Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Maleic Acid1

2007 ◽  
Vol 26 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 125-130 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Maleic Acid ◽  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Solution Ph ◽  
Low Concentrations ◽  
Cosmetic Formulations ◽  
Sperm Penetration ◽  
Positive Pattern

Maleic Acid is a dicarboxylic acid that functions as a fragrance ingredient and pH adjuster in cosmetics—it is used in a few cosmetic product formulations at low concentrations. Maleic Acid is commonly used in research studies to induce Fanconi syndrome in rats and dogs in an attempt to study the mechanism of this disease. One such study found decreased glomerular filtration rate in rats given 9.0 mmol/kg, but not with 1.5 mmol/kg, Maleic Acid intraperitoneally. Preincubation with 0.75 mmol/L of Maleic Acid reduced sperm penetration of golden hamster eggs to zero. Maleic Acid failed to induce any significant increases in revertant count in strains TA1535, TA1537, TA98, and TA100 at concentrations up to 7500 µg/plate. A concentration of 2.0 × 10 -2 M Maleic Acid did show a positive pattern in a DNA synthesis inhibition test. Maleic Acid at 10%, pH 1.0, applied for 30 s on rabbit eyes, caused permanent opacity. A 1% solution, pH 1.0, applied for 2 min caused cloudiness of the cornea, but no lasting injury, and a 5% solution, also at pH 1.0, had a similar but more intense effect, with recovery delayed 6 to 7 days. Application of 10µl Maleic Acid (pH not stated) to the volar forearm and labia majora of 21 female Caucasians produced an inflammatory response at 24 and 48 h, which varied from minimal erythema to marked erythema with marked vesiculation. Maleic Acid at 20% (pH not stated) applied to one forearm daily for a period of 6 weeks to 50 human subjects produced acute vesicular dermatitis in 17 subjects, who were dropped from the study. Only five of the remaining subjects accommodated to the treatment, the rest had varying degrees of inflammation or hyperirritable skin. Although Maleic Acid itself may be a dermal and/or ocular irritant, its use as a pH adjustor in cosmetic formulations dictates that most of the acid will be neutralized into various maleate salts. Therefore, the concentration of free Maleic Acid is expected to be low, and dermal or systemic toxicity is not expected to be a concern. The safety of Maleic Acid as a pH adjustor should not be based on the concentration of use, but on the amount of free Maleic Acid that remains after neutralizing the formulation. There is no reason to expect this ingredient to induce any toxicity when used for this purpose. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel concluded that Maleic Acid is safe for use in cosmetic formulations as a pH adjustor in the practices of use as described in this safety assessment.

Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Malic Acid and Sodium Malate

2001 ◽  
Vol 20 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 47-55 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Citric Acid ◽  
Malic Acid ◽  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Reproductive Toxicity ◽  
Feed Consumption ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Dermal Irritation ◽  
Low Concentrations ◽  
Cosmetic Formulations ◽  
Sodium Malate

Malic Acid functions in cosmetic formulations as a pH adjuster, and Sodium Malate functions as a skin conditioning agent-humectant. Malic Acid is reportedly used in almost 50 cosmetic formulations across a range of product types at low concentrations, whereas Sodium Malate is used in only one. As a pH adjuster, Malic Acid is used at low concentrations. One commercial method of preparing Malic Acid is hydration of fumaric acid or maleic acid, and then purified to limit the amount of the starting material present. Because Malic Acid is a component of the Kreb's cycle, another method is fermentation. Malic Acid was relatively nontoxic in acute toxicity studies using animals. In a chronic oral study, feeding Malic Acid to rats resulted only in weight gain changes and changes in feed consumption. Malic Acid did not cause reproductive toxicity in mice, rats, or rabbits. Malic Acid was a moderate to strong skin irritatant in animal tests, and was a strong ocular irritant. Malic Acid was not mutagenic across a range of genotoxicity tests. Malic Acid was irritating in clinical tests, with less irritation seen as pH of the applied material increased. Patients patch tested with Malic Acid, placed on a diet that avoided foods containing Malic or citric acid, and then challenged with a diet high in Malic and citric acid had both immediate urticarial and delayed contact dermatitis reactions. These data were considered sufficient to determine that Malic Acid and Sodium Malate would be safe at the low concentrations at which these ingredients would be used to adjust pH (even though Sodium Malate is not currently used for that purpose). The data, however, were insufficient to determine the safety of these ingredients when used in cosmetics as other than pH adjusters and specifically, the data are insufficient to determine the safety of Sodium Malate when used as a skin conditioning agent-humectant. The types of data required for the Expert Panel to determine the safety of Sodium Malate as a skin-conditioning agent are: concentration of use data; dermal irritation and sensitization data; and ocular irritation data, if available. The data needed to assess the safety of Malic Acid or Sodium Malate for some function other than as a skin-conditioning agent cannot be specified without knowing the intended function. Were these ingredients to be used as exfoliants, for example, data similar to that included in the Cosmetic Ingredient Review safety assessment of Glycolic Acid would be needed. Until these data are available, it is concluded that the available data are insufficient to support the safety of these ingredients in cosmetic formulations for functions other than use as a pH adjuster.

scholarly journals Final Report of the Amended Safety Assessment of PVM/MA Copolymer and Its Related Salts and Esters as Used in Cosmetics

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 128S-144S ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Burnett ◽  
Wilma F. Bergfeld ◽  
Donald V. Belsito ◽  
Ronald A. Hill ◽  
Curtis D. Klaassen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Methyl Ether ◽  
Maleic Acid ◽  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Cosmetic Products ◽  
Human Data ◽  
Polyvinyl Methyl Ether

Polyvinyl methyl ether/maleic acid (PVM/MA) copolymer, and its related salts and esters, are used in cosmetics, mainly as binders, film formers, and hair fixatives. Animal and human data relevant to the use of these ingredients in cosmetic products were reviewed by the CIR Expert Panel. The Panel concluded that these ingredients are safe for use in cosmetic products.

scholarly journals Amended Final Report On the Safety Assessment of Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate

1998 ◽  
Vol 17 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Alan Andersen
Keyword(s):  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Prolonged Contact ◽  
Cosmetic Formulations ◽  
Sodium Sulfosuccinate ◽  
Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate ◽  
Animal Skin ◽  
Dioctyl Sodium

Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate is an anionic surfactant used in a wide variety of cosmetic formulations. In September 1994, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel evaluated the ingredient to be safe up to 0.42% in cosmetic formulations. Since that time, CIR received a petition to re-open the safety assessment based on new clinical data. This amendment is a compilation of data contained in the original plus the data received in the petition; the latter appear at the end of this document. Studies conducted in the 1940's indicate that the oral LD50 in rats can be as low as 1.9 g/kg. Short-term subchronic and chronic animal studies of the same vintage found little toxicity at levels around 1% of the LD50 level. Inhalation studies likewise had few findings. Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate was minimally irritating to intact animal skin, but moderate to severely irritating to abraded skin. A concentration of 25% was a severe ocular irritant, but 10% produced little or no irritation. Mutagenesis tests were negative. A repeated insult patch test (RIPT) in 110 individuals produced no sensitization at a concentration of 5%. Erythema was noted during induction in a number of subjects at concentrations ≤5%. The CIR Expert Panel recognized that surfactants such as Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate would likely produce irritation under the conditions of a RIPT. The Panel cautioned that as the ingredient is a cumulative irritant, care should be taken to avoid irritancy in formulations intended for prolonged contact with the skin. The Panel concluded that Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate is safe for use in cosmetics.

Safety Assessment of Cucumis sativus (Cucumber)-Derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 47S-64S ◽  
Author(s):  
Monice M. Fiume ◽  
Wilma F. Bergfeld ◽  
Donald V. Belsito ◽  
Ronald A. Hill ◽  
Curtis D. Klaassen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Cucumis Sativus ◽  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Oral Exposure ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Low Concentrations ◽  
Cosmetic Ingredients ◽  
Cosmetic Formulations ◽  
History Of

The CIR Expert Panel assessed the safety of 6 Cucumis sativus (cucumber)-derived ingredients and found them safe in cosmetic formulations in the present practices of use and concentration. These ingredients are reported to function in cosmetics as skin-conditioning agents. Cucumber is a commonly consumed food with no history of significant adverse effects, suggesting that its ingredients should not pose any major safety issues following oral exposure. This assessment focused on the dermal exposure to the low concentrations of these ingredients as used in cosmetics. Some of the constituents of cucumbers have been assessed previously for safe use as cosmetic ingredients.

Final Report of the Safety Assessment of Kojic Acid as Used in Cosmetics

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 244S-273S ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Burnett ◽  
Wilma F. Bergfeld ◽  
Donald V. Belsito ◽  
Ronald A. Hill ◽  
Curtis D. Klaassen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Guinea Pig ◽  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Kojic Acid ◽  
Tumor Promotion ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Cosmetic Products ◽  
Pig Skin ◽  
Animal Data ◽  
Skin Lightening

Kojic acid functions as an antioxidant in cosmetic products. Kojic acid was not a toxicant in acute, chronic, reproductive, and genotoxicity studies. While some animal data suggested tumor promotion and weak carcinogenicity, kojic acid is slowly absorbed into the circulation from human skin and likely would not reach the threshold at which these effects were seen. The available human sensitization data supported the safety of kojic acid at a use concentration of 2% in leave-on cosmetics. Kojic acid depigmented black guinea pig skin at a concentration of 4%, but this effect was not seen at 1%. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel concluded that the 2 end points of concern, dermal sensitization and skin lightening, would not be seen at use concentrations below 1%; therefore, this ingredient is safe for use in cosmetic products up to that level.

scholarly journals Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Triacetin

2003 ◽  
Vol 22 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Keyword(s):  
Acetic Acid ◽  
Cell Growth ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Developmental Toxicity ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Food Ingredient ◽  
Ocular Irritation ◽  
Cosmetic Formulations ◽  
Cell Growth And Proliferation ◽  
Available Information

Triacetin, also known as Glyceryl Triacetate, is reported to function as a cosmetic biocide, plasticizer, and solvent in cosmetic formulations, at concentrations ranging from 0.8% to 4.0%. It is a commonly used carrier for flavors and fragrances. Triacetin was affirmed as a generally recognized as safe (GRAS) human food ingredient by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Triacetin was not toxic to animals in acute oral or dermal exposures, nor was it toxic in short-term inhalation or parenteral studies, and subchronic feeding and inhalation studies. Triacetin was, at most, slightly irritating to guinea pig skin. However, in one study, it caused erythema, slight edema, alopecia, and desquamation, and did cause some irritation in rabbit eyes. Triacetin was not sensitizing in guinea pigs. Triacetin was not an irritant or a sensitizer in a clinical maximization study, and only very mild reactions were seen in a Duhring-chamber test using a 50% dilution. In humans, Triacetin reportedly has caused ocular irritation but no injury. Triacetin was not mutagenic. Although there were no available reproductive and developmental toxicity data, Triacetin was quickly metabolized to glycerol and acetic acid and these chemicals were not developmental toxins. Reports of 1,2-glyceryl diesters, which may be present in Triacetin, affecting cell growth and proliferation raised the possibility of hyperplasia and/or tumor promotion. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel concluded, however, that the effects of 1,2-glyceryl diesters on cell growth and proliferation require longer ester chains on the glycerin backbone than are present when acetic acid is esterified with glycerin, as in Triacetin. On the basis of the available information, the CIR Expert Panel concluded that Triacetin is safe as used in cosmetic formulations.

scholarly journals 2 Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Shellac

1986 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 309-327 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Maximum Concentration ◽  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Metabolic Activation ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Cosmetic Formulations ◽  
Animal Toxicity ◽  
Spray Formulation

Cosmetic-grade Shellac is a mixture of hydroxyaliphatic and alicyclic acids and their polyesters. It is used in cosmetic formulations at concentrations up to 25%. Shellac had an LD50 of greater than 5 g/kg in rats. Results of acute animal toxicity studies using cosmetic formulations containing up to 6% Shellac indicated no adverse effects upon oral (rats), dermal (rabbits), ocular (rabbits), and respiratory tract (rabbits) exposure. Chronic inhalation of a Shellac hair spray formulation by rabbits produced no observable toxicity. No treatment-related toxic or pathologic effects were observed when concentrations of Shellac up to 10,000 ppm were fed to rats in a subchronic study. Ames' mutagenicity assays, with and without metabolic activation, were negative. Clinical assessment of safety of cosmetic formulations containing up to 6% Shellac indicated no measurable irritation and absence of sensitization and photosensitization. It is concluded that cosmetic-grade Shellac is safe for use in cosmetic formulations at concentrations up to 6%, the maximum concentration tested.

scholarly journals Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Stearoxy Dimethicone, Dimethicone, Methicone, Amino Bispropyl Dimethicone, Aminopropyl Dimethicone, Amodimethicone, Amodimethicone Hydroxystearate, Behenoxy Dimethicone, C24–28 Alkyl Methicone, C30–45 Alkyl Methicone, C30–45 Alkyl Dimethicone, Cetearyl Methicone, Cetyl Dimethicone, Dimethoxysilyl Ethylenediaminopropyl Dimethicone, Hexyl Methicone, Hydroxypropyldimethicone, Stearamidopropyl Dimethicone, Stearyl Dimethicone, Stearyl Methicone, and Vinyldimethicone

2003 ◽  
Vol 22 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10-35
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Developmental Toxicity ◽  
Oral Exposure ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Fluid Mixture ◽  
Inhalation Study ◽  
Cosmetic Formulations ◽  
Siloxane Polymers

Dimethicone is a fluid mixture of fully methylated linear siloxane polymers end-blocked with trimethylsiloxy units. Methicone is a linear monomethyl polysiloxane. The other dimethicones and methicones covered in this review are siloxane polymers of Dimethicone and Methicone. Most of these ingredients function as conditioning agents in cosmetic formulations at current concentrations of use of ≤ 15%. Clinical and animal absorption studies reported that Dimethicone was not absorbed following oral or dermal exposure. Dimethicone, Methicone, and Vinyldimethicone were not acutely toxic following oral exposure. No adverse reactions were found in rabbits following short-term dermal dosing with 6% to 79% Dimethicone, yet adverse effects were noted with a hand cream formulation containing 1% Dimethicone, suggesting something else in the preparation was toxic. Mice and rats were dosed for 90 days with up to 10% Dimethicone without adverse effect. Dimethicone did not produce adverse effects in acute and short-term inhalation-route studies, Methicone and Vinyldimethicone were negative in acute exposure studies using rats, but Hexyl Methicone was toxic to rats at 5 mg/L delivered in small particle (mean diameter of 0.29 μ) aerosols. Most dermal irritation studies using rabbits classified Dimethicone as a minimal irritant. Dimethicone (tested undiluted and at 79%) was not a sensitizer in four assays using mice and guinea pigs. It was not a sensitizer at 5.0% in a clinical repeated insult patch test using 83 panelists. Most ocular irritation studies using rabbits classified Dimethicone as a mild to minimal irritant. Dimethicone was tested in numerous oral-dose (using rats) and dermal-dose (using rats, rabbits, and monkeys) reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. In a few studies, treated males had significantly decreased body weight and/or decreased testes or seminal vesicles weights. No treatment-related adverse findings were noted in dosed pregnant females or fetuses. Dimethicone was negative in all genotoxicity assays. It was negative in both an oral (tested at 91%) and dermal (tested at an unknown concentration) dose carcinogenicity assay using mice. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel considered it unlikely that any of these polymers would be significantly absorbed into the skin due to their large molecular weight. Although adverse effects were noted in one inhalation study with small aerosol particles, the expected particle sizes for cosmetic products would primarily be in the range of 60 to 80 μ, and less than 1% would be under 10 μ, which is an upper limit for respirable particles. Overall, the safety test data support the safety of these ingredients at the concentrations they are known to be used in cosmetic formulations. Accordingly, the CIR Expert Panel was of the opinion that Stearoxy Dimethicone, Dimethicone, Methicone, Amino Bis-propyl Dimethicone, Aminopropyl Dimethicone, Amodimethicone, Amodimethicone Hydroxystearate, Behenoxy Dimethicone, C24–28 Alkyl Methicone, C30–45 Alkyl Methicone, C30–45 Alkyl Dimethicone, Cetearyl Methicone, Cetyl Dimethicone, Dimethoxysilyl Ethylenediaminopropyl Dimethicone, Hexyl Methicone, Hydroxypropyldimethicone, Stearamidopropyl Dimethicone, Stearyl Dimethicone, Stearyl Methicone, and Vinyldimethicone are safe as used in cosmetic formulations.

Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Cyclomethicone

1991 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-19 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ames Test ◽  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Oral Feeding ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Histopathological Changes ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Local Skin ◽  
Reproductive Effects ◽  
Cosmetic Formulations ◽  
Gross Lesions

Cyclomethicone is a mixture of cyclic dimethylpolysiloxane compounds used primarily as an emollient and solvent in cosmetic formulations at concentrations from <0.1%to>50%. Cyclomethicone is not significantly absorbed through the skin. Small amounts of Cyclomethicone were absorbed by both humans and monkeys in oral feeding studies. The absorbed Cyclomethicone was detected in both the urine and expired air. Acute oral dose of Cyclomethicone to rats produced no deaths nor any gross lesions. Short-term dermal studies produced no behavioral, local skin, gross, nor histopathological changes. In subchronic inhalation studies in monkeys, no significant differences were found between exposed and unexposed animals. Undiluted Cyclomethicone applied to the intact and abraded skin of rabbits produced little or no irritation in two studies. Ocular studies indicated that Cyclomethicone produced only slight transient conjunctival irritation in washed and unwashed eyes. Cyclomethicone did not produce reproductive effects in rats. Cyclomethicone was not a mutagen when assayed in the Ames test. Cyclomethicone was neither irritating nor sensitizing to human skin in two clinical studies. On the basis of the available data, it is concluded that Cyclomethicone is safe as a cosmetic ingredient in present practices of use.

scholarly journals Safety Assessment of Polyquaternium-22 and Polyquarternium-39 as Used in Cosmetics

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 47S-53S ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilbur Johnson ◽  
Bart Heldreth ◽  
Wilma F. Bergfeld ◽  
Donald V. Belsito ◽  
Ronald A. Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Assessment ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Developmental Toxicity ◽  
Skin Irritation ◽  
Cosmetic Products ◽  
Limited Data ◽  
Local Effects ◽  
Cosmetic Formulations ◽  
Monomer Content ◽  
Unreacted Monomer

Polyquaternium-22 and polyquaternium-39 are polymers that function as antistatic agents, film formers, and hair fixatives in cosmetic products. These ingredients are being used at concentrations up to 2% (polyquaternium-22, in a rinse-off product) and up to 3% (polyquaternium-39, in rinse-off and leave-on products). The unreacted monomer content of these ingredients was considered low and of no toxicological concern. Limited data showed no skin irritation/sensitization. Although these ingredients were nongenotoxic in bacterial assays, mammalian genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive and developmental toxicity data were not available. These polymers, however, are large, highly polar molecules that would likely not be absorbed, and neither local effects in the respiratory tract nor systemic toxicity are expected following product application/exposure. The Expert Panel concluded that polyquaternium-22 and polyquaternium-39 are safe in the present practices of use and concentration in cosmetic formulations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document