Advertisement

Dermal Safety Evaluation: Use of Disposable Diaper Products in the Elderly

Reference work entry

Abstract

Disposable diapers for adults are widely used in many parts of the developed world, to safely and effectively manage urinary and fecal incontinence. Their usage is relatively uncommon in the developing world, although adult diapers are manufactured and exported from and used in India and China, to a limited extent. It is estimated that 90–95% of adult incontinent diapers that are used in developed nations are of the disposable kind. These products are in direct contact with the skin of the individual when worn, and given that adult diapers are changed three times a day on average, an incontinent adult may be exposed to approximately a thousand disposable diapers per year.

Keywords

Acrylic Acid Quantitative Risk Assessment Super Absorbent Polymer Disposable Diaper Incontinent Urine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank Mr. Yukio Heki, Principal Scientist, Procter & Gamble Japan K.K. for use of Figs. 82.2 and 82.3 , and for his valuable insights on adult diaper types and usage habits among incontinent individuals in Japan.

References

  1. 1.
    Api AM, Basketter DA, Cadby PA, Cano M-F, Ellis G, Gerberick GF, Griem P, McNamee PM, Ryan CA, Safford R. Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2008 Oct;52(1):3–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackburn KL, Stickney JA, Carlson-Lynch HL, Mc Ginnis PM, Chappell L, Felter SP. Application of the threshold of toxicological concern approach to ingredients in personal and household care products. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005;43:249–259.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bos JD, Meinardi MHM. The 500-dalton rule for the skin penetration of chemical compounds and drugs. Exp Dermatol. 2000;9:165–169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fiume MZ. Final report on the safety of assessment of acrylates copolymer and 33 related cosmetic ingredients. Int J Toxicol. 2002;21(S3):1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herrlein MK. 1996. European Patent EP0797967 A1.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hopper LD, Oehme FW. Chemical risk assessment: a review. Vet Hum Toxicol. 1989;31(6):543–554.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Chemicals Bureau. Acrylic acid European Union Risk Assessment Report, 28: EUR 19836. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Programme on Chemical Safety, 1999. Environmental Health Criteria 210: Principles for the Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Exposure to Chemicals. Accessed at http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc210.htm, April 2007.
  9. 9.
    International Fragrance Association, 2006. IFRA standard, 40th Amendment: Citral. Accessed at http://www.ifraorg.org/Home/Publications/Download-the-IFRA-Amendments/page.aspx/134, May 2008.
  10. 10.
    Kosemund K, Schlatter H, Ochsenhirt J, Krause E, Marsman D, Erasala G. Safety evaluation of superabsorbent baby diapers. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009;53:81–89.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kroes R, Renwick AG, Cheeseman M, et al. Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004;42:65–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kroes R, Renwick AG, Feron V, Galli CL, Gioney M, Greim H, Guy RH, Lhuguenot JC, Vande Sandt JJ. Application of the thershold of toxicological concern to the safety evaluation of cosmetic ingredients. Food chem Toxicol. 2007;45(12):2533–2562.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lalko J, Api AM. Citral: identifying a threshold for induction of dermal sensitization. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2008;52(1):62–73. Accessed at via Science Direct, May 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Academy of Science. Risk Assessment in the Federal government. National Research Council. Washington: National Academy Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Association for Continence, 1999. http://www.nafc.org/
  16. 16.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2007. About Chemicals Hazard/Risk Assessment. Accessed at http://www.oecd.org/about/0,2337,en_2649_34373_1_1_1_1_1,00.html, May 2008.
  17. 17.
    QRA Expert Group (Api AM, Basketter DA, Cadby PA, Cano M-F, Ellis G, Gerberick GF, Griem P, McNamee PM, Ryan CA, Safford R), 2006. Dermal Sensitization Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for Fragrance Ingredients, Technical Dossier. Accessed at http://www.rifm.org/doc/QRA_Technical%20Dossier%20FINAL%20REV%202006%206%2022_1.pdf, May 2008.
  18. 18.
    Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and non-Food Products Intended for Consumers, 1999. Opinion Concerning Fragrance Allergy in Consumers, SCCNFP/0017/98 Final.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    US Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. Acrylic acid Integrated Risk Information Systems (IRIS). Accessed at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm?fuseaction=iris.showQuickView&substance_nmbr = 0002, May 2008.
  20. 20.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Food additives: threshold of regulation of substances used in food-contact articles: final rule. Fed Regist. 1995;60:36582–36596.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Procter & Gamble, Japan K.K.  
  2. 2.The Procter & Gamble CompanyCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations