10 Final Report on the Safety Assessment of 5-Bromo-5-Nitro-1,3-Dioxane

1990 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-288 ◽  

5-Bromo-5-Nitro-1,3-Dioxane is used as a preservative in cosmetic products. The chemical can be metabolized to 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, a nitrosating agent, whose safety of use has already been substantiated. 5-Bromo-5-Nitro-1,3-Dioxane has an LD50 of 455 mg/kg for rats and 590 mg/kg for mice. Significant skin and eye irritation was observed in animal studies at 0.5%, but not at 0.1%. The compound was neither a sensitizer nor a photosensitizer in guinea pig studies. This ingredient was neither mutagenic nor teratogenic. Sensitization was observed in clinical patients at 0.1 and 0.5%, but not in a study on nonclinical volunteers. It is concluded that 5-Bromo-5-Nitro-1,3-Dioxane can be safely used in cosmetic products at concentrations up to and including 0.1 %, except when it may react with amines and amides to form nitrosamines or nitrosamides.

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 ◽  
...  

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.


1987 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-120 ◽  

Toluene has a wide variety of noncosmetic applications. However, the cosmetic use is limited to nail products at concentrations up to 50%. Toluene was practically nontoxic when given orally to rats; acute oral LD50 values ranged from 2.6 g/kg to 7.5 g/kg. Results of animal studies indicated that undiluted Toluene is a skin irritant. No skin irritation or sensitization was observed in subjects treated with cosmetic products containing 31-33% Toluene. No phototoxic or photoallergic reactions were noted in subjects treated with 25% or 30% Toluene. The sole cosmetic use of Toluene is in products intended to be applied directly to the nail; therefore, human skin exposure to this ingredient will be minimal under conditions of cosmetic use. On the basis of the available data and the limited user skin exposure from cosmetic products containing Toluene, it is concluded that this ingredient is safe for cosmetic use at the present practices of use and concentration.


1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-41 ◽  

Dilauryl Thiodipropionate (DLTDP) is the diester of lauryl alcohol and 3,3′-thiodipro-pionic acid which is used as an antioxidant and sequestering agent in cosmetics at concentrations up to 1%. When administered orally to rats and mice, DLTDP was slightly toxic and was relatively nontoxic in subchronic oral studies with rats. No irritation was produced by a formulation containing 0.05% DLTDP when tested at 0.0025% on intact and abraded skin. DLTDP was nonmutagenic in four different assay systems. This cosmetic ingredient was not a teratogen or reproductive toxicant in oral studies in mice, rats, hamsters or rabbits. A formulation containing 0.05% DLTDP when tested at 0.05% was not a sensitizer in a guinea pig maximization test. DLTDP, at a concentration of 0.05% in a makeup foundation, was not an irritant, sensitizer, or phototoxin when tested on human volunteers. The maximum reported safety test concentration used in dermal toxicity of DLTDP was 0.05%. The report limits its safety conclusion by concluding that DLTDP is safe for use in cosmetic products at the maximum dermal tested concentration of 0.05%.


1983 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 101-124 ◽  

Propylene Glycol Stearates (PGS) are a mixture of the mono- and diesters of triple-pressed stearic acid and propylene glycol and are used in a wide variety of cosmetic products. Studies with 14C-labeled PGS show that it is readily metabolized following ingestion. In rats, the acute oral LD50 has been shown to be approximately 25.8 g/kg. The raw ingredient produced no significant dermal toxicity, skin irritation, or eye irritation in acute tests with rabbits. Subchronic animal studies produced no evidence of oral or dermal toxicity. Propylene glycol monostea-rate was negative in in vitro microbial assays for mutagenicity. In clinical studies, PGS produced no significant skin irritation at concentrations up to 55% nor skin sensitization on formulations containing 2.5%. Photo-contact allergenicity tests on product formulations containing 1.5% PGS were negative. From the available information, it is concluded that Propylene Glycol Stearates are safe as cosmetic ingredients in the present practices of use.


1985 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 107-146 ◽  

The 7 Stearates described in this report are either oily liquids or waxy solids that are primarily used in cosmetics as skin emollients at concentrations up to 25 percent. The toxicology of the Stearates has been assessed in a number of animal studies. They have low acute oral toxicity and are essentially nonirritating to the rabbit eye when tested at and above use concentration. At cosmetic use concentrations the Stearates are, at most, minimally irritating to rabbit skin. In clinical studies the Stearates and cosmetic products containing them were at most minimally to mildly irritating to the human skin, essentially nonsensitizing, nonphototoxic and nonphotosensitizing. Comedogenicity is a potential health effect that should be considered when the Stearate ingredients are used in cosmetic formulations. On the basis of the information in this report, it is concluded that Butyl, Cetyl, Isobutyl, Isocetyl, Isopropyl, Myristyl, and Octyl Stearate are safe as cosmetic ingredients in the present practices of use.


1983 ◽  
Vol 2 (7) ◽  
pp. 75-86 ◽  

Potassium and TEA-Coco-Hydrolyzed Animal Proteins (PCHAP and TEA-CHAP) are salts of the condensation product of coconut acid and hydrolyzed animal protein. They are used in cosmetic products as detergents, foamers, and levelers. Acute oral toxicity studies showed that both PCHAP and TEA-CHAP were practically nontoxic when ingested. Both ingredients at concentrations of 10%-100% were practically nonirritating to moderately irritating when instilled in the eyes of rabbits. Both were nonirritating to mildly irritating when applied at concentrations of 10%-50% to the skin of rabbits. Guinea pig sensitization studies with both PCHAP and TEA-CHAP were negative. PCHAP and TEA-CHAP, at concentrations of 2% 10% were nonirritating to practically nonirritating in humans. In a repeated insult patch test, PCHAP gave a positive sensitization reaction in two of 168 subjects; two additional subjects showed cumulative irritation and one other was reported to have a nonspecific irritation. One subject out of 28 tested did not demonstrate significant irritation or sensitivity to either PCHAP or TEA-CHAP, but was photosensitized to both ingredients. On the basis of the available information, the Panel concludes that Potas-sium-Coco-Hydrolyzed Animal Protein and TEA-Coco-Hydrolyzed Animal Protein are safe as cosmetic ingredients in the present practices of use as recorded in this report.


2007 ◽  
Vol 26 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 79-88 ◽  

Hexamidine Diisethionate functions as a biocide in cosmetics at concentrations of 0.03% to 0.1% in 38 cosmetic products. Hexamidine functions as a biocide and preservative in cosmetics, but is not in current use in cosmetics, but it is used in over-the-counter (OTC) drug products. Hexamidine was poorly absorbed by human cadaver skin when in water-oil formulations or in a gel that simulated a cosmetic product formulation. Hexamidine Diisethionate was poorly absorbed by the skin of live rats and was not stored in any tissue type. Hexamidine Diisethionate given to rats intravenously was rapidly metabolized to Hexamidine. Excretion was primarily via the feces, with a small amount excreted in the urine. Acute oral LD50 values of Hexamidine Diisethionate were 0.71 to 2.5 g/kg in mice and 0.75 g/kg in rats. Dermal exposure to 4 g/kg Hexamidine Diisethionate in rats or up to 9.4 ml/kg of a 0.1% Hexamidine Diisethionate solution under occlusion in rabbits produced no mortality or other signs of toxicity. The no-observed-effect level (NOEL) for oral subchronic toxicity of Hexamidine Diisethionate in rats was 50 mg/kg/day. No signs of toxicity were observed with 2% Hexamidine Diisethionate in subchronic studies using rabbits. Application of 0.1 ml of 0.11% Hexamidine Diisethionate in aqueous solution to the eyes of rabbits produced transient reactions; 0.05% produced no reactions. Slight erythema was observed with 0.10% Hexamidine Diisethionate applied to the abraded skin of 1/11 albino rabbits. A 40% solution of Hexamidine Diisethionate applied to 10% of the body surface of rats produced slight erythema, slight edema, and scabbing in some animals at varying times after treatment. Hexamidine Diisethionate was not a sensitizer in the guinea pig maximization test or in an intracutaneous guinea pig sensitization test. Hexamidine Diisethionate was not a photosensitizer in albino rabbits. Hexamidine Diisethionate was not mutagenic in a bacterial reverse mutagenicity assay or clastogenic in mammalian cells. Hexamidine Diisethionate at 0.10% did not provoke primary irritation, inflammation, or sensitization in a clinical test of 200 human subjects. One case report of photosensitivity to Hexamidine and one of contact sensitivity to Hexamidine were reported. There were nine case reports of contact sensitivity to Hexamidine Diisethionate. A European safety assessment recommended a limit of 0.1% Hexamidine Diisethionate in leave-on and rinse-off cosmetic products. In considering the available data, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel acknowledged the lack of carcinogenicity and reproductive/developmental toxicity data. Because genotoxicity studies were negative, and there were no structural alerts, the Panel concluded that it was unlikely that these ingredientswould be carcinogenic. Because the rate of absorption of Hexamidine and Hexamidine Diisethionate is slow, there is no tissue accumulation, and excretion is rapid and complete, and there was no toxicity in a subchronic study, the Panel concluded that dermal exposures would not likely present a risk of reproductive/ developmental toxicity. The Panel noted that a guinea pig maximization study using Hexamidine Diisethionate produced no dermal reactions and that a clinical test at 0.1% produced no irritation or sensitization. The Panel also expressed concern regarding the possible presence of 1,4-dioxane as an impurity, and stressed that the cosmetic industry should continue to use the necessary purification procedures to remove these impurities from the ingredient before blending into cosmetic formulations. The Panel noted that there are no data for concentration of use for eye makeup and baby products, and was concerned that there should not be unrestricted concentration levels in these product categories. Although there are gaps in knowledge about product use, the overall information available on the types of products in which these ingredients are used and at what concentration indicate a pattern of use. Within this overall pattern of use, the Expert Panel considers all ingredients in this group to be safe at concentrations up to and including 0.1%.


1982 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 91-102 ◽  

PEG Lanolins are the polyethylene glycol ethers of whole lanolin. They are widely used in cosmetics as auxiliary oil/water emulsifiers at concentrations of up to 25%. PEG Lanolins were found to be nontoxic in acute oral, dermal, and inhalation studies at varying concentrations. They caused little or no eye irritation in rabbits at concentrations of 50-100%. PEG Lanolins at 10-100% caused mild or negligible skin irritation and were reported to be nonsensitizing in guinea pigs. PEG Lanolins were reported to be nonirritating and nonsensitizing in patients at concentrations from 10-60%. On the basis of the available information, it is concluded that the PEG-75 Lanolin Group is safe as presently used in cosmetic products.


1982 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 81-90 ◽  

Cetearyl Octanoate is the esterification product of 2-ethylhexanoic acid and cetearyl alcohol. The acute oral LD50 for Cetearyl Octanoate is estimated from studies with rats to be greater than 8.0 ml/kg. The ingredient produced no significant acute, subchronic or dermal skin or eye irritation when tested in rabbits. The ingredient produced no evidence of skin sensitization in the guinea pig. Similar studies with product formulations containing Cetearyl Octanoate confirmed these results, as well as indicated the ingredient was not phototoxic. In clinical studies, four of 100 subjects showed slight to moderate irritation with undiluted Cetearyl Octanoate. Product formulations containing between 0.2% and 30% Cetearyl Octanoate were tested on a total of 644 subjects with no signs of skin sensitization, photocontact allergenicity, or phototoxicity. From the available information, it is concluded that Cetearyl Octanoate is safe as a cosmetic ingredient in the present practices of use.


1990 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-95 ◽  

Decyl Oleate and Isodecyl Oleate are esters of oleic acid. Decyl Oleate is used in cosmetic products at concentrations ranging from ≤0.1 to > 50%. Isodecyl Oleate is used at concentrations of > 0.1-25%. Animal studies have shown both Decyl Oleate and Isodecyl Oleate to possess low acute oral toxicities in rats with LD50s of > 40 ml/kg. Single application dermal and eye studies with rabbits have shown these materials at 100% concentrations produce little or no irritation. Daily applications of 15% or 100% concentrations for 60 days to the skin of rabbits produced a moderate degree of irritation with both Decyl and Isodecyl Oleate. Neither of the ingredients was found to be a sensitizer when tested in guinea pigs at concentrations of 15%. Repeated insult patch tests containing 1-5% Decyl Oleate showed no signs of sensitization. Testing with formulations containing 5.5% Decyl Oleate produced a low number of reactions in 402 human subjects in the Schwartz-Peck Prophetic Patch Test and 204 subjects with undiluted Isodecyl Oleate on nine subjects showed a total irritation score of 1.0 out of a maximum of 756. It is concluded that, because of both the chemical similarity of these compounds and the similarity of the available animal and human data, Decyl and Isodecyl Oleates warrant a conclusion of safe in the concentrations of present practices and use in cosmetics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document