I. Soc. Cosmet. Chem., 25, 271-281 (May 1974)
CHARLES O'CONNOR WARD, Ph.D.*
PresentedMay 4, 1973, Seminar,Cincinnati,Ohio
Synopsis-The TOXICITY of cosmetic,household,or personal product AEROSOLS is
primarily the result of either deliberate abuse or allergic reactionsto one or more of the
ingredients.Hair sprays,antiperspirants, deodorants, and feminine hygiene sprays,among
others,have been reported to produce toxic reactionsin someusers.A review of the pub-
lished experimentaland clinical data does not substantiatethe contentionthat, when used
as directed, they are hazardous. It is true, for instance, that the fiuorocarbon PROPEL-
LANTS, in experimental situations, can sensitize the myocardium to catecholamine-in-
duced arrhythmias and thus produce a situation detrimental to the user, but not in the
amounts which the consumer ordinarilyexposed. The differences betweentoxicity, the
inherentability to produceundesirable in
alterations biologicaltissue,and HAZARD, the
likelihoodthat toxicity will occur,may explainthe casefor aerosolproducts.The potential
for toxicity of properly packagedcosmetic, household,and personalproduct aerosolsis
present;the hazard is smallunder conditions normal use.
As with any other type of packagingor delivery systemfor cosmetics,
drugs,or household products,aerosols that
have characteristics are uniquely
their own.In general, easyto manipulate,
theyare safe,convenient, and,for
the mostpart, economical use.In additionto theseadvantages, however,
thisparticular of and is
method packaging delivery somewhat harderto con-
havebeenliberatedfrom the container.
trol oncethe contents Foams, paints,
powders easily and but
seen handled; manydrugandliquid
cosmetic formulations, and are
suchas deodorants hair sprays, hard to see
oncereleased oftenthe respect that otheraerosol are
the consumer is not accorded these items.
Individualsoftenhavea difficulttime relatingto a substancethat, because
of itssmallparticle to hazards,
size,is difficult see;thus,the potential includ-
ing warninglabels,are oftenignored.This can be illustratedin the caseof a
*St. John's of and Jamaica,
College Pharmacy AlliedHealthProfessions, N.Y.
9,72 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
man an insecticide a
hypothetical who sprays entirecanof an aerosol into
small room and then, without openingany windows,goesto sleepin the
room; rising later he finds manifestations a contactallergy. Yet he
probablywould not have treateda can of gasolinethat way, despitethe
relatively of in
nature thechemicals thecanof gasoline.
TYPES OF AEROSOL TOXICITY
to have been reportedin the literature for several
Toxic reactions aerosols
categories products: suchas hair sprays
cosmetics, (1-3) and deodorants
(1, 4, 5); perfumes products suchasfemininehygiene deodor-
ant sprays 8); andhousehold products, suchas spraypaints(9), insecti-
cides (10), aerosolized (5,
vegetableoils (11), and room deodorizers 9).
Medicinal aerosolshave also been reported to produce some of the same
toxiceffects, they will not be discussed thispaper.The typesof toxicity
reported can be broken down into two main categories, those due to the
and thosedue to the active or inert ingredients the formula-
toxicitycan resulteither from the refrigerantproperties the
propellants(freezing of tissues local anesthesia) from the chemicalna-
ture of the propellants the biological they
responses elicit (12).
Many of the reportedcases aerosol toxicityare likely due to toxic reac-
tions to the active or inert ingredientsin the formulation, rather than to the
propellants. Allergic reactionsare amongthe more COlnmon forms of toxic
responses cosmetic It
aerosols. hasbeen estimated that approximately 10%
of the population a wholehassometype of allergicdisease or hassuf-
fered an allergicresponse someforeignsubstance duringtheir lifetime;and
it is a well-accepted medicalfact that peoplewho are allergic to one sub-
stance, havean allergicdisease or
suchas asthma hay fever,are proneto
be allergic otherproducts well-especially uponrepeated exposure.
The incidence persons allergicto cosmetic on
products, the otherhand,
is probably 2 by
between and 3%,whenverified a patchtest (6). In the data
compiled onecosmetic company a
who markets broadrangeof products,
only448 reactions in
were reported 114 millionunitssold (6). In an earlier
reference,the incidenceof allergic skin reactions lanolin was 1.14%in an
sample users.(Lanolinis widelyusedin cosmetic formulations
properties.) the otherhand,
for its uniquecmollientand emulsification On
when a controlled was
samplewith no historyof allergicskin disease tested,
no allergicreactions lanolinwere reported(13). Recentrefinements and
improvements the purification the lanolinusedin cosmetic products
eliminated as problem.
allergy a significant to
oils, ubiquitous in
ingredient cosmetic products, almost
aerosol are entirely
due to an allergic hypersensitive ratherthandue to primary
irritation(6). Thereare morethan5000odiferous in use
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON AEROSOL TOXICITY 273
today as perfumes.Most cosmetics contain approximately0.5% perfume oil;
colognes about 4%; and perfumesup to 20%. Each of theseperfume sub-
stances may contain up to 50 different chemicalingredients,so the task of
the of is,
identifying cause an allergicresponse at best,a difficultone (6).
Photosensitizationa type of allergicresponse has beenreportedfor
a number of essentialoils, such as neroli, pettigrain, cedarwood,lavender,
andbergamot(6, 14). In addition, has
dermatitis beenreported followingthe
useof oil of bergamot. Chlorophyll, all
tracesof copper,and psoralens, found
are of of
in oil of bergamot, suspected beingthe cause the allergies. Aging of
the oil reduces sensitizing (6). Even oncethe allergy-causing
has of may
ingredient beenfound,the problem cross-sensitivity arise. Persons
allergicto oil of citronella, example, alsooften allergicto lemonoil
A partialsolution the problemof allergyto perfumeoilsmay havebeen
by of of
foundwith the marketing, a number companies, a groupof chemical-
ly-reproducible perfume which
substances havebeenpatch to
low incidence allergic responses(16). Hypoallergenie may
another soIution. are
These a groupof cosmetic products, by
marketed a few
whicharespecifically the useof individuals to
manycosmetics. raw materials these are on
products selected the ba-
sisof a reported incidence allergic responses(6).
found many insecticide may
aerosols, also a
of allergic in
manifestations susceptible individuals;erythema,rash,lossof
partsof the skin,and diminished
feelingin exposed visionhave all been re-
Another typeof toxicity, less that
though important, mayresultfromthe
activeor inert ingredients manycosmetic is
the skin (17). Thisis not an allergic but
response ratheris a resultof the
nature certain in Calcium
ingredients theformulation. thioglycolate
is a primary in
irritantfound manyaerosol (6).
ants often contain salts of zinc, zirconium,or aluminum which can cause
primaryirritation(6). Ocularirritationfrom dandruff has
(18, 19), probably a resultof certainzincsalts.
EFFECTOFAEROSOLS ANATOMYANDPHYSIOLOGY THE SKIN
AND RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
cause of reactions
Theunderlying of many thetoxic from
of cosmetic household to
seems be the resultof an alterationin
thebasic physiology skin respiratory
and/or ofthe and The
typeof alteration to on in
depends, a degree, theproduct question
the of it in with.
and area thebody comes contact Alterationsskin are in pH
thought bethebasis theprimary produced thedepilitories
in foam Preparations
274 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
usually havea pH of about12, while the normalpH of the skinis between
4 and6 (6). The metallic of and
salts zinc,aluminum, zirconium in
solantiperspirants cause skin
superficial infections because theyproduce
narrowing the ductsof sweatglands whichmay giveriseto apocrine sweat
glandocclusion a true hydradentitis 18). (6,
The refrigerant action of propellants personalor household aerosols
can producecoolingor freezingof the sensitive corneal(5) or vaginal (7)
tissues they are usedimproperly. Many facetsof skinmetabolism, includ-
ing cellularrespiration, be alteredby somecosmetic aerosols (20). The
propellants have been reportedto sensitize to
the myocardium arrhythmias
caused anoxiaand catecholamines (21), althoughthere is no definitive
evidence that this type of cardiactoxicitycan resultfrom normaluseof any
product (22, 23). The interruption the normalbacterialflora of
several was a
bodyorifices formerly potential problem with vaginaldeodorant
sprays containing antibacterialagents(24). It is knownthat oncethe normal
flora of the vaginaor rectumis altered (as with tetracycline therapy), an
abnormalovergrowth yeastsand fungi (usual symbionts theseareas)in
may cause pruritis (25) and/or otherbacterialinfections. Sincemostvaginal
sprays longercontain chemicals, problem essentially
antibacterial this has
to Keratitis, to a foreign
ceased exist. due of has
bodyreaction theskin, been
reportedin response the presence materialsfrom severalhousehold
aerosols have,in effect,been driveninto the skin by the forceof the
spray (5). An increased of
formation pulmonary edema fluidandlipidpneu-
monia beenreported a
following foreign to
bodyresponse the inhalation
of oil droplets anaerosol a oil
containingvegetable (11). Edema fluidis
anideal for of
medium thegroxvth pathogens, in
nia. A slightreduction specific airwayconductance, no
danger, beenreported the of
following inhalation several bronchodilator
aerosols. bronchoconstriction reported, whichwaslessthanthat caused
a was to
by smoking cigarette, attributed the aerosol propellantand/orthe
surfactant chemicals (sorbitol and
trioleate soya in
twobronchodilator aerosolsevaluated (26).
PROPELLANT TOXICITY AND ABUSE
regarding toxicity aerosol
The controversy the of in and
thepropellant they in
chemicals contain, particular, began years
with the publication the lay press several due
deaths to "sniffing,"
by ofthe from of
especially teen-agers, vapors a widevariety aerosol products
(27). The practice the of
deepinhalation the concen-
trated usually a balloon paper (28).
vapors, from or bag
reports aerosol abuse the
brought toxic of
propellantstheattention theaerosol The of
industry. toxicity thepro-
pollants bedivided three major toxicity totherefrig-
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON AEROSOL TOXICITY 275
erantaction the propellants (12), whichmaycause reflex airwayobstruc-
tion,especially thelarynx, damage the delicate
andtissue to mucousmem-
branes the vulva (7) andeye (29); decomposition phosgene whenthe
vaporscomeinto contact with an openflame (30); and finally,systemic
toxicity, to system 9,2).It is thislat-
referrable thecardiovascular (9,1,
ter typeof toxicity so publicity
by the press.
The problem teen-age of is
abuse aerosols one overwhichthe aerosol
industry little control, printedon the
otherthan to updatethe warnings
aerosolcans.The Inter-IndustryCommitteeon AerosolUse has established
the AerosolEducationBureau (31) to administer safetycampaign which is
designed warn teen-agers the potentiallethal consequences abusingof
Soon after the controversy regarding the deaths from aerosol"sniffing"
began,Taylor and Harris (21) reported of
that the exposure miceto several
followedby asphyxia a plasticbag, producedsensitization of
the myocardiumto hypoxia,resultingin arrhythmiassuch as sinusbrady-
block, and T wave depression.
cardia, atrioventricular They used these ex-
periments postulate that the sudden deathsthat followedaerosol abuseby
teen-agers usedin al-
couldbe the resultof a toxic actionof the propellants
mostall aerosol as for
packages, well asto providea basis warningagainst the
possible to of
hazards frequentusers a variety of aerosol It
products. is well
known,and hasbeenfor some of
time, that high concentrations manypro-
pellantsfrequentlyusedby aerosol can a
manufacturers produce wide variety
of toxiceffects. liver, and kidneydamageare amongsomeof
the morecommon findings (32, 33). But theseexperimental in
especially the high concentrations studied, to
bear little or no relationship
the lower concentrations which the consumer aerosolof is
posed(9,8). Also,thereis lack of generalagreement to the accuracy the of
dataon aerosol toxicitywhenit is extrapolated to
from animalstudies humans
Following severalreportsby Taylor and Harris on the cardiac toxicity of
aerosol propellants, attempted reproduce
otherinvestigators to their findings,
with little success.McClure,in 1972,failed to producesignificant changes in
the heart rate or electrocardiogram anesthetized mice after the administra-
tion of severalpropellants aerosol form, followedby asphyxia(35). In
general, foundthat the cardiovascular effects by
posurewere similarto the cardiovascular effectsof asphyxia alone.McClure
wasalsounableto confirm similarfindings by
reported Taylor and Harrisin
dogs(21). Egleet al. (23) alsoattempted repeatthe results Taylor and
Harris.They exposed miceto several eitheraloneor with nitro-
gen-induced and no of
asphyxia, reported augmentation the asphyxia-induced
bradycardia atrioventricular by the several fiuorocarbonpropellants
276 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
studied. all, four groups investigatorshavefailed to repeatthe findings
reportedby Taylor andHarris (22).
have reportedthe safety of the
On the other hand, many investigators
propellants concentrationsgenerally produced followingnor-
mal use.McClure (35) reportedno effecton heart rate, bloodpressure,and
eleetroeardiogram dogsfollowing the intratraeheal of
epinephrine Azar eta[. (36) were unableto produce
anoxieand hypcreapnie dogsfollowingrepeated to
Otherswere unable to producesignificant
mercial aerosols. eleetroeardio-
changes several ill
patients, with a varietyof bronchopulmonary
disorders, the of 11
inhalation Propellant and Propellant
Thereis little question the various can,
in high concentrations a prolonged exposure period,producecardiac
arrhythmias. Flowers and Horan (37) exposed dogs
anesthetized to several
commercial in their
aerosols high concentrations; data showed bradycardia
arrhythmias manyof the dogs thustreated. et
in 1971,reported of did,
that the inhalation high concentrations in fact, sensi-
tize dogsto catecholamine-induced arrhythmias (28). In addition,
thepropellants produced sensitization endogenous]y-re-
leasedcatecholamines resultingfromaudiogenicstimuli(28). The conditions
described these aswellasmany
experiments, do a
anism thesudden resulting aerosol
deaths from but
abuse, in nowayper-
tainto thesafety thethousandscommercially aerosol
currently use assuming
today, use products.
reasonable of such
TOxICiTY OF COSMETIC PRODUCT
These been to
reported cause of
probably to aluminum, other
linkedto a hypersensitivity the zirconium, or
heavy used these
salts in (12).
preparations Whilethe few reported
cases datehaveresulted sim-
may occur individuals aerosol
ilarreactions possibly in allergic using deodor-
antsor antiperspirants thesechemicals.
Othertoxic reported beassociated theuse antiperspir-
reactions to with of
aerosols pulmonary (1),
keratinizationtheeye(9), andclogging thesweat with
infection There not
have been enough cases
reported in anyof
these to cause-effect
a definite relationship.
Aerosol have been reportedto produce reac-
tionsin users hallucinogenie and
suchasmescaline LSD. Two such
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON AEROSOL TOXICITY 277
caseshave been reportedin teen-agers (4); and either Propellant12 or a
mixtureof Propellant11 and Propellant12 hasbeen implicated,althoughnot
Suchproducts havebeen reportedto be no better than frequentbathing to
keepthe vaginalareafree fromunpleasant odors(24, 39). Despitethis,they
have caughton in popularity and are soldwidely, probablybecause many
believethey needthem,despite opinion someof gynecologiststo
the contrary differences
(40). Thereare certainformulation between vaginal
deodorants, vaginal deodorants have
commonly less alcohol
and lessperfume-in orderto reducethe possibility irritatingthe tender
vaginalmucous membranes (41). Irritationis morelikely to occurwith va-
ginalthan underarm deodorants the
because useris morelikely to spraythe
canlonger,in that the sprayis quite dry and thereis little apparent residue.
Also,the deliveryratesof vaginaldeodorants likely to be higherthan
underarm deodorants because they are oftenpackaged undersubstantially
higher pressure. 12
Propellant is oftenusedto reduce chilling(41).
The FoodandDrugAdministration reported reactions thevagi- to
nal spraydeodorants usuallydue to one or moreof the following:in-
from the highpressure the propellants; primaryirritation
fromthe alcohol, antibacterial or the
chemical, perfume; rapid chillingef-
fectsof the propellants the delicate mucous or
membranes skinin thisarea;
allergies the antibacterial or
chemicals perfumes (40). Womenusers have
reported of or
irritation theskin mucous membranes, vulvitis,weeping derma-
burns, various hypersensitivity such
burning, edema 40). Some the special of anatomical of
vaginal areathatmake moreit to
susceptible deodorant sprays include the
apocrine sweat the and
glands, thinhornystratum, the special bacterialflora
ofthevaginal mucous membranes (24).
Hair sprayshavebeen in relationship, the
implicated, a cause-effect with
chronic ofsuch possibly toa hypersensitivity
products, due The
resinous contained these
ingredients in have
products been to
reported be the
noxious In reported radiographic
infiltrationthelung inusers hair
field of sprays whichcleared
when usage these was (3).
products discontinued However, several
attempts duplicate human in pigs
findings rats(42), guinea (43), and
dogs to hair
(44), exposedcommercial spray for as
failed demonstrate pulmonary
years, to any that be
pathology could attributed
278 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
to exposure theseproducts. The PAS-staining biopsymaterial,reported by
Bergmannet al. (3) to indicatethe presence hair spray resins,was also
found in the controlanimals(44). Furthermore, hematologic of
exposed commercial for
hair sprays up to 2 years (44) failed to demon-
strate the blood dyscrasias (aplastic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and leuko-
penia) reported as being compiledfrom the AMA Departmentof Drugs
Registry Adverse by
Drug Reactions DeNosaquo(2).
Furtherevidence the safetyof commercial sprays beenreported has
in two separate of in
studies hairdressers GreatBritain.In the first,John(45)
studied146 hairdressers, both men and women,who usedhair sprays be- for
tween 3 and 5 years.Radiographic of
examination thesehairdressers, from
14 differentsalons, any
failed to demonstrate pulmonaryabnormalities. a In
similarstudyby McLaughlinet al. (46), an X-ray surveyof 505 hairdressers
in Great Britain was reported.The hair spraysincludedboth shellac-based
spraysand sprayscontaining polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP). In all groupsa
significant had for
numberof hairdressers usedthe sprays morethan 6 years.
No abnormal X-ray appearances, suggesting the presenceof pulmonary
granulomatosis (thesaurosis), were reported,despitethe fact that the ma-
jority of particles both typesof hair sprays had a diameterof lessthan i/x
andwere thuscapableof beinginhaled.In a studyof the particlesizes hair of
sprays in at
manufactured the United States, least50%of the hair spraypar-
had a diameter 35 ,/xor greater(47), whichis largerthanthe sizethat
is capable penetrating lungsto a significant extent.Furtherstudies by
Larson(47) alsoattestto the safetyof commercial sprays. thisstudy, In
no differences midexpiratory flow rate, measured spirometrically, were
foundbetween of and in
users hair sprays nonusers, a controlled population of
femalecollege students. over
While the controversy the safetyof hair sprays
continues, bulk of scientific at
evidence present indicates that earliercon-
cerns over their safetyis unfounded.
ToxiciTY OF HOUSEHOLD AEROSOLS
Because the diverse in and
natureof the products thiscategory, the large
of in the
number users all agegroups, toxicityof theseproducts of major is
interest boththe consumer the aerosol industry. Otherthanthetoxicity
of the ingredients a specific preparation,someof the factors contributing
to the toxicityof the household aerosols includethe patternproduced by
aerosol spray(5) andthe cooling of
action the propellants (12). If the spray
pattern a product not well controlled, partic]es for
in oneplacemay well penetrate into the eye or impacton the skin.The im-
paction particles fromthese products, of
because the relatively highpres-
sureexerted release, may cause aerosolparticles, that wouldotherwise be
to the of
harmless, penetrate surface the skinor the cornea the eye,thusof
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON AEROSOL TOXICITY 279
making removalof the material difficult and increasing the likelihood of
foreignbody tissue (5,
reactions 9). Spraykeratitis,suchas that just de-
scribed, has been reportedfor hair sprays, insecticides,paint sprays,and de-
odorants 9). Furthermore, cooling and dryingactionof the propellants
and/or solvents a productmay aid in the penetration aerosolof particles
into the eye (5).
Predictingthe toxicity of household in
aerosols humans,as a result of
screeningstudiesin animals,is not easily accomplished. The anatomy and
physiology the respiratory in is
structures loweranimals different from man
(34); also,diseased humans will often respond differentlyto a productthan
healtlaylaboratoryspedes.Anotherproblem is tlae designof a suitable
exposure chamber; assuming can
that the environment contribute the po-to
tentialhazards a household aerosolproduct, thereis little equivaleney be-
tween the exposure chambers commonly used in the testinglaboratories to
evaluatethe potentialtoxicityof aerosol productsand the actual roomsthat
humans live in when usingsuchproducts(34). In general,though,despite
the millionsof units of household aerosol productsconsumed each year in
thiscountry, toxicreactions reported and,of thosethat are reported,
approximately error in followingthe in-
half are probablydue to consumer
struetions useprintedon tlaepackage.
TOXICITY AND HYPERSENSITIVITY
Toxicityis a functionof a chemical and
compound its reaction with bio-
logicaltissues canusually, be
but not always, predictedfrom animalstu-
dies.It is the responsibility the manufacturer cosmetic and household
aerosols marketproducts with a low order of toxicity;in general,this re-
sponsibility been adequately accomplished. or
responses occurin a smallpercentage usersof aerosolized products
and,in general, be
cannot adequately predicted from animalinvestigation. It
is known, however, that persons with certainallergicdiseases and/or a heredi-
tary tendency towardsrespiratory and skin diseases may be more likely to
reactions manytypesof products commonly usedin the home,
including aerosols. can
Thereis little a manufacturer do to reducesuchad-
versereactions commercial aerosols,exceptto useingredients which have
been shown,throughyearsof useor extensive laboratoryand clinical testing,
to produce low incidence hypersensitivity reactions.Other suggestions to
reducethe incidence aerosol-related allergywould be: poolingof reported
allergic responses productsand ingredients; clinical testing on a wider
scaleto determine ingredients eausing and
allergicresponses; limited market-
ing of new cosmetic household aerosols,containing new ingredients, until
the allergyprofileis well established.
(ReceivedMay 4, 1073)
g80 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
(1) Nevins, M. A., Stechel,G. H., Fishman, S. I., Schwartz,G., and Allen, A. C., Pul-
monary granulomatosis. Two casesassociated with inhalation of cosmetic aerosols,
J. Amer. Med. Ass.,193, 86-91 (1965).
(2) DeNosaquo, Hair sprays
N., and blooddysrasias,Ibid., 188, 197 (1964).
(3) Bergmann, H.
M., Flance,I. J., and Blumenthal, T., Thesaurosis followinginhalation
of hair spray. clinical N.
study, Engl.J. Med.,258, 471-6 (1958).
(4) Kramer, R. A., and Pierpaoli,P., Hallucinogenic of
effect of propellant components
Pediatrics, 322-3 (1971).
(5) MacLean, A. L., A commonepithelial keratitis from noncorrosive
Otolaryngol., 330-40 (1967).
(6) Masters, J., Allergies cosmetic
E. to N.Y. StateJ. Med., 60, 1934-40 (1960).
(7) Gowdy,J. M., Femininedeodorant N.
sprays, Engl. J. Med.,287, 203 (1972).
(8) Kaye. B. M., Hazardsof hygenicdeodorant spraysfor women,J. Amer. Med. Ass.,
212, 2121 (1970).
(9) MacLean, A. L., Aerosolkeratitis, a commonepithelial foreign body reaction to
household Amer.J. Ophthalmol., 1709-19 (1967).
(10) Zucker,A., Investigation purifiedpyrethrumextracts,
of Ann. Allergy, 23, 335-39
(11) Teitelbaum, D. T., Vegetable oil aerosolspray intoxication,Rocky Mr. Med. J.,
66, 62-3 (1969).
(12) Bernstein, L., Medicalhazards aerosols,
I. of Postgrad.Med., 52, 62-77 (1972).
(13) Sulzberger, B., Warshaw, andHerrmann, Studies skinhypersensitivity
M. T., F., of to
lanolin,J. Invest.Dermatol., 33 (1953).
(14) Gloxhuber, Phototoxicity
testing cosmetic J.
materials, Soc.Cosmet. Chem.,21,
(15) Keri,H., Contact due J.
dermatitis to oil of citronella, Invest. 8,
Dermatol., 327 (1947).
(16) Osbourn. A., Tusin•, T. W., Coombs, P., and Moorish, P., Dermatologic
R. F. E.
of N.Y. J.
standardizationperfumes, State Med.,57, 1069(1957).
(17) Birmingham, J., Clinicalaspects cutaneous
D. of Toxicol.
Appl. Pharmacol., 54-9 (1965).
(18) Spoor,H. J., Skin reactions cosmetics-classification diagnosis,
to and N.Y. StateJ.
Med., 60, 1940-6 (1960).
(19) Rand, J., Toxicological
M. and testing cosmetics toiletties,
considerations safety of and
Perrum.,87, 39-48 (1972).
(20) Jacobi, Moreon skinrespiration cosmetics,
O., and Ibid., 85, 25-30 (1970).
(21) Taylor, J., andHarris, S., Cardiac
G. W. of
toxicity aerosol J.
Ass.,214, 81-5 (1970).
(22) Editorial,Cardiac of propellants,
toxicity aerosol Ibid., 222, 827-9 (1972).
(23) Egle,J. L., Putney, W., andBorzella, F., Cardiac
J. J. in
fectedby haloalkane Ibid., 222, 786-9 (1972).
(24) Tronnier,H., Cosmetic for der-
agents generalskin care and for femininehygiene:
matologists 96, 794-7 (1970).
(25) Ph•tsicians to Specialties Biologicals,
Desk Reference Pharmaceutical and Medical
Economics, Inc., Oradell,N.J., 1972, pp. 1374-5.
(26) Sterling,G. M., and Batten,J. C., Effect of aerosol and surfactants
Thorax,24, 228-31 (1969).
(27) Editorial, toxicity aerosol
Cardiac of J.
propellants,Amer. Med.Ass., 214, 136 (1970).
(28) Reinhardt, F., Azar,A., Maxfield, E., Smith,P. E., and Mullin, L. S., Cardiac
arrhythmias aerosol Health, 265-79 (1971).
(29) B., toxicity testing, Pharm.
Idson, Topical and J. Sci.,57, 1-11 (1968).
(30) Downing, R. C., and Madinabeitia,
D., The toxicityof fiuorinated aero-
solpropellants, Age,5, 25-8 (1960).
(31) Aerosol Bureau,
Warningagainst of products,
Perrum.,87, 53-4 (1972).
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON AEROSOL TOXICITY 281
(32) Clayton,J. W., The toxicityof fiuorocarbons to
with specialreference chemicalcon-
stitution,Freon Tech. Bull. S-22.
(33) Clayton, J. W., Fluorocarbon toxicity and biologicalaction,Fluorine Chem. Rev., 1,
(34) Wiberg, G. S., Evaluating the toxicologyof householdaerosols, presentedat the
Societyof Toxicology,11th Annual Meeting, March 1972.
(35) McClure, D. A., Failure of fiuorocarbon to
propellants alter the electrocardiogram of
mice and dogs,Toxicol.Appl. Pharmacol., 221-30 (1972).
(36) Azar, A., Zapp. ]. A., Jr., Reinhardt, C. F., and Stop,ps,G. J., Cardiac toxicity of
propellants, Amer. Med. Ass.,215, 1501-2 (1971).
(37) Flowers,N. C., and Horan, L. G., Nonanoxic aerosolarrhythmias, Ibid., 219, 33-7
(38) Rubin, J., Slepyan,A. H., Weber, L. F., and Neuhauser,I., Granulomas the axilla
ca •sed by deodorants, Ibid., 162, 953-5 (1956)
(39) Asby, N., Consumerists and feministsvs. the vaginal spray, Product Management,
30-4 (March 1973).
(40) Medical News, Feminine hygiene sprayscontroversialdespite FDA action, J. Amer.
Med. Assoc.,219, 449-52 (1972).
(41) Parisse,A. J., Recent changesin formula technology of aerosolpersonalproducts,
Amer. Cosmet. Perrum., 86• 46-8 (1971).
(42) Brtmner,M. J., Giovacchini, P., Wyatt, J.P., Dunlap, F. E., and Calandra,J. C.,
Pulmonarydiseaseand hair-spraypolymers:a disputedrelationship, Amer. Med.
Assoc.,184, 851-7 (1963).
(43) Calanalta,J., and Kay, J. A., Inhalation of aerosolhair sprays,Drug Cosmet.Ind.,
84, 174-7 (1959).
(44) Giovacchini, R. P., Becker, G. H., Brunner, M. J., and Dunlap, F. E., Pulmonary
disease and hair-spray polymers: of
effectsof long term exposure dogs,I. Amer. Med.
Ass., 193, 298-9 (1965).
(45) John,H. A., Thesaurosis:survey those risk,Med. 0t•ice, 109, 399 (1963).
a of at
(46) McLaughlin,A. I. G., Bidstrup, L., and Konstam,
P. M., The effectsof hair lacquer
on Toxicol.,1, 171-88 (1963).
sprays the lungs,Food Cosmet.
(47) Larson,R. K., A study of midexpiratory
flow ratesin usersof hair spray,Amer. Rev.
Resp. Dis., 90, 786-8 (1964).