Does a safety assessment distinguish the hazard of an ingredient from exposure to the finished article?
Last reviewed: .
Does a safety assessment distinguish the hazard of an ingredient from exposure to the finished article?
The company publishes no hazard assessment of an input and no exposure assessment of a finished article; the four studies it names each cover one endpoint on one submitted sample.
The Validation page states that NanoFlashing™ is tested under Good Laboratory Practice to US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines, and it names Product Safety Labs, Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324. Each was completed in 2024 and each was run on a sponsor-supplied sample. Each of the four covers one endpoint. Product Safety Labs, Study 65323, completed 16 February 2024, reported that the material it tested “is classified as non-irritating to the skin”, and Study 65324, completed 31 January 2024, reported that the material it tested “is not considered to be a contact sensitizer”; each result describes that sample under that study’s conditions.
Each of those studies describes one endpoint, on that sample, under those conditions. None of them establishes an agency approval, a general safety conclusion, an inhalation result or a health outcome, and irritation and sensitisation are separate endpoints answered by separate studies. A copy may be made available on our review of the request. Confidentiality obligations may apply to a given report.
Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; Product Safety Labs, Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324, 2024, US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 3, https://cpolar.tech/terms/.
Reviewed on .
Sources
- C-POLAR — Validation
- Product Safety Labs, Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324, 2024, US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines
- C-POLAR — Terms of Use