Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Account
Menu
Find a journal Publish with us
Search
Cart
  1. Home
  2. Toxicological Research
  3. Article

Safety Evaluation of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Compounds for Cosmetic Use

  • Thematic Perspectives
  • Open access
  • Published: 30 December 2015
  • volume 31, pages 105–136 (2015)
Download PDF

You have full access to this open access article

Toxicological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript
Safety Evaluation of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Compounds for Cosmetic Use
Download PDF
  • Hyun-Jun Jang1,
  • Chan Young Shin2 &
  • Kyu-Bong Kim1 

  • 1831 Accesses

  • 91 Citations

  • 50 Altmetric

  • 4 Mentions

  • Explore all metrics

Cite this article

Abstract

Polyethylene glycols (PEGs) are products of condensed ethylene oxide and water that can have various derivatives and functions. Since many PEG types are hydrophilic, they are favorably used as penetration enhancers, especially in topical dermatological preparations. PEGs, together with their typically nonionic derivatives, are broadly utilized in cosmetic products as surfactants, emulsifiers, cleansing agents, humectants, and skin conditioners. The compounds studied in this review include PEG/PPG-17/6 copolymer, PEG-20 glyceryl triisostearate, PEG-40 hydrogenated castor oil, and PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil. Overall, much of the data available in this review are on PEGylated oils (PEG-40 and PEG-60 hydroge-nated castor oils), which were recommended as safe for use in cosmetics up to 100% concentration. Currently, PEG-20 glyceryl triisostearate and PEGylated oils are considered safe for cosmetic use according to the results of relevant studies. Additionally, PEG/PPG-17/6 copolymer should be further studied to ensure its safety as a cosmetic ingredient.

Article PDF

Download to read the full article text

Similar content being viewed by others

Transcutol® (Diethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether): A Potential Penetration Enhancer

Chapter © 2015

Lipid-based formulations in cosmeceuticals and biopharmaceuticals

Article Open access 06 May 2020

Anas Ahmad & Haseeb Ahsan

Nonionic Surfactants: Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Ethers and Fatty Acid Esters as Penetration Enhancers

Chapter © 2015
Use our pre-submission checklist

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Abbreviations

CIR:

Cosmetic Ingredient Review

IgG:

immunoglobulin G

PEGs:

polyethylene glycols

PEO:

polyethylene oxide

POE:

polyoxyethylene

PPG:

polypropylene glycol

S-D:

Sprague-Dawley

References

  1. Polyethylene glycol: chemical product info at CHEMINDUSTRY.RU. Available from http://chemindustry.ru/Polyeth-ylene_Glycol.php.

  2. CIR Expert Panel. (2010) PEGs. Cosmetic Ingredient Review.

  3. Fruijtier-Pölloth, C. (2005) Safety assessment on polyethylene glycols (PEGs) and their derivatives as used in cosmetic products. Toxicology, 214, 1–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. European Parliament And Council Directive No 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners. Available from Available from https://www.fsai.ie/uploadedFiles/95_2_EC.pdf.

  5. Lanigan, R.S., Yamarik, T.A. and Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. (2001) Final report on the safety assessment of PEG-6, -8, and -20 sorbitan beeswax. Int. J. Toxicol., 20 Suppl 4, 27–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. CIR Expert Panel. (2004) Final report of the amended safety assessment of PEG-5, -10, -16, -25, -30, and -40 soy sterol. Int. J. Toxicol., 23 Suppl 2, 23–47.

    Google Scholar 

  7. EWG (Environmental Working Group). Available from http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/704702/PEG%3B%3B_PPG-17%3B%3B_6_COPOLYMER/.

  8. CIR Expert Panel. (2013) Safety assessment of alkyl PEGPPG ethers as used in cosmetics. Cosmetic Ingredient Review, Washington D.C., pp. 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  9. SCCNFP. (1999) Opinion concerning Corrections in entries of poloxamers, meroxapols and poloxamines, and respective nomenclature conventions adopted by the plenary session of the SCCNFP on 17 February 1999. European Commission.

  10. Singh-Joy, S.D. and McLain, V.C. (2008) Safety assessment of poloxamers 101, 105, 108, 122, 123, 124, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 212, 215, 217, 231, 234, 235, 237, 238, 282, 284, 288, 331, 333, 334, 335, 338, 401, 402, 403, and 407, poloxamer 105 benzoate, and poloxamer 182 dibenzoate as used in cosmetics. Int. J. Toxicol., 27 Suppl 2, 93–128.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schmolka, I.R. (1994) Physical basis for poloxamer interactions. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 720, 92–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. PEG/PPG-17/6 COPOLYMER Cosmetic Ingredient (INCI). Available from http://cosmetics.specialchem.com/inci/peg-ppg17-6-copolymer?id=9667.

  13. PEG/PPG-17/6 copolymer-Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary: Cosmetics Cop Expert Advice. Available from http://www.paulaschoice.com/cosmetic-ingredient-dictionary/defini-tion/pegppg-176- copolymer.

  14. NICNAS (National Industrial Chemicals Notification And Assessment Scheme). (2010) FULL PUBLIC REPORT-PEG-20 Glyceryl Triisostearate. NICNAS, pp. 1–7.

  15. CIR Expert Panel. (2000) Final Report on the Safety Assessment of PEG-20 Sorbitan Cocoate; PEG-40 Sorbitan Diisostea-rate; PEG-2, -5, -20 Sorbitan Isostearate; PEG-40 and -75 Sorbitan Lanolate; PEG-10, -40, -44, -75, and -80 Sorbitan Laurate; PEG-3 and -6 Sorbitan Oleate; PEG-80 Sorbitan Pal-mitate; PEG-40 Sorbitan Perisostearate; PEG-40 Sorbitan Per-oleate; PEG-3, -6, -40, and -60 Sorbitan Stearate, PEG-20, -30, -40, and -60 Sorbitan Tetraoleate; PEG-60 Sorbitan Tet-rastearate; PEG-20 and -160 Sorbitan Triisostearate; PEG-18 Sorbitan Trioleate; PEG-40 and -50 Sorbitol Hexaoleate; PEG-30 Sorbitol Tetraoleate Laurate; PEG-60 Sorbitol Tet-rastearate – Addendum to the Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Polysorbates. J. Am. Coll. Toxicol., IJT 19 Suppl. 2.

  16. Johnson, W. Jr. and Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. (2001) Final report on the safety assessment of trilaurin, triarachidin, tribehenin, tricaprin, tricaprylin, trierucin, triheptanoin, triheptylundecanoin, triisononanoin, triisopalmitin, triisostearin, trilinolein, trimyristin, trioctanoin, triolein, tripalmitin, tripalmitolein, triricinolein, tristearin, triundecanoin, glyceryl triacetyl hydroxystearate, glyceryl triacetyl ricinoleate and glyceryl stearate diacetate. Int.J. Toxicol., 20 Suppl 4, 61–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lanigan, R.S., Yamarik, T.A. and Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. (2002) Final report on the safety assessment of sorbitan caprylate, sorbitan cocoate, sorbitan diisostearate, sorbitan dioleate, sorbitan sesquiisostearate, sorbitan sesquistearate, and sorbitan triisostearate. Int. J. Toxicol., Suppl. 1, 93–112.

  18. CIR Expert Panel. (2013) Final amended report, Amended Safety Assessment of PEGylated Oils as Used in Cosmetics. Cosmetic Ingredient Review.

  19. BASF SE - Care Chemicals Division - Personal Care Ingredients. (2010) Cremohpor RH Grades.

  20. CTFA (Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association). (1981) Clinical evaluation report: Human patch test of roll-on deodorant 20851-34 containing 0.25% PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil.

  21. Hill Top Research. (1976) The study of cumulative irritant properties of a series of test materials, 12G/66171-04, containing 3.0% PEG-60 Hydrogenated Castor Oil (0547).

  22. Hisatomi, A., Kimura, M., Maeda, M., Matsumoto, M., Ohara, K. and Noguchi, H. (1993) Toxicity of polyoxyethylene hydrogenated castor oil 60 (HCO-60) in experimental animals. J. Toxicol. Sci., 18 Suppl 3, 1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. CTFA (Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association). (1982) Acute oral toxicity of 2.5% PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil (RI 0538). No. 34–054.

  24. CTFA (Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association). (1984) 13 week subchronic dermal toxicity study of formula 20851-34 containing 0.25% PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil (RI 0538). CTFA, pp. 1–19.

  25. Hua, L., Weisan, P., Jiayu, L. and Hongfei, L. (2004) Preparation and evaluation of microemulsion of vinpocetine for transdermal delivery. Pharmazie, 59, 274–278.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. CTFA (Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association). (1976) Acute oral toxicity of 3.0% PEG-60 Hydrogenated Castor Oil (RI 0538). CTFA.

  27. CTFA (Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association). (1976) Allergic contact sensitization test of 12(3/66171-04 containing 3.0% PEG-60 Hydrogenated Castor Oil. CTFA, pp. 1–9.

  28. CTFA (Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association). (1976) Eye irritation of 3.0% PEG-60 Hydrogenated Castor Oil RI 05471. No. 28–035.

  29. CTFA (Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association). (1977) Thirteen week subacute dermal toxicity study in female ChR-CD rats, night cream containing 3.0% PEG-60 Hydrogenated Castor Oil. CTFA, 1–9.

  30. Hirai, O., Miyamae, Y., Zaizen, K., Miyamoto, A., Takashima, M., Hattori, Y., Ohara, K. and Mine, Y. (1994) Mutagenicity tests of polyoxyethylene hydrogenated castor oil 60 (HCO-60). J. Toxicol. Sci., 19, 89–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Soliman, S.M., Abdel Malak, N.S., El-Gazayerly, O.N. and Abdel Rehim, A.A. (2010) Formulation of microemulsion gel systems for transdermal delivery of celecoxib: In vitro permeation, anti-inflammatory activity and skin irritation tests. Drug Discoveries Ther., 4, 459–471.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Pharmacy, Dankook University, 119 Dandae-ro, Cheonan, Chungnam, 330-714, Korea

    Hyun-Jun Jang & Kyu-Bong Kim

  2. Department of Neuroscience, School of Medicine, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea

    Chan Young Shin

Authors
  1. Hyun-Jun Jang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chan Young Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kyu-Bong Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyu-Bong Kim.

Rights and permissions

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jang, HJ., Shin, C.Y. & Kim, KB. Safety Evaluation of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Compounds for Cosmetic Use. Toxicol Res. 31, 105–136 (2015). https://doi.org/10.5487/TR.2015.31.2.105

Download citation

  • Received: 10 June 2015

  • Revised: 17 June 2015

  • Accepted: 29 June 2015

  • Published: 30 December 2015

  • Issue Date: June 2015

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.5487/TR.2015.31.2.105

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Key words

  • Polyethylene glycol (PEG)
  • PEG compound
  • Safety evaluation
Use our pre-submission checklist

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Advertisement

search

Navigation

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Books A-Z

Publish with us

  • Publish your research
  • Open access publishing

Products and services

  • Our products
  • Librarians
  • Societies
  • Partners and advertisers

Our imprints

  • Springer
  • Nature Portfolio
  • BMC
  • Palgrave Macmillan
  • Apress
  • Your US state privacy rights
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Help and support

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature