An essential step in ensuring the toxicological safety of cosmetic or personal care products is the evaluation of the skin sensitizing potential of product ingredients.
Objective
We used a standardized protocol from cosmetic trade industry and consumer safety groups to evaluate the sensitization potential of ingredients in 3 commercially available cleansing conditioners.
Methods
A total of 33 ingredients were evaluated. Each ingredient underwent (1) dermatological evaluation, (2) in silico analysis for irritation and sensitization potential, and (3) a literature evaluation to determine risk of sensitization. Consumer exposure level was compared with the weight-of-evidence no-expected sensitization induction level for the constituent. If a no-expected sensitization induction level for a specific ingredient was not available, the dermal sensitization threshold approach was used. A margin of safety was calculated for each constituent.
Results
The margins of safety for all evaluated ingredients in the cleansing conditioners were greater than 1.
Conclusions
This analysis indicates that exposure to the individual ingredients present in these cleansing conditioners would not be expected to induce dermal sensitization in a consumer under the examined exposure scenario.
KwaM, WeltyLJ, XuS. Adverse events reported to the US Food and Drug Administration for cosmetics and personal care products. JAMA Intern Med, 2017; 177(8):1202.
ComiskeyD, ApiAM, BarrattC, et al.Novel database for exposure to fragrance ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015; 72(3):660–672.
12.
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.
SaffordRJ, AptulaAO, GilmourN. Refinement of the dermal sensitisation threshold (DST) approach using a larger dataset and incorporating mechanistic chemistry domains. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2011; 60(2):218–224.
15.
SaffordRJ, ApiAM, RobertsDW, et al.Extension of the dermal sensitisation threshold (DST) approach to incorporate chemicals classified as reactive. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015; 72(3):694–701.
16.
RobertsDW, ApiAM, SaffordRJ, et al.Principles for identification of high potency category chemicals for which the dermal sensitisation threshold (DST) approach should not be applied. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015; 72(3):683–693.
17.
ApiAM, BasketterDA, CadbyPA, et al.Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2008; 52(1):3–23.
18.
BasketterD, SaffordB. Skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment: a review of underlying assumptions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2016; 74:105–116.
19.
de GrootAC, WeylandJW. KathonCG: a review. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1988. 18(2 Pt 1):350–358.
CIR. Final report on the safety assessment of methylisothiazolinone and methylchloroisothiazolinone. J Am Coll Toxicol, 1992; 11(1):75–128.
22.
SCCS. Opinion on the Mixture of 5-Chloro-2-Methylisothiazolin-3(2H)-One and 2-Methylisothiazolin-3(2H)-One. COLIPA n° P56. SCCS/1238/09. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Health & Consumers; 2009.
23.
BergfeldWF, BelsitoDV, HillRA, et al.Final Amended Report: Amended Safety Assessment of Methylisothiazolinone as Used in Cosmetics. Washington, DC: Cosmetic Ingredient Review; 2014.
24.
ReTA, MooneyD, AntignacE, et al.Application of the threshold of toxicological concern approach for the safety evaluation of calendula flower (Calendula officinalis) petals and extracts used in cosmetic and personal care products. Food Chem Toxicol, 2009; 47(6):1246–1254.
25.
AndersenFA, BergfeldWF, BelsitoDV, et al.Final report of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review expert panel amended safety assessment of Calendula officinalis—derived cosmetic ingredients. Int J Toxicol, 2010; 29(6suppl):221S–243S.
26.
BergfeldWF, BelsitoDV, HillRA, et al.Safety Assessment of Chamomilla Recutita-derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics. Washington, DC: Cosmetic Ingredient Review; 2016.
27.
BergfeldWF, BelsitoDV, KlaassenCD, et al.Safety Assessment of Chamomilla Recutita-derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics. Draft Tentative Report for Panel Review. Washington, DC: Cosmetic Ingredient Review; 2013.
AdamsRM, MaibachHI. A five-year study of cosmetic reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1985; 13(6):1062–1069.
42.
EiermannHJ, LarsenW, MaibachHI, et al.Prospective study of cosmetic reactions: 1977–1980. North American Contact Dermatitis Group. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1982; 6(5):909–917.
43.
RomagueraC, CamarasaJM, AlomarA, et al.Patch tests with allergens related to cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis, 1983; 9(2):167–168.
44.
BieblKA, WarshawEM. Allergic contact dermatitis to cosmetics. Dermatol Clin, 2006; 24(2):215–232, vii.
45.
de GrootAC.Contact allergy to cosmetics: causative ingredients. Contact Dermatitis, 1987; 17(1):26–34.
46.
SogaF, IzawaK, InoueT, et al.Contact dermatitis due to disodium ethylenediamine—tetraacetic acid in cosmetics and shampoo. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49(2):105.
47.
OisoN, FukaiK, IshiiM. Irritant contact dermatitis from benzalkonium chloride in shampoo. Contact Dermatitis, 2005; 52(1):54.
ApiAM, BelsitoD, BruzeM, et al.Criteria for the research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM) safety evaluation process for fragrance ingredients. Food Chem Toxicol, 2015; 82:S1–S19.
50.
GerberickGF, RobinsonMK. A skin sensitization risk assessment approach for evaluation of new ingredients and products. Am J Contact Dermat, 2000; 11(2):65–73.
51.
GoebelC, AebyP, AdeN, et al.Guiding principles for the implementation of non-animal safety assessment approaches for cosmetics: skin sensitisation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2012; 63(1):40–52.
52.
MunroIC, RenwickAG, Danielewska-NikielB. The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) in risk assessment. Toxicol Lett, 2008; 180(2):151–156.
KroesR, RenwickAG, FeronV, et al.Application of the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) to the safety evaluation of cosmetic ingredients. Food Chem Toxicol, 2007; 45(12):2533–2562.
55.
KellerD, KrauledatM, ScheelJ. Feasibility study to support a threshold of sensitization concern concept in risk assessment based on human data. Arch Toxicol, 2009; 83(12):1049–1060.
56.
AntignacE, NohynekGJ, ReT, et al.Safety of botanical ingredients in personal care products/cosmetics. Food Chem Toxicol, 2011; 49(2):324–341.
57.
FungES, NovickR, DrechselD, et al.Tier-based safety testing of common personal care products and their constituents. Toxicologist, 2018; 162(1):463.
58.
ComiskeyD, ApiAM, BarretC, et al.Integrating habits and practices data for soaps, cosmetics and air care products into an existing aggregate exposure model. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2017; 88:144–156.
59.
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.
