Systemic exposure was measured in humans after hair dyeing with oxidative hair dyes containing 2.0% (A) or 1.0% (B) [(14)C]-p-phenylenediamine (PPD). Hair was dyed, rinsed, dried, clipped and shaved; blood and urine samples were collected for 48 hours after application. [(14)C] was measured in all materials, rinsing water, hair, plasma, urine and skin strips. Plasma and urine were also analysed by HLPC/MS/MS for PPD and its metabolites (B). Total mean recovery of radioactivity was 94.30% (A) or 96.21% (B). Mean plasma Cmax values were 132.6 or 97.4 ng [(14)C]-PPDeq/mL, mean AUC(0-∞) values 1415 or 966 ng [(14)C]-PPDeq/mL*hr in studies A or B, respectively. Urinary excretion of [(14)C] mainly occurred within 24 hrs after hair colouring with a total excretion of 0.72 or 0.88% of applied radioactivity in studies A or B, respectively. Only N,N'-diacetylated-PPD was detected in plasma and the urine. A TK-based human safety assessment estimated margins of safety of 23.3- or 65-fold relative to respective plasma AUC or Cmax values in rats at the NOAEL of a toxicity study. Overall, hair dyes containing PPD are unlikely to pose a health risk since they are used intermittently and systemic exposure is limited to the detoxified metabolite N,N'-diacetyl-PPD.

Personal care products (PCP) often contain micron- or nano-sized formulation components, such as nanoemulsions or microscopic vesicles. A large number of studies suggest that such vesicles do not penetrate human skin beyond the superficial layers of the stratum corneum. Nano-sized PCP formulations may enhance or reduce skin absorption of ingredients, albeit at a limited scale. Modern sunscreens contain insoluble titanium dioxide (TiO2) or zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles (NP), which are efficient filters of UV light. A large number of studies suggest that insoluble NP do not penetrate into or through human skin. A number of in vivo toxicity tests, including in vivo intravenous studies, showed that TiO2 and ZnO NP are non-toxic and have an excellent skin tolerance. Cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, photo-genotoxicity, general toxicity and carcinogenicity studies on TiO2 and ZnO NP found no difference in the safety profile of micro- or nano-sized materials, all of which were found to be non-toxic. Although some published in vitro studies on insoluble nano- or micron-sized particles suggested cell uptake, oxidative cell damage or genotoxicity, these data are consistent with those from micron-sized particles and should be interpreted with caution. Data on insoluble NP, such as surgical implant-derived wear debris particles or intravenously administered magnetic resonance contrast agents suggest that toxicity of small particles is generally related to their chemistry rather than their particle size. Overall, the weight of scientific evidence suggests that insoluble NP used in sunscreens pose no or negligible risk to human health, but offer large health benefits, such as the protection of human skin against UV-induced skin ageing and cancer.

Characterisation of skin sensitisation potential is a key endpoint for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients especially when significant dermal exposure to an ingredient is expected. At present the mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA) remains the 'gold standard' test method for this purpose however non-animal test methods are under development that aim to replace the need for new animal test data. COLIPA (the European Cosmetics Association) funds an extensive programme of skin sensitisation research, method development and method evaluation and helped coordinate the early evaluation of the three test methods currently undergoing pre-validation. In May 2010, a COLIPA scientific meeting was held to analyse to what extent skin sensitisation safety assessments for cosmetic ingredients can be made in the absence of animal data. In order to propose guiding principles for the application and further development of non-animal safety assessment strategies it was evaluated how and when non-animal test methods, predictions based on physico-chemical properties (including in silico tools), threshold concepts and weight-of-evidence based hazard characterisation could be used to enable safety decisions. Generation and assessment of potency information from alternative tools which at present is predominantly derived from the LLNA is considered the future key research area.

Based on the current weight of evidence of all available data, the risk for humans from the use of nano-structured titanium dioxide (TiO2) or zinc oxide (ZnO) currently used in cosmetic preparations or sunscreens is considered negligible. There is a large body of information that when viewed in its entirety is considered as sufficient to demonstrate that these nano-structured ultraviolet (UV) filters, irrespective of various treatments (coatings) or crystalline structure, can be regarded as safe for use at concentrations up to 25% in cosmetic products to protect the skin from harmful effects of solar UV radiation. "Nano" TiO2 and ZnO formulated in topically applied sunscreen products exist as aggregates of primary particles ranging from 30-150 nm in size. These aggregates are bonded such that the force of sunscreen product application onto the skin would have no impact on their structure or result in the release of primary particles. Multiple studies have shown that under exaggerated test conditions neither nano-structured TiO2 nor ZnO penetrates beyond the stratum corneum of skin. Further, the distribution and persistence of these nano-structured metal oxides is the same compared to larger pigment-grade (i.e., > 100 nm) particles, demonstrating equivalence in the recognition and elimination of such material from the body. Finally, the in vitro genotoxic and photogenotoxic profiles of these nano-structured metal oxides are of no consequence to human health. Whereas the most logical, straightforward conclusion based on data from internationally-recognized guideline studies and current 20+ year history of human use is that nano-structured TiO2 and ZnO are safe, there will continue to be questions as "nano" conjures images of technology gone awry. Despite this rather sober view, the public health benefits of sunscreens containing nano TiO2 and/or ZnO outweigh human safety concerns for these UV filters.

The need for alternative approaches to replace the in vivo rabbit Draize eye test for evaluation of eye irritation of cosmetic ingredients has been recognised by the cosmetics industry for many years. Extensive research has lead to the development of several assays, some of which have undergone formal validation. Even though, to date, no single in vitro assay has been validated as a full replacement for the rabbit Draize eye test, organotypic assays are accepted for specific and limited regulatory purposes. Although not formally validated, several other in vitro models have been used for over a decade by the cosmetics industry as valuable tools in a weight of evidence approach for the safety assessment of ingredients and finished products. In light of the deadlines established in the EU Cosmetics Directive for cessation of animal testing for cosmetic ingredients, a COLIPA scientific meeting was held in Brussels on 30th January, 2008 to review the use of alternative approaches and to set up a decision-tree approach for their integration into tiered testing strategies for hazard and safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients and their use in products. Furthermore, recommendations are given on how remaining data gaps and research needs can be addressed.

Retinyl palmitate (RP), an ingredient of cosmetic and medical skin-care preparations, has been reported to be photo-genotoxic/photo-clastogenic in mouse lymphoma cells (Tk locus) as well as in human Jurkat T-cells, as measured by use of the comet assay. Given that these results were obtained under exploratory conditions, we re-investigated the photo-genotoxicity of RP following a protocol consistent with current recommendations for photo-genotoxicity testing of drugs and chemicals. We tested RP in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells in the dark (standard chromosome aberration test), under pre-irradiation (UVA irradiation of cells and subsequent treatment with RP) or simultaneous irradiation (irradiation of cells and RP together, standard photo-genotoxicity protocol) conditions. UVA irradiation was applied at 350 and 700 mJ/cm2 with the high UV dose targeted to produce a small increase in the incidence of structural chromosome aberrations (CA) in cells not treated with RP. RP was tested up to and above its limit of solubility in the culture medium (20-40 μg/mL). There was no overt cytotoxicity under dark or different irradiation conditions. Treatment of cells with RP in the dark, as well as treatment under pre- or simultaneous irradiation conditions failed to produce biologically significant increases in the incidence of CA, whereas the positive control substances 4-nitroquinolone and 8-methoxypsoralene produced significantly positive effects in the dark or under simultaneous irradiation, respectively. Overall, our results failed to confirm the reported positive photo-genotoxic effects, and suggest that they may have been due to the test conditions, i.e. high irradiation doses, high cytotoxicity or re-irradiation of photo-products. In conclusion, our data suggest that, under standard conditions for testing photo-genotoxicity, RP had no in vitro genotoxic or photo-genotoxic potential and is therefore unlikely to pose a local or systemic genotoxic or photo-genotoxic risk.

We monitored the exposure of hairdressers to oxidative hair dyes for 6 working days under controlled conditions. Eighteen professional hairdressers (3/day) coloured hairdresser's training heads bearing natural human hair (hair length: approximately 30 cm) for 6 h/working day with a dark-shade oxidative hair dye containing 2% [14C]-para-phenylenediamine (PPD). Three separate phases of hair dyeing were monitored: (A) dye preparation/hair dyeing, (B) rinsing/shampooing/conditioning and (C) cutting/drying/styling. Ambient air and personal monitoring samples (vapours and particles), nasal and hand rinses were collected during all study phases. Urine (pre-exposure, quantitative samples for the 0-12, 12-24, 24-48 h periods after start of exposure) and blood samples (blank, 4, 8 or 24 h) were collected from all exposed subjects. Radioactivity was determined in all biological samples and study materials, tools and washing liquids, and a [14C]-mass balance was performed daily. No adverse events were noted during the study. Waste, equipment, gloves and coveralls contained 0.41+/-0.16%, dye mixing bowls 2.88+/-0.54%, hair wash 45.47+/-2.95%, hair+scalp 53.46+/-4.06% of the applied radioactivity, respectively. Plasma levels were below the limit of quantification (10 ng PPDeq/mL). Total urinary 0-48 h excretion of [14C] levels ranged from a total of <2-18 microg PPDeq and was similar in subjects exposed during the different phases of hair dyeing. Minimal air levels at or slightly above the limit of quantification were found in a few personal air monitoring samples during the phases of hair dyeing and hair cutting, but not during the rinsing phase. Air area monitoring samples or nasal rinses contained no measurable radioactivity. Hand residues ranged from 0.006 to 0.15 microg PPDeq/cm2, and were found predominantly after the cutting/drying phase. The mean mass balance of [14C] across the six study days was 102.50+/-2.20%. Overall, the mean, total systemic exposure of hairdressers to oxidative hair dyes during a working day including 6 hair dyeing processes was estimated to be <0.36 microg PPDeq/kg body weight/working day. Our results suggest that (a) current safety precautions for the handling of hair dyes offer sufficient protection against local and systemic exposure and (b) professional exposure to oxidative hair dyes does not pose a risk to human health.

Zinc oxide (ZnO), a widely used ingredient in dermatological preparations and sunscreens, is clastogenic in vitro, but not in vivo. Given that ZnO has an approximately four-fold greater clastogenic potency in the presence of UV light when compared with that in the dark, it has been suggested to be photo-clastogenic. In order to clarify whether this increased potency is a genuine photo-genotoxic effect, we investigated the clastogenicity of ZnO (mean particle size, 100 nm) in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells in the dark (D), in pre-irradiated (PI, i.e. UV irradiation of cells followed by treatment with ZnO) and in simultaneously irradiated (SI, i.e. ZnO treatment concurrent with UV irradiation) CHO cells at UV doses of 350 and 700 mJ/cm(2). The cytotoxicity of ZnO to CHO cells under the different irradiation conditions was as follows: SI>PI>D. In the dark, ZnO produced a concentration-related increase in chromosome aberrations (CA). In PI or SI CHO cells, ZnO was clastogenic at significantly lower concentrations (approximately two- to four-fold) when compared with effective concentrations in the dark, indicating an increased susceptibility of CHO cells to ZnO-mediated clastogenic effects due to UV irradiation per se. The incidence of CA in SI or PI cells was generally higher than that in the dark. At similar ZnO concentrations, SI conditions generally produced higher CA incidence than PI conditions. However, when ZnO concentrations producing similar cytotoxicity were compared, CA incidences under PI or SI conditions were nearly identical. The modest increase in the clastogenic potency of ZnO following UV irradiation contrasts with the results observed with genuine photo-clastogenic agents, such as 8-MOP, which may produce an increase in clastogenic potency of >15,000-fold under SI conditions. Our results provide evidence that, under conditions of in vitro photo-clastogenicity tests, UV irradiation of the cellular test system per se may produce a slight increase in the genotoxic potency of compounds that are clastogenic in the dark. In conclusion, our data suggest that minor increases in clastogenic potency under conditions of photo-genotoxicity testing do not necessarily represent a photo-genotoxic effect, but may occur due to an increased sensitivity of the test system subsequent to UV irradiation.