All cosmetics products must be safe under foreseeable conditions of use. Allergenic responses are one of the most frequent adverse reactions noted for cosmetics. Thus, the EU cosmetics legislation requires skin sensitisation assessment for all cosmetics ingredients, including the regulated ones (for which the full toxicological dossier needs to be analysed by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS)) and those (perceived as less toxic) which are assessed by industrial safety assessors. Regardless of who performs the risk assessment, it should be carried out using scientifically and regulatory body-accepted methods. In the EU, reference methods for chemical toxicity testing are defined in the relevant Annexes (VII–X) of the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation. Recommendations for Skin Sensitization (Skin Sens) testing are provided in Annex VII, and this particular endpoint information is required for all EU-registered chemicals. Historically, in vivo animal and human methods have been used. Both raise ethical doubts, and some of them cause practical problems in the objective analysis of skin sensitising potency. Previous decades of huge effort have resulted in the regulatory acceptance of the alternative Skin Sens IATA (Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment) and NGRA (Next Generation Risk Assessment). Regardless of the testing issues, a serious sociological problem are observed within the market: the consumer assumes the presence of strong sensitisers in cosmetics formulations and insufficient risk management tools used by the industry. The present review aims to provide an overview of methods for assessing skin sensitisation. Additionally, it aims to answer the following question: what are the most potent skin sensitisers used in cosmetics? The answer considers the mechanistic background along with the actual regulatory status of ingredients and practical examples of responsible industry solutions in the area of risk management.

Fibroin–chitosan composites, especially those containing nanohydroxyapatite, show potential for bone tissue regeneration. The physicochemical properties of these biocomposites depend on the compatibility between their components. In this study, the intermolecular interactions of fibroin and chitosan were analyzed using a molecular dynamics approach. Two types of systems were investigated: one containing acetic acid and the other containing calcium (Ca²⁺) and hydrogen phosphate (HPO₄²⁻) ions mimicking hydroxyapatite conditions. After obtaining the optimal equilibrium structures, the distributions of several types of interactions, including hydrogen bonds, ionic contacts, and hydrophobic contacts, along with structural and energetical features, were examined. The calculated binding energy values for the fibroin–chitosan complexes confirm their remarkable stability. The high affinity of fibroin for chitosan can be explained by the formation of a dense network of interactions between the considered biopolymers. These interactions were found to primarily be hydrogen bonds and ionic contacts involving ALA, ARG, ASN, ASP, GLN, GLU, GLY, LEU, PRO, SER, THR, TYR, and VAL residues. As established, the complexation of fibroin with chitosan maintains the β-sheet conformation of the peptide. β-Sheet fragments in fibroin are involved in the formation of a significant number of hydrogen bonds and ionic contacts with chitosan.

The present study compares two scaffold cross-linking strategies, EDC/NHS and pentasodium triphosphate (TPP), applied to nanohydroxyapatite/silk fibroin/chitosan (nHA/SF/CTS) scaffolds. The effects of the cross-linking strategy on scaffold morphology, ATR-FTIR profile, swelling, in vitro degradation, and compressive properties were evaluated. In addition, the biological response of selected 20:40:40 and 15:70:15 (w/w) scaffold variants was assessed using SaOS-2 cells. The IR spectra of TPP- and EDC/NHS-cross-linked materials were qualitatively similar, and no distinct bands attributable to residual EDC or NHS were observed after washing. SEM observations indicated that the TPP-cross-linked scaffolds tended to have smaller and more spherical pores, whereas the EDC/NHS-cross-linked materials showed a more elongated pore morphology. These qualitative morphological differences were accompanied by differences in swelling, degradation, and low-strain mechanical response. The 20:40:40 formulation cross-linked with EDC/NHS showed the most favorable low-strain response, whereas PBS swelling markedly reduced the early compressive response of all scaffolds. Biological assessment showed that the 20:40:40 scaffolds supported viable SaOS-2 populations and maintained osteogenic activity, although cell colonization remained lower than on the control surfaces. The 15:70:15 variant performed less favorably, particularly after TPP cross-linking. These findings indicate that both cross-linking strategies can be used to obtain nHA/SF/CTS scaffolds, but their effects depend strongly on scaffold composition and on the property being considered.

Fibroin-chitosan composites, especially those containing nanohydroxyapatite, show potential for bone tissue regeneration. The physicochemical properties of these biocomposites depend on the compatibility between their components. In this study, the intermolecular interactions of fibroin and chitosan were analyzed using a molecular dynamics approach. Two types of systems were investigated: one containing acetic acid and the other containing calcium (Ca²⁺) and hydrogen phosphate (HPO₄²⁻) ions mimicking hydroxyapatite conditions. After obtaining the optimal equilibrium structures, the distributions of several types of interactions including hydrogen bonds, ionic contacts, and hydrophobic contacts along with the structural and energetical features were examined. The calculated binding energy values for the fibroin-chitosan complexes confirm their remarkable stability. The high affinity of fibroin for chitosan can be explained by the formation of a dense network of interactions between considered biopolymers. These interactions were found to be primarily hydrogen bonds and ionic contacts involving ALA, ARG, ASN, ASP, GLN, GLU, GLY, LEU, PRO, SER, THR, TYR, and VAL residues. As it was established, the complexation of fibroin with chitosan maintains the β-sheet conformation of the peptide. β-Sheet fragments in fibroin are involved in the formation of significant amount of hydrogen bonds and ionic contacts with chitosan.