Normal use levels of respirable cosmetic talc: preliminary study

Abstract

Synopsis This preliminary study was undertaken to provide data from which a more comprehensive investigation to establish the safety in-use of cosmetic talcs could be designed. Methods for collecting and analysing respirable talc generated during the use of loose face powder and adult and baby dusting powders were established. Respirable particles in the air were separated from larger size particles by means of a cyclone and were collected on membrane filters. The collected dust was dissolved in acid and the solution was analysed for magnesium by atomic absorption spectroscopy. From the results the concentrations of talc in the air samples were calculated. The method was used to monitor the in-use levels of a range of cosmetic talcs. Mean concentrations in air sampled for 5 min from the start of use of Chinese grades and Italian 00000 grades of talc formulated for use as loose face powder, adult dusting powder and baby dusting powder were 0.48, 1.13 and 0.21 mg m(-3), respectively. Higher levels were found with micronised adult dusting powder (mean concentration 1.9 mg m(-3)). There was no evidence that the presence of perfume in the talc or the ambient relative humidity in the range 54-74% during use affected the levels of respirable talc, but high relative humidity <90% reduced the amount of respirable talc.

Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women

“…However, the heavy application was within the ranges published by Russell of 8.84¡8.32 g and Aylott of 2.5¡12.5 g. The ''talcing times,'' or the duration of talcum powder application, were approximately 55 seconds for the shaker test and approximately 57 seconds for the puff applicator test. 44,45 These were within the ranges published by Russell of 83¡33 seconds and Aylott of 28-78 seconds for adult dusting. 44,45 Laboratories A and B determined that the contaminated talcum powder released inhalable asbestos into the air.…”

“…44,45 These were within the ranges published by Russell of 83¡33 seconds and Aylott of 28-78 seconds for adult dusting. 44,45 Laboratories A and B determined that the contaminated talcum powder released inhalable asbestos into the air. Another issue in this study was the documentation and identification of cleavage fragments.…”

“…The space used by Russell was 171 cubic feet and the space used by Aylott was between 152 and 163 cubic feet. The amount of material used in the shaker test was 0.37 g. The amount used for the puff applicator test was 6.25 g. 44,45 The shaker test was a light application and the puff a heavy application. However, the heavy application was within the ranges published by Russell of 8.84¡8.32 g and Aylott of 2.5¡12.5 g. The ''talcing times,'' or the duration of talcum powder application, were approximately 55 seconds for the shaker test and approximately 57 seconds for the puff applicator test.…”

Potential Airborne Asbestos Exposure and Risk Associated with the Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder Products

“…The initial literature search returned 590 results. In total, seven of these studies contained measured airborne concentration data associated with the consumer use of cosmetic talcum powder products (Anderson, Sheehan, Kalmes, & Griffin, ; Aylott, Byrne, Middleton, & Roberts, ; Dement, Shuler, & Zumwalde, ; Gordon, Fitzgerald, & Millette, ; Hildick‐Smith, ; Moon et al., ; Russell, Merz, Sherman, & Sivertson, ). Of the studies identified, four studies presented measured airborne dust concentration data and two presented measured airborne fiber concentration data.…”

Response to Letter to the Editor

“…However, he has only referenced two studies, Gordon, Fitzgerald, & Millette, , as well as an unpublished report by Longo and colleagues in 2017. Our data‐driven assessment was based on seven studies of cosmetic talc airborne exposure fiber and dust concentrations, including the single published study mentioned by Dr. Finkelstein (i.e., Gordon et al, ) (Anderson, Sheehan, Kalmes, & Griffin, ; Aylott, Byrne, Middleton, & Roberts, ; Dement, Shuler, & Zumwalde, ; Gordon, Fitzgerald, & Millette, ; Hildick‐Smith, ; Moon et al, ; Russell, Merz, Sherman, & Sivertson, ). The report by Longo et al.…”