Safety Assessment of Ethanolamine and Ethanolamine Salts as Used in Cosmetics.

Cocamide DEA is a mixture of ethanolamides of Coconut Acid that is used as a surfactant-foam booster and viscosity-increasing agent-aqueous in cosmetic products. Production formulation data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration in 1994 indicated that this ingredient was used in 745 products. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel had previously evaluated the safety of Cocamide DEA, Lauramide DEA, Linoleamide DEA, and Oleamide DEA in cosmetics and concluded that they were safe as cosmetic ingredients at the concentrations that were currently being used (50%). CIR's decision to reevaluate the safety of Cocamide DEA in cosmetics is based on occupational studies indicating that this ingredient may have sensitization potential; however, the Expert Panel has determined that these studies are not relevant to cosmetic use. Furthermore, the Panel agreed that its original conclusion on Cocamide DEA should be clarified relative to use of this ingredient in rinse-off and leave-on products. Clarification of the original conclusion is based on the results of a skin irritation test in which 15 volunteers were tested with a surfactant solution containing 10% Cocamide DEA, the highest concentration tested in predictive patch tests. Additional comments that were made during the Panel's review of other data in the present report include that the severe ocular irritation reactions induced by a chemical (p H 9–10.5) containing >64% Cocamide DEA were likely a result of p H; that the renal effects noted in Fischer 344 rats in the National Toxicology Program (NTP) subchronic dermal toxicity study may be species-related and not test substance-related; and with reference to an ongoing NTP two-year chronic study that was initiated in 1993, that the results will be reviewed when the study is available. On the basis of the animal and clinical data presented in the present report, the Expert Panel concluded that Cocamide DEA is safe as used in rinse-off products and safe at concentrations 10% in leave-on cosmetic products. It was also concluded that Cocamide DEA should not be used as an ingredient in cosmetic products in which N-nitroso compounds are formed.

Polyisobutene and Hydrogenated Polyisobutene are homopolymers of isobutene. These ingredients are produced in a wide range of molecular weights. Polybutene is a chemically related cosmetic ingredient previously determined to be safe as used in cosmetic products. Polyisobutene is used in cosmetic products as a binder, film former, and nonaqueous viscosity-increasing agent. Hydrogenated Polyisobutene functions as a skin-conditioning agent-emollient and nonaqueous viscosity-increasing agent with a wide range of uses in cosmetic formulations. The estimated octanol water partition coefficient for Hydrogenated Polyisobutene and Polybutene is log K(ow) of 13.27 and the estimated water solubility was 5.6 x 10(-3) ng/L for Hydrogenated Polyisobutene and Polybutene. Acute oral toxicity testing demonstrated no effects other than lethargy in one rat study. The oral LD(50) was > 5.0 g/kg in rats. No short-term or subchronic animal toxicity data were available. A 2-year chronic oral toxicity study of Polybutene revealed no gross or microscopic pathological changes, and no changes in body weights or food consumption, hematological results, urology, or tumor formation that could be correlated with Polybutene ingestion, except that in the 20,000 ppm group, three out of six males that died between weeks 17 and 24 exhibited hematuria. In a 2-year chronic oral toxicity study of Polybutene in Beagle dogs, no abnormalities in body weight, food consumption, survival, behavioral patterns, hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis, liver function, gross and histopathologic examinations, or organ weights and ratios were reported. In a three-generation reproductive study in Charles River albino rats that ingested Polybutene, none of the animals in successive generations differed from controls with regard to weight gain, litter size, the number of stillborn, and the number of viable pups during lactation. The survival, body weights, and reactions of test animals were comparable to those of controls. Neither Polyisobutene nor Hydrogenated Polyisobutene were ocular irritants, nor were they dermal irritants or sensitizers. Polyisobutene was not comedogenic in a rabbit ear study. Polyisobutene did not induce transformation in the Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cell transformation assay, but did enhance 3-methylcholanthrene-induced transformation of C3H/10T1/2 cells. In a carcinogenicity study in mice, Polyisobutene was not carcinogenic, nor did it promote the carcinogenicity of 7,12-dimethylbenz(alpha)anthracene. Clinical patch tests uncovered no evidence of dermal irritation and repeat-insult patch tests with a product containing 4% Hydrogenated Polyisobutene or 1.44% Hydrogenated Polyisobutene found no reactions greater than slight erythema. These products also were not phototoxic or photoallergenic. The product containing 4% Hydrogenated Polyisobutene was not an ocular irritant in a clinical test. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel recognized that there are data gaps regarding use and concentration of these ingredients. However, the overall information available on the types of products in which these ingredients are used and at what concentrations indicate a pattern of use, which was considered by the Expert Panel in assessing safety. Although there is an absence of dermal absorption data for Polyisobutene and Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, the available octanol water partition coefficient data and the low solubility in water suggest very slow absorption, so additional data are not needed. Gastrointestinal absorption is also not a major concern due to the low solubility of these chemicals. Although one in vitro study did report that Polyisobutene did promote cellular transformation, a mouse study did not find evidence of tumor promotion. Because lifetime exposure studies using rats and dogs exposed to Polybutene failed to demonstrate any carcinogenic or tumor promotion effect, and a three-generation reproductive/developmental toxicity study produced no adverse effects, the CIR Expert Panel does not believe these large, mostly insoluble polymers present any risks in the practices of use and concentration as described in this safety assessment.

Polyisobutene and Hydrogenated Polyisobutene are homopolymers of isobutene. These ingredients are produced in a wide range of molecular weights. Polybutene is a chemically related cosmetic ingredient previously determined to be safe as used in cosmetic products. Polyisobutene is used in cosmetic products as a binder, film former, and nonaqueous viscosity-increasing agent. Hydrogenated Polyisobutene functions as a skin-conditioning agent—emollient and nonaqueous viscosity-increasing agent with a wide range of uses in cosmetic formulations. The estimated octanol water partition coefficient for Hydrogenated Polyisobutene and Polybutene is log Kow of 13.27 and the estimated water solubility was 5.6 × 10–3 ng/L for Hydrogenated Polyisobutene and Polybutene. Acute oral toxicity testing demonstrated no effects other than lethargy in one rat study. The oral LD50 was >5.0 g/kg in rats. No short-term or subchronic animal toxicity data were available. A 2-year chronic oral toxicity study of Polybutene revealed no gross or microscopic pathological changes, and no changes in body weights or food consumption, hematological results, urology, or tumor formation that could be correlated with Polybutene ingestion, except that in the 20,000 ppm group, three out of six males that died between weeks 17 and 24 exhibited hematuria. In a 2-year chronic oral toxicity study of Polybutene in Beagle dogs, no abnormalities in body weight, food consumption, survival, behavioral patterns, hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis, liver function, gross and histopathologic examinations, or organ weights and ratios were reported. In a three-generation reproductive study in Charles River albino rats that ingested Polybutene, none of the animals in successive generations differed from controls with regard to weight gain, litter size, the number of stillborn, and the number of viable pups during lactation. The survival, body weights, and reactions of test animals were comparable to those of controls. Neither Polyisobutene nor Hydrogenated Polyisobutene were ocular irritants, nor were they dermal irritants or sensitizers. Polyisobutene was not comedogenic in a rabbit ear study. Polyisobutene did not induce transformation in the Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cell transformation assay, but did enhance 3-methylcholanthrene–induced transformation of C3H/10T1/2 cells. In a carcinogenicity study in mice, Polyisobutene was not carcinogenic, nor did it promote the carcinogenicity of 7,12-dimethylbenz(α)anthracene. Clinical patch tests uncovered no evidence of dermal irritation and repeat-insult patch tests with a product containing 4% Hydrogenated Polyisobutene or 1.44% Hydrogenated Polyisobutene found no reactions greater than slight erythema. These products also were not phototoxic or photoallergenic. The product containing 4% Hydrogenated Polyisobutene was not an ocular irritant in a clinical test. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel recognized that there are data gaps regarding use and concentration of these ingredients. However, the overall information available on the types of products in which these ingredients are used and at what concentrations indicate a pattern of use, which was considered by the Expert Panel in assessing safety. Although there is an absence of dermal absorption data for Polyisobutene and Hydrogenated Polyisobutene, the available octanol water partition coefficient data and the low solubility in water suggest very slow absorption, so additional data are not needed. Gastrointestinal absorption is also not a major concern due to the low solubility of these chemicals. Although one in vitro study did report that Polyisobutene did promote cellular transformation, a mouse study did not find evidence of tumor promotion. Because lifetime exposure studies using rats and dogs exposed to Polybutene failed to demonstrate any carcinogenic or tumor promotion effect, and a three-generation reproductive/developmental toxicity study produced no adverse effects, the CIR Expert Panel does not believe these large, mostly insoluble polymers present any risks in the practices of use and concentration as described in this safety assessment.

HC Red No. 7 functions as a semipermanent (direct) hair colorant in one cosmetic product at 1%. Analytical studies found the relative purity of HC Red No. 7 to be > 98.5%. Impurities may include 2-nitro-benzene-1,4-diamine; 3-(4-amino-3-nitro-phenyl)-oxazolin-2-one; 2-chloroethyl 4-amino-3-nitrophenylcarbamate; residual solvents ethanol, DMF, or isopropyl acetate; chloride ions; and heavy metals. Around 0.10% of the applied HC Red No. 7 was absorbed in human dermatomed skin samples. In an acute oral toxicity study in rats, the maximum nonlethal dose was 300 mg/kg. The no observed effect level (NOEL) in a subchronic oral toxicity study in rats was 50 mg/kg day(- 1). HC Red No. 7 was not a dermal or ocular irritant in rabbits, but lymphoproliferative responses in mice indicated that HC Red No. 7 should be considered a moderate sensitizer. The NOEL for maternal toxicity was 50 mg/kg/day and the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for embryonic development was 200 mg/kg/day in a prenatal toxicity study of HC Red No. 7 using rats. HC Red No. 7 was nonmutagenic at the hprt locus but mutagenic at the TK locus in mouse lymphoma cells, was mutagenic in several Salmonella typhimurium strains, was not active in an unscheduled DNA synthesis assay, and was unclear in a micronucleus assay in human lymphocyte cultures. No carcinogenicity studies were available, nor were any clinical tests reported. Available hair dye epidemiology studies are insufficient to conclude a causal relationship between hair dye use and cancer or other diseases, but more relevant is that direct hair dyes, although not the focus in all investigations, appear to have little evidence of an association with adverse events as reported in epidemiology studies. As reviewed by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel, HC Red No. 7 appears to be a moderate sensitizer in animals. No human sensitivity data concerning this ingredient have been reported. However, hair dyes containing HC Red No. 7, as coal tar hair dye products, are exempt from the principal adulteration provision and from the color additive provisions in sections 601 and 706 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, when the label bears a caution statement and patch test instructions for determining whether the product causes contact dermatitis. The Expert Panel expects that following this procedure will identify prospective individuals who would have an irritation/sensitization reaction and allow them to avoid significant exposures. The CIR Expert Panel also noted that mutagenicity studies available for HC Red No. 7 gave both positive and negative results. Based on the available data, it was concluded that, at most, this ingredient is a weak mutagen. Due to its low dermal absorption potential and its use as a semipermanent hair dye, the CIR Expert Panel believes there is low risk of genotoxicity and that HC Red No. 7 is safe as a hair dye ingredient in the practices of use and concentrations as described in this safety assessment.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel (Panel) rereviewed the safety of 28 ethanolamides and found them safe in the present practices of use and concentration when they are formulated to be nonirritating, and that these ingredients should not be used in cosmetic products in which N-nitroso compounds may be formed. Most of the ethanolamides are reported to function in cosmetics as hair-conditioning agents, skin-conditioning agents, and surfactant-foam boosters. The Panel reviewed available animal and clinical data, as well as information from previous CIR reports.

Safety of ingredients used in cosmetics

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel assessed the safety of diethanolamine and its salts as used in cosmetics. Diethanolamine functions as a pH adjuster; the 16 salts included in this rereview reportedly function as surfactants, emulsifying agents, viscosity increasing agents, hair or skin conditioning agents, foam boosters, or antistatic agents. The Panel reviewed available animal and clinical data, as well as information from previous CIR reports. Since data were not available for each individual ingredient, and since the salts dissociate freely in water, the Panel extrapolated from previous reports to support safety. The Panel concluded that diethanolamine and its salts are safe for use when formulated to be nonirritating. These ingredients should not be used in cosmetic products in which N-nitroso compounds can be formed.

Cocamidopropylamine Oxide is a tertiary amine oxide which functions as a hair-conditioning agent and as a surfactant, currently used in 60 cosmetic formulations at concentrations between 0.07% and 4.0%. In an earlier safety assessment, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel had determined that the available data were insufficient to support the safety of this ingredient in cosmetic products. Additional data have now been provided and reviewed. Cocamidopropylamine Oxide was determined to have an acute oral LD(50) between 500 and 1000 mg/kg day(-1) using rats. The acute dermal LD(50) in rats was > 2174 mg/kg day(-1). A 28-day repeated oral dose toxicity study in rats found hemolytic anemia at 150 and 1000 mg/kg day(- 1), with a no observed effect level (NOEL) of 15 mg/kg day(- 1). At 5%, Cocamidopropylamine Oxide solution was not a primary dermal irritant. Application of 81.5% Cocamidopropylamine Oxide to rabbit skin caused moderate irritation under Draize classification scale, but 81.5% Cocamidopropylamine Oxide in rabbit eyes caused severe irritation. A maximization study classified Cocamidopropylamine Oxide as a nonsensitizer to guinea pig skin. Cocamidopropylamine Oxide was not mutagenic in an Ames test, with and without metabolic activation. No evidence of increased chromosomal aberrations were noted in human lymphocytes treated with 81.5% Cocamidopropylamine Oxide. In a clinical study, 7.5% Cocamidopropylamine Oxide was not a sensitizer, although it did produce some reactions typical of mild irritation. Although the impurities, amidoamine and dimethylaminopropylamine, have been implicated in contact allergy reactions to products containing cocamidopropylamine betaine, clinical testing of a product with cocamidopropylamine betaine containing these impurities, at levels comparable to those found in Cocamidopropylamine Oxide, failed to produce a reaction in 10 individuals known to be sensitive to cocamidopropylamine betaine. Two repeat-insult patch tests using a facial wash with 1% raw material containing 35% to 36.5% Cocamidopropylamine Oxide did not find evidence of dermal sensitization. Tests for dermal phototoxicity and photoallergenicity with the same facial wash product also did not produce evidence of effect. The CIR Expert Panel recognizes that there are data gaps regarding the use and concentration of this ingredient. However, the overall information available on types of products in which this ingredient is used and at what concentration indicate a pattern of use, which was considered by the Expert Panel in assessing safety. Overall, these data demonstrate that Cocamidopropylamine Oxide has low toxicity in animal and in vitro tests. Although there are no available carcinogenicity data, the available genotoxicity data, combined with the absence of any structural alerts, suggest no carcinogenic potential. The Panel noted the absence of reproductive and developmental toxicity data. Because this ingredient has a highly polarized molecular structure, the Panel considered that it would be, at most, slowly absorbed. Given that most of the uses and the highest use concentration of 4% is found in rinse-off products, the Panel determined that the available data suggest that Cocamidopropylamine Oxide is safe as used in rinse-off products. Although dermal penetration may be slow, data on the extent of dermal penetration of Cocamidopropylamine Oxide are needed to support the safety of leave-on uses. If there is significant dermal absorption, dermal reproductive and developmental toxicity data may be needed.

Final Amended Report on the Safety Assessment of Methylparaben, Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, Isopropylparaben, Butylparaben, Isobutylparaben, and Benzylparaben as used in Cosmetic Products

Parabens is the name given to a group of p-hydroxybenzoic acid (PHBA) esters used in over 22,000 cosmetics as preservatives at concentrations up to 0.8% (mixtures of parabens) or up to 0.4% (single paraben). The group includes Methylparaben, Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, Isopropylparaben, Butylparaben, Isobutylparaben, and Benzylparaben. Industry estimates of the daily use of cosmetic products that may contain parabens were 17.76 g for adults and 378 mg for infants. Parabens in cosmetic formulations applied to skin penetrate the stratum corneum in inverse relation to the ester chain length. Carboxylesterases hydrolyze parabens in the skin. Parabens do not accumulate in the body. Serum concentrations of parabens, even after intravenous administration, quickly decline and remain low. Acute toxicity studies in animals indicate that parabens are not significantly toxic by various routes of administration. Subchronic and chronic oral studies indicate that parabens are practically nontoxic. Numerous genotoxicity studies, including Ames testing, dominant lethal assay, hostmediated assay, and cytogenic assays, indicate that the Parabens are generally nonmutagenic, although Ethylparaben and Methylparaben did increase chromosomal aberrations in a Chinese Hamster ovary cell assay. Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, and Butylparaben in the diet produced cell proliferation in the forestomach of rats, with the activity directly related to chain length of the alkyl chain, but Isobutylparaben and Butylparaben were noncarcinogenic in a mouse chronic feeding study. Methylparaben was noncarcinogenic when injected subcutaneously in mice or rats, or when administered intravaginally in rats, and was not cocarcinogenic when injected subcutaneously in mice. Propylparaben was noncarcinogenic in a study of transplacental carcinogenesis. Methylparaben was nonteratogenic in rabbits, rats, mice, and hamsters, and Ethylparaben was nonteratogenic in rats. Parabens, even at levels that produce maternal toxicity, do not produce fetal anomalies in animal studies. Parabens have been extensively studied to evaluate male reproductive toxicity. In one in vitro study, sperm were not viabile at concentrations as low as 6 mg/ml Methylparaben, 8 mg/ml Ethylparaben, 3 mg/ml Propylparaben, or 1 mg/ml Butylparaben, but an in vivo study of 0.1% or 1.0% Methylparaben or Ethylparaben in the diet of mice reported no spermatotoxic effects. Propylparaben did affect sperm counts at all levels from 0.01% to 1.0%. Epididymis and seminal vesicle weight decreases were reported in rats given a 1 % oral Butylparaben dose; and decreased sperm number and motile activity in F 1 offspring of rats maternally exposed to 100 mg/kg day -1 were reported. Decreased sperm numbers and activity were reported in F 1 offspring of female rats given Butylparaben (in DMSO) by subcutaneous injection at 100 or 200 mg/kg day -1 , but there were no abnormalities in the reproductive organs. Methylparaben was studied using rats at levels in the diet up to an estimated mean dose of 1141.1 mg/kg day -1 with no adverse testicular effects. Butylparaben was studied using rats at levels in the diet up to an estimated mean dose of 1087.6 mg/kg day -1 in a repeat of the study noted above, but using a larger number of animals and a staging analysis of testicular effects-no adverse reproductive effects were found. .

Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Capsicum Annuum Extract, Capsicum Annuum Fruit Extract, Capsicum Annuum Resin, Capsicum Annuum Fruit Powder, Capsicum Frutescens Fruit, Capsicum Frutescens Fruit Extract, Capsicum Frutescens Resin, and Capsaicin1

Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and related cosmetic ingredients methyl methacrylate crosspolymer and methyl methacrylate/glycol dimethacrylate crosspolymer are polymers that function as film formers and viscosity-increasing agents in cosmetics. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determination of safety of PMMA use in several medical devices, which included human and animal safety data, was used as the basis of safety of PMMA and related polymers in cosmetics by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel. The PMMA used in cosmetics is substantially the same as in medical devices. The Panel concluded that these ingredients are safe as cosmetic ingredients in the practices of use and concentrations as described in this safety assessment.

Triethylene Glycol and PEG-4 (polyethylene glycol) are polymers of ethylene oxide alcohol. Triethylene Glycol is a specific three-unit chain, whereas PEG-4 is a polymer with an average of four units, but may contain polymers ranging from two to eight ethylene oxide units. In the same manner, other PEG compounds, e.g., PEG-6, are mixtures and likely contain some Triethylene Glycol and PEG-4. Triethylene Glycol is a fragrance ingredient and viscosity decreasing agent in cosmetic formulations, with a maximum concentration of use of 0.08% in skin-cleansing products. Following oral doses, Triethylene Glycol and its metabolites are excreted primarily in urine, with small amounts released in feces and expired air. With oral LD50 values in rodents from 15 to 22 g/kg, this compound has little acute toxicity. Rats given short term oral doses of 3% in water showed no signs of toxicity, whereas all rats given 10% died by the 12th day of exposure. At levels up to 1 g/m3, rats exposed to aerosolized Triethylene Glycol for 6 h per day for 9 days showed no signs of toxicity. Rats fed a diet containing 4% Triethylene Glycol for 2 years showed no signs of toxicity. There were no treatment-related effects on rats exposed to supersaturated Triethylene Glycol vapor for 13 months nor in rats that consumed 0.533 cc Triethylene Glycol per day in drinking water for 13 months. Triethylene Glycol was not irritating to the skin of rabbits and produced only minimal injury to the eye. In reproductive and developmental toxicity studies in rats and mice, Triethylene Glycol did not produce biologically significant embryotoxicity or teratogenicity. However, some maternal toxicity was seen in dams given 10 ml/kg/day during gestation. Triethylene Glycol was not mutagenic or genotoxic in Ames-type assays, the Chinese hamster ovary mutation assay, and the sister chromatid exchange assays. PEG-4 is a humectant and solvent in cosmetic products, with a maximum concentration of use of 20% in the "other manicuring preparations" product category. This ingredient, with an oral LD50 in rats of 32.77 g/kg, has low acute toxicity. Rats given up to 50,000 ppm PEG-4 in drinking water for 5 days showed no permanent signs of toxicity. Rats given daily oral doses up to 2 g/kg/day of PEG-4 for 33 days showed no signs of toxicity. Undiluted PEG-4 produced only minimal injury to the rabbit eye. PEG-4 was not mutagenic in Ames-type assays, did not induce chromosome aberration in an in vivo bone marrow assay, and was negative for genotoxicity in a dominant lethal assay using rats. Other PEG compounds, which have previously been reviewed by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel, e.g., PEG-6, are mixtures that likely include Triethylene Glycol and PEG-4, so these data were also considered. PEG-6 and PEG-8 were not dermal irritants in several rabbit studies. PEG-2 Stearate had a potential for slight irritation in rabbits but was not a sensitizer in guinea pigs. PEG-2 Cocamine was a moderate irritant in rabbits, producing severe erythema. In one dermal study, PEG-2 Cocamine was determined to be corrosive to rabbit skin, causing eschar and necrosis. PEG-6 and PEG-8 caused little to no ocular irritation. PEG-8 was not mutagenic or genotoxic in a Chinese hamster ovary assay, a sister-chromatid exchange assay, and in an unscheduled DNA synthesis assay. In clinical studies on normal skin, PEG-6 and PEG-8 caused mild cases of immediate hypersensitivity; PEG-8 was not a sensitizer; PEG-2 Stearate was not an irritant, a sensitizer, or a photosensitizer; and PEG-6 Stearate was not an irritant or sensitizer. In damaged skin, cases of systemic toxicity and contact dermatitis in burn patients were attributed to a PEG-based topical ointment. The CIR Expert Panel acknowledged the lack of dermal sensitization data for Triethylene Glycol and dermal irritation and sensitization data for PEG-4. That PEG-6, PEG-8, and PEG-2 Stearate were not irritants or sensitizers suggested that Triethylene Glycol and PEG-4 also would not be irritants or sensitizers, and the absence of any reported reactions in the case literature and the professional experience of the Expert Panel further supported the absence of any significant sensitization potential. The need for additional data to demonstrate the safety of PEGs Cocamine was related to the Cocamine moiety and is not relevant here. The Panel reminded formulators of cosmetic products that, as with other PEG compounds, Triethylene Glycol and PEG-4 should not be used on damaged skin because of cases of systemic toxicity and contact dermatitis in burn patients have been attributed to a PEG-based topical ointment. Based on its consideration of the available information, the CIR Expert Panel concluded that Triethylene Glycol and PEG-4 are safe as cosmetic ingredients in the present practices and concentrations of use as described in this safety assessment.

The safety of isoparaffins as used in cosmetic products is reviewed in this safety assessment. These ingredients function mostly as solvents and also function as emollients in the 0001% to 90% concentration range. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel has reviewed relevant animal and clinical data and concluded that these ingredients are safe in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

This is a safety assessment of alumina and aluminum hydroxide as used in cosmetics. Alumina functions as an abrasive, absorbent, anticaking agent, bulking agent, and opacifying agent. Aluminum hydroxide functions as a buffering agent, corrosion inhibitor, and pH adjuster. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluated the safe use of alumina in several medical devices and aluminum hydroxide in over-the-counter drugs, which included a review of human and animal safety data. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel considered the FDA evaluations as part of the basis for determining the safety of these ingredients as used in cosmetics. Alumina used in cosmetics is essentially the same as that used in medical devices. This safety assessment does not include metallic or elemental aluminum as a cosmetic ingredient. The CIR Expert Panel concluded that alumina and aluminum hydroxide are safe in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.