Cited by 63Contact Dermatitis and AllergiesAnimal testing and alternativesCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment

Current opinion on risk assessment of cosmetics

Kim, Kyu-Bong, Kwack, Seung Jun, Lee, Joo Young, Kacew, Sam, Lee, Byung-Mu·2021·Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B

Abstract

Risk assessment of cosmetic ingredients is a useful scientific method to characterize potential adverse effects resulting from using cosmetics. The process of risk assessment consists of four steps: hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization. Hazard identification of chemicals refers to the initial stage of risk assessment and generally utilizes animal studies to evaluate toxicity. Since 2013, however, toxicity studies of cosmetic ingredients using animals have not been permitted in the EU and alternative toxicity test methods for animal studies have momentum to be developed for cosmetic ingredients. In this paper, we briefly review the alternative test methods that are available for cosmetic ingredients including read-across, in silico, in chemico, and in vitro methods. In addition, new technologies such as omics and artificial intelligence (AI) have been discussed to expand or improve the knowledge and hazard identification of cosmetic ingredients. Aggregate exposure of cosmetic ingredients is another safety issue and methods for its improvement were reviewed. There have been concerns over the safety of nano-cosmetics for a long time, but the risk of nano-cosmetics remains unclear. Therefore, current issues of cosmetic risk assessment are discussed and expert opinion will be provided for the safety of cosmetics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10937404.2021.1907264

Cites

123 of 123 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, K.-B., Kwack, S. J., Lee, J. Y., Kacew, S., & Lee, B.-M.
Affiliations
  • Dankook University (KR)
  • Changwon National University (KR)
  • Catholic University of Korea (KR)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Sungkyunkwan University (KR)
Corresponding author
Kim, Kyu-Bong
Venue
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B
Published
2021-04-08
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
137-161
ISSN
  • 1093-7404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-6950
OpenAlex
W3146669585
Cited by
63
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6
FWCI
8.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (19172MFDS221)
  • National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation (21172MFDS161)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Keywords
cosmetic ingredients, hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterization, alternative toxicity testing, read-across, in silico analysis, in vitro methods, omics, artificial intelligence, aggregate exposure, animal testing ban, EU cosmetics regulation
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Testing Alternatives, Artificial Intelligence, Computer Simulation, Consumer Product Safety, Cosmetics, Humans, Risk Assessment, In Vitro Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review