Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Hand Sanitizer Products Marketed to Children Available during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Hand sanitizer use in the United States (U.S.) increased after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released temporary manufacturer guidance, changing impurity level limits for alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHSs). Since the guidance took effect, the FDA has recommended against using these hand sanitizers due to concerns over safety, efficacy, and/or risk of incidental ingestion. To address current gaps in exposure characterization, this study describes a survey of ABHSs marketed to children available in the U.S., as defined by several inclusion criteria. A subset of ABHSs (n = 31) were evaluated for ethanol and organic impurities using a modified FDA method. Products with detectable impurity levels were compared to the FDA's established interim limits. Seven children's products had impurity levels exceeding the FDA's recommended interim limits, including benzene (up to 9.14 ppm), acetaldehyde (up to 134.12 ppm), and acetal (up to 75.60 ppm). The total measured alcohol content ranged from 52% to 98% in all hand sanitizers tested, ranging from 39% below, and up to 31% above, the labeled concentration. Future studies should confirm impurity contamination sources. A risk assessment could determine whether dermal application or incidental ingestion of impurity-containing hand sanitizers pose any consumer risk.

PBPK modeling characterization of potential acute impairment effects from inhalation of ethanol during e-cigarette use.

Objective: Ethanol is used as a solvent for flavoring chemicals in some electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) liquids (e-liquids). However, there are limited data available regarding the effects of inhalation of ethanol on blood alcohol concentration (BAC) during e-cigarette use. In this study, a modified physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for inhalation of ethanol was used to estimate the BAC time-profile of e-cigarette users who puffed an e-liquid containing 23.5% ethanol. Materials and Methods: A modified PBPK model for inhalation of ethanol was developed. Use characteristics were estimated based on first-generation and second-generation e-cigarette topography parameters. Three representative use-case puffing profiles were modeled: a user that took many, short puffs; a typical user with intermediate puff counts and puff durations; and a user that took fewer, long puffs. Results and Discussion: The estimated peak BACs for these three user profiles were 0.22, 0.22, and 0.30 mg/L for first-generation devices, respectively, and 0.85, 0.58, and 0.34 mg/L for second-generation devices, respectively. Additionally, peak BACs for individual first-generation users with directly measured puffing parameters were estimated to range from 0.06 to 0.67 mg/L. None of the scenarios modeled predicted a peak BAC result that approached toxicological or regulatory thresholds that would be associated with physiological impairment (roughly 0.01% or 100 mg/L). Conclusions: The approach used in this study, combining a validated PBPK model for a toxicant with peer-reviewed topographical parameters, can serve as a screening-level exposure assessment useful for evaluation of the safety of e-liquid formulations. Abbreviations: BAC: blood alcohol concentration; e-cigarette: electronic cigarette; e-liquid: e-cigarette liquid or propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin-based liquid; HS-GC-FID: headspace gas chromatography with flame-ionization detection; HS-GC-MS: headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; PBPK: physiologically based pharmacokinetic; Cair: puff concentration expressed as ppm; Cair,mass: ethanol air concentration expressed on a mass basis; Cv: ethanol concentration in the venous blood; ρ: density; EC: ethanol concentration in the liquid; PLC: liquid consumption per puff; PAV: air volume of the puff; Cair,mass: puff concentration expressed as ppm; MW: molecular weight; P: pressure; T: temperature; PK: pharmacokinetic.

Considerations for the development of health-based surface dust cleanup criteria for beryllium.

The exposure-response patterns with beryllium sensitization (BeS), chronic beryllium disease (CBD) and lung cancer are influenced by a number of biological and physicochemical factors. Recent studies have suggested dermal exposure as a pathway for BeS. In light of the current non-health-based DOE Beryllium Rule surface criteria, the feasibility of deriving a human health-based surface dust cleanup criteria (SDCC) for beryllium was assessed based on toxicology and health risk factors via all potential routes of exposure. Beryllium-specific and general exposure factors were evaluated, including (1) beryllium physicochemical characteristics, bioavailability and influence on disease prevalence, and (2) chemical dissipation, resuspension and transfer. SDCC for non-cancer (SDCC) and cancer (SDCC) endpoints were derived from a combination of modern methods applied for occupational, residential and building reentry surface dust criteria. The most conservative SDCC estimates were derived for dermal exposure (5-379 µg/100 cm for 0.1-1% damaged skin and 17-3337 µg/100 cm for intact skin), whereas the SDCC for inhalation exposure ranged from 51 to 485 µg/100 cm. Considering this analysis, the lowest DOE surface criterion of 0.2 µg/100 cm is conservative for minimizing exposure and potential risks associated with beryllium-contaminated surfaces released for non-beryllium industrial or public sector use. Although methodological challenges exist with sampling and analysis procedures, data variability and interpretation of surface dust information in relation to anthropogenic and natural background concentrations, this evaluation should provide useful guidance with regard to cleanup of manufacturing equipment or remediation of property for transfer to the general public or non-beryllium industrial facilities.