,J.S. (1984) Effect of
asparaginase on cell membranes of sensitive and resistant mouse lymphoma cells.
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
19 2010-04-20
In Vitro 20, 376-384
44. Ashby,R., Hjortkjaer,R.K., Stavnsbjerg,M., Gurtler,H., Pedersen,P.B., Bootman,J.,
Hodson-Walker,G., Tesh,J.M., Willoughby,C.R., and Et,A. (1987) SAFETY
EVALUATION OF STREPTOMYCES-MURINUS GLUCOSE ISOMERASE. Toxicology
Letters (Shannon) 36, 23-36
45. Bar,A., Krul,C.A.M., Jonker,D., and de,V.N. (2004) Safety evaluation of an alpha-
cyclodextrin glycosyltranferase preparation. Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology 39, S47-S56
46. Bergman,A. and Broadmeadow,A. (1997) An overview of the safety evaluation of
the Thermomyces lanuginosus xylanase enzyme (SP 628) and the Aspergillus
aculeatus xylanase enzyme (SP 578). Food additives and contaminants 14, 389-
398
47. Biziulevichius,G.A. and Arestov,I.G. (1997) Safety of lysosubtilin per os in mice,
rabbits and calves. Veterinary research 28, 385-395
48. Brinch,D.S. and Pedersen,P.B. (2002) Toxicological studies on Laccase from
Myceliophthora thermophila expressed in Aspergillus oryzae. Regulatory
toxicology and pharmacology : RTP 35, 296-307
49. Brinch,D.S. and Pedersen,P.B. (2002) Toxicological studies on Polyporus pinsitus
laccase expressed by Aspergillus oryzae intended for use in food. Food additives
and contaminants 19, 323-334
50. Broadmeadow,A., Clare,C., and De Boer,A.S. (1994) An overview of the safety
evaluation of the Rhizomucor miehei lipase enzyme. Food additives and
contaminants 11, 105-119
51. Broadwell,A.H., Baumann,L., and Baumann,P. (1990) The 42- and 51-kilodalton
mosquitocidal proteins of Bacillus sphaericus 2362: construction of recombinants
with enhanced expression and in vivo studies of processing and toxicity. Journal of
bacteriology 172, 2217-2223
52. Bui,Q., Geronian,K., Gudi,R., Wagner,V., Kim,D., and Cerven,D. (2004) Safety
evaluation of marmanase enzyme, produced by Bacillus lentus, intended for use in
animal feed. International Journal of Toxicology 23, 398
53. Baer,A., Til,H.P., and Timonen,M. (1995) Subchronic oral toxicity study with
regular and enzymatically depolymerized sodium carboxymethylcellulose in rats.
Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British
Industrial Biological Research Association 33, 909-917
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
20 2010-04-20
54. Cerven,D., DeGeorge,G., and Bethell,D. (2008) 28-Day repeated dose oral toxicity
of recombinant human apo- lactoferrin or recombinant human lysozyme in rats.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 51, 162-167
55. Ciofalo,V., Barton,N., Kretz,K., Baird,J., Cook,M., and Shanahan,D. (2003) Safety
evaluation of a phytase, expressed in Schizosaccharomyces pombe, intended for
use in animal feed. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 37, 286-292
56. Coenen,T.M., Schoenmakers,A.C., and Verhagen,H. (1995) Safety evaluation of
beta-glucanase derived from Trichoderma reesei: summary of toxicological data.
Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British
Industrial Biological Research Association 33, 859-866
57. Coenen,T.M., Aughton,P., and Verhagen,H. (1997) Safety evaluation of lipase
derived from Rhizopus oryzae: summary of toxicological data. Food and chemical
toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological
Research Association 35, 315-322
58. Coenen,T.M. and Aughton,P. (1998) Safety evaluation of amino peptidase enzyme
preparation derived from Aspergillus niger. Food and chemical toxicology : an
international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research
Association 36, 781-789
59. Coenen,T.M., Bertens,A.M., de Hoog,S.C., and Verspeek-Rip,C.M. (2000) Safety
evaluation of a lactase enzyme preparation derived from Kluyveromyces lactis.
Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British
Industrial Biological Research Association 38, 671-677
60. Cook,M.W. and Thygesen,H.V. (2003) Safety evaluation of a hexose oxidase
expressed in Hansenula polymorpha. Food and chemical toxicology : an
international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research
Association 41, 523-529
61. Deboer,A.S., Marshall,R., Broadmeadow,A., and Hazelden,K. (1993) Toxicological
Evaluation of Acetolactate Decarboxylase. Journal of Food Protection 56, 510-517
62. Durden,D.L. and Distasio,J.A. (1981) CHARACTERIZATION OF THE EFFECTS OF
ASPARAGINASE FROM ESCHERICHIA-COLI AND A GLUTAMINASE-FREE
ASPARAGINASE FROM VIBRIO-SUCCINOGENES ON SPECIFIC CELL MEDIATED
CYTO TOXICITY. International Journal of Cancer 27, 59-66
63. Elvig,S.G. and Pedersen,P.B. (2003) Safety evaluation of a glucanase preparation
intended for use in food including a subchronic study in rats and mutagenicity
studies. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 37, 11-19
64. Gao,C., Zhang,A., Lin,Y., Han,S., and Wang,L. (2007) Relationship between the
domain structures of several nuclear receptors and the effect differences of
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
21 2010-04-20
environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals. Asian Journal of Ecotoxicology 2,
363-374
65. Gao,F., Jiang,Y., Zhou,G.H., and Han,Z.K. (2007) The effects of xylanase
supplementation on growth, digestion, circulating hormone and metabolite levels,
immunity and gut microflora in cockerels fed on wheat-based diets. British Poultry
Science 48, 480-488
66. Greenough,R.J., Everett,D.J., and Stavnsbjerg,M. (1991) Safety evaluation of
alkaline cellulase. Food Chem.Toxicol 29, 781-785
67. Greenough,R.J., Perry,C.J., and Stavnsbjerg,M. (1996) Safety evaluation of a
lipase expressed in Aspergillus oryzae. Food and chemical toxicology : an
international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research
Association 34, 161-166
68. Harbak,L. and Thygesen,H.V. (2002) Safety evaluation of a xylanase expressed in
Bacillus subtilis. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published
for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 40, 1-8
69. Harper,A.F., Skaggs,J.H., Veit,H.P., and Kornegay,E.T. (1999) Efficacy and safety
of Novo SP938 microbial phytase supplementation of a corn-soybean meal diet
fed to growing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 77, 174-175
70. Hjortkjaer,R.K., Bille-Hansen,V., Hazelden,K.P., McConville,M., McGregor,D.B.,
Cuthbert,J.A., Greenough,R.J., Chapman,E., Gardner,J.R., and Ashby,R. (1986)
Safety evaluation of Celluclast, an acid cellulase derived from Trichoderma reesei.
Food Chem.Toxicol 24, 55-63
71. Hjortkjaer,R.K., Stavnsbjerg,M., Pedersen,P.B., Heath,J., Wilson,J.A.,
Marshall,R.R., and Clements,J. (1993) Safety evaluation of esperase. Food and
chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial
Biological Research Association 31, 999-1011
72. Holcenberg,J.S., Borella,L.D., Camitta,B.M., and Ring,B.J. (1979) HUMAN
PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF SUCCINYLATED ACINETOBACTER
GLUTAMINASE ASPARAGINASE. Cancer Research 39, 3145-3151
73. Hytonen,M., Vanhanen,M., Keskinen,H., Tuoni,T., Tupasela,O., and Nordman,H.
(1994) Pharyngeal edema caused by occupational exposure to cellulase enzyme.
Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 49, 782-784
74. Janer,G., Hakkert,B.C., Piersma,A.H., Vermeire,T., and Slob,W. (2007) A
retrospective analysis of the added value of the rat two-generation reproductive
toxicity study versus the rat subchronic toxicity study. Reproductive Toxicology
24, 103-113
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
22 2010-04-20
75. Jensen,B.F. and Eigtved,P. (1990) Safety Aspects of Microbial Enzyme
Technology, Exemplified by the Safety Assessment of An Immobilized Lipase
Preparation, Lipozyme. Food Biotechnology 4, 699-725
76. Klinge,L., Straub,V., Neudorf,U., and Volt,T. (2005) Enzyme replacement therapy
in classical infantile Pompe disease: Results of a ten-month follow-up study.
Neuropediatrics 36, 6-11
77. Klinge,L., Straub,V., Neudorf,U., Schaper,J., Bosbach,T., G÷rlinger,K., Wallot,M.,
Richards,S., and Voit,T. (2005) Safety and efficacy of recombinant acid alpha-
glucosidase (rhGAA) in patients with classical infantile Pompe disease: results of a
phase II clinical trial. Neuromuscular disorders : NMD 15, 24-31
78. Kondo,M., Ogawa,T., Matsubara,Y., Mizutani,A., Murata,S., and Kitagawa,M.
(1994) Safety evaluation of lipase G from Penicillium camembertii. Food and
chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial
Biological Research Association 32, 685-696
79. Kopetzki,E., Lehnert,K., and Buckel,P. (1994) Enzymes in diagnostics:
Achievements and possibilities of recombinant DNA technology. Clinical Chemistry
40, 688-704
80. Kornegay,E.T., Skaggs,J.H., Denbow,D.M., Larsen,C.T., and Veit,H.P. (1999)
Efficacy and safety of Novo SP938 microbial phytase supplementation of a low-P
corn-soybean meal diet fed to turkeys. Poultry Science 78, 15
81. Landry,T.D., Chew,L., Davis,J.W., Frawley,N., Foley,H.H., Stelman,S.J.,
Thomas,J., Wolt,J., and Hanselman,D.S. (2003) Safety evaluation of an alpha-
amylase enzyme preparation derived from the archaeal order Thermococcales as
expressed in Pseudomonas fluorescens biovar I. Regulatory toxicology and
pharmacology : RTP 37, 149-168
82. Lane,R.W., Yamakoshi,J., Kikuchi,M., Mizusawa,K., Henderson,L., and Smith,M.
(1997) Safety evaluation of tannase enzyme preparation derived from Aspergillus
oryzae. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the
British Industrial Biological Research Association 35, 207-212
83. MacKenzie,K.M., Petsel,S.R., Weltman,R.H., and Zeman,N.W. (1989) Subchronic
toxicity studies in dogs and in utero rats fed diets containing Bacillus
stearothermophilus alpha-amylase from a natural or recombinant DNA host. Food
and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British
Industrial Biological Research Association 27, 599-606
84. Modderman,J.P. and Foley,H.H. (1995) Safety evaluation of pullulanase enzyme
preparation derived from Bacillus licheniformis containing the pullulanase gene
from Bacillus deramificans. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 21, 375-381
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
23 2010-04-20
85. Ohshita,K., Nakajima,Y., Yamakoshi,J., Kataoka,S., Kikuchi,M., and Pariza,M.W.
(2000) Safety evaluation of yeast glutaminase. Food and Chemical Toxicology 38,
661-670
86. Olempska-Beer,Z.S., Merker,R.I., Ditto,M.D., and DiNovi,M.J. (2006) Food-
processing enzymes from recombinant microorganisms--a review. Regulatory
toxicology and pharmacology : RTP 45, 144-158
87. Ollenschlaeger,G., Roth,E., Linkesch,W., Jansen,S., Simmel,A., and Moedder,B.
(1988) ASPARAGINASE-INDUCED DERANGEMENTS OF GLUTAMINE METABOLISM
THE PATHOGENETIC BASIS FOR SOME DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS. European
Journal of Clinical Investigation 18, 512-516
88. Otamiri,T. (1989) Phospholipase C-mediated intestinal mucosal damage is
ameliorated by quinacrine. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal
published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 27, 399-402
89. Zhang,Z.B., Kornegay,E.T., Radcliffe,J.S., Denbow,D.M., Veit,H.P., and
Larsen,C.T. (2000) Comparison of genetically engineered microbial and plant
phytase for young broilers. Poultry Science 79, 709-717
90. Zhang,Z.B., Kornegay,E.T., Radcliffe,J.S., Wilson,J.H., Veit,H.P., and Fontenot,J.P.
(2000) Comparison of phytase from genetically engineered Aspergillus and canola
in weanling pig diets. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2868-2878
91. Stavnsbjerg,M., Hjortkjaer,R.K., Billehansen,V., Jensen,B.F., Greenough,R.J.,
McConville,M., Holmstroem,M., and Hazelden,K.P. (1986) Toxicological Safety
Evaluation of A Bacillus-Acidopullulyticus Pullulanase. Journal of Food Protection
49, 146-153
92. Harvey,P.W. and Johnson,I. (2002) Approaches to the assessment of toxicity data
with endpoints related to endocrine disruption. Journal of Applied Toxicology 22,
241-247
93. Barak,A., Dulitzki,M., Efrati,O., Augarten,A., Szeinberg,A., Reichert,N., Modan,D.,
Weiss,B., Miller,M., Katzanelson,D., and Yahav,Y. (2005) Pregnancies and
outcome in women with cystic fibrosis. Israel Medical Association journal : IMAJ 7,
95-98
94. Pedersen,P.B. and Broadmeadow,A. (2000) Toxicological studies on Thermomyces
lanuginosus xylanase expressed by Fusarium venenatum, intended for use in
food. Food additives and contaminants 17, 739-747
94. Porter,M.C., Hartnagel,R.E., Jr., Kowalski,R.L., Clemens,G.R., Jasty,V., Bare,J.J.,
and Boguslawski,G. (1984) SAFETY EVALUATION OF GLUCOSE ISOMERASE
DERIVED FROM FLAVOBACTERIUM-ARBORESCENS AND USED IN PRODUCTION OF
ERC Data waiving argumentation for technical enzymes Enzymes REACH Consortium
enzymes-reach.org
24 2010-04-20
HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP. Journal of Food Protection 47, 359-371
96. Scheindlin,S. (2007) Clinical enzymology: enzymes as medicine. Mol.Interv. 7, 4-
8