DOCSLIB.ORG

Formaldehyde, D4, MEK, and Styrene in Children's Products

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Formaldehyde, D4, MEK, and Styrene in Children's Products Formaldehyde, D4, MEK, and Styrene in Children’s Products Sara Sekerak, Environmental Assessment Program Overview In 2016, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) began an assessment of the data reported in the Children’s Safe Products Act (CSPA) Manufacturer Reporting Database. Under CSPA (Chapter 70.240 Revised Code of Washington (RCW)), manufacturers of children’s products offered for sale in Washington State are restricted from using certain chemicals. They are also required to report to Ecology if a product contains any Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC) (Chapter 173-334 Washington Administrative Code (WAC)). Using a study performed by Smith et al. (2016) to characterize, rank, and prioritize chemicals reported in children’s products based on chemical toxicity and the potential exposure pathways, Ecology identified four priority chemicals for this study: formaldehyde, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and styrene. These chemicals ranked high in either chemical toxicity, exposure potential, number of manufacturer reports, or a combination of these criteria. Ecology frequently performs testing on CHCCs in children’s products to verify compliance, to further understand chemical usage and presence in products, and for making policy decisions. In 2016, Ecology purchased 137 children’s products and submitted 97 component samples to the laboratory for analysis of one or more of the four priority chemicals. Figure 1 displays the types and distribution of products purchased. Manufacturer-reported data and research on the use and application of these chemicals in product-manufacturing processes helped guide product selection. Data gathered from this study were used to enhance our understanding of chemicals used in children’s products and assess compliance with CSPA. This report describes the presence and levels of four chemi- cals found in a select set of children's products. This report does not attempt to assess potential exposures or impacts to human health related to the tested products. Complete laboratory results for this study can be downloaded from Ecology’s Product Testing Data- Figure 1. Types and Distribution of Purchased Products, listed base, https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ptdbpublicreporting/, by Global Product Classification (GPC) Segment. by selecting Download Data by Study: Formaldehy de, D4, MEK, and Styrene in Children’s Products For More Information Ecology’s CSPA website: http://www.ecology.wa.gov - search CSPA CSPA Manufacturer Reporting Database: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/cspareporting Rational for Reporting List of CHCCs (2011 Rule): https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1704023.pdf Publication No. 17-03-020 October 2017 An Assessment of CSPA Data Methods Product Collection and Processing, and Laboratory Sample Selection This study followed a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and QAPP addendum (Sekerak, 2016a; Sekerak, 2016b). Ecology purchased 137 children's products and one product labeled as ‘KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN’. This product was available for sale amongst other children’s products, on a low shelf, in a store selling predominately children's products. Most products were purchased from 16 Puget Sound retail stores, and a small set of products were purchased from four online retailers. The standard practice of purchasing from larger chain stores was used to represent products sold and available to customers across Washington State. It is assumed that statewide each chain store mostly receives the same distribution of products. Products purchased online are also assumed to be equally accessible by most state residents. The CSPA Manufacturer Reporting Database was used to focus on categories of products to purchase. Product universal product codes (UPCs) are not entered into the database; therefore, no specific products were targeted. Supplementary literature reviews of the use of formaldehyde, D4, MEK, and styrene in manufacturing processes were used to help with the selection of products and product components to be evaluated in this study. When available, product ingredient labels were used to prioritize testing based on listings of a target chemical, synonym, or a secondary chemical known to form or decompose to release one of the four study target chemicals. All personal care products and other products sold in sealed bottles or containers were sent to the laboratories in their original sealed bottles. Containers were opened just prior to analysis preparation. Component samples from solid material matrices (e.g., fabrics, plastics, bio-based materials) were hand-reduced or cryomilled by product testing and laboratory standard operating procedures (SOPs; Wiseman et al., 2016; MEL, 2016). Laboratory Procedures ^ Table 1. Laboratory Methods . Ecology’s Manchester Environmental Laboratory (MEL) analyzed component samples of formaldehyde, MEK, and Analyte Preparation Analysis Analysis styrene. A contract laboratory performed the analysis of (CAS Number) Method Method Instrument D4. Table 1 outlines the preparation and analysis methods Formaldehyde EPA 8315AP EPA 8270DSIM GC/MS and instrumentation for all analyses. (50-00-0) For this study MEL developed a method for the extraction D4 ALS SOP ALS SOP GC/MS and analysis of formaldehyde in consumer products based (556-67-2) SVM-D4SO SVM-D4SO on EPA 8315A. The performance-based modifications to MEK the preparation technique included a reduction in sample EPA 5030B EPA 8260C GC/MS (78-93-3) size and extraction fluids, as well as the addition of Styrene surrogates to monitor extraction efficiency. Analysis was EPA 5030B EPA 8260C GC/MS (100-42-5) performed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS; EPA 8270DSIM) as an alternative to high- ^Method names are specific to the lab that performed the analysis. performance liquid chromatography—ultraviolet/visible GC/MS: gas chromatography/mass spectrometry spectroscopy (HPLC-UV/Vis). The D4 analysis was performed following a sediments and Biosolids GC/MS method modified for testing consumer products. MEK and styrene were analyzed using established product testing methods, based on EPA Method 8260C. All MEL data were reviewed and verified as prescribed in MEL’s Lab Users Manual– Tenth Edition (Ecology, 2016). The MEL Quality Assurance coordinator validated the D4 contract lab data following EPA’s National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organics Methods Data Review (EPA, 2014). Discussions of the data quality for all datasets were summarized in written case narratives prepared by MEL. These case narratives are available upon request. 2 An Assessment of CSPA Data Data Quality and Usability Quality control (QC) tests and measurement quality objectives (MQOs) are outlined in the study plan (Sekerak, 2015). With few exceptions, the results met acceptance criteria for all analyses. There are no limitations on the use of the data as reported. Qualifiers were assigned to some data within this study: “J” indicating that the associated result is an estimate. “U” indicating that the analyte was not detected at the quantitation limit. “UJ” signifying that the quantitation limit is an estimate. “NJ” where the analyte was tentatively identified in the sample but the result value reported is an estimate. Method blanks (MBs), laboratory control samples (LCSs), LCS duplicates, duplicates (DUPs), matrix spikes (MSs), and MS duplicates were analyzed with each batch of samples. No analytes were detected above the method reporting limits (RLs) in the MBs associated with each sample batch. Due to the persistent presence of low background levels of formaldehyde, the reporting limit was raised to 10 parts per million (ppm) for the first batch of samples analyzed. In subsequent batches, procedure modifications were successful in reducing contamination and a reporting limit of 5 ppm was obtained. For D4, a reporting limit of 0.026 ppm was achieved by the contract laboratory. The contract laboratory originally reported data below the RL and flagged these results as estimates. “J” flagged data below the reporting limit were changed by the project manager to 0.026 ppm “U”, indicating that the analyte was not detected at or above the quantitation limit. This change does not affect the quality of the data reported. A range of actual reporting limits are displayed in Table 2. All LCS and LCS duplicates were extracted and analyzed as appropriate and met acceptance criteria. Matrix spikes for one sample exhibited poor recovery of the concentration of added formaldehyde; the source sample was qualified as an estimate. All other precision and bias criteria were met. Table 2. Summary Statistics of Priority Chemicals in For D4, one duplicate sample was reported slightly Children’s Products. above the range of the calibration curve and was qualified as an estimate. The source sample was Analyte Formaldehyde D4 MEK Styrene analyzed within the calibration curve and not qualified as a result of the qualification assigned Number 84 43 60 60 to the duplicate. (n) As the method requires, all surrogates and internal RL* 4.19 ‐ 20.1 0.026 0.77 ‐ 43.1 0.77 ‐ 43.1 standards were performed as specified. Four formal- (ppm) dehyde samples were reported as estimates due to (ppm)* 31 22 0 9 low surrogate recoveries (<50%). This was due to severe matrix interferences. Two additional formal- % > RL 37% 51% 0% 15% dehyde QC samples (MB and DUP) also had low surrogate recoveries. All results associated with this Minimum 5.91 0.027 ‐ 0.89 MB and the source sample for the DUP were
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Formaldehyde, D4, MEK, and Styrene in Children's Products
    Formaldehyde, D4, MEK, and Styrene in Children’s Products Sara Sekerak, Environmental Assessment Program Overview In 2016, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) began an assessment of the data reported in the Children’s Safe Products Act (CSPA) Manufacturer Reporting Database. Under CSPA (Chapter 70.240 Revised Code of Washington (RCW)), manufacturers of children’s products offered for sale in Washington State are restricted from using certain chemicals. They are also required to report to Ecology if a product contains any Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC) (Chapter 173-334 Washington Administrative Code (WAC)). Using a study performed by Smith et al. (2016) to characterize, rank, and prioritize chemicals reported in children’s products based on chemical toxicity and the potential exposure pathways, Ecology identified four priority chemicals for this study: formaldehyde, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and styrene. These chemicals ranked high in either chemical toxicity, exposure potential, number of manufacturer reports, or a combination of these criteria. Ecology frequently performs testing on CHCCs in children’s products to verify compliance, to further understand chemical usage and presence in products, and for making policy decisions. In 2016, Ecology purchased 137 children’s products and submitted 97 component samples to the laboratory Toys/Games 34 for analysis of one or more of the four priority chemicals. Figure 1 displays the types and distribution Beauty/Personal Care/Hygiene 33 of products purchased. Manufacturer-reported data and research on the use and application of these chemicals in product-manufacturing processes helped Clothing 18 guide product selection. Household/Office 16 Data gathered from this study were used to enhance Furniture/Furnishings our understanding of chemicals used in children’s products and assess compliance with CSPA.
    [Show full text]
  • By Lifeworks Integrative Health Ingredients You
    OUR SKIN CARE INGREDIENT "NO" LIST INGREDIENTS YOU SHOULD AVOID BY LIFEWORKS INTEGRATIVE HEALTH THE PROBLEM WITH SKIN CARE... While many individuals rave about the benefits of their skin care products, they often have no idea how the products affect their body . Advertising such as social media images, video ads, commercials, magazines, and product packaging make big claims about how their product will help improve your image, but ignore your health. Whether it is the foundation that will perfectly blend to cover up any blemish, all-day lip color, hair products that will make it through a full night out, or moisturizer that will leave your skin flawless, reduce wrinkles, and slow down aging, these giant claims can come at a big cost to your health. While the claims skin care products make all sound amazing, the lies hidden within the $134.5 billion skin care industry are manipulative and widely accepted as a normal part of doing business. But, all these lies, cover ups, and exaggerations have a huge negative impact on your health. The last time the FDA updated regulations for the skincare industry was 1938 in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. In that act, just 11 chemicals were banned from or restricted for use in beauty and personal care products in the United States. In contrast, Canada and Europe have banned 800 and 1,500 chemicals in all skin care products, respectively. Since the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, research has shown that some seemingly “safe” chemicals may lead to complaints such as acne, clogged pores, headaches, skin & eye irritations, and rashes.
    [Show full text]
  • Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde Releasers
    INVESTIGATION REPORT FORMALDEHYDE AND FORMALDEHYDE RELEASERS SUBSTANCE NAME: Formaldehyde IUPAC NAME: Methanal EC NUMBER: 200-001-8 CAS NUMBER: 50-00-0 SUBSTANCE NAME(S): - IUPAC NAME(S): - EC NUMBER(S): - CAS NUMBER(S):- CONTACT DETAILS OF THE DOSSIER SUBMITTER: EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY Annankatu 18, P.O. Box 400, 00121 Helsinki, Finland tel: +358-9-686180 www.echa.europa DATE: 15 March 2017 CONTENTS INVESTIGATION REPORT – FORMALDEHYDE AND FORMALDEHYDE RELEASERS ................ 1 1. Summary.............................................................................................................. 1 2. Report .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1. Background ........................................................................................................ 2 3. Approach .............................................................................................................. 4 3.1. Task 1: Co-operation with FR and NL ..................................................................... 4 3.2. Task 2: Formaldehyde releasers ........................................................................... 4 4. Results of investigation ........................................................................................... 6 4.1. Formaldehyde..................................................................................................... 6 4.2. Information on formaldehyde releasing substances and their uses ............................ 6 4.2.1.
    [Show full text]
  • What's Going on “Hair?”: Product Toxicity and Chemical Exposure from Hair Styling Products Used by Black, Female Hairdres
    OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE Department of Urban & Environmental Policy What’s going on “hair?”: Product Toxicity and Chemical Exposure from Hair Styling Products used by Black, Female Hairdressers in Dorchester, Massachusetts This is a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Bachelors of Arts Degree in Urban & Environmental Policy at Occidental College Author Antoniqua Roberson-Dancy Supervisor Professor Bhavna Shamasunder Los Angeles, California Roberson-Dancy 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………..……3 2. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………....4 3. Background…………………………………………………………………………………………..…..8 3.1 Black Women for Wellness (BWW) 3.2 Community Profile: Dorchester, MA 4. Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………...……..11 4.1 Synthetic Compound Exposure: Health Effects on the Human Body 4.2 Occupational Chemical Exposure of Hairdressers 4.3 Natural Hair Movement Influence on Hair Product Usage within the Black Community 5. Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………..…..21 5.1 The Subjects 5.2 The Process 5.3 Ethics of Study 5.4 Follow-up 6. Findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………24 6.1 Product Analysis 6.2 Surveys 6.3 Salon Services 7. Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………32 7.1 Personal 7.2 Future Projects 8. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………...35 9. References………………………………………………………………………………………………36 10. Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………………39 Roberson-Dancy 2 Roberson-Dancy 3 1. ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to analyze the
    [Show full text]
  • Identification and Quantification of Dm Dm Hydantoin in Selected Shampoos
    Available online at www.derpharmachemica.com ISSN 0975-413X Der Pharma Chemica, 2020, 12(6): 31-35 CODEN (USA): PCHHAX (http://www.derpharmachemica.com/archive.html) Identification And Quantification of Dm Dm Hydantoin In Selected Shampoos Anusree V, Shebina P Rasheed*, Basil Mohammed K.P, Thasleena V.P, Parvathy S.L, Muhammed Khais Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Al Shifa College of Pharmacy, Perinthalmanna, Kerala *Corresponding author: Shebina P Rasheed, Department of Chemistry, Al Shifa College of Pharmacy, Perinthalmanna, Kerala, E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT DM DM hydantoin is a formaldehyde releaser, used in cosmetic products at concentrations up to 1.0%. It is found in products like shampoos, hair conditioners, hair gels, Rite Aid Liquid Lubricant, and skin care products. The present study is an attempt to develop a rapid but simple spectrophotometric method in the UV/ visible mode for the identification and quantification of DM DM hydantoin in cosmetic products like shampoos to aid regulatory agencies confirm manufacture’s substantiation claims. Here, we use different brands of shampoos are selected and comparative study is made using the developed spectrophotometric method using ethanol solvent. By comparing the 4 samples (A, B, C, D) of shampoos with a selected standard shampoo, the concentration and percentage content of the different samples were calculated. The quantified amount (mg/ml) of DM DM Hydantoin were 1.7 ± 0.0124, 0.541 ± 0.0011, 1.956 ± 0.0132, 0.245 ± 0.00045, 0.3810 ± 0.00071 in standard and samples A, B, C, D respectively. The percentage content is low in sample C and high in sample B while comparing with the standard sample.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey and Health Assessment of Preservatives in Toys
    Survey and health assessment of preservatives in toys Corrected version Survey of chemical substances in consum- er products No. 124 October 2016 Publisher: The Danish Environmental Protection Agency Editor: Pia Brunn Poulsen, FORCE Technology Rasmus Nielsen, FORCE Technology ISBN: 978-87-93529-22-9 Corrections of “Survey of chemical substances in consumer products no. 124”, 2014 are to be found on page 45. See footnote no. 10. Corrections of “Survey of chemical substances in consumer products no. 124”, 2016 are made on page 47, where this text is deleted: BIT is a so-called formaldehyde releaser, which means that the substance can release formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is classified as carcinogenic in category 2 and is allergenic. When the occasion arises, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency will publish reports and papers concerning research and development projects within the environmental sector, financed by study grants provided by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. It should be noted that such publications do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. However, publication does indicate that, in the opinion of the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, the content represents an important contribution to the debate surrounding Danish environmental policy. Sources must be acknowledged. Contents Foreword .................................................................................................................. 6 Conclusion and Summary .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Preservatives
    Preservatives David C. Steinberg, FRAPS Steinberg & Associates, Inc. September 19, 2017 Who Cares About Preservatives? • They are all toxic • They are all dangerous pesticides • They are associated with every disease known to mankind • They are chemicals • They are unnatural • They add costs with no benefit • Hey, I can sell more of my product calling it “preservative free”. Because of This Mentality We Are Losing All of Our Preservatives • Marketing and NGO’s will never be satisfied. • All the preservatives used in cosmetics have long history of safe use. • Complaints about cosmetic injuries and more specifically, preservatives are very few. – Although the real facts are unknown • We are now seeing a significant increase in recalls due to microbial contamination Definition Preservation is the prevention or retardation of product deterioration from the time of manufacture until the product is used up by the consumer. This deterioration is due to microorganisms. Diseases can be spread by contaminated cosmetics Microbial contamination is adulteration as defined by the FDA What is a Preservative? • Chemical agents added to products to prevent the growth and to destroy microorganisms. • We add these to “clean” products to prevent deterioration by consumers under normal and foreseeable use conditions. • We establish the adequacy of preservation by running an appropriate preservative efficacy or challenge test (PET). Challenge Testing (PET) • A short term in vitro test to see if our product is adequately preserved. • Works well for “typical” products but not for “atypical” cosmetics. – Typical cosmetics have water as the continuous phase or are aqueous solutions. – Atypical cosmetics have low water content or are anhydrous or do not have water as the external phase of an emulsion.
    [Show full text]
  • In Vitro Cytotoxicity of Chemical Preservatives on Human Fibroblast Cells
    Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Article http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s2175-97902018000100031 In vitro cytotoxicity of chemical preservatives on human fibroblast cells Daniel Gonsales Spindola1,3, Andre Hinsberger1, Valéria Maria de Souza Antunes1,2, Luis Felipe Gomes Michelin4, Claudia Bincoletto3, Carlos Rocha Oliveira1,2,3* 1Grupo de Fitocomplexos e Sinalização Celular, Escola de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Anhembi Morumbi, São Paulo/SP, Brasil, 2Instituto de Osmologia e Óleos Essenciais, Minas Gerais, Brasil, 3Departamento de Farmacologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo/SP, Brasil, 4Centro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Bioquímica, Universidade de Mogi das Cruzes, Mogi das Cruzes, São Paulo/SP, Brasil Preservatives are widely used substances that are commonly added to various cosmetic and pharmaceutical products to prevent or inhibit microbial growth. In this study, we compared the in vitro cytotoxicity of different types of currently used preservatives, including methylparaben, imidazolidinyl urea (IMU), and sodium benzoate, using the human newborn fibroblast cell line CCD1072Sk. Of the tested preservatives, only IMU induced a reduction in cell viability, as shown using the MTT assay and propidium iodide staining (IMU>methylparaben>sodium benzoate). IMU was shown to promote homeostatic alterations potentially related to the initiation of programed cell death, such as decreased mitochondrial membrane potential and caspase-3 activation, in the treated cells. Methylparaben and sodium benzoate were shown to have a very low cytotoxic activity. Taken together, our results suggest that IMU induces programed cell death in human fibroblasts by a canonical intrinsic pathway via mitochondrial perturbation and subsequent release of proapoptotic factors. Keywords: Preservatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Report in Organic Chemistry Organic Compounds in Household Products
    Name: Jose Paulo Paraoan Instructor: Mr. Van Ryan Kristoffer Galarpe Year & Course: BMLS-1A Schedule: MWF-10:00-11:00 TECHNICAL REPORT IN ORGANIC CHEMISTRY ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS I. Introduction Organic Chemistry is a particular branch of chemistry which deals with the study of carbon compounds. The properties of carbon compounds are so special and unique that it can create organic compounds which are essential for the proper functioning of the human body. It was commonly believed that according to the Vital Force Theory, organic compounds can only be made by living cells or organs of plants and animals. But the breakthrough discovery of a German chemist named Friedrich Wöhler in 1828, in which he produced urea synthetically in a laboratory, negated this theory and started the era of modern organic chemistry. The advancement of technology paved ways for the creation of many more organic compounds, recently estimated at more than a trillion compounds. With many organic compounds that exist, most of them are used as ingredients in household products which help in the improvement of human health, alleviation of various diseases and even the prevention of ailments. But not all are good for the human body. As an aspiring Medical Laboratory Scientist, the knowledge of these common organic compounds and its effect in the human body is important in practicing proper consumer health awareness and safety and to avoid complications in the proper functioning of the human body which makes it vulnerable to many more ailments. Through a survey/research project about common household products and its organic compounds in five households, the technical report aims to gain more knowledge about organic compounds and practicing consumer health awareness by extracting the common organic compound used as an ingredient in these household products and gathering preliminary information about these compounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Formaldehyde-Releasers: Relationship to Formaldehyde Contact Allergy
    Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 63–85 © 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S Printed in Singapore. All rights reserved CONTACT DERMATITIS Review Article Formaldehyde-releasers: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Contact allergy to formaldehyde and inventory of formaldehyde-releasers 1 2 1 3 1 Anton C de Groot , Mari-ann Flyvholm , Gerda Lensen , Torkil Menne´ AND Pieter-Jan Coenraads 1Department of Dermatology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands, 2National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lerso Parkalle´ 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen, and 3Gentofte Hospital, Dermato-Allergology Department K, Niels Andersens Vej 65, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark This is one of series of review articles on formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers (others: formaldehyde in cosmetics, in clothes and in metalworking fluids and miscellaneous). Thirty-five chemicals were identified as being formaldehyde-releasers. Although a further seven are listed in the literature as formaldehyde-releasers, data are inadequate to consider them as such beyond doubt. Several (nomenclature) mistakes and outdated information are discussed. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde allergy are reviewed: applications, exposure scenarios, legislation, patch testing problems, frequency of sensitization, relevance of positive patch test reactions, clinical pattern of allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde, prognosis, threshold for elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis, analytical tests to determine formaldehyde in products and frequency of exposure to formaldehyde and releasers. The frequency of contact allergy to formaldehyde is consistently higher in the USA (8–9%) than in Europe (2–3%). Patch testing with formaldehyde is problematic; the currently used 1% solution may result in both false-positive and false-negative (up to 40%) reactions.
    [Show full text]
  • (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub
    US 20140212362A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2014/0212362 A1 Pippin (43) Pub. Date: J 11]. 31, 2014 (54) COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR (60) Provisional application No. 61/540,953, ?led on Sep. TREATMENT OF SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED 29, 2011. WITH VARIOUS SKIN CONDITIONS _ _ _ _ Publication Classi?cation (71) Applicant: THERACEUTIX, LLC, Exton, PA A61KIIlt. 31/4164 (2006.01) (72) Inventor: Douglas A. Pippin, Chester Springs, PA A61K 45/06 (200601) (Us) C 07D 233/64 (2006.01) (52) US. Cl. - _ CPC ........ .. A61K31/4164 (2013.01); C07D 233/64 (73) Ass1gnee. LEISERACEUTIX, LLC, Exton, PA (201301); A61K 45/06 (201301) USPC ............................ .. 424/59; 514/400; 514/171 (21) Appl. No.: 14/230,494 (57) ABSTRACT Compositions containing imidazole-based compounds, and (22) Filed; Mar, 31, 2014 optionally, colloidal oatmeal, for the treatment, prevention, and management of symptoms, conditions, diseases, and dis Related US. Application Data orders of the skin. Also, methods for the' treatment, preven tion, and management of symptoms, condltlons, d1seases, and (63) Continuation of application No. PCT/US2012/ disorders of the skin using compositions containing imida 057431, ?led on Sep. 27, 2012. zole-based compounds, and optionally, colloidal oatmeal. US 2014/0212362 A1 Jul. 31, 2014 COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR [0011] Another aspect of the invention relates to a method TREATMENT OF SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED of suppressing a dermatologic immune response in a patient WITH VARIOUS SKIN CONDITIONS in need thereof, comprising topically administering an effec tive composition comprising the imidazole compound con CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED tained in a dermatologically acceptable carrier.
    [Show full text]
  • Signature Redacted Integrated Design and If/Anagement Program, May 18, 2018
    The Societal and Environmental Impacts of the Skincare Industry: A Case for Innovation by Meghan Maupin B.S. Architecture, University of Virginia, 2012 SUBMITTED TO THE INTEGRATED DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEGREE IN MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUNE 2018 @ Meghan Maupin. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now or known hereafter created. Signature of Author:_ _Signature redacted Integrated Design and If/anagement Program, May 18, 2018 Certified by: Signature redacted William Aulet, Professor of the Practice MIT Sloan School of Management Director, MIT Martin Trust Center for Entrepreneurship ~ 7 Thesis Supervisor tiignature reciacteci Certified by:_ Kit Hickey, Lecturer MIT Sloan School of Management Entrepreneur-In-Residence, MIT Martin Trust Center for Entrepreneurship Thesis Supervisor Signature redacted Accepted by: MASSACHUSETS INSTITUTE Matthew S. Kressy, Executive Directo 0F TECHNOLOGY Integrated Design and Management Progra JUN 2 0 Z018 LIBRARIES ARCHIVES [This page was intentionally left blank] 2 The Societal and Environmental Impacts of the Skincare Industry: A Case for Innovation by Meghan Maupin SUBMITTED TO THE INTEGRATED DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEGREE IN MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Abstract The $17 billion U.S. skincare industry negatively impacts women's health. It sets unrealistic beauty standards and ideals that are meant to influence consumers' product choices.
    [Show full text]