Letter concerning: Burns AM, Barlow CA, Banducci AM, Unice KM, Sahmel J. Potential Airborne Asbestos Exposure and Risk Associated with the Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder Products

Our plain-English summary of Letter concerning: Burns AM, Barlow CA, Banducci AM, Unice KM, Sahmel J. Potential Airborne Asbestos Exposure and Risk Associated with the Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder Products, by M.M. Finkelstein (Risk Analysis, 2019).

The study

• Author: M.M. Finkelstein
• Journal: Risk Analysis
• Published: 2019;39(12):2601-2603
• Type of article: Letter
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor, not a new study. The author criticized a 2019 risk assessment by Burns and colleagues. That assessment estimated airborne asbestos exposure and risk from historical cosmetic talcum powder use in four scenarios involving infant diapering and adult face and body powdering. Burns and colleagues had assumed asbestos made up 0.1% of airborne fibers, based on a 1985 FDA approach. The author argued that this misread the FDA method, which referred to particles rather than fibers. The author cited two earlier studies, by Gordon and colleagues and by Longo and colleagues. Drawing on them, the author wrote that the measured asbestos share of released fibers was 10% to 75%. The author also wrote that Burns and colleagues listed Gordon's fiber concentrations of 4.8, 20 and 60 fibers/cc as 0.0048, 0.020 and 0.060 fibers/cc. The author multiplied the Burns estimates by 100. This gave adult face and body powdering concentrations of 0.02 to 6 f/cc and cumulative exposures of 0.1 to 0.9 f/cc-yr. The author concluded that the risks from cosmetic talc use exceed the upper-bound lifetime risk from background asbestos exposure.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: letter to the editor criticizing and recalculating a published risk assessment (Burns et al., 2019)
• Who was studied: No study population. The letter re-examines the Burns et al. risk assessment, which drew on airborne measurements published in 7 studies of infant or adult application of cosmetic talcum powder.
• Exposure: Airborne asbestos fibers from cosmetic talcum powder in four use scenarios: infant exposure during diapering, adult exposure from infant diapering, adult face powdering and adult body powdering. The Longo et al. measurements cited by the author concerned tremolite asbestos.
• Main results:
  • The author argued that Burns and colleagues misinterpreted the FDA method by treating the FDA's 0.1% (a percent by particle count) as a share of fibers.
  • According to the author, Gordon et al. (2014) reported fiber concentrations during application of 4.8, 20 and 60 fibers/cc, which Burns and colleagues listed as 0.0048, 0.020 and 0.060 fibers/cc.
  • As cited by the author, Longo et al. (2017) found that tremolite asbestos made up 42.9% to 76.9% of fibers in four personal air samples from an investigator applying Johnson's Baby Powder, equal to 1.81 to 4.51 f/cc.
  • Based on the Gordon and Longo studies, the author stated that the measured asbestos proportion of released fibers was 10% to 75%, not 0.1%.
  • The author recalculated the Burns et al. Table II estimates by multiplying them by 100.
  • In the author's recalculation, adult face and body powdering gave concentrations of 0.02 to 6 f/cc and cumulative exposures of 0.1 to 0.9 f/cc-yr.
  • Burns and colleagues had compared their estimates with cumulative lifetime ambient air exposures of 0.002 to 0.4 f/cc-yr.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that, after correcting what the author described as an underestimate of at least 2 orders of magnitude, the risks associated with cosmetic talc use exceed the corresponding cumulative upper-bound lifetime risk of background asbestos exposures to the general population.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Talc and vermiculite.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos Exposure.

Related studies

• Potential Airborne Asbestos Exposure and Risk Associated with the Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder Products — A.M. Burns, C.A. Barlow, et al. (2019)
• Commentary on "Assessment of Health Risk From Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder" — D. Egilman, J. Steffen (2018)
• Fibrous and mineral content of cosmetic talcum products — L.J. Cralley, M.M. Key, et al. (1968)
• Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women — R. Lee, D. Van Orden (2015)
• Response to RE: Gordon R, Fitzgerald S, and Millette J. Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2014;20(4):318-332 — R.E. Gordon (2015)
• Evaluation of the presence of asbestos in cosmetic talcum products — J.S. Pierce, A.S. Riordan, et al. (2017)

Browse more research in Risk Analysis, or return to medical research.