Abstract:Beauty products contain various industrial chemicals to increase their functionality and appearance. The frequent use of beauty products may increase human exposure to industrial chemicals, but to date, their chemical components remain poorly characterized. Our work characterized the chemical components in lipstick and nail polish by screening for a total of 231 chemicals from seven categories, including organophosphate esters (OPEs), phthalate esters (PAEs), non-PAE plasticizers, bisphenol analogues, parabens, ultraviolet (UV) stabilizers, and antioxidants. Their total concentrations ranged from 38.9 to 3810 μg/g (median of 193 μg/g) and from 18.6 to 1910 μg/g (307 μg/g) in lipstick (n = 34) and nail polish (n = 15), respectively. The chemical compositions differed between lipstick and nail polish, but non-PAE plasticizers generally dominated over other groups of chemicals. A number of emerging plasticizers, OPEs, and UV stabilizers have rarely been reported in personal care products or environmental samples but were found at very high levels in beauty products, raising concern about their environmental release and human exposure risk. Although the employment of a hazard quotient approach suggested low health risks for exposure to industrial chemicals from the use of beauty products, potential mixture effects from the chemical cocktail and occupational exposure to beauty products should not be overlooked.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00512.Instrumental analysis methods; matrix effect determination; summary of CAS, ion pairs, and QAQC results; places of origin, sources of purchase, and hazard indices of lipstick and nail polish; concentrations of industrial chemicals; correlative analysis of potential degradation products and their likely parent chemicals; parameters for the determination of the estimated daily intake; reference doses of individual chemicals; estimated daily intakes and hazard quotients; significant correlations between the concentrations of selected chemicals in lipstick or nail polish and the product sales price; and comparison of the concentrations of selected chemicals between two different color groups (PDF)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

Detailed aggregate exposure analysis shows that exposure to fragrance ingredients in consumer products is low: Many orders of magnitude below thresholds of concern

Application of the expanded Creme RIFM consumer exposure model to fragrance ingredients in cosmetic, personal care and air care products

From worst-case to reality - Case studies illustrating tiered refinement of consumer exposure to cosmetic ingredients

Results of patch testing with five fragrance materials hitherto not tested: A dose‐finding study in the clinical population

Consumer inhalation exposure to formaldehyde from the use of personal care products/cosmetics

Do Synthetic Fragrances in Personal Care and Household Products Impact Indoor Air Quality and Pose Health Risks?

Assessment of the risk of respiratory sensitization from fragrance allergens released by air fresheners

A Chronic Aquatic Hazard Assessment for the Perfume Raw Material Octahydro‐tetramethyl‐naphthalenyl‐ethanone

Sensitizing fragrances in absorbent hygiene products

Environmental Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Musks HHCB and AHTN in Consumer Product Chemicals in China

Indoor exposure to selected flame retardants and quantifying importance of environmental, human behavioral and physiological parameters

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 5-ethyl-2,3,4,5-tetramethylcyclohexen-1-one, CAS Registry Number 17369-60-7

Country‐Specific Environmental Risks of Fragrance Encapsulates Used in Laundry Care Products

Update to RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 4-hexen-1-ol, 5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)-, CAS Registry Number 58461-27-1

A Cocktail of Industrial Chemicals in Lipstick and Nail Polish: Profiles and Health Implications

Comparative influences of dermal and inhalational routes of exposure on hazards of cleaning product ingredients among mammalian model organisms

Natural Is Not Always Better: The Prevalence of Allergenic Ingredients in “Clean” Beauty Products

Global patterns of human exposure to flame retardants indoors

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 4-(4-methyl-3-penten-1-yl)-2(5H)-furanone, CAS Registry Number 61315-75-1

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, citronellyl ethyl oxalate, CAS Registry Number 60788-25-2

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, exo-2-[(1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]hept-2-yl)oxy]ethanol, CAS Registry Number 7070-15-7