Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Apr:103:63-72.
doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.016. Epub 2019 Jan 15.

Challenges in working towards an internal threshold of toxicological concern (iTTC) for use in the safety assessment of cosmetics: Discussions from the Cosmetics Europe iTTC Working Group workshop

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Review

Challenges in working towards an internal threshold of toxicological concern (iTTC) for use in the safety assessment of cosmetics: Discussions from the Cosmetics Europe iTTC Working Group workshop

Corie A Ellison et al. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Apr.
Free PMC article

Abstract

The Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) is an important risk assessment tool which establishes acceptable low-level exposure values to be applied to chemicals with limited toxicological data. One of the logical next steps in the continued evolution of TTC is to develop this concept further so that it is representative of internal exposures (TTC based on plasma concentration). An internal TTC (iTTC) would provide threshold values that could be utilized in exposure-based safety assessments. As part of a Cosmetics Europe (CosEu) research program, CosEu has initiated a project that is working towards the development of iTTCs that can be used for the human safety assessment. Knowing that the development of an iTTC is an ambitious and broad-spanning topic, CosEu organized a Working Group comprised a balance of multiple stakeholders (cosmetics and chemical industries, the EPA and JRC and academia) with relevant experience and expertise and workshop to critically evaluate the requirements to establish an iTTC. Outcomes from the workshop included an evaluation on the current state of the science for iTTC, the overall iTTC strategy, selection of chemical databases, capture and curation of chemical information, ADME and repeat dose data, expected challenges, as well as next steps and ongoing work.

Keywords: Cosmetics; Cosmetics europe; PBPK; Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model; Risk assessment; TTC; Thresholds of toxicological concern.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Proposed approach for deriving iTTC values
Figure 2
Figure 2
Principal component analysis (PCA) for the 1251 chemicals in the iTTC project when including molecular and ADME descriptors and Toxprint fingerprints. PCA when considering continuous descriptors and plotting PC1 vs PC2 vs PC3 (A). Discrete descriptors for k-means clustering (B), Cramer Classification (C) or expected clearance pathway (D) were integrated into the PCA to further classify the chemicals. The color code for Cramer classification is class I (green), class II (red) and class III (blue). The color code for clearance pathways is metabolism (green), renal (cyan), hepatic uptake (blue) and hepatic uptake or renal (red).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Principal component analysis (PCA) for the iTTC chemicals filtered so that it only displays chemicals from one cluster (cluster 21), from the k-means clustering assessment (A). Discrete descriptors for Cramer classification (B) and clearance pathway (C), as well as chemical structure (D) were integrated into the PCA to further classify the chemicals. The color code for Cramer classification is class I (green) and class III (blue). Only one clearance pathway (hepatic uptake or renal) was represented in the selected cluster.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Adler S, Basketter D, Creton S, Pelkonen O, van Benthem J, Zuang V, Andersen KE, Angers-Loustau A, Aptula A, Bal-Price A, Benfenati E, Bernauer U, Bessems J, Bois FY, Boobis A, Brandon E, Bremer S, Broschard T, Casati S, Coecke S, Corvi R, Cronin M, Daston G, Dekant W, Felter S, Grignard E, Gundert-Remy U, Heinonen T, Kimber I, Kleinjans J, Komulainen H, Kreiling R, Kreysa J, Leite SB, Loizou G, Maxwell G, Mazzatorta P, Munn S, Pfuhler S, Phrakonkham P, Piersma A, Poth A, Prieto P, Repetto G, Rogiers V, Schoeters G, Schwarz M, Serafimova R, Tähti H, Testai E, van Delft J, van Loveren H, Vinken M, Worth A, Zaldivar JM. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects-2010. Arch Toxicol 2011. May;85(5):367–485. doi: 10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2. Epub 2011 May 1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bell SM, Chang X, Wambaugh JF, Allen DG, Bartels M, Brouwer KLR, Casey WM, Choksi N, Ferguson SS, Fraczkiewicz G, Jarabek AM, Ke A, Lumen A, Lynn SG, Paini A, Price PS, Ring C, Simon TW, Sipes NS, Sprankle CS, Strickland J, Troutman J, Wetmore BA, Kleinstreuer NC. In vitro to in vivo extrapolation for high throughput prioritization and decision making. Toxicol In Vitro 2018. March;47:213–227. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2017.11.016 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Benet LZ. The role of BCS (biopharmaceutics classification system) and BDDCS (biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system) in drug development. J Pharm Sci 2013. January;102(1):34–42. doi: 10.1002/jps.23359. Epub 2012 Nov 12. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Benet LZ, Hosey CM, Ursu O, Oprea TI. BDDCS, the Rule of 5 and drugability. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2016. June 1;101:89–98. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2016.05.007. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bessems JGM. Opinion on the usefulness of in vitro data for human risk assessment. Suggestions for better use of non-testing approaches 16 June 2009. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/320016002.pdf