d-Limonene, a major constituent of citrus oils, is a monoterpene widely used as a flavor/fragrance additive in cosmetics, foods, and industrial solvents as it possesses a pleasant lemon-like odor. d-Limonene has been designated as a chemical with low toxicity based upon lethal dose (LD50) and repeated-dose toxicity studies when administered orally to animals. However, skin irritation or sensitizing potential was reported following widespread use of this agent in various consumer products. In experimental animals and humans, oxidation products or metabolites of d-limonene were shown to act as skin irritants. Carcinogenic effects have also been observed in male rats, but the mode of action (MOA) is considered irrelevant for humans as the protein α(2u)-globulin responsible for this effect in rodents is absent in humans. Thus, the liver was identified as a critical target organ following oral administration of d-limonene. Other than the adverse dermal effects noted in humans, other notable toxic effects of d-limonene have not been reported. The reference dose (RfD), the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL), and the systemic exposure dose (SED) were determined and found to be 2.5 mg/kg/d, 250 mg/kg//d, and 1.48 mg/kg/d, respectively. Consequently, the margin of exposure (MOE = NOAEL/SED) of 169 was derived based upon the data, and the hazard index (HI = SED/RfD) for d-limonene is 0.592. Taking into consideration conservative estimation, d-limonene appears to exert no serious risk for human exposure. Based on adverse effects and risk assessments, d-limonene may be regarded as a safe ingredient. However, the potential occurrence of skin irritation necessitates regulation of this chemical as an ingredient in cosmetics. In conclusion, the use of d-limonene in cosmetics is safe under the current regulatory guidelines for cosmetics.

In the manufacture of plastic containers, various materials such as additives (for example, plasticizers, stabilizers, antioxidants), polymers (for example, polystyrene [PS] for PC) presented in polymers, as additives (for example, phthalates for PVC) used in polymer manufacturing, and/or as contaminants from the polymers depending on physicochemical conditions such as temperature, UV light, pH, microwave, and mechanical stress. Some phthalates (for example, DEHP, DBP), styrene, or bisphenol have been suspected to have endocrine disrupting effects, but human toxicological effects of these compounds are very controversial. For these reasons, a comprehensive review on toxicological and risk assessment studies for these chemicals (phthalates, BPA, and styrene) was carried out to evaluate their safety in humans. On the basis of exposure estimates for the these chemicals and reference doses (RfDs), we calculated hazard index (HI = chronic daily intake/tolerable daily intake [TDI] or RfD). A HI of less than 1 suggests an exposure lower than the safety limit of the chemicals. We showed that the HI values of these chemicals were lower then 1, but there are one or several exceptions for di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP; for example, exposure via infant formula, packaged lunch, total exposure), where estimated their HI values are higher than 1, which suggests an exposure higher than the safety limits of the chemicals. However, the HI of BPA was 0.001-0.26 (3.57-1000 times lower than its safety limit), and the HI for styrene was 0.276 (3.62 times lower than its safety limit). In this article, we focused on recent issues concerning the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) derived from plastic food containers or packaging. This review suggests that the use of plastic food containers might not exceed human safe limits n general with respect to endocrine disruptors aside from the exceptions of the phthalates mentioned earlier.

No abstract

There has been growing concern about the toxicity of phthalate esters. Phthalate esters are being used widely for the production of perfume, nail varnish, hairsprays and other personal/cosmetic uses. Recently, exposure to phthalates has been assessed by analyzing urine for their metabolites. The parent phthalate is rapidly metabolized to its monoester (the active metabolite) and also glucuronidated, then excreted. The objective of this study is to evaluate the toxicity of phthalic acid (PA), which is the final common metabolic form of phthalic acid esters (PAEs). The individual PA isomers are extensively employed in the synthesis of synthetic agents, for example isophthalic acid (IPA), and terephthalic acid (TPA), which have very broad applications in the preparation of phthalate ester plasticizers and components of polyester fiber, film and fabricated items. There is a broad potential for exposure by industrial workers during the manufacturing process and by the general public (via vehicle exhausts, consumer products, etc). This review suggests that PA shows in vitro and in vivo toxicity (mutagenicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, etc.). In addition, PA seems to be a useful biomarker for multiple exposure to PAEs in humans.

Zinc oxide (ZnO), an inorganic compound that appears as a white powder, is used frequently as an ingredient in sunscreens. The aim of this review was to examine the toxicology and risk assessment of ZnO based upon available published data. Recent studies on acute, sub-acute, and chronic toxicities of ZnO indicated that this compound is virtually non-toxic in animal models. However, it was reported that ZnO nanoparticles (NP) (particle size, 40 nm) induced significant changes in anemia-related hematologic parameters and mild to moderate pancreatitis in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats at 536.8 mg/kg/day in a 13-week oral toxicity study. ZnO displayed no carcinogenic potential, and skin penetration is low. No-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) ZnO was determined to be 268.4 mg/kg/day in a 13-week oral toxicity study, and a maximum systemic exposure dose (SED) of ZnO was estimated to be 0.6 mg/kg/day based on topical application of sunscreen containing ZnO. Subsequently, the lowest margin of safety (MOS) was estimated to be 448.2, which indicates that the use of ZnO in sunscreen is safe. A risk assessment was undertaken considering other routes of exposure (inhalation or oral) and major product types (cream, lotion, spray, and propellant). Human data revealed that MOS values (7.37 for skin exposure from cream and lotion type; 8.64 for skin exposure of spray type; 12.87 for inhalation exposure of propellant type; 3.32 for oral exposure of sunscreen) are all within the safe range (MOS > 1). Risk assessment of ZnO indicates that this compound may be used safely in cosmetic products within the current regulatory limits of 25% in Korea.