Brussels, Belgium
Brussels, Belgium
Time filter
Source Type

Pfannenbecker U.,Beiersdorf AG | Bessou-Touya S.,Pierre Fabre | Faller C.,Procter and Gamble | Harbell J.,Mary Kay Inc. | And 12 more authors.
Toxicology in Vitro | Year: 2013

Cosmetics Europe, The Personal Care Association (known as Colipa before 2012), conducted a program of technology transfer and within/between laboratory reproducibility of MatTek Corporation's EpiOcular™ Eye Irritation Test (EIT) as one of the two human reconstructed tissue test methods. This EIT EpiOcular™ used a single exposure period for each chemical and a prediction model based on a cut-off in relative survival [≤60% = irritant (I) (GHS categories 2 and 1); >60% = no classification (NC)]. Test substance single exposure time was 30. min with a 2-h post-exposure incubation for liquids and 90. min with an 18-h post-exposure incubation for solids. Tissue viability was determined by tetrazolium dye (MTT) reduction. Combinations of 20 coded chemicals were tested in 7 laboratories. Standardized laboratory documentation was used by all laboratories. Twenty liquids (11 NC/9 I) plus 5 solids (3 NC/2 I) were selected so that both exposure regimens could be assessed. Concurrent positive (methyl acetate) and negative (water) controls were tested in each trial. In all, 298 independent trials were performed and demonstrated 99.7% agreement in prediction (NC/I) across the laboratories. Coefficients of variation for the% survival for tissues from each treatment group across laboratories were generally low. This protocol has entered in 2010 the experimental phase of a formal ECVAM validation program. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

Alepee N.,L'Oréal | Bessou-Touya S.,Pierre Fabre | Cotovio J.,L'Oréal | de Smedt A.,Janssen Research and Development | And 9 more authors.
Toxicology in Vitro | Year: 2013

Cosmetics Europe, The Personal Care Association, known as Colipa before 2012, conducted a program of technology transfer and assessment of Within/Between Laboratory (WLV/BLV) reproducibility of the SkinEthic™ Reconstituted Human Corneal Epithelium (HCE) as one of two human reconstructed tissue eye irritation test methods. The SkinEthic™ HCE test method involves two exposure time treatment procedures - one for short time exposure (10. min - SE) and the other for long time exposure (60. min - LE) of tissues to test substance. This paper describes pre-validation studies of the SkinEthic™ HCE test method (SE and LE protocols) as well as the Eye Peptide Reactivity Assay (EPRA). In the SE WLV study, 30 substances were evaluated. A consistent outcome with respect to viability measurement across all runs was observed with all substances showing an SD of less than 18%. In the LE WLV study, 44 out of 45 substances were consistently classified. These data demonstrated a high level of reproducibility within laboratory for both the SE and LE treatment procedures. For the LE BLV, 19 out of 20 substances were consistently classified between the three laboratories, again demonstrating a high level of reproducibility between laboratories. The results for EPRA WLV and BLV studies demonstrated that all substances analysed were categorised similarly and that the method is reproducible. The SkinEthic™ HCE test method entered into the experimental phase of a formal ECVAM validation program in 2010. © 2013.

Lefebvre M.-A.,L'Oréal | Meuling W.J.A.,TNO | Engel R.,TNO | Coroama M.C.,COLIPA | And 3 more authors.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology | Year: 2012

We measured consumer exposure to formaldehyde (FA) from personal care products (PCP) containing FA-releasing preservatives. Six study subjects applied facial moisturiser, foundation, shower gel, shampoo, deodorant, hair conditioner, hair styling gel or body lotion at the 90th percentile amount of EU PCP consumer use. FA air concentrations were measured in the empty room, in the presence of study subjects prior to PCP use, and for one hour (breathing zone, area monitoring) after PCP use. The mean FA air concentration in the empty bathroom was 1.32±0.67μg/m 3, in the presence of subjects it was 2.33±0.86μg/m 3. Except for body lotion and hair conditioner (6.2±0.1.9 or 4.5±0.1.5μg/m 3, respectively), mean 1-h FA air concentrations after PCP use were similar to background. Peak FA air concentrations, ranging from baseline values (2.2μg/m 3; shower gel) to 11.5μg/m 3 (body lotion), occurred during 0-5 to 5-10min after PCP use. Despite of exaggerated exposure conditions, FA air levels were a fraction of those considered to be safe (120μg/m 3), occurring in indoor air (22-124μg/m 3) or expired human breath (1.4-87μg/m 3). Overall, our data yielded evidence that inhalation of FA from the use of PCP containing FA-releasers poses no risk to human health. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Pfuhler S.,Procter and Gamble | Kirst A.,KPSS Kao Professional Salon Services GmbH | Aardema M.,Procter and Gamble | Banduhn N.,Henkel AG | And 15 more authors.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology | Year: 2010

For the assessment of genotoxic effects of cosmetic ingredients, a number of well-established and regulatory accepted in vitro assays are in place. A caveat to the use of these assays is their relatively low specificity and high rate of false or misleading positive results. Due to the 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive ban on in vivo genotoxicity testing for cosmetics that was enacted March 2009, it is no longer possible to conduct follow-up in vivo genotoxicity tests for cosmetic ingredients positive in in vitro genotoxicity tests to further assess the relevance of the in vitro findings. COLIPA, the European Cosmetics Association, has initiated a research programme to improve existing and develop new in vitro methods. A COLIPA workshop was held in Brussels in April 2008 to analyse the best possible use of available methods and approaches to enable a sound assessment of the genotoxic hazard of cosmetic ingredients. Common approaches of cosmetic companies are described, with recommendations for evaluating in vitro genotoxins using non-animal approaches. A weight of evidence approach was employed to set up a decision-tree for the integration of alternative methods into tiered testing strategies. © 2010 Elsevier Inc.

Maxwell G.,Unilever | Aeby P.,Colipa | Ashikaga T.,Shiseido Research Center | Bessou-Touya S.,Pierre Fabre | And 10 more authors.
Altex | Year: 2011

Allergic contact dermatitis is a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction induced by small reactive chemicals (haptens). Currently, the sensitising potential and potency of new chemicals is usually characterised using data generated via animal studies, such as the local lymph node assay (LLNA). There are, however, increasing public and political concerns regarding the use of animals for the testing of new chemicals. Consequently, the development of in vitro, in chemico or in silico models for predicting the sensitising potential and/or potency of new chemicals is receiving widespread interest. The Colipa Skin Tolerance task force currently collaborates with and/or funds several academic research groups to expand our understanding of the molecular and cellular events occurring during the acquisition of skin sensitisation. Knowledge gained from this research is being used to support the development and evaluation of novel alternative approaches for the identification and characterisation of skin sensitising chemicals. At present three non-animal test methods (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA), Myeloid U937 Skin Sensitisation Test (MUSST) and human Cell Line Activation Test (hCLAT)) have been evaluated in Colipa interlaboratory ring trials for their potential to predict skin sensitisation potential and were recently submitted to ECVAM for formal pre-validation. Data from all three test methods will now be used to support the study and development of testing strategy approaches for skin sensitiser potency prediction. This publication represents the current viewpoint of the cosmetics industry on the feasibility of replacing the need for animal test data for informing skin sensitisation risk assessment decisions.

Schilling K.,IRSC International Regulatory and Scientific Consulting | Bradford B.,Unilever | Castelli D.,Johnson and Johnson | Dufour E.,L'Oréal | And 6 more authors.
Photochemical and Photobiological Sciences | Year: 2010

Based on the current weight of evidence of all available data, the risk for humans from the use of nano-structured titanium dioxide (TiO2) or zinc oxide (ZnO) currently used in cosmetic preparations or sunscreens is considered negligible. There is a large body of information that when viewed in its entirety is considered as sufficient to demonstrate that these nano-structured ultraviolet (UV) filters, irrespective of various treatments (coatings) or crystalline structure, can be regarded as safe for use at concentrations up to 25% in cosmetic products to protect the skin from harmful effects of solar UV radiation. "Nano" TiO2 and ZnO formulated in topically applied sunscreen products exist as aggregates of primary particles ranging from 30-150 nm in size. These aggregates are bonded such that the force of sunscreen product application onto the skin would have no impact on their structure or result in the release of primary particles. Multiple studies have shown that under exaggerated test conditions neither nano-structured TiO2 nor ZnO penetrates beyond the stratum corneum of skin. Further, the distribution and persistence of these nano-structured metal oxides is the same compared to larger pigment-grade (i.e., >100 nm) particles, demonstrating equivalence in the recognition and elimination of such material from the body. Finally, the in vitro genotoxic and photogenotoxic profiles of these nano-structured metal oxides are of no consequence to human health. Whereas the most logical, straightforward conclusion based on data from internationally-recognized guideline studies and current 20+ year history of human use is that nano-structured TiO2 and ZnO are safe, there will continue to be questions as "nano" conjures images of technology gone awry. Despite this rather sober view, the public health benefits of sunscreens containing nano TiO2 and/or ZnO outweigh human safety concerns for these UV filters. © The Royal Society of Chemistry and Owner Societies 2010.

PubMed | Humboldt University of Berlin, Beiersdorf AG, L'Oréal, Procter and Gamble and 4 more.
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA | Year: 2015

In 1996, the Scientific Committee on Cosmetology of DGXXIV of the European Commission asked the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods to test eight UV filter chemicals from the 1995 edition of Annex VII of Directive 76/768/EEC in a blind trial in the in vitro 3T3 cell neutral red uptake phototoxicity (3T3 NRU PT) test, which had been scientifically validated between 1992 and 1996. Since all the UV filter chemicals on the positive list of EU Directive 76/768/EEC have been shown not to be phototoxic in vivo in humans under use conditions, only negative effects would be expected in the 3T3 NRU PT test. To balance the number of positive and negative chemicals, ten phototoxic and ten non-phototoxic chemicals were tested under blind conditions in four laboratories. Moreover, to assess the optimum concentration range for testing, information was provided on appropriate solvents and on the solubility of the coded chemicals. In this study, the phototoxic potential of test chemicals was evaluated in a prediction model in which either the Photoirritation Factor (PIF) or the Mean Photo Effect (MPE) were determined. The results obtained with both PIF and MPE were highly reproducible in the four laboratories, and the correlation between in vitro and in vivo data was almost perfect. All the phototoxic test chemicals provided a positive result at concentrations of 1/ml, while nine of the ten non-phototoxic chemicals gave clear negative results, even at the highest test concentrations. One of the UV filter chemicals gave positive results in three of the four laboratories only at concentrations greater than 100/ml; the other laboratory correctly identified all 20 of the test chemicals. An analysis of the impact that exposure concentrations had on the performance of the test revealed that the optimum concentration range in the 3T3 NRU PT test for determining the phototoxic potential of chemicals is between 0.1g/ml and 10g/ml, and that false positive results can be obtained at concentrations greater than 100g/ml. Therefore, the positive results obtained with some of the UV filter chemicals only at concentrations greater than 100g/ml do not indicate a phototoxic potential in vivo. When this information was taken into account during calculation of the overall predictivity of the 3T3 NRU PT test in the present study, an almost perfect correlation of in vitro versus in vivo results was obtained (between 95% and 100%), when either PIF or MPE were used to predict the phototoxic potential. The management team and participants therefore conclude that the 3T3 NRU PT test is a valid test for correctly assessing the phototoxic potential of UV filter chemicals, if the defined concentration limits are taken into account.

Hall B.,L'Oréal | Steiling W.,Henkel AG | Safford B.,Colworth Science Park | Coroama M.,COLIPA | And 4 more authors.
Food and Chemical Toxicology | Year: 2011

Access to reliable exposure data is essential for the evaluation of the toxicological safety of ingredients in cosmetic products. This study complements the data set obtained previously (Part 1) and published in 2007 by the European cosmetic industry acting within COLIPA. It provides, in distribution form, exposure data on daily quantities of five cosmetic product types: hair styling, hand cream, liquid foundation, mouthwash and shower gel. In total 80,000 households and 14,413 individual consumers in five European countries provided information using their own products. The raw data were analysed using Monte Carlo simulation and a European Statistical Population Model of exposure was constructed. A significant finding was an inverse correlation between the frequency of product use and the quantity used per application recorded for mouthwash and shower gel. The combined results of Part 1 (7 product types) and Part 2 (5 products) reported here, bring up to date and largely confirm the current exposure parameters concerning some 95% of the estimated daily exposure to cosmetics use in the EU. The design of this study, with its relation to demographic and individual diversity, could serve as a model for studies of populations' exposure to other consumer products. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.

Steiling W.,Henkel AG | Buttgereit P.,ProDERM Institute for Applied Dermatological Research | Hall B.,L'Oréal | O'Keeffe L.,Procter and Gamble | And 3 more authors.
Food and Chemical Toxicology | Year: 2012

Many cosmetic products are available in spray form. Even though the principal targets of these products are the skin and hair, spraying leads to the partitioning of the product between the target and the surrounding air. In the previous COLIPA study (Hall et al., 2007) the daily use of deodorant/antiperspirant (Deo/AP) in spray form was quantified in terms of the amount of product dispensed from the spray can, without specifically quantifying the product fraction reaching the skin during use. Results of the present study provide this additional information, necessary for a reliable safety assessment of sprayed Deo/AP products. In a novel experimental approach the information obtained from real-life movement analysis (automated motion imaging) of volunteers using their own products was integrated with the aerosol cloud sampling data obtained from the same products, leading to the computation of the product deposited on the skin. The 90th percentile values, expressed as percent deposition relative to the can weight loss after spraying, are 23.5% and 11.4% for ethanol-based and non-ethanol-based products, respectively. Additionally, the study has generated data on the skin area covered by the products, spray duration time, spray angle and spray distance from the skin. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

PubMed | Colipa
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA | Year: 2010

The sensitizing potential of chemicals is usually identified and characterized using one of the available animal test methods, such as the mouse local lymph node assay. Due to the increasing public and political concerns regarding the use of animals for the screening of new chemicals, the Colipa Skin Tolerance Task Force collaborates with and/or funds research groups to increase and apply our understanding of the events occurring during the acquisition of skin sensitization. Knowledge gained from this research is used to support the development and evaluation of novel alternative approaches for the identification and characterization of skin sensitizing chemicals. At present one in chemico (direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)) and two in vitro test methods (cell based assays (MUSST and h-CLAT)) have been evaluated within Colipa inter-laboratory ring trials and accepted by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) for pre-validation. Data from all three test methods will be used to support the development of testing strategy approaches for skin sensitizer potency prediction. The replacement of the need for animal testing for skin sensitization risk assessment is viewed as ultimately achievable and the next couple of years should set the timeline for this milestone.

Loading Colipa collaborators
Loading Colipa collaborators