Cosmetic Ingredient Review

About: Cosmetic Ingredient Review is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cosmetics & Ingredient. The organization has 48 authors who have published 191 publications receiving 2809 citations. The organization is also known as: CIR.

Final report on the safety assessment of Benzyl Alcohol, Benzoic Acid, and Sodium Benzoate.

Abstract: Benzyl Alcohol is an aromatic alcohol used in a wide variety of cosmetic formulations as a fragrance component, preservative, solvent, and viscosity-decreasing agent. Benzoic Acid is an aromatic acid used in a wide variety of cosmetics as a pH adjuster and preservative. Sodium Benzoate is the sodium salt of Benzoic Acid used as a preservative, also in a wide range of cosmetic product types. Benzyl Alcohol is metabolized to Benzoic Acid, which reacts with glycine and excreted as hippuric acid in the human body. Acceptable daily intakes were established by the World Health Organization at 5 mg/kg for Benzyl Alcohol, Benzoic Acid, and Sodium Benzoate. Benzoic Acid and Sodium Benzoate are generally recognized as safe in foods according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. No adverse effects of Benzyl Alcohol were seen in chronic exposure animal studies using rats and mice. Effects of Benzoic Acid and Sodium Benzoate in chronic exposure animal studies were limited to reduced feed intake and reduced growth. Some differences between control and Benzyl Alcohol-treated populations were noted in one reproductive toxicity study using mice, but these were limited to lower maternal body weights and decreased mean litter weights. Another study also noted that fetal weight was decreased compared to controls, but a third study showed no differences between control and Benzyl Alcohol-treated groups. Benzoic Acid was associated with an increased number of resorptions and malformations in hamsters, but there were no reproductive or developmental toxicty findings in studies using mice and rats exposed to Sodium Benzoate, and, likewise, Benzoic Acid was negative in two rat studies. Genotoxicity tests for these ingredients were mostly negative, but there were some assays that were positive. Carcinogenicity studies, however, were negative. Clinical data indicated that these ingredients can produce nonimmunologic contact urticaria and nonimmunologic immediate contact reactions, characterized by the appearance of wheals, erythema, and pruritus. In one study, 5% Benzyl Alcohol elicited a reaction, and in another study, 2% Benzoic Acid did likewise. Benzyl Alcohol, however, was not a sensitizer at 10%, nor was Benzoic Acid a sensitizer at 2%. Recognizing that the nonimmunologic reactions are strictly cutaneous, likely involving a cholinergic mechanism, it was concluded that these ingredients could be used safely at concentrations up to 5%, but that manufacturers should consider the nonimmunologic phenomena when using these ingredients in cosmetic formulations designed for infants and children. Additionally, Benzyl Alcohol was considered safe up to 10% for use in hair dyes. The limited body exposure, the duration of use, and the frequency of use were considered in concluding that the nonimmunologic reactions would not be a concern. Because of the wide variety of product types in which these ingredients may be used, it is likely that inhalation may be a route of exposure. The available safety tests are not considered sufficient to support the safety of these ingredients in formulations where inhalation is a route of exposure. Inhalation toxicity data are needed to complete the safety assessment of these ingredients where inhalation can occur.

Safety assessment of poloxamers 101, 105, 108, 122, 123, 124, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 212, 215, 217, 231, 234, 235, 237, 238, 282, 284, 288, 331, 333, 334, 335, 338, 401, 402, 403, and 407, poloxamer 105 benzoate, and poloxamer 182 dibenzoate as used in cosmetics.

Abstract: Poloxamers are polyoxyethlyene, polyoxypropylene block polymers. The impurities of commercial grade Poloxamer 188, as an example, include low-molecular-weight substances (aldehydes and both formic and acetic acids), as well as 1,4-dioxane and residual ethylene oxide and propylene oxide. Most Poloxamers function in cosmetics as surfactants, emulsifying agents, cleansing agents, and/or solubilizing agents, and are used in 141 cosmetic products at concentrations from 0.005% to 20%. Poloxamers injected intravenously in animals are rapidly excreted in the urine, with some accumulation in lung, liver, brain, and kidney tissue. In humans, the plasma concentration of Poloxamer 188 (given intravenously) reached a maximum at 1 h, then reached a steady state. Poloxamers generally were ineffective in wound healing, but were effective in reducing postsurgical adhesions in several test systems. Poloxamers can cause hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia in animals, but overall, they are relatively nontoxic to animals, with LD(50) values reported from 5 to 34.6 g/kg. Short-term intravenous doses up to 4 g/kg of Poloxamer 108 produced no change in body weights, but did result in diffuse hepatocellular vacuolization, renal tubular dilation in kidneys, and dose-dependent vacuolization of epithelial cells in the proximal convoluted tubules. A short-term inhalation toxicity study of Poloxamer 101 at 97 mg/m(3) identified slight alveolitis after 2 weeks of exposure, which subsided in the 2-week postexposure observation period. A short-term dermal toxicity study of Poloxamer 184 in rabbits at doses up to 1000 mg/kg produced slight erythema and slight intradermal inflammatory response on histological examination, but no dose-dependent body weight, hematology, blood chemistry, or organ weight changes. A 6-month feeding study in rats and dogs of Poloxamer 188 at exposures up to 5% in the diet produced no adverse effects. Likewise, Poloxamer 331 (tested up to 0.5 g/kg day(-1)), Poloxamer 235 (tested up to 1.0 g/kg day(-1)), and Poloxamer 338 (at 0.2 or 1.0 g/kg day(-1)) produced no adverse effects in dogs. Poloxamer 338 (at 5.0 g/kg day(-1)) produced slight transient diarrhea in dogs. Poloxamer 188 at levels up to 7.5% in diet given to rats in a 2-year feeding study produced diarrhea at 5% and 7.5% levels, a small decrease in growth at the 7.5% level, but no change in survival. Doses up to 0.5 mg/kg day(-1) for 2 years using rats produced yellow discoloration of the serum, high serum alkaline phosphatase activity, and elevated serum glutamicpyruvic transaminase and glutamic-oxalacetic transaminase activities. Poloxamers are minimal ocular irritants, but are not dermal irritants or sensitizers in animals. Data on reproductive and developmental toxicity of Poloxamers were not found. An Ames test did not identify any mutagenic activity of Poloxamer 407, with or without metabolic activation. Several studies have suggested anticarcinogenic effects of Poloxamers. Poloxamers appear to increase the sensitivity to anticancer drugs of multidrug-resistant cancer cells. In clinical testing, Poloxamer 188 increased the hydration of feces when used in combination with a bulk laxative treatment. Compared to controls, one study of angioplasty patients receiving Poloxamer 188 found a reduced myocardial infarct size and a reduced incidence of reinfarction, with no evidence of toxicity, but two other studies found no effect. Poloxamer 188 given to patients suffering from sickle cell disease had decreased pain and decreased hospitilization, compared to controls. Clinical tests of dermal irritation and sensitization were uniformly negative. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel stressed that the cosmetic industry should continue to use the necessary purification procedures to keep the levels below established limits for ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, and 1,4-dioxane. The Panel did note the absence of reproductive and developmental toxicity data, but, based on molecular weight and solubility, there should be little skin penetration and any penetration of the skin should be slow. Also, the available data demonstrate that Poloxamers that are introduced into the body via routes other than dermal exposure have a rapid clearance from the body, suggesting that there would be no risk of reproductive and/or developmental toxicity. Overall, the available data do not suggest any concern about carcinogenesis. 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, indicates a pattern of use. Based on these safety test data and the information that the manufacturing process can be controlled to limit unwanted impurities, the Panel concluded that these Poloxamers are safe as used.

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

Abstract: 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.

Final Report of the Safety Assessment of Hyaluronic Acid, Potassium Hyaluronate, and Sodium Hyaluronate:

Abstract: Hyaluronic acid, sodium hyaluronate, and potassium hyaluronate function in cosmetics as skin conditioning agents at concentrations up to 2%. Hyaluronic acid, primarily obtained from bacterial fermentation and rooster combs, does penetrate to the dermis. Hyaluronic acid was not toxic in a wide range of acute animal toxicity studies, over several species and with different exposure routes. Hyaluronic acid was not immunogenic, nor was it a sensitizer in animal studies. Hyaluronic acid was not a reproductive or developmental toxicant. Hyaluronic acid was not genotoxic. Hyaluronic acid likely does not play a causal role in cancer metastasis; rather, increased expression of hyaluronic acid genes may be a consequence of metastatic growth. Widespread clinical use of hyaluronic acid, primarily by injection, has been free of significant adverse reactions. Hyaluronic acid and its sodium and potassium salts are considered safe for use in cosmetics as described in the safety assessment.

Final report on the safety assessment of sodium p-chloro-m-cresol, p-chloro-m-cresol, chlorothymol, mixed cresols, m-cresol, o-cresol, p-cresol, isopropyl cresols, thymol, o-cymen-5-ol, and carvacrol.

Abstract: Sodium p-Chloro-m-Cresol, p-Chloro-m-Cresol (PCMC), Mixed Cresols, m-Cresol, o-Cresol, p-Cresol, Isopropyl Cresols, Thymol, Chlorothymol, o-Cymen-5-ol, and Carvacrol are substituted phenols used as cosmetic biocides/preservatives and/or fragrance ingredients. Only PCMC, Thymol, and o-Cymen-5-ol are reported to be in current use, with the highest concentration of use at 0.5% for o-Cymen-5-ol in perfumes. The use of PCMC in cosmetics is restricted in Europe and Japan. Cresols can be absorbed through skin, the respiratory tract, and the digestive tract; metabolized by the liver; and excreted by the kidney as glucuronide and sulfate metabolites. Several of these cresols increase the dermal penetration of other agents, including azidothymidine. In acute oral toxicity studies, LD50 values were in the 200 to 5000 mg/kg day-1 range across several species. In short-term studies in rats and mice, an o-Cresol, m-Cresol, p-Cresol or m-Cresol/p-Cresol mixture at 30,000 ppm in the diet produced increases in liver and kidney weights, deficits in liver function, bone marrow hypocellularity, irritation to the gastrointestinal tract and nasal epithelia, and atrophy of female reproductive organs. The no observed effect levels (NOEL) of o-Cresol was 240 mg/kg in mink and 778 mg/kg in ferrets in short-term feeding studies, with no significant dose-related toxicity (excluding body weight parameters). In mice, 0.5% p-Cresol, but neither m-Cresol nor o-Cresol, caused loss of pigmentation. Short-term and subchronic oral toxicity tests performed with various cresols using mice, rats, hamsters, and rabbits resulted in no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) for mice of 625 ppm and rats of 50 mg/kg day-1, although the NOEL was 2000 ppm in a chronic study using rats. In rabbits, 20 mg/m(3) for o-Cresol to >583 mg/m(3) for PCMC. No deaths were recorded in mice given o-Cresol at 50 mg/m(3). Cats exposed (short-term) to 9 to 50 mg/m(3) of o-Cresol developed inflammation and irritation of the upper respiratory tract, pulmonary edema, and hemorrhage and perivascular sclerosis in the lungs. Rats exposed (subchronic) to o-Cresol at 9 mg/m(3) had changes in leukocytes, spinal cord smears, nervous activity, liver function, blood effects, clinical signs, and neurological effects. In guinea pigs, exposure to 9 mg/m(3) produced changes in hemoglobin concentrations and electrocardiograms (EKGs). Rats exposed (subchronic) to 0.05 mg/m(3) Mixed Cresols by inhalation exhibited central nervous system (CNS) excitation, denaturation of lung protein, and decreased weight gain. All cresols appear to be ocular irritants. Numerous sensitization studies have been reported and most positive reactions were seen with higher concentrations of Cresol ingredients. Developmental toxicity is seen in studies of m-Cresol, o-Cresol, and p-Cresol, but only at maternally toxic levels. In a reproductive toxicity study of a mixture of m-Cresol and p-Cresol using mice under a continuous breeding protocol, 1.0% caused minimal adult reproductive and significant postnatal toxicity in the presence of systemic maternal toxicity. The o-Cresol NOAEL was 0.2% for both reproductive and general toxicity in both generations. Cresol ingredients were generally nongenotoxic in bacterial, fruit fly, and mammalian cell assays. Thymol did not induce primary lung tumors in mice. No skin tumors were found in mice exposed dermally to m-Cresol, o-Cresol, or p-Cresol for 12 weeks. In the trypthan blue exclusion assay, antitumor effects were observed for Thymol and Carvacrol. Clinical patch testing with 2% PCMC may produce irritant reactions, particularly in people with multiple patch test reactions, that are misinterpreted as allergic responses. o-Cresol, p-Cresol, Thymol, Carvacrol, and o-Cymen-5-ol caused no dermal irritation at or above use concentrations. In two predictive patch tests, PCMC did not produce a sensitization reaction. Overall, these ingredients are not significant sensitizing or photosensitizing agents. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel noted some of these ingredients may increase the penetration of other cosmetic ingredients and advised cosmetic formulators to take this into consideration. The CIR Expert Panel concluded that the toxic effects of these ingredients are observed at doses higher than would be available from cosmetics. A concentration limitation of 0.5% was chosen to ensure the absence of a chemical leukoderma effect. For p-Cresol and Mixed Cresols (which contain p-Cresol), the Panel considered that the available data are insufficient to support the safety of these two ingredients in cosmetics. Studies that would demonstrate no chemical leukoderma at concentrations of use of p-Cresol and Mixed Cresols, or would demonstrate a dose response from which a safe concentration could be derived, are needed.