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

Our plain-English summary of Potential Airborne Asbestos Exposure and Risk Associated with the Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder Products, by A.M. Burns, C.A. Barlow, A.M. Banducci, et al (Risk Analysis, 2019).

The study

• Authors: A.M. Burns, C.A. Barlow, A.M. Banducci, K.M. Unice, J. Sahmel
• Journal: Risk Analysis
• Published: 2019;39(10):2272-2294
• Cited by: 22 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Over time, concerns have been raised regarding the potential for human exposure and risk from asbestos in cosmetic-talc-containing consumer products. In 1985, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted a risk assessment evaluating the potential inhalation asbestos exposure associated with the cosmetic talc consumer use scenario of powdering an infant during diapering, and found that risks were below levels associated with background asbestos exposures and risk. However, given the scope and age of the FDA's assessment, it was unknown whether the agency's conclusions remained relevant to current risk assessment practices, talc application scenarios, and exposure data. This analysis updates the previous FDA assessment by incorporating the current published exposure literature associated with consumer use of talcum powder and using the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) nonoccupational asbestos risk assessment approach to estimate potential cumulative asbestos exposure and risk for four use scenarios: (1) infant exposure during diapering; (2) adult exposure from infant diapering; (3) adult exposure from face powdering; and (4) adult exposure from body powdering. The estimated range of cumulative asbestos exposure potential for all scenarios (assuming an asbestos content of 0.1%) ranged from 0.0000021 to 0.0096 f/cc-yr and resulted in risk estimates that were within or below EPA's acceptable target risk levels. Consistent with the original FDA findings, exposure and corresponding health risk in this range were orders of magnitude below upper-bound estimates of cumulative asbestos exposure and risk at ambient levels, which have not been associated with increased incidence of asbestos-related disease.

© 2019 Society for Risk Analysis.

In plain English

This risk assessment updated a 1985 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analysis of asbestos in cosmetic talc. The authors took no new measurements. From 590 search results, they found seven studies measuring airborne dust or fibers during talcum powder use. They modeled four scenarios: infant diapering, the adult diapering the infant, adult face powdering, and adult body powdering. Following the FDA, they assumed 0.1% asbestos in the talc and used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk method. Estimated cumulative exposures across all scenarios ranged from 0.0000021 to 0.0096 fiber-per-cc years. The highest came from adult body powdering. Estimated added cancer risks were 10 to the minus 8 to 10 to the minus 6 for diapering, below 10 to the minus 5 for face powdering, and below 10 to the minus 4 for body powdering. They estimated lifetime exposure from background indoor and outdoor air at about 0.002 to 0.4 fiber-per-cc years over 70 years. They concluded that many typical uses were unlikely to pose a cumulative asbestos exposure risk under conservative regulatory methods. They noted uncertainty in their adjustment factors.

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: Risk assessment (exposure reconstruction) based on a literature review of previously published airborne measurement data. It used the EPA nonoccupational asbestos risk method to update the FDA's 1985 assessment; no new measurements were made
• Who was studied: Seven published studies (out of 590 search results) with airborne dust or fiber measurements taken during consumer use of cosmetic talcum powder. These were used to model four scenarios: infant exposure during diapering, adult exposure from infant diapering, adult face powdering, and adult body powdering
• Exposure: Airborne talc dust and fibers from applying cosmetic talcum powder. Asbestos was not measured; following the FDA, the authors assumed an upper-bound content of 0.1% asbestos in the talc. Dust measurements were converted to fiber concentrations using a talc-specific ratio of 1.72 f/cc to 1 mppcf. Infant scenarios assumed five uses per day for two years, and adult scenarios one use per day over 70 years. The EPA risk factor used does not distinguish asbestos fiber types
• Main results:
  • Estimated cumulative asbestos exposure across all four scenarios ranged from 0.0000021 to 0.0096 f/cc-yr (environmental-year basis)
  • Upper-bound lifetime cumulative exposure for adults was 0.001 f/cc-yr (1.3 × 10 to the minus 3) for face powder and 0.01 f/cc-yr (9.6 × 10 to the minus 3) for body powder. The highest body powder figure came from PCM data in Gordon et al. (2014), puff applicator
  • For the two infant diapering scenarios (infant and adult, two years), estimated added theoretical cancer risk was 10 to the minus 8 to 10 to the minus 6
  • For adult face powdering over 70 years, estimated added theoretical risk was less than 10 to the minus 5
  • For adult body powdering over 70 years, estimated added theoretical risk was less than 10 to the minus 4
  • For comparison with the talc scenarios, the authors calculated lifetime cumulative exposure from ambient (indoor plus outdoor) air in the United States at approximately 0.002 to 0.4 f/cc-year over 70 years
  • The highest estimated eight-hour time-weighted average talc dust level across all scenarios was 0.12 mppcf. The OSHA permissible exposure limit for talc is 20 mppcf
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that, under the FDA's assumption of 0.1% asbestos content, many typical consumer uses of cosmetic talc were unlikely to pose a cumulative asbestos exposure risk using conservative regulatory approaches. They also stated that their analysis confirmed the FDA's earlier finding that these risks were below the upper-bound lifetime risk from background asbestos exposure
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors stated there is uncertainty in using any adjustment factor, such as the 0.1% asbestos factor and the dust-to-fiber conversion
  • The authors noted that the upper-bound infant and adult diapering estimates, based on Aylott et al. (1979) and Dement et al. (1972), may not reflect actual exposures
  • The authors noted that all the risk models rely on heavily exposed occupational cohorts, which creates uncertainty when extrapolating down to low-dose cancer risks
  • The authors reported substantial disagreement between Gordon et al. (2014) and Anderson et al. (2017) results by the NIOSH 7402 electron microscopy method, so they used only the PCM fiber counts from those studies

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, Talc, Cosmetic Talc.

Related studies

• 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 — M.M. Finkelstein (2019)
• Commentary on "Assessment of Health Risk From Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder" — D. Egilman, J. Steffen (2018)
• Serous Ovarian Cancer Caused by Exposure to Asbestos and Fibrous Talc in Cosmetic Talc Powders-A Case Series — J.E. Steffen, T. Tran, et al. (2020)
• Fibrous and mineral content of cosmetic talcum products — L.J. Cralley, M.M. Key, et al. (1968)
• Pulmonary disease caused by the inhalation of cosmetic talcum powder — I.P. Wells, P.A. Dubbins, et al. (1979)
• Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women — R. Lee, D. Van Orden (2015)

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