d-Limonene, a major constituent of citrus oils, is a monoterpene widely used as a flavor/fragrance additive in cosmetics, foods, and industrial solvents as it possesses a pleasant lemon-like odor. d-Limonene has been designated as a chemical with low toxicity based upon lethal dose (LD50) and repeated-dose toxicity studies when administered orally to animals. However, skin irritation or sensitizing potential was reported following widespread use of this agent in various consumer products. In experimental animals and humans, oxidation products or metabolites of d-limonene were shown to act as skin irritants. Carcinogenic effects have also been observed in male rats, but the mode of action (MOA) is considered irrelevant for humans as the protein α(2u)-globulin responsible for this effect in rodents is absent in humans. Thus, the liver was identified as a critical target organ following oral administration of d-limonene. Other than the adverse dermal effects noted in humans, other notable toxic effects of d-limonene have not been reported. The reference dose (RfD), the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL), and the systemic exposure dose (SED) were determined and found to be 2.5 mg/kg/d, 250 mg/kg//d, and 1.48 mg/kg/d, respectively. Consequently, the margin of exposure (MOE = NOAEL/SED) of 169 was derived based upon the data, and the hazard index (HI = SED/RfD) for d-limonene is 0.592. Taking into consideration conservative estimation, d-limonene appears to exert no serious risk for human exposure. Based on adverse effects and risk assessments, d-limonene may be regarded as a safe ingredient. However, the potential occurrence of skin irritation necessitates regulation of this chemical as an ingredient in cosmetics. In conclusion, the use of d-limonene in cosmetics is safe under the current regulatory guidelines for cosmetics.
Exposure and risk assessment was performed by evaluating levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC) benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) in 207 consumer products. The products were categorized into 30 different items, consisting of products of different brands. Samples were analyzed for BTEX by headspace-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (headspace-GC/MS) with limit of detection (LOD) of 1 ppm. BTEX were detected in 59 consumer products from 18 item types. Benzene was detected in whiteout (ranging from not detected [ND] to 3170 ppm), glue (1486 ppm), oil-based ballpoint pens (47 ppm), and permanent (marking) pens (2 ppm). Toluene was detected in a leather cleaning product (6071 ppm), glue (5078 ppm), whiteout (1130 ppm), self-adhesive wallpaper (15-1012 ppm), shoe polish (806 ppm), permanent pen (609 ppm), wig adhesive (372 ppm), tapes (2-360 ppm), oil-based ballpoint pen (201 ppm), duplex wallpaper (12-52 ppm), shoes (27 ppm), and air freshener (13 ppm). High levels of ethylbenzene were detected in permanent pen (ND-345,065 ppm), shoe polish (ND-277,928 ppm), leather cleaner (42,223 ppm), whiteout (ND-2,770 ppm), and glue (ND-792 ppm). Xylene was detected in permanent pen (ND-285,132 ppm), shoe polish (ND-87,298 ppm), leather cleaner (12,266 ppm), glue (ND-3,124 ppm), and whiteout (ND-1,400 ppm). Exposure assessment showed that the exposure to ethylbenzene from permanent pens ranged from 0 to 3.11 mg/kg/d (men) and 0 to 3.75 mg/kg/d (women), while for xylene, the exposure ranges were 0-2.57 mg/kg/d and 0-3.1 mg/kg/d in men and women, respectively. The exposure of women to benzene from whiteout ranged from 0 to 0.00059 mg/kg/d. Hazard index (HI), defined as a ratio of exposure to reference dose (RfD), for ethylbenzene was 31.1 (3.11 mg/kg/d/0.1 mg/kg/d) and for xylene (2.57 mg/kg/d/0.2 mg/kg/d) was 12.85, exceeding 1 for both compounds. Cancer risk for benzene was calculated to be 3.2 × 10(-5) based on (0.00059 mg/kg/d × 0.055 mg/kg-d(-1), cancer potency factor), assuming that 100% of detected levels in some products such as permanent pens and whiteouts were exposed in a worst-case scenario. These data suggest that exposure to VOC via some consumer products exceeded the safe limits and needs to be reduced.
The heavy metal content of cosmetics may be a cause for concern in that exposure to these metals is associated with adverse consequences. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess consequences attributed to exposure to heavy metals in cosmetics as determined by non-cancer, cancer, and sensitization risks methodologies. The quantification and exposure assessments of aluminum (Al), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), arsenic (As), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), antimony (Sb), and titanium (Ti) were performed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. The non-cancer risk assessment of Al, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, Sb, and Ti in cosmetic samples resulted in a margin of safety (MOS) greater than 100 or a hazard index (HI) of less than 1. However, the probability of lifetime cancer risk (LCR) resulting from dermal exposure to heavy metals from cosmetics exceeded the acceptable risk levels (LCR > 10). An exposure-based sensitization quantitative risk assessment determined that the ratios of acceptable exposure level to consumers for Ni, Co, Cu, or Hg were above 1, suggesting an absence of skin-sensitizing potential. For an average daily user of lip cosmetics, the estimated intakes of heavy metals were within the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The percentage of heavy users for which metal intakes exceeded ADIs were 20.37% for Pb, 9.26% for Mn, 1.85% for Cr, and 1.85% for Cr, respectively. Data suggested that the heavy metals present in cosmetics do not appear to pose a serious risk to health. However, for heavy users of lip cosmetics, contamination with some heavy metals, such as Pb, Mn, and Cr needs to be minimized.
The migration levels of bisphenol A (BPA) were analyzed in food samples by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) from polycarbonate (PC) bottles subjected to simulated use by heating with microwave, heating in a boiling water bath, or filling them with boiling hot water (100 degrees C). Migration testing performed in PC bottles filled with steamed rice or hot cooked pork, standing at room temperature, or heated in a boiling water bath (100 degrees C) showed that BPA was not detected at the limit of detection (LOD) of 1 microg/L (ppb). In contrast, heating by microwaving to 100 degrees C for 9 min increased BPA migration levels from 6 to 18 ppb and from 5 to 15 ppb for steamed rice or for cooked pork, respectively. In addition, 3 different PC bottles were tested by filling them with boiling hot water (100 degrees C) and leaving them to stand at room temperature for up to 3 h. The mean BPA levels from the bottles increased in a time-dependent manner, with the range of not detected (ND) to 2.5 ppb after 60 min. However, none of the PC bottles released BPA at levels that exceed the recently established specific migration limits (SML) of 600 ppb established by European Union and Korea Food and Drug Administration (KFDA). Data suggest that the use of PC plastic bottles in our daily life is considered safe in Korea.
In the manufacture of plastic containers, various materials such as additives (for example, plasticizers, stabilizers, antioxidants), polymers (for example, polystyrene [PS] for PC) presented in polymers, as additives (for example, phthalates for PVC) used in polymer manufacturing, and/or as contaminants from the polymers depending on physicochemical conditions such as temperature, UV light, pH, microwave, and mechanical stress. Some phthalates (for example, DEHP, DBP), styrene, or bisphenol have been suspected to have endocrine disrupting effects, but human toxicological effects of these compounds are very controversial. For these reasons, a comprehensive review on toxicological and risk assessment studies for these chemicals (phthalates, BPA, and styrene) was carried out to evaluate their safety in humans. On the basis of exposure estimates for the these chemicals and reference doses (RfDs), we calculated hazard index (HI = chronic daily intake/tolerable daily intake [TDI] or RfD). A HI of less than 1 suggests an exposure lower than the safety limit of the chemicals. We showed that the HI values of these chemicals were lower then 1, but there are one or several exceptions for di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP; for example, exposure via infant formula, packaged lunch, total exposure), where estimated their HI values are higher than 1, which suggests an exposure higher than the safety limits of the chemicals. However, the HI of BPA was 0.001-0.26 (3.57-1000 times lower than its safety limit), and the HI for styrene was 0.276 (3.62 times lower than its safety limit). In this article, we focused on recent issues concerning the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) derived from plastic food containers or packaging. This review suggests that the use of plastic food containers might not exceed human safe limits n general with respect to endocrine disruptors aside from the exceptions of the phthalates mentioned earlier.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.