276 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS studied. In all, four groups of investigators have failed to repeat the findings reported by Taylor and Harris (22). On the other hand, many investigators have reported the safety of the fiuoroearbon propellants in concentrations generally produced following nor- mal use. McClure (35) reported no effect on heart rate, blood pressure, and eleetroeardiogram in dogs following the intratraeheal administration of an epinephrine aerosol. Azar eta[. (36) were unable to produce arrhythmias in anoxie and hypcreapnie dogs following repeated exposure to several com- mercial aerosols. Others were unable to produce significant eleetroeardio- graphic changes in several patients, ill with a variety of bronchopulmonary disorders, following the repeated inhalation of Propellant 11 and Propellant 12 (27). There is little question that the various propellants can, when administered in high concentrations over a prolonged exposure period, produce cardiac arrhythmias. Flowers and Horan (37) exposed anesthetized dogs to several commercial aerosols in high concentrations their data showed bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias in many of the dogs thus treated. Reinhardt et al., in 1971, reported that the inhalation of high concentrations did, in fact, sensi- tize dogs to catecholamine-induced cardiac arrhythmias (28). In addition, the propellants also produced questionable sensitization to endogenous]y-re- leased catecholamines resulting from audiogenic stimuli (28). The conditions described in these experiments, as well as many others, do postulate a mech- anism for the sudden deaths resulting from aerosol abuse, but in no way per- tain to the safety of the thousands of commercially available aerosol products currently in use today, assuming reasonable use of such products. TOxICiTY OF COSMETIC AND PERSONAL PRODUCT AEROSOLS Antiperspirants and Deodorants These have been reported to cause granulomas of the axilla (38), which are probably linked to a hypersensitivity to the zirconium, aluminum, or other heavy metal salts used in these preparations (12). While the few reported cases to date have resulted from using either lotion or stick deodorants, sim- ilar reactions may possibly occur in allergic individuals using aerosol deodor- ants or antiperspirants containing these chemicals. Other toxic reactions reported to be associated with the use of antiperspir- ant/deodorant aerosols include: pulmonary granulomatosis (1), epithelial keratinization of the eye (9), and clogging of the sweat glands with subse- quent infection (18). There have not been enough reported cases in any of these incidents to establish a definite cause-effect relationship. Aerosol deodorants have been reported to produce "flashback" reac- tions in users of hallucinogenie drugs, such as mescaline and LSD. Two such

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON AEROSOL TOXICITY 277 cases have been reported in teen-agers (4) and either Propellant 12 or a mixture of Propellant 11 and Propellant 12 has been implicated, although not conclusively. Feminine Hygiene Deodorant Sprays Such products have been reported to be no better than frequent bathing to keep the vaginal area free from unpleasant odors (24, 39). Despite this, they have caught on in popularity and are sold widely, probably because many women believe they need them, despite the opinion of some gynecologists to the contrary (40). There are certain formulation differences between vaginal and underarm deodorants, i.e., vaginal deodorants commonly have less alcohol and less perfume-in order to reduce the possibility of irritating the tender vaginal mucous membranes (41). Irritation is more likely to occur with va- ginal than underarm deodorants because the user is more likely to spray the can longer, in that the spray is quite dry and there is little apparent residue. Also, the delivery rates of vaginal deodorants are likely to be higher than underarm deodorants because they are often packaged under substantially higher pressure. Propellant 12 is often used to reduce chilling (41). The Food and Drug Administration has reported that reactions to the vagi- nal spray deodorants are usually due to one or more of the following: in- juries resulting from the high pressure of the propellants primary irritation from the alcohol, antibacterial chemical, or perfume the rapid chilling ef- fects of the propellants on the delicate mucous membranes or skin in this area allergies to the antibacterial chemicals or perfumes (40). Women users have reported irritation of the skin or mucous membranes, vulvitis, weeping derma- titis, chemical burns, and various hypersensitivity reactions, such as prttritis, burning, and edema (7, 40). Some of the special anatomical features of the vaginal area that make it more susceptible to deodorant sprays include the apocrine sweat glands, the thin horny stratum, and the special bacterial flora of the vaginal mucous membranes (24). Hair Sprays Hair sprays have been implicated, in a cause-effect relationship, with the development of ptdmonary granulomatosis (3) and blood dyscrasias (2) in chronic users of such products, possibly due to a hypersensitivity reaction. The resinous ingredients contained in these products have been reported to be the noxious agents. In several reported cases, radiographic examination of the chest showed infiltration of the lung field in users of hair sprays which cleared when the usage of these products was discontinued (3). However, several attempts to duplicate these human findings in rats (42), guinea pigs (43), and dogs (44), exposed to commercial hair spray preparations for as long as two years, failed to demonstrate any pulmonary pathology that could be attributed