PFAS in Makeup
Findings from a new study were released this week in the journal of Environmental Science & Technology. This study found that P F A S, which is a potentially harmful chemical were supposedly present in over half of tested American and Canadian makeup products. In fact, its nicknamed “forever chemicals” because they don’t naturally break down. These have been linked to certain types of cancer, thyroid diseases, infertility, high cholesterol and more.
To begin, unlike the vast majority of scientific articles, this article was free to read straight from the publisher’s website. Usually you need to have a subscription to the journal or pay a fee to read an article, so its really convenient this article isn’t behind a paywall. I’ll leave a link in the description if anyone is interested.
P F A S is an umbrella term that stands for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Refers to different chemicals like PFOA & PFOS. (PFAS) comprise a class of more than 4700 chemical compounds for which the characteristic perfluorinated carbon moiety confers hydrophobic chemical properties and environmental persistence.
They’ve been around since the 1950s. They are used as the main attraction process of certain consumer products like nonstick pans and stain resistant materials like carpets.
Why are these in our cosmetics?
PFAS are used in cosmetics due to their properties such hydrophobicity and film-forming ability, which are thought to increase product wear, durability, and spreadability
In other words, make it water proof or longer lasting
So depending on where you are the PFOA will be higher or lower.
Despite the known health concerns in high doses, they’re pretty ubiquitous. The CDC says theyre in the bloodstream of nearly everybody in the US (>98%). Over time scientists have lowered their standards for whats a safe level of PFAS (0.07micrograms/liter of drinking water in 2016 per the most recent update from the EPA). I’ll come back to this later. 0.07 micrograms is 70 nanogram
Of concern is that these classes of cosmetics are applied close to the eyes and the mouth, which could increase exposure and hence risk due to enhanced absorption and ingestion
How was the study done and what were the results?
These people went out and purchased 231 cosmetic products in the US/Canada.
They didnt give names. But purchased from Ulta Beauty, Sephora, Target, and Bed Bath & Beyond from 2016 to 2020.
Screened 231 cosmetic products for total fluorine (not fluoride, fluorine) using particle-induced gamma-ray emission (PIGE)
Out of these 231 products, 56% of foundations and eye products, 48% of lip products and 47% of mascaras contained fluorine - an indicator of PFAS. I want to emphasize, these percentages are the % of products that contain fluorine. Foundations produced the highest median total fluorine (ÎĽg F/cm2) & lip products had the highest proportion of fluorine.
Next, they selected 29 (12 being American) of these 231 products for targeted analysis for presence of one of 53 different specific PFAS. Of those 29 tested, all 29 cosmetic products contained detectable levels of at least four PFAS 546-6:33
Fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs), methacrylates (FTMAs), and phosphate esters (PAPs) were the most frequently detected PFAS and also those contributing the most to total PFAS
They chose those 29 products because they were high in fluorine, and therefore expected to be high in PFAS. However, interestingly the PIGE on this table, which remember is the fluorine and the PFAS was was not correlated. This could mean a couple things. (1) numerous PFAS are not on the target list, (2) the presence of inorganic or polymeric fluorine, or 3) there were errors in their research methods.
The majority of products they tested did not disclose the presence of fluorinated compounds on their label list. exposing a gap in U.S. and Canadian labeling laws
High fluorine levels were found in products commonly advertised as “wear-resistant” to water and oils or “long-lasting” including foundations, liquid lipsticks, and waterproof mascara
This study concludes with the point that the use of PFAS in products also contributes to human and ecosystem exposures throughout the lifecycle of the product from PFAS manufacturing to product end of life. Cosmetic use contributes to PFAS entering wastewater streams leading to environmental accumulation of PFAS. This can lead to additional human exposure.
Why does this matter again?
This ties back to the reason P F A S is usually in the news - for sometimes being in our drinking water. As I mentioned earlier, the most recent update from the EPA states a maximum “safe” level of micrograms of PFAS / liter of drinking water. (0.07micrograms/liter) 0.07 micrograms is 70 nanogram
When I look at this study and I look at the amount of this chemical that is already in our daily lives. And when I look at how this information is being presented to the public. A big personal opinion I have is has been blown out of proportion. I think it is a good thing that this study has been done, but I am not particularly surprised by their conclusion. Im also a little disappointed by the constant misrepresentation of the data. I hope people keep in mind that news stations, even influencers profit from the ad dollars on your clicks, so they directly benefit from sensationalizing stories. Like this. With that out of the way.
In summary, this brings to light-
There are substances in our cosmetics that are not on the label. Which reveals need for regulation. The “No PFAS in Cosmetics Act” was introduced to the US house/Senate this Tuesday
Avoid waterproof/long wear makeup products if possible. Especially the eyes & lips because they are more likely to be ingested
Be sure to remove your makeup every night
The information is not intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. All content, including text, graphics, images, and information, contained here is for general information purposes only and does not replace a consultation with your own doctor/health professional.
Click here to read the original article: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00240