Toxicity Evaluation of Petroleum Blending Streams: Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Hydrodesulfurized Kerosine

Schreiner, Ceinwen A.; Bui, Quang Q.; Breglia, R.; Burnett, Donald M.; Koschier, Francis J.; Podhasky, Paula; Lapadula, L.; White, Russell D.; Feuston, Maureen H.; Krueger, Ann M.; Rodriquez, S.

doi:10.1080/00984109708984061

Cited by 31 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a study carried out according to OECD Test Guideline 421 in SD rats, no relevant effects on reproduction were found compared with untreated control animals after dermal application of 1 ml white mineral oil/kg body weight and day (about 850 mg/kg body weight) (Schreiner et al 1997).…”

Section: Fertilitymentioning

confidence: 97%

White mineral oil, pharmaceutical [MAK Value Documentation, 2015]

Hartwig

2017

The MAK‐Collection for Occupational Health and Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The German Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area has evaluated pharmaceutical white mineral oil which is a grade of white mineral oil [ 8042‐47‐5 ] considering all toxicological endpoints. Available publications are described in detail. In addition to studies with white mineral oils, studies with other highly refined mineral oils are used. Critical effect is lung toxicity which is observed as microgranulomas in two long‐term studies with rats and dogs at a respirable aerosol concentration of 100 mg/m 3 with a NOAEC of 5 mg/m 3 . A MAK value of 5 mg/m 3 has been set as the respirable fraction (R). Since the critical effect is a long‐term effect on the lung, Peak Limitation Category II is designated, with an excursion factor of 4. The NOAEC and the oral NOAEL for developmental toxicity of white mineral oil in rats are 1000 mg/m 3 and 5000 mg/kg body weight, respectively. The differences between the MAK value and the NOAEC and that of the oral NOAEL scaled to a concentration at the work place are sufficiently large, so that damage to the embryo or foetus is unlikely when the MAK value is not exceeded. Pharmaceutical white mineral oil is therefore classified in Pregnancy Risk Group C. Highly refined mineral oils are neither genotoxic nor carcinogenic. Skin contact is not expected to contribute significantly to systemic toxicity. Numerous studies where purified mineral oil and petrolatum are used as a vehicle show no sensitization in humans and animals. The same is expected for pharmaceutical white mineral oil.

show abstract

Section: Fertilitymentioning

confidence: 97%

White mineral oil, pharmaceutical [MAK Value Documentation, 2015]

Hartwig

2017

The MAK‐Collection for Occupational Health and Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A series of studies (Schreiner et al, 1997(Schreiner et al, , 1998(Schreiner et al, , 2000 investigate d the toxicity of repeated exposure to light catalytic reformed naphtha (LCRN) distillate, a major blending component of unleaded gasoline containing up to 10% (v/v) benzene. LCRN (C5-C11) is produced at over 25 million gallons/yr in the United States, and constitutes up to 30% of unleaded gasoline.…”

Section: Hydrocarbon Fuel Neurotoxicity 273mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of the Neurotoxicity Risk of Selected Hydrocarbon Fuels

Ritchie¹

2001

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over 1.3 million civilian and military personnel are occupationally exposed to hydrocarbon fuels, emphasizing gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, or kerosene. These exposures may occur acutely or chronically to raw fuel, vapor, aerosol, or fuel combustion exhaust by dermal, respiratory inhalation, or oral ingestion routes, and commonly occur concurrently with exposure to other chemicals and stressors. Hydrocarbon fuels are complex mixtures of 150-260+ aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon compounds containing varying concentrations of potential neurotoxicants including benzene, n-hexane, toluene, xylenes, naphthalene, and certain n-C9-C12 fractions (n-propylbenzene, trimethylbenzene isomers). Due to their natural petroleum base, the chemical composition of different hydrocarbon fuels is not defined, and the fuels are classified according to broad performance criteria such as flash and boiling points, complicating toxicological comparisons. While hydrocarbon fuel exposures occur typically at concentrations below permissible exposure limits for their constituent chemicals, it is unknown whether additive or synergistic interactions may result in unpredicted neurotoxicity. The inclusion of up to six performance additives in existing fuel formulations presents additional neurotoxicity challenge. Additionally, exposures to hydrocarbon fuels, typically with minimal respiratory or dermal protection, range from weekly fueling of personal automobiles to waist-deep immersion of personnel in raw fuel during maintenance of aircraft fuel tanks. Occupational exposures may occur on a near daily basis for from several months to over 20 yr. A number of published studies have reported acute or persisting neurotoxic effects from acute, subchronic, or chronic exposure of humans or animals to hydrocarbon fuels, or to certain constituent chemicals of these fuels. This review summarizes human and animal studies of hydrocarbon fuel-induced neurotoxicity and neurobehavioral consequences. It is hoped that this review will support ongoing attempts to review and possibly revise exposure standards for hydrocarbon fuels.

show abstract

“…In addition, several reproductive and developmental toxicity studies using low viscosity mineral oils as a solvent control are available (Schreiner et al, 1997;McKee et al, 1987a;McKee et al, 1987b). In 2009, EFSA reviewed these studies and concluded that, although there are no specific reproductive or developmental toxicity studies of high viscosity mineral oils, the studies performed with low viscosity white mineral oils are useful in providing evidence of the lack of reproductive or developmental effects of white mineral oils.…”

Section: Reproductive and Developmental Toxicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the re‐evaluation of microcrystalline wax (E 905) as a food additive

2013

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on microcrystalline wax (E 905) when used as a food additive. Microcrystalline wax (E 905) is authorised quantum satis as a surface treatment agent on non-chocolate confectionery, chewing gum and decorations, coatings and fillings, except fruit based fillings. It is also permitted as a surface treatment of melons, papaya, mango and avocado. The substance was evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1990 and 1995 and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), the latest in 1995. The JECFA established a group ADI of 20 mg/kg bw/day for mineral oils, paraffins and microcrystalline waxes. The Panel noted that all mineral oil products accumulated in tissues in a dose-and time-dependent manner with the exception of microcrystalline waxes. The Panel concluded that there is no concern for genotoxicity from microcrystalline wax (E 905). The Panel also considered that the available toxicity studies with mineral hydrocarbons, closely related from a chemical point of view with microcrystalline waxes, consistently reported no effects of concern associated with the intake of microcrystalline wax. The Panel further concluded that since no long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity studies with microcrystalline wax E 905 were available, no ADI could be established. The Panel also concluded that the conservative exposure estimates to microcrystalline wax (E 905) from its use at maximum permitted level (following quantum satis rules), resulted in a sufficient margin of safety compared to the NOAEL established by the Panel for the closely related high viscosity mineral oils, and therefore the use microcrystalline wax (E 905) as a food additive with the currently authorised uses would not be of safety concern. © European Food Safety Authority, 2013 KEY WORDSPetroleum wax, microcrystalline, CAS Registry Number 63231-60-7; Microcrystalline paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon waxes. SUMMARYFollowing a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on microcrystalline wax (E 905) when used as a food additive.The Panel was not provided with a newly submitted dossier and based its evaluation on previous evaluations and additional literature that became available since then and the data available following a public call for data. The Panel noted that not all original studies on which previous evaluations were based were available.Microcrystalline wax (E 905) is authorised quantum satis as a surface treatment agent on nonchocolate confectionery, chewing gum and decorations, coatings and fillings, except fruit based fillings. It is also permitted as a surface treatment of melons, papaya, mango and avocado.The substance was evaluated previously by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1990 and 1995 and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on F...

show abstract

Toxicity Evaluation of Petroleum Blending Streams: Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Hydrodesulfurized Kerosine

Cited by 31 publications

References 6 publications

White mineral oil, pharmaceutical [MAK Value Documentation, 2015]

White mineral oil, pharmaceutical [MAK Value Documentation, 2015]

A Review of the Neurotoxicity Risk of Selected Hydrocarbon Fuels

Scientific Opinion on the re‐evaluation of microcrystalline wax (E 905) as a food additive

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About