Comparative in vitro cytotoxicity of ethyl acrylate and tripropylene glycol diacrylate to normal human skin and lung cells

Citation
La. Nylander-french et Je. French, Comparative in vitro cytotoxicity of ethyl acrylate and tripropylene glycol diacrylate to normal human skin and lung cells, IN VITRO-AN, 36(9), 2000, pp. 611-616
Citations number
44
Categorie Soggetti
Cell & Developmental Biology
Journal title
IN VITRO CELLULAR & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY-ANIMAL
ISSN journal
10712690 → ACNP
Volume
36
Issue
9
Year of publication
2000
Pages
611 - 616
Database
ISI
SICI code
1071-2690(200010)36:9<611:CIVCOE>2.0.ZU;2-1
Abstract
The potential for occupational exposure to the esters of acrylic acid (acry lates) is considerable: and, thus, requires a greater understanding of the their toxicity. Confluent (70-90%) cultures of normal human epidermal kerat inocytes (NHEK), dermal fibroblasts (NHDF), or bronchial epithelium (NHBE) were exposed to the monofunctional ethyl acrylate (EA), the multifunctional tripropylene glycol diacrylate (TPGDA), or TPGDA monomer in a radiation cu rable lacquer (Lacquer A) at equimolar dosages in order to determine human in vitro cytotoxicity. Viability of the cells after 2-24-h exposure to the representative monofunctional or multifunctional acrylate or solvent contro l was used to calculate an index of acute cytotoxicity (50% inhibitory dose ; ID50) and to determine the shape of the dose-response curves. TPGDA, Lacq uer A, and EA were equally cytotoxic (ID50 approximate to0.1 mu mol/cm(2)) to NHEK at equimolar doses. TPGDA or Lacquer A were more cytotoxic (approxi mate to 100X) to NHDF or NHBE than EA. Sequential exposure of UV, and TPGDA to NHEK indicate the potential for a synergistic cytotoxic response. These findings are consistent with observed decreases in free sulfhydryl groups (e.g., glutathione or cysteine) that parallel the dose-response-related dec reases in viability. Together, these data suggest possible differences in t oxicity between the monofunctional EA and multifunctional TPGDA to NHEK, NH DF, or NHBE, possibly due to the difference in the number of functional acr ylate groups and/or physicochemical differences (e.g., vapor pressure) betw een the acrylates investigated.