Risk Assessment of the Skin Sensitization Induction Potential of Kathon CG in Rinse-off and Leave-on Personal Care and Cosmetic Products

Background Kathon CG is a commonly used cosmetic-grade preservative that contains active ingredients methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and methylisothiazolinone (MI). Objective The aim of the study was to perform a skin sensitization induction risk assessment of daily exposure to Kathon CG after use of various personal care and cosmetic products. Methods We calculated an estimated daily consumer exposure level for rinse-off and leave-on products using the amount of product applied per application, number of applications per day, a retention factor, the MCI/MI concentration, and body surface area values. We assumed that the products contained the maximum recommended safe concentration of MCI/MI: 15 ppm in rinse-off products and 7.5 ppm in leave-on products. We compared estimated consumer exposure levels with the no expected sensitization induction level for MCI/MI and applied sensitization assessment factors to calculate product-specific margins of safety (MOSs). Conclusions The MOSs for rinse-off products ranged from 5 to 63, whereas the MOSs for leave-on products ranged from 0.03 to 1.49. Overall, our results provide evidence that some leave-on products containing the maximum recommended safe concentration of Kathon CG may increase the risk of sensitization induction due to exposure to MCI/MI. In contrast, rinse-off products were not associated with a potential increased risk of skin sensitization induction.

[1]  T. Slaga,et al.  Amended Safety Assessment of Methylisothiazolinone as Used in Cosmetics , 2019, International journal of toxicology.

[2]  H. Rothe,et al.  Application of in vitro skin penetration measurements to confirm and refine the quantitative skin sensitization risk assessment of methylisothiazolinone , 2017, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[3]  D. Basketter,et al.  Skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment: A review of underlying assumptions. , 2016, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[4]  C McNamara,et al.  Use of an aggregate exposure model to estimate consumer exposure to fragrance ingredients in personal care and cosmetic products. , 2015, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[5]  R. Urwin,et al.  Methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone contact allergy: a new ‘epidemic’ , 2013, Contact dermatitis.

[6]  K. Zug,et al.  Methylisothiazolinone , 2013, Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug.

[7]  J. Johansen,et al.  Methylisothiazolinone contact allergy: a review , 2011, The British journal of dermatology.

[8]  T. Slaga,et al.  Final Report of the Safety Assessment of Methylisothiazolinone , 2010, International journal of toxicology.

[9]  Christina Cowan-Ellsberry,et al.  Axilla surface area for males and females: measured distribution. , 2008, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[10]  G Frank Gerberick,et al.  Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. , 2008, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[11]  K J Renskers,et al.  Exposure data for cosmetic products: facial cleanser, hair conditioner, and eye shadow. , 2008, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[12]  Anne Marie Api,et al.  Exposure data for personal care products: hairspray, spray perfume, liquid foundation, shampoo, body wash, and solid antiperspirant. , 2006, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[13]  C. Zachariae,et al.  An evaluation of dose/unit area and time as key factors influencing the elicitation capacity of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) in MCI/MI‐allergic patients , 2006, Contact dermatitis.

[14]  A. M. Api,et al.  Exposure data for cosmetic products: lipstick, body lotion, and face cream. , 2005, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[15]  Carsten Goebel,et al.  Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. , 2003, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[16]  Matthias G. H. Vey,et al.  Consumer exposure to fragrance ingredients: providing estimates for safety evaluation. , 2002, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[17]  G F Gerberick,et al.  The importance of exposure estimation in the assessment of skin sensitization risk , 2000, Contact dermatitis.

[18]  V. Ferrario,et al.  Normal growth and development of the lips: a 3‐dimensional study from 6 years to adulthood using a geometric model , 2000, Journal of anatomy.

[19]  I Kimber,et al.  Skin sensitization risk assessment: a comparative evaluation of 3 isothiazolinone biocides , 1999, Contact dermatitis.

[20]  J. W. Weyland,et al.  Kathon CG: a review. , 1988, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[21]  B. Gruvberger,et al.  Contact allergy to a contaminant in Kathon CG in the guinea pig. , 1987, Dermatosen in Beruf und Umwelt. Occupation and environment.

[22]  Paul T. Bailey,et al.  Dose‐response assessments of Kathon® biocide (II) Threshold prophetic patch testing , 1986, Contact dermatitis.

[23]  R Simon,et al.  Length biased sampling in etiologic studies. , 1980, American journal of epidemiology.

[24]  Robert C. Wolpert,et al.  A Review of the , 1985 .