4.4 Article

Integrated risk assessment of a hydroxyapatite-protein-composite for use in oral care products: A weight-of-evidence case study

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 310-323

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.11.003

Keywords

Risk assessment; Weight-of-evidence; Particles; Hydroxyapatite; Biocomposite

Funding

  1. Henkel AG Co. KGaA
  2. SusTech Darmstadt GmbH Co. KG

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Risk assessment of cosmetic ingredients represents a regulatory standard requirement in Europe and other regions. An integrated approach was designed to assess the safety of HPC, a particulate composite of hydroxyapatite and protein (gelatin) for use in oral care products, employing a weight-of-evidence assessment and considering specific physico-chemical properties and exposure conditions. An initial evaluation of the constituents suggested that their chemical nature does not represent a particular health hazard per se. Hydroxyapatite is the main component of teeth and bones in mammals; gelatin is used in food and assumed to be safe once a BSE/TSE risk has been excluded. In vitro screening tests were chosen to further evaluate the biocompatibility: Hen's egg test-chorioallantoic membrane (HET-CAM) to assess irritating effects towards mucous membranes; MTT cytotoxicity test with 313 fibroblasts; human corneal epithelial models to investigate inflammatory mediators and cytotoxicity; macrophage assays to measure cytotoxicity, inflammatory mediators and oxidative stress. Together with results from clinical studies, exposure estimates and analyses of kinetic properties, the presented information provides sound evidence to support the safe use of HPC. This is an example of a risk assessment for cosmetic use of small particles without the need for additional animal studies. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available