Risk assessment of zinc oxide, a cosmetic ingredient used as a UV filter of sunscreens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zinc oxide (ZnO), an inorganic compound that appears as a white powder, is used frequently as an ingredient in sunscreens. The aim of this review was to examine the toxicology and risk assessment of ZnO based upon available published data. Recent studies on acute, sub-acute, and chronic toxicities of ZnO indicated that this compound is virtually non-toxic in animal models. However, it was reported that ZnO nanoparticles (NP) (particle size, 40 nm) induced significant changes in anemia-related hematologic parameters and mild to moderate pancreatitis in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats at 536.8 mg/kg/day in a 13-week oral toxicity study. ZnO displayed no carcinogenic potential, and skin penetration is low. No-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) ZnO was determined to be 268.4 mg/kg/day in a 13-week oral toxicity study, and a maximum systemic exposure dose (SED) of ZnO was estimated to be 0.6 mg/kg/day based on topical application of sunscreen containing ZnO. Subsequently, the lowest margin of safety (MOS) was estimated to be 448.2, which indicates that the use of ZnO in sunscreen is safe. A risk assessment was undertaken considering other routes of exposure (inhalation or oral) and major product types (cream, lotion, spray, and propellant). Human data revealed that MOS values (7.37 for skin exposure from cream and lotion type; 8.64 for skin exposure of spray type; 12.87 for inhalation exposure of propellant type; 3.32 for oral exposure of sunscreen) are all within the safe range (MOS > 1). Risk assessment of ZnO indicates that this compound may be used safely in cosmetic products within the current regulatory limits of 25% in Korea.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".