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.

It is generally accepted that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) play a role in a variety of adverse health effects in an intact organism or its progeny as a consequence of changes in the endocrine system. Primary toxic effects of EDCs were reported to be related to infertility, reduction in sperm count, and teratogenicity, but other important toxic effects of EDCs such as carcinogenicity and mutagenicity have also been demonstrated. The aim of the present study was to systematically analyze the toxicological characteristics of EDCs in pesticides, industrial chemicals, and metals. A comprehensive literature survey on the 48 EDCs classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was conducted using a number of databases which included Medline, Toxline, and Toxnet. The survey results revealed that toxicological characteristics of EDCs were shown to produce developmental toxicity (81%), carcinogenicity (79%, when positive in at least one animal species; 48%, when classified based on IARC evaluation), mutagenicity (79%), immunotoxicity (52%), and neurotoxicity (50%). Regarding the hormone-modulating effects of the 48 EDCs, estrogenic effects were the most predominant in pesticides, while effects on thyroid hormone were found for heavy metals. EDCs showing estrogen-modulating effects were closely related to carcinogenicity or mutagenicity with a high degree of sensitivity. Systematic information on the toxicological characteristics of the EDCs will be useful for future research directions on EDCs, the development of new screening methods, legal regulation, and for investigations of their mechanism of action.

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.

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.