Current Perspectives on Aerosol Toxicity

Document Sample
Current Perspectives on Aerosol Toxicity Powered By Docstoc
					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
         to                      is
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,
andcosmetic         are
             powders easily        and         but
                              seen handled; manydrugandliquid
cosmetic formulations,                  and              are
                      suchas deodorants hair sprays, hard to see
oncereleased oftenthe respect    that otheraerosol          are
                                                  products givenby
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.


          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
                  (6); personal
(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
            but                        in
toxiceffects, they will not be discussed thispaper.The typesof toxicity
reported can be broken down into two main categories,   those due to the
propellants                                               in
           and thosedue to the active or inert ingredients the formula-
   Propellant                                                           of
              toxicitycan resulteither from the refrigerantproperties the
                                 or                  or
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%
                   as                                          (6)
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
           to            as
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
unscreened        of
            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
              in              of
improvements the purification the lanolinusedin cosmetic      products
have          lanolin
     eliminated             as          problem.
                     allergy a significant             to
                                               Reactions perfume
oils, ubiquitous         in
                ingredient cosmetic      products, almost
                                   aerosol       are      entirely
due to an allergic hypersensitive        ratherthandue to primary
                                            substances general
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).
                     is                          and
   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
                            for        are
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
                                                       tested provea
low incidence allergic   responses(16). Hypoallergenie          may
                                                      cosmetics be
another  soIution.     are
                  These a groupof cosmetic   products,        by
                                                      marketed a few
companies,                      for
            whicharespecifically the useof individuals              to
                 The             for
manycosmetics. raw materials these                are        on
                                          products selected the ba-
                 low         of
sisof a reported incidence allergic    responses(6).
  Thepyrethrins,       in
                  found many  insecticide        may
                                         aerosols, also       a
                                                         cause variety
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
                                          aerosols, primaryirritationof
the skin (17). Thisis not an allergic       but
                                     response ratheris a resultof the
caustic       of
        nature certain          in              Calcium
                       ingredients theformulation.        thioglycolate
is a primary             in
            irritantfound manyaerosol                (6).
                                      foamdepilitories Antiperspir-
ants often contain salts of zinc, zirconium,or aluminum which can cause
primaryirritation(6). Ocularirritationfrom dandruff       has
                                                   shampoos been
reported                 as
        (18, 19), probably a resultof certainzincsalts.
                     ON                   OF
                        AND RESPIRATORY SYSTEM

             cause   of       reactions
 Theunderlying of many thetoxic              from
                                     resulting theuse
          and       aerosols
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
        to        for
thought bethebasis theprimary          produced thedepilitories
                              irritation         by
in foam       Preparations
        aerosols.                calcium
                        containing                    for
                                         fifioglycolate, example,

usually havea pH of about12, while the normalpH of the skinis between
4 and6 (6). The metallic        of                 and
                           salts zinc,aluminum, zirconium              in
                                                                   used aero-
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
aerosol                                        of
        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
                  to             of
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
                                              resulting aspirationpneumo-
nia. A slightreduction specific     airwayconductance,           no
                                                          posing clinical
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
                                                  lecithin)contained the
twobronchodilator   aerosolsevaluated  (26).

                regarding toxicity aerosol
  The controversy         the       of               in       and
                                             products, general,
thepropellant          they       in
             chemicals contain, particular,   began       years
                                                    several   ago
                    in             of
with the publication the lay press several         due
                                             deaths to "sniffing,"
         by           ofthe      from             of
especially teen-agers, vapors a widevariety aerosol        products
                 involved deliberate,
(27). The practice        the                         of
                                        deepinhalation the concen-
trated      usually a balloon paper (28).
      vapors,      from         or      bag
  These       of
        reports aerosol  abuse        the
                              brought toxic           of
                                              potential thevarious
          to             of
propellantstheattention theaerosol            The        of
                                      industry. toxicity thepro-
       can           into
pollants bedivided three      major          toxicity totherefrig-
                                   categories:      due
           CURRENT    PERSPECTIVES     ON AEROSOL TOXICITY              275

erantaction the propellants (12), whichmaycause reflex airwayobstruc-
tion,especially thelarynx,         damage the delicate
                           andtissue      to             mucousmem-
       of                                     into
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,
                  whichhasbeenaccorded muchunwarranted
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
          to                 of
designed warn teen-agers the potentiallethal consequences abusingof
aerosolized products.
  Soon after the controversy   regarding the deaths from aerosol"sniffing"
began,Taylor and Harris (21) reported                     of
                                         that the exposure miceto several
propellants,                      in
             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
                                                             results animals,
especially the high concentrations   studied,                              to
                                              bear little or no relationship
the lower concentrations which the consumer aerosolof                   is
                                                               products ex-
posed(9,8). Also,thereis lack of generalagreement to the accuracy the   of
dataon aerosol toxicitywhenit is extrapolated                        to
                                               from animalstudies humans
(22, 34).
   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
                                                produced propellantex-
posurewere similarto the cardiovascular  effectsof asphyxia alone.McClure
wasalsounableto confirm   similarfindings        by
                                         reported Taylor and Harrisin
                                        to                of
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
           or                 block
bradycardia atrioventricular by the several      fiuorocarbonpropellants

        In                of
studied. all, four groups investigatorshavefailed to repeatthe findings
reportedby Taylor andHarris (22).
                                       have reportedthe safety of the
   On the other hand, many investigators
fiuoroearbon           in
            propellants concentrationsgenerally produced followingnor-
mal use.McClure (35) reportedno effecton heart rate, bloodpressure,and
eleetroeardiogram dogsfollowing the intratraeheal                of
                                                   administration an
epinephrine       Azar eta[. (36) were unableto produce
           aerosol.                                    arrhythmiasin
anoxieand hypcreapnie dogsfollowingrepeated          to
                                              exposure severalcom-
                Otherswere unable to producesignificant
mercial aerosols.                                       eleetroeardio-
graphic        in
        changes several           ill
                        patients, with a varietyof bronchopulmonary
         following repeated
disorders,        the                   of          11
                               inhalation Propellant and Propellant
12 (27).
   Thereis little question the various              can,
                                         propellants whenadministered
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
andventricular                in
                 arrhythmias manyof the dogs   thustreated.         et
                                                            Reinhardt al.,
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-
                                 questionable           to
leasedcatecholamines     resultingfromaudiogenicstimuli(28). The conditions
described these           aswellasmany
                experiments,                 do        a
                                       others, postulatemech-
anism thesudden        resulting aerosol
                  deaths       from            but
                                         abuse, in nowayper-
               of           of
tainto thesafety thethousandscommercially        aerosol
                                         available    products
currently use      assuming
              today,               use     products.
                          reasonable of such
           TOxICiTY OF COSMETIC          PRODUCT
                               ANDPERSONAL     AEROSOLS

                                  and Deodorants

  These     been       to
                reported cause             of
                               granulomastheaxilla(38), whichare
probably                        to               aluminum, other
        linkedto a hypersensitivity the zirconium,       or
heavy       used these
        salts  in              (12).
                     preparations Whilethe few reported
    to               fromusing
cases datehaveresulted                                     sim-
                              eitherlotionor stickdeodorants,
           may      occur        individuals aerosol
ilarreactions possibly in allergic        using   deodor-
antsor antiperspirants         thesechemicals.
  Othertoxic        reported beassociated theuse antiperspir-
            reactions       to            with       of
ant/deodorant        include:
              aerosols       pulmonary               (1),
                                       granulomatosis epithelial
            of                        of
keratinizationtheeye(9), andclogging thesweat           with
                                                 glands subse-
quent         (18).
     infection There          not
                         have been   enough         cases
                                             reported in anyof
    incidents establish
these        to                 cause-effect
                       a definite        relationship.
 Aerosol        have been reportedto produce          reac-
            of            drugs,
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

                      FeminineHygiene DeodorantSprays
  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
women                                the
       believethey needthem,despite opinion someof      gynecologiststo
the contrary                                differences
            (40). Thereare certainformulation           between vaginal
andunderarm                 i.e.,
               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).
                                         has          that
   The FoodandDrugAdministration reported reactions thevagi-        to
nal spraydeodorants usuallydue to one or moreof the following:in-
juriesresulting                            of
                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-
titis,chemical        and
               burns, various        hypersensitivity           such
                                                     reactions, asprttritis,
         and          (7,
burning, edema 40). Some the special   of            anatomical           of
                                                                 features the
vaginal areathatmake moreit                    to
                                   susceptible deodorant     sprays include  the
apocrine  sweat         the                       and
                glands, thinhornystratum, the special             bacterialflora
ofthevaginal   mucous  membranes     (24).

                                Hair Sprays
  Hair sprayshavebeen          in            relationship, the
                     implicated, a cause-effect         with
developmentptdmonary                (3)
                       granulomatosisandblood             (2)
                                                 dyscrasias in
chronic ofsuch           possibly toa hypersensitivity
                  products,     due                         The
resinous         contained these
        ingredients      in             have
                                products been          to
                                                reported be the
      agents. several
noxious     In      reported     radiographic
                            cases,                    of
                                            examination the
chest                of
           infiltrationthelung inusers hair
                               field       of   sprays whichcleared
     the      of
when usage these              was             (3).
                      products discontinued However,        several
       to         these
attempts duplicate human             in                pigs
                             findings rats(42), guinea (43), and
dogs             to          hair
    (44), exposedcommercial spray                  for      as
                                        preparationsaslong two
     failed demonstrate pulmonary
years,     to       any                that  be
                               pathology could attributed

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
                                                                   studies dogs
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).
                       of                          hair
   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-
ticles                  of
      had a diameter 35 ,/xor greater(47), whichis largerthanthe sizethat
            of                the
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
        to                    and
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
        of            is
pattern a product not well controlled,      partic]es          for
                                                       intended application
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-
          (5,                 the
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
            few               are
thiscountry, toxicreactions reported     and,of thosethat are reported,
approximately                                error in followingthe in-
              half are probablydue to consumer
struetions useprintedon tlaepackage.


   Toxicityis a functionof a chemical                and
                                         compound its reaction       with bio-
logicaltissues canusually,                       be
                                 but not always, predictedfrom animalstu-
                              of                    of
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
                                                  Hypersensitivity, allergic,
           only                               of
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
elicitallergic          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,
            a                of
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)

                                      REFERENCE s

  (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
                    A        andexperimental
       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
       deodorant               48,
                     Pediatrics, 322-3 (1971).
  (5) MacLean, A. L., A commonepithelial keratitis from noncorrosive
                                 Otolaryngol., 330-40 (1967).
       Trans.Amer.Acad.Ophthalmol.           71,
  (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).
                      sprays,                 63,
(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
                C.,                  of
                              testing cosmetic           J.
                                               materials, Soc.Cosmet.  Chem.,21,
     825-33 (1970).
(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.
                                             irritationand sensitization,
       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.
                                                           propellants, Amer.Med.
     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
                                                        rateandrhythm miceaf-
       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
                                                       propellants             on
                      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
                C.                   M.
                and      sniffing,
       arrhythmias aerosol                  Health, 265-79 (1971).
                                Arch.Environ.       22,
(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,
           Education                  deliberate
                         Warningagainst             of      products,
                                               misuse aerosol
                   Perrum.,87, 53-4 (1972).
       Amer. Cosmet.
             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,
     197-252 (1967).
(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
     aerosol             1.
             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).

Shared By: