Kathon CG is a commonly used cosmetic-grade preservative that contains active ingredients methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and methylisothiazolinone (MI).
Objective
The aim of the study was to perform a skin sensitization induction risk assessment of daily exposure to Kathon CG after use of various personal care and cosmetic products.
Methods
We calculated an estimated daily consumer exposure level for rinse-off and leave-on products using the amount of product applied per application, number of applications per day, a retention factor, the MCI/MI concentration, and body surface area values. We assumed that the products contained the maximum recommended safe concentration of MCI/MI: 15 ppm in rinse-off products and 7.5 ppm in leave-on products. We compared estimated consumer exposure levels with the no expected sensitization induction level for MCI/MI and applied sensitization assessment factors to calculate product-specific margins of safety (MOSs).
Conclusions
The MOSs for rinse-off products ranged from 5 to 63, whereas the MOSs for leave-on products ranged from 0.03 to 1.49. Overall, our results provide evidence that some leave-on products containing the maximum recommended safe concentration of Kathon CG may increase the risk of sensitization induction due to exposure to MCI/MI. In contrast, rinse-off products were not associated with a potential increased risk of skin sensitization induction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BasketterDA, RodfordR, KimberI, et al.Skin sensitization risk assessment: a comparative evaluation of 3 isothiazolinone biocides. Contact Dermatitis, 1999; 40(3):150–154.
2.
de GrootAC, WeylandJW, KathonCG. A review. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1988; 18(2 pt 1):350–358.
RobinsonMK, GerberickGF, RyanCA, et al.The importance of exposure estimation in the assessment of skin sensitization risk. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 42(5):251–259.
9.
CIR (Cosmetic Ingredient Review), Final report on the safety assessment of methylisothiazolinone and methylchloroisothiazolinone. J Am Coll Toxicol, 1992; 11(1):75–128.
UrwinR, WilkinsonM. Methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone contact allergy: a new ‘epidemic’. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68(4):253–255.
12.
RotheH, RyanCA, PageL, et al.Application of in vitro skin penetration measurements to confirm and refine the quantitative skin sensitization risk assessment of methylisothiazolinone. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2017; 91:197–207.
13.
LoretzLJ, ApiAM, BarrajLM, et al.Exposure data for cosmetic products: lipstick, body lotion, and face cream. Food Chem Toxicol, 2005; 43(2):279–291.
14.
LoretzL, ApiAM, BarrajL, et al.Exposure data for personal care products: hairspray, spray perfume, liquid foundation, shampoo, body wash, and solid antiperspirant. Food Chem Toxicol, 2006; 44(12): 2008–2018.
15.
LoretzLJ, ApiAM, BabcockL, et al.Exposure data for cosmetic products: facial cleanser, hair conditioner, and eye shadow. Food Chem Toxicol, 2008; 46(5):1516–1524.
SCCS. Opinion on the Mixture of 5-Chloro-2-Methylisothiazoline-3(2H)-One and 2-Methylisothiazoline-3(2H)-One. COLIPA n° P56. SCCS/1238/09. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Health & Consumers; 2009.
SCCNFP. The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products Intended for Consumers Opinion Concerning Methylisothiazolinone. COLIPA n° P94. Adopted by the SCCNFP During the 23rd Plenary Meeting of 18 March 2003. SCCNFP/0625/02, Final. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/sccp/documents/out_201.pdf. Accessed December12, 2017.
20.
ApiAM, BasketterDA, CadbyPA, et al.Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008; 52(1):3–23.
21.
BasketterD, SaffordB. Skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment: a review of underlying assumptions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2016; 74:105–116.
22.
FerrarioVF, SforzaC, SchmitzJH, et al.Normal growth and development of the lips: a 3-dimensional study from 6 years to adulthood using a geometric model. J Anat, 2000; 96(Pt 3):415–423.
23.
EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook, 2011 Edition EPA/600/R-090/052 F September 2011. Washington, DC: National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development; 2011.
24.
CadbyPA, TroyWR, VeyMG. Consumer exposure to fragrance ingredients: providing estimates for safety evaluation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2002; 36(3):246–252.
25.
Cowan-EllsberryC, McNameePM, LeazerT. Axilla surface area for males and females: measured distribution. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008; 52(1):46–52.
SimonR. Length biased sampling in etiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol, 1980; 111(4):444–452.
28.
GriemP, GoebelC, SchefflerH. Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2003; 38(3):269–290.
BergfeldWF, BelsitoDV, HillRA, et al.Final Amended Report: Amended Safety Assessment of Methylisothiazolinone as Used in Cosmetics 2014. Washington, DC: Cosmetic Ingredient Review; 2014.
32.
ZachariaeC, LerbaekA, McNameePM, et al.An evaluation of dose/unit area and time as key factors influencing the elicitation capacity of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) in MCI/MI-allergic patients. Contact Dermatitis, 2006; 55(3):160–166.
33.
SaffordB, ApiAM, BarrattC, et al.Use of an aggregate exposure model to estimate consumer exposure to fragrance ingredients in personal care and cosmetic products. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015; 72(3):673–682.
