Integrated Safety Strategy for the Development of Children’s Cosmetic Products Using In Vitro and Clinical Methodologies

  • Andrezza di Pietro Micali Canavez
  • Talita M. T. P. Silveira
  • Natalia de Albuquerque Vita
  • Ana Cristina Weihermann
  • Caroline Radoski Neumann
  • Desirée Cigaran Schuck
  • Marcela Contador Baptista
  • Odivania Kruger
  • Carla Abdo Brohem
  • Marcio LorenciniEmail author


Brazil is one of the largest cosmetic markets and represents great opportunities for several beauty niches, including children’s products. Regarding safety assessment and considering the particular needs of the target market, children’s products must be specifically formulated and require special attention to avoid inappropriate use and adverse reactions. Because animal tests are no longer accepted for cosmetic evaluation in Europe, the major challenge in this field is to ensure reliable products using alternative methods and other available data such as those found in the literature. The objective of this study was to define an integrated theoretical and technical rationale for the suitable development of children’s makeup products (lipstick, gloss, blush, and nail polish). Without applying animal methods, formulation safety analyses, toxicological in vitro tests (cytotoxicity, phototoxicity, and skin irritation), and clinical trials were considered. First, a systematic study was performed for selection of the intended ingredients that could be used in each formulation. In vitro methods were applied for the evaluation of cytotoxicity, phototoxicity (following the internationally adopted and validated Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] guidance document [GD] OECD GD 129 and test guidelines [TG] OECD TG 432, respectively), and acute skin irritation (using a reconstituted human skin model based on OECD TG 439). Complimentary clinical trials were conducted on adults and children, under pediatrician supervision, for the assessment of skin irritability, sensibility, photoallergy, phototoxicity, and tolerability in real usage conditions. The theoretical components of the rationale for the evaluation of children’s products were based on the following: (1) simple formulations with fewer ingredients in comparison to products for adults; (2) raw materials properly analyzed according to their chemical structures, levels of exposure, and toxicological profiles, including available literature; and (3) fragrances within International Fragrance Association (IFRA) recommendations. Concerning in vitro results, none of the children’s products was identified as phototoxic, as skin irritant, or as significantly cytotoxic in the tested concentrations. Clinical trials also showed negative results for all the toxicological endpoints analyzed, considering adult and children’s panels. The safety rationale developed in the present work, using specific formulation criteria and in vitro alternative methods to animal use, was assertive and well correlated to the results of clinical trials. This rationale represents a practical, integrated, and valuable tool for the development of appropriate formulations and the safety assessment of children’s cosmetic products.


  1. 1.
    EU. Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 of the European parliament and of the council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (recast). 2009. OJ L 342/59, 22 December 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Linda B, Sedlewicz BS. Cosmetic preservatives: friend or foe? Skin Med. 2005;4:8–100.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wolf R, Wolf D, Tüzün B, Tüzün Y. Cosmetics and contact dermatitis. Dermatol Ther. 2001;14:181–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wojciechowska M, Gocki J, Bartuzi Z. The occurrence of cosmetics side effects. In: Bartuzi Z, editor. Selected aspects of health care Bydgoszcz: Nicolaus Copernicus University; 2007. p. 524–8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giordano-Labadie F, Rancé F, Pellegrin F, Bazex J, Dutau G, Schwarze HP. Frequency of contact allergy in children with atopic dermatitis: results of a prospective study of 137 cases. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40(4):192–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rastogi SC, Johansen JD, Menné T, et al. Contents of fragrance allergens in children’s cosmetics and cosmetic-toys. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41(2):84–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fluhr JW, Darlenski R, Taieb A, et al. Functional skin adaptation in infancy—almost complete but not fully competent. Exp Dermatol. 2010;19(6):483–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shwayder T, Akland T. Neonatal skin barrier: structure, function, and disorders. Dermatol Ther. 2005;18(2):87–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ANVISA. Cartilha de Cosméticos Infantis. 2017 Disponível em: Acessado em 06 July 2015.
  10. 10.
    ANVISA. Guia para avaliação de segurança de produtos cosméticos. Brasília, DF: Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. 2nd ed. 2012. Disponível em: Acessado em 06 July 2015.
  11. 11.
    Eskes C, Sá-Rocha VM, Nunes J. Proposal for a Brazilian center on alternative test methods. ALTEX. 2009;26(4):303–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kandárová H, Letašiová S. Alternative methods in toxicology: pre-validated and validated methods. Interdiscip Toxicol. 2011;4(3):107–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    OECD. Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals 432: In vitro 3T3 NRU phototoxicity test. OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France. 2004. Disponível em: Acessado em 06 July 2015.
  14. 14.
    OECD. Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals 439. In vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France. Originally adopted in 2010. 2013. Disponível em: Acessado em 06 July 2015.
  15. 15.
    Faller C, Bracher M. Reconstructed skin kits: reproducibility of cutaneous irritancy testing. Skin Pharmacol Appl Ski Physiol. 2002;15(Suppl 1):74–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson EM, Robillard NF. The controlled use test in a cosmetic product safety substation program. J Toxicol Cut Ocular Toxicol. 1982;1(2):117–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waggoner WC. Clinical safety and efficacy testing of cosmetic. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1979.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Samet J. Risk assessment and child health. Pediatrics. 2004;113(4):952–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    BRASIL. Ministério da Saúde. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Resolução RDC n° 332 de 01 de dezembro de 2005. As empresas fabricantes e/ou importadoras de Produtos de Higiene Pessoal Cosméticos e Perfumes, instaladas no território nacional deverão implementar um Sistema de Cosmetovigilância, a partir de 31 de dezembro de 2005. 2005. Disponível em: Acessado em 06 July 15.
  20. 20.
    European Commission. European Commission scientific committee guidelines on the use of human volunteers in compatibility testing of finished cosmetic products. 2015. Available from: Accessed in 06 July 2015.
  21. 21.
    Grisham JW, Smith GJ. Predictive and mechanistic evaluation to toxic responses in mammalian cell culture systems. Pharmacol Rev. 1984;36(2):151S–71S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kimber DA, Basketterb K, Bertholdc M, et al. Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment. J Toxicol Sci. 2001;59:198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    OECD. Series on Testing and Assessment n. 129: Guidance document on using cytotoxicity tests to estimate starting doses for acute oral systemic toxicity tests. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals, Paris. 2010. Disponível em: Acessado em 06 July 2015.
  24. 24.
    SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety). The SCCS’S notes of guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation. 8th Revision. 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kohl L, Blondeel A, Song M. Allergic contact dermatitis from cosmetics-retrospective analysis of 819 patch-tested. Dermatology. 2002;204:334–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang HW and Dong SX. Study on using in vitro 3T3 neutral red uptake to test phototoxicity. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 2005;34(5):628–630.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hu T, Kaluzhny Y, Mun GC, Barnett B, Karetsky V, Wilt N, Klausner M, Curren RD, Aardema MJ. Intralaboratory and interlaboratory evaluation of the EpiDerm 3D human reconstructed skin micronucleus (RSMN) assay. 2009;673(2):100–8.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Welss T, Basketter DA, Schroder KR. In vitro skin irritation: facts and future. State of the art review of mechanisms and models. Toxicology in Vitro 2004;18(3):231–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    SCCNFP Notes of Guidance for Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients for their Safety Evaluation. The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products Intended for Consumers SCCNFP/0321/00. Adopted by the SCCNFP during the plenary meeting of 24 October 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrezza di Pietro Micali Canavez
    • 1
  • Talita M. T. P. Silveira
    • 1
  • Natalia de Albuquerque Vita
    • 1
  • Ana Cristina Weihermann
    • 1
  • Caroline Radoski Neumann
    • 1
  • Desirée Cigaran Schuck
    • 1
  • Marcela Contador Baptista
    • 1
  • Odivania Kruger
    • 1
  • Carla Abdo Brohem
    • 1
  • Marcio Lorencini
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.R&D Department, Grupo BoticárioSão José dos PinhaisBrazil

Personalised recommendations