Human systemic exposure to [¹4C]-paraphenylenediamine-containing oxidative hair dyes: Absorption, kinetics, metabolism, excretion and safety assessment.

Systemic exposure was measured in humans after hair dyeing with oxidative hair dyes containing 2.0% (A) or 1.0% (B) [(14)C]-p-phenylenediamine (PPD). Hair was dyed, rinsed, dried, clipped and shaved; blood and urine samples were collected for 48 hours after application. [(14)C] was measured in all materials, rinsing water, hair, plasma, urine and skin strips. Plasma and urine were also analysed by HLPC/MS/MS for PPD and its metabolites (B). Total mean recovery of radioactivity was 94.30% (A) or 96.21% (B). Mean plasma Cmax values were 132.6 or 97.4 ng [(14)C]-PPDeq/mL, mean AUC(0-∞) values 1415 or 966 ng [(14)C]-PPDeq/mL*hr in studies A or B, respectively. Urinary excretion of [(14)C] mainly occurred within 24 hrs after hair colouring with a total excretion of 0.72 or 0.88% of applied radioactivity in studies A or B, respectively. Only N,N'-diacetylated-PPD was detected in plasma and the urine. A TK-based human safety assessment estimated margins of safety of 23.3- or 65-fold relative to respective plasma AUC or Cmax values in rats at the NOAEL of a toxicity study. Overall, hair dyes containing PPD are unlikely to pose a health risk since they are used intermittently and systemic exposure is limited to the detoxified metabolite N,N'-diacetyl-PPD.

Nano-sized cosmetic formulations or solid nanoparticles in sunscreens: a risk to human health?

Personal care products (PCP) often contain micron- or nano-sized formulation components, such as nanoemulsions or microscopic vesicles. A large number of studies suggest that such vesicles do not penetrate human skin beyond the superficial layers of the stratum corneum. Nano-sized PCP formulations may enhance or reduce skin absorption of ingredients, albeit at a limited scale. Modern sunscreens contain insoluble titanium dioxide (TiO2) or zinc oxide (ZnO) nanoparticles (NP), which are efficient filters of UV light. A large number of studies suggest that insoluble NP do not penetrate into or through human skin. A number of in vivo toxicity tests, including in vivo intravenous studies, showed that TiO2 and ZnO NP are non-toxic and have an excellent skin tolerance. Cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, photo-genotoxicity, general toxicity and carcinogenicity studies on TiO2 and ZnO NP found no difference in the safety profile of micro- or nano-sized materials, all of which were found to be non-toxic. Although some published in vitro studies on insoluble nano- or micron-sized particles suggested cell uptake, oxidative cell damage or genotoxicity, these data are consistent with those from micron-sized particles and should be interpreted with caution. Data on insoluble NP, such as surgical implant-derived wear debris particles or intravenously administered magnetic resonance contrast agents suggest that toxicity of small particles is generally related to their chemistry rather than their particle size. Overall, the weight of scientific evidence suggests that insoluble NP used in sunscreens pose no or negligible risk to human health, but offer large health benefits, such as the protection of human skin against UV-induced skin ageing and cancer.

Retinyl palmitate is non-genotoxic in Chinese hamster ovary cells in the dark or after pre-irradiation or simultaneous irradiation with UV light.

Retinyl palmitate (RP), an ingredient of cosmetic and medical skin-care preparations, has been reported to be photo-genotoxic/photo-clastogenic in mouse lymphoma cells (Tk locus) as well as in human Jurkat T-cells, as measured by use of the comet assay. Given that these results were obtained under exploratory conditions, we re-investigated the photo-genotoxicity of RP following a protocol consistent with current recommendations for photo-genotoxicity testing of drugs and chemicals. We tested RP in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells in the dark (standard chromosome aberration test), under pre-irradiation (UVA irradiation of cells and subsequent treatment with RP) or simultaneous irradiation (irradiation of cells and RP together, standard photo-genotoxicity protocol) conditions. UVA irradiation was applied at 350 and 700 mJ/cm2 with the high UV dose targeted to produce a small increase in the incidence of structural chromosome aberrations (CA) in cells not treated with RP. RP was tested up to and above its limit of solubility in the culture medium (20-40 µg/mL). There was no overt cytotoxicity under dark or different irradiation conditions. Treatment of cells with RP in the dark, as well as treatment under pre- or simultaneous irradiation conditions failed to produce biologically significant increases in the incidence of CA, whereas the positive control substances 4-nitroquinolone and 8-methoxypsoralene produced significantly positive effects in the dark or under simultaneous irradiation, respectively. Overall, our results failed to confirm the reported positive photo-genotoxic effects, and suggest that they may have been due to the test conditions, i.e. high irradiation doses, high cytotoxicity or re-irradiation of photo-products. In conclusion, our data suggest that, under standard conditions for testing photo-genotoxicity, RP had no in vitro genotoxic or photo-genotoxic potential and is therefore unlikely to pose a local or systemic genotoxic or photo-genotoxic risk.

Occupational exposure of hairdressers to [14C]-para-phenylenediamine-containing oxidative hair dyes: a mass balance study.

We monitored the exposure of hairdressers to oxidative hair dyes for 6 working days under controlled conditions. Eighteen professional hairdressers (3/day) coloured hairdresser's training heads bearing natural human hair (hair length: approximately 30 cm) for 6 h/working day with a dark-shade oxidative hair dye containing 2% [14C]-para-phenylenediamine (PPD). Three separate phases of hair dyeing were monitored: (A) dye preparation/hair dyeing, (B) rinsing/shampooing/conditioning and (C) cutting/drying/styling. Ambient air and personal monitoring samples (vapours and particles), nasal and hand rinses were collected during all study phases. Urine (pre-exposure, quantitative samples for the 0-12, 12-24, 24-48 h periods after start of exposure) and blood samples (blank, 4, 8 or 24 h) were collected from all exposed subjects. Radioactivity was determined in all biological samples and study materials, tools and washing liquids, and a [14C]-mass balance was performed daily. No adverse events were noted during the study. Waste, equipment, gloves and coveralls contained 0.41+/-0.16%, dye mixing bowls 2.88+/-0.54%, hair wash 45.47+/-2.95%, hair+scalp 53.46+/-4.06% of the applied radioactivity, respectively. Plasma levels were below the limit of quantification (10 ng PPDeq/mL). Total urinary 0-48 h excretion of [14C] levels ranged from a total of <2-18 microg PPDeq and was similar in subjects exposed during the different phases of hair dyeing. Minimal air levels at or slightly above the limit of quantification were found in a few personal air monitoring samples during the phases of hair dyeing and hair cutting, but not during the rinsing phase. Air area monitoring samples or nasal rinses contained no measurable radioactivity. Hand residues ranged from 0.006 to 0.15 microg PPDeq/cm2, and were found predominantly after the cutting/drying phase. The mean mass balance of [14C] across the six study days was 102.50+/-2.20%. Overall, the mean, total systemic exposure of hairdressers to oxidative hair dyes during a working day including 6 hair dyeing processes was estimated to be <0.36 microg PPDeq/kg body weight/working day. Our results suggest that (a) current safety precautions for the handling of hair dyes offer sufficient protection against local and systemic exposure and (b) professional exposure to oxidative hair dyes does not pose a risk to human health.

Clastogenicity, photo-clastogenicity or pseudo-photo-clastogenicity: Genotoxic effects of zinc oxide in the dark, in pre-irradiated or simultaneously irradiated Chinese hamster ovary cells.

Zinc oxide (ZnO), a widely used ingredient in dermatological preparations and sunscreens, is clastogenic in vitro, but not in vivo. Given that ZnO has an approximately four-fold greater clastogenic potency in the presence of UV light when compared with that in the dark, it has been suggested to be photo-clastogenic. In order to clarify whether this increased potency is a genuine photo-genotoxic effect, we investigated the clastogenicity of ZnO (mean particle size, 100 nm) in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells in the dark (D), in pre-irradiated (PI, i.e. UV irradiation of cells followed by treatment with ZnO) and in simultaneously irradiated (SI, i.e. ZnO treatment concurrent with UV irradiation) CHO cells at UV doses of 350 and 700 mJ/cm(2). The cytotoxicity of ZnO to CHO cells under the different irradiation conditions was as follows: SI>PI>D. In the dark, ZnO produced a concentration-related increase in chromosome aberrations (CA). In PI or SI CHO cells, ZnO was clastogenic at significantly lower concentrations (approximately two- to four-fold) when compared with effective concentrations in the dark, indicating an increased susceptibility of CHO cells to ZnO-mediated clastogenic effects due to UV irradiation per se. The incidence of CA in SI or PI cells was generally higher than that in the dark. At similar ZnO concentrations, SI conditions generally produced higher CA incidence than PI conditions. However, when ZnO concentrations producing similar cytotoxicity were compared, CA incidences under PI or SI conditions were nearly identical. The modest increase in the clastogenic potency of ZnO following UV irradiation contrasts with the results observed with genuine photo-clastogenic agents, such as 8-MOP, which may produce an increase in clastogenic potency of >15,000-fold under SI conditions. Our results provide evidence that, under conditions of in vitro photo-clastogenicity tests, UV irradiation of the cellular test system per se may produce a slight increase in the genotoxic potency of compounds that are clastogenic in the dark. In conclusion, our data suggest that minor increases in clastogenic potency under conditions of photo-genotoxicity testing do not necessarily represent a photo-genotoxic effect, but may occur due to an increased sensitivity of the test system subsequent to UV irradiation.