Zinc Phenolsulfonate.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety reviewed newly available studies since their original assessment in 1986 and a previous re-review in 2004, along with updated information regarding product types and concentrations of use. Considering this information, the Panel confirmed that Zinc Phenolsulfonate is safe as a cosmetic ingredient in the present practices of use and concentration as described in this report.

Laneth Acetates.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety reviewed newly available studies since their original assessment in 1982 and a previous re-review in 2002, along with updated information regarding product types and concentrations of use. Considering this information, the Panel confirmed that Laneth-9 Acetate and Laneth-10 Acetate are safe for topical application to humans in the present practices of use and concentration as described in this report.

Safety Assessment of Polysilicone-11 as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Polysilicone-11 as used in cosmetic formulations. This ingredient is reported to function as a film former. The Panel considered the available data and concluded that Polysilicone-11 is safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

Safety Assessment of Basic Red 76 as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Basic Red 76, which is reported to function in cosmetics as a hair colorant and hair-conditioning agent. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of this ingredient. The Panel concluded that Basic Red 76 is safe for use as a hair dye ingredient in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment.

Safety Assessment of Palm-Derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reviewed the safety of 8 palm tree (Euterpe edulis (juçara) and Euterpe oleracea (açaí))-derived ingredients as used in cosmetic products; these ingredients are reported to function mostly as skin conditioning agents. The Panel reviewed relevant data relating to the safety of these ingredients in cosmetic formulations. Industry should continue to use good manufacturing practices to limit impurities. The Panel concluded that palm tree (açaí and juçara)-derived ingredients are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

Safety Assessment of Hydrogen Peroxide as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Hydrogen Peroxide for use in cosmetics. This ingredient is reported to function in cosmetics as an antimicrobial agent, cosmetic biocide, oral health care agent, and oxidizing agent. The Panel reviewed the data relevant to the safety of this ingredient and concluded that Hydrogen Peroxide is safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

Safety Assessment of Hydroxyethyl Urea as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Hydroxyethyl Urea, which is reported to function as a humectant and a hair and skin conditioning agent. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of this ingredient. The Panel concluded that Hydroxyethyl Urea is safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment when formulated to be non-irritating.

Safety Assessment of Capryloyl Salicylic Acid as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reassessed the safety of Capryloyl Salicylic Acid in cosmetic products; this ingredient is reported to function as a skin conditioning agent. The Panel reviewed relevant data relating to the safety of this ingredient in cosmetic formulations, and concluded that the available data are insufficient to make a determination that Capryloyl Salicylic Acid is safe under the intended conditions of use in cosmetic formulations.

Allergic or Not: Final Interpretation of Doubtful Patch Test Reactions From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2019-2020.

Background: Doubtful patch test reactions generally do not meet criterion for positivity in patch testing. However, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) allows for doubtful reactions to be coded with a final determination of "allergic/positive" based on the temporal pattern, appearance, known characteristics of the allergen, and/or other supportive patch test reactions. Objectives: To analyze NACDG data from the 2019-2020 patch test cycle to identify patterns in the interpretation and relevance of doubtful reactions. Methods: The frequency and proportions of doubtful reactions were tabulated and analyzed for patterns. Statistical analyses were limited to allergens with ≥30 doubtful reactions to ensure adequate sample size. Results: Of patch-tested patients, 31.9% (1315/4121) had ≥1 doubtful reaction. Of 2538 total doubtful reactions, 46% (n = 1167) had a final interpretation of "allergic/positive." The allergens with the highest proportion of doubtful reactions at the final visit were hydroperoxides of linalool 1% (4.5%), fragrance mix I 8.0% (3.9%), and cetrimonium chloride 0.5% (3.4%). Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) 0.02% (P < 0.001), MI 0.2% (P < 0.001), nickel sulfate hexahydrate 2.5% (P = 0.001), and neomycin sulfate 20.0% (P = 0.003) doubtful reactions were more likely to be interpreted as allergic than nonallergic. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol 0.2% (P < 0.001), oleamidopropyl dimethylamine 0.1% (P < 0.001), formaldehyde 2.0% (P < 0.001), cetrimonium chloride 0.5% (P < 0.001), benzophenone-4 (sulisobenzone) 10% (P < 0.001), iodopropynyl butylcarbamate 0.5% (P < 0.001), cocamidopropyl betaine 1.0% (P = 0.002), and benzisothiazolinone 0.1% (P = 0.012) doubtful reactions were less likely to be interpreted as allergic. Of the 1167 doubtful reactions interpreted as allergic, 84.9% had current relevance. Conclusions: Doubtful reactions were common and approximately one half were coded with a final interpretation of "allergic/positive." Of those, most were clinically relevant. MCI/MI, MI, nickel, and neomycin were more likely to be interpreted as allergic.

Safety Assessment of Soy-Derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reviewed the safety of 28 soy-derived ingredients as used in cosmetic products. These ingredients are reported to primarily function as antioxidants, skin protectants, skin-conditioning agents, and hair-conditioning agents. The Panel considered the available data relating to the safety of these ingredients in cosmetic formulations, and concluded that 24 of the 28 soy-derived ingredients are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment. The Panel also concluded that the available data are insufficient to make a determination that Glycine Max (Soybean) Callus Culture, Glycine Max (Soybean) Callus Culture Extract, Glycine Max (Soybean) Callus Extract, and Glycine Max (Soybean) Phytoplacenta Conditioned Media are safe under the intended conditions of use in cosmetic formulations.

Safety Assessment of Alkane Diols as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of 10 alkane diol ingredients as used in cosmetics. The alkane diols are structurally related to each other as small diols, and most are reported to function in cosmetics as solvents. The Panel reviewed the relevant data for these ingredients, and concluded that seven alkane diols are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment, but that the available data are insufficient to make a determination of safety for three ingredients, namely 1,4-Butanediol, 2,3-Butanediol, and Octanediol.

Safety Assessment of Zinc Salts as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of 27 inorganic and organometallic zinc salts as used in cosmetic formulations; these salts are specifically of the 2+ (II) oxidation state cation of zinc. These ingredients included in this report have various reported functions in cosmetics, including hair conditioning agents, skin conditioning agents, cosmetic astringents, cosmetic biocides, preservatives, oral care agents, buffering agents, bulking agents, chelating agents, and viscosity increasing agents. The Panel reviewed the relevant data for these ingredients, and concluded that these 27 ingredients are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment when formulated to be non-irritating.

Safety Assessment of Butyrospermum parkii (Shea)-Derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of 13 Butyrospermum parkii (shea)-derived ingredients, which are most frequently reported to function in cosmetics as skin and hair conditioning agents. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of these ingredients. Because final product formulations may contain multiple botanicals, each containing similar constituents of concern, formulators are advised to be aware of these constituents and to avoid reaching levels that may be hazardous to consumers. Industry should use good manufacturing practices to limit impurities that could be present in botanical ingredients. The Panel concluded that these ingredients are safe in the present practices of use and concentration when formulated to be non-sensitizing.

Patch Testing With Nickel, Cobalt, and Chromium in Patients With Suspected Allergic Contact Dermatitis.

Background: Allergic contact dermatitis is frequently caused by metals, including multiple metals simultaneously. Objectives: To assess characteristics and associations of positive and clinically relevant patch test (PT) reactions with solitary and concurrent metal sensitization. Methods: A retrospective analysis of PT results for nickel, cobalt, and/or chromium from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group between 2001 and 2018 (n = 43,522). Results: 18.0% had a positive/allergic reaction to nickel sulfate hexahydrate, 7.3% to cobalt chloride hexahydrate, and 3.0% to potassium dichromate. 87.9% patients had a currently relevant reaction to 0, 9.4% to 1, and 2.7% to multiple metals tested. Patients with 1 versus no currently relevant reactions to metal were more likely to have a primary dermatitis site of trunk, feet, and ears; patients with currently relevant reactions to multiple metals had more dermatitis affecting the trunk and ears. Metal sources varied by co-reacting metal, especially for patients with cobalt and chromium allergy. Jewelry was the most commonly identified source of nickel and cobalt for both solitary and concurrent metal allergy. Conclusions: Sensitization to multiple metals occurred in 6% of patients. Allergen sources varied between patients with sensitivity to 1 metal versus those who had concurrent sensitivity to cobalt and/or chromium.

More than just methylisothiazolinone: Retrospective analysis of patients with isothiazolinone allergy in North America, 2017-2020.

BACKGROUND: Isothiazolinones are a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to isothiazolinones from 2017-2020 and characterize isothiazolinone-allergic (Is+) patients compared with isothiazolinone nonallergic (Is-) patients. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 9028 patients patch tested to methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI) 0.02% aqueous, MI 0.2% aqueous, benzisothiazolinone (BIT) 0.1% petrolatum, and/or octylisothiazolinone (OIT) 0.025% petrolatum. Prevalence, reaction strength, concurrent reactions, clinical relevance, and source of allergens were tabulated. RESULTS: In total, 21.9% (1976/9028) of patients had a positive reaction to 1 or more isothiazolinones. Positivity to MI was 14.4% (1296/9012), MCI/MI was 10.0% (903/9017), BIT was 8.6% (777/9018), and OIT was 05% (49/9028). Compared with Is-, Is+ patients were more likely to have occupational skin disease (16.5% vs 10.3%, P <.001), primary hand dermatitis (30.2% vs 19.7%, P <.001), and be >40 years (73.1% vs 61.9%, P <.001). Positive patch test reactions to >1 isothiazolinone occurred in 44.1% (871/1976) of Is+ patients. Testing solely to MCI/MI would miss 47.3% (611/1292) of MI and 60.1% (466/776) of BIT allergic reactions. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective cross-sectional study design and lack of follow-up data. CONCLUSION: Sensitization to isothiazolinones is high and concurrent sensitization to multiple isothiazolinone allergens is common.

Safety Assessment of Ginkgo biloba-Derived Ingredients as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of 10 Ginkgo biloba-derived ingredients, which are most frequently reported to function in cosmetics as skin conditioning agents or antioxidants. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of these ingredients. Because final product formulations may contain multiple botanicals, each containing the same constituents of concern, formulators are advised to be aware of these constituents and to avoid reaching levels that may be hazardous to consumers. The Panel was concerned about the presence of ginkgolic acid in cosmetics. Industry should use good manufacturing practices to limit impurities. The Panel concluded that 5 Ginkgo biloba leaf-derived ingredients are safe in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment when formulated to be non-sensitizing; data are insufficient to determine the safety of the remaining 5 ingredients under the intended conditions of use in cosmetic formulations.

Safety Assessment of Hops as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Humulus Lupulus (Hops) Extract (reported functions include antimicrobial agent and hair conditioning agent) and Humulus Lupulus (Hops) Oil (reported function is fragrance). The Panel reviewed the relevant data related to these ingredients. Because final product formulations may contain multiple botanicals, each containing the same constituents of concern, formulators are advised to be aware of these constituents and to avoid reaching levels that may be hazardous to consumers. For these ingredients, the Panel was concerned about the presence of 8-prenylnaringenin, ß-myrcene, and quercetin in cosmetics, which could result in estrogenic effects, dermal irritation, and genotoxicity, respectively. Industry should use current good manufacturing practices to limit impurities and constituents of concern. The Panel concluded that Humulus Lupulus (Hops) Extract and Humulus Lupulus (Hops) Oil are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration when formulated to be non-sensitizing.

Safety Assessment of Alkyl Sultaines as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of 13 alkyl sultaines, which are most frequently reported to function in cosmetics as antistatic agents, surfactants, and skin and hair conditioning agents. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of these ingredients. The Panel noted gaps in the available safety data for some of the alkyl sultaines in this safety assessment; the available data on some of the ingredients are sufficient, however, and can be read across to support the safety of other members of the group. The Panel concluded that these alkyl sultaines are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

Safety Assessment of Adenosine as Used in Cosmetics.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Adenosine, Adenosine Phosphate, Adenosine Triphosphate, Disodium Adenosine Phosphate, and Disodium Adenosine Triphosphate. These ingredients are reported to function in cosmetics as skin-conditioning agents - miscellaneous. The Panel considered the available data and concluded that the five adenosine ingredients reviewed in this report are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.