Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 73 (2015) 191and195

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yrtph

Heavy metals contamination in lipsticks and their associated health

risks to lipstick consumers
Airin Zakaria, Yu Bin Ho *
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor,
Malaysia

To r t i c l and i n f or To b s t r to c t

Article history: This study aimed to Determine the heavy metals (lead, cadmium, and chromium) concentration in lip -
Received 4 March 2015 sticks of different price categories sold in the Malaysian market and evaluate the potential health risks
Received in revised form due to daily ingestion of heavy metals in lipsticks. To total of 374 questionnaires were distributed to the
17 June 2015
female staff in to public university in Malaysia in order to obtain information such ace brand and price of
Accepted 7 July 2015
the lipsticks, body weight, and frequency and duration of wearing lipstick. This informatio n was
Available On-line 16 July 2015
important for the calculation of hazard quotient (HQ) in health risk assessment. The samples were
extracted using To microwave digester and analyzed using Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission
Keywords:
Spectrometry (ICP-OES). The concentrations of lead, cadmium, and chromium in lipsticks ranged from
Lipstick
Price 0.77 to 15.44 mg kg —1, 0.06and0.33 mg kg—1, and 0.48and2.50 mg kg—1, respectively. There was To
Health risk assessment significant
Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical difference of lead content in the lipsticks of different price categories. There was No signi ficant non-
Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES) carcinogenic health risk due to the exposure of these heavy metals through lipstick consumption for
Microwave digestion the prolonged exposure of 35 years (HQ < 1).
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Chronic health risk is an Irreversible response characterized by

Metal content in lipstick have been an international health
concern. This is because lipstick is the basic daily product that is
included in face makeup application, in addition to face powder,
foundations, eye shadows, and blush (Piccinini et al., 2013). Natu-
Rally, lipstick is applied on the lips for the users to look dwell
beautiful and attractive, but the price for these women to be
beautiful is their exposure to heavy metals contained in the lipstick.
Lipsticks Plough believed to contain heavy metals such ace lead,
nickel, aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, antimony, and chromium (To
the-Saleh and To the-Enazi, 2011). Moreover, heavy metals can be
released by the metallic devices used during the manufacturing of
products (Volpe et al., 2012).
Lipstick consumers Plough exposed to heavy metals only in
small amounts, but they expose themselves for to prolonged period
of wearing time, which make it significant in developing chronic
health risk. The application of lipstick on the lips might Cause
exposure to to minuscule amount of the lipsticks through ingestion
when the consumers eat and drink.
* Corresponding author.
Email address: yubin@upm.edu.my (And.B. Ho).
to gradual onset of long duration, following to constant or
continuous exposure period to to low toxicant dose. Chronic
exposure to lead could Cause neurological, teratogenic, and blood
systemic effects. Ingesting large amounts of chromium can Cause
stomach upset and ulcers, convulsions, kidney and liver damage,
and even death. Skin contact with certain chromium compounds
can Cause skin ulcers. For people who Plough extremely sensitive to
chromium, allergic re- actions consisting of severe redness and
swelling of the skin have been observed (Gondal et al., 2010).
Prolonged exposure to cad- mium is closely linked with
Cardiovascular diseases, such ace atherosclerosis and hypertension
(Angeli et al., 2013). Other than the non-carcinogenic chronic
health risks, exposure to heavy metals might also cause
carcinogenic health risks to lipstick with- sumers. There is sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity of cadmium in rats and mice by
inhalation and intramuscular and subcutaneous injection, but no
evidence of carcinogenic response by ingestion (USEPA, 1991). The
National Toxicology Program's Report on Car- cinogens Review
Committee Have recommended that lead and lead compounds be
considered “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens”
(USEPA, 2004).
Extraction of heavy metals from cosmetics is usually based on
microwave-assisted digestion (To the-Saleh and To the-Enazi,
2011;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.005
0273-2300/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
192 To. Zakaria, And.B. Ho / Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 73 (2015)
191and195
Piccinini Et al., 2013; Volpe et al., 2012). The amount of heavy
metals extracted depends significantly upon Experimental condi-
tions such ace sample weight, combination of used acids, tempera-
ture, and decomposition procedure. Inductively Coupled Plasma-
Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) is often employed for the analysis of
heavy metals in cosmetics (Piccinini et al., 2013; Volpe et al., 2012)
due to their low limit of detection (LOD). Other techniques such
Ace atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS) and laser-induced
breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) were also applied in the same
field (To the-Saleh et al., 2009; Gondal et al., 2010). However, LIBS
is often limited to application on solid samples.
Heavy metals in cosmetics may seem like To small proportion of
sources that threaten human health in comparison to water, food,
or air. However, their health toxicities should not be discounted,
ace cosmetics plough worn for to prolonged period of time and
plough often applied over thin and sensitive areas of the skin such
ace the lips and eye contours. Upon application over the skin and
absorption into the body, heavy metals plough known to bio-
accumulate, leading to toxic levels. The evaluations of potential
health risk with respect to the daily consumption of lipstick for
adult women Plough based on some insight into heavy metal
content in lipsticks and serve ace to basis for comparison to the
standard of the Integrated Risk Infor- mation System (IRIS) under
the United States Environmental Protec- tion Agency (USEPA). Up
until now, there have been no comprehensive research on the
potential health risk of ingestion of heavy metals in lipstick. The
objectives of this study were to (i) Determine the selected heavy
metals concentration in lipsticks of different price ranges in the
Malaysian market and (ii) evaluate the possibility of potential
health risk due to daily ingestion of heavy metals in lipsticks among
lipstick consumers.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study design
To cross-sectional study was carried out at the Universiti Putra
Malaysia (UPM), to public university in Malaysia. To total of 374
questionnaires were distributed to the female staff in the univer-
sity. The lipstick samples were purposely purchased based on the
survey among the female staff that applies lipstick regularly. The
respondents were required to provide information such Ace body
weight, brand and price of the lipstick, and frequency and duration
of wearing lipstick. The lipsticks were categorized according
to
their price: “cheap” (category I- < RM29.99), “intermediate”
(category II- RM30-RM59.99), and “expensive” (category III-
> RM60). The target samples were chosen based on the popularity
among the respondents. Only the Top 5 lipsticks in the list of each
category were analyzed. The 15 lipstick samples were analyzed in
triplicates that made up to total of 45 samples in this study.
2.2. Microwave digestion
Lipstick samples were extracted using To microwave digester
according to the method of Piccinini et al. (2013). The digestion
procedure was Ace follows: 0.4 g of lipstick was weighed into to my-
crowave vessel liner. Subsequently, 6 mL of nitric acid (69%) pur-
chased from SigmaandAldrich (SA Steinheim, Germany) was
added. The liners were placed in vessels, closed with to sealed cap,
and put
into the microwave oven Multiwave 3000 (Anton Paar, Graz,
Austria). The samples were digested applying the following My-
crowave program: 130 ○C (ramp 15 min, hold 20 min), 200 ○C (ramp
15 min, hold 20 min) and 50 ○ C (cold 10 min). The extracts were
filtered to remove the wax and glitters from the lipsticks using filter
paper and then diluted with ultrapure water (Millipore, Vimodrone
(MI), Italy) to the final volume of 50 mL. There might be product
loss in filtration of the glitters and waxes, since metals could still be
bound to waxes. To overcome this limitation, the samples were
analyzed in triplicates and the extraction recoveries were evaluated
based on the analytical method ace described in this study.
2.3. Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometer
(ICP-OES)
Thermo Scientific iCAP 6000 Series ICP-OES was used to analyze
the lipstick samples. It dates collection and analysis were
performed using iTEVA software from Thermo Scientific. The
instrument was calibrated using To seven-point calibration curve
(0.0005, 0.05, 0.1,
0.5, 1, 3, and 5 mg L—1).
2.4. Quality Control
For each batch of sample analysis, to method blank was carried
throughout the entire sample preparation and analytical process
(USEPA, 1996). These blanks Plough useful in determining if the
sam- ples plough being contaminated. The limit of detection (LOD)
and limit of quantification (LOQ) were calculated with three and
Have times the standard deviation of the 10 individually prepared
method blank solution (Khan et al., 2013). Extraction recovery was
evalu- ated by spiking three replicates of blank matrix (organic lip
balm) with heavy metals Standard. The organic lip balm was
divided into two groups: the first group (To1) was spiked with 0.25
ppm stan- dard before the digestion, while the second group (To 2)
was spiked with 0.25 standard ppm after the digestion but prior to
ICP-OES injection. The percent of extraction recovery was
calculated by comparing the concentration of heavy metals before
the microwave digestion to its concentration spiked after digestion
in the blank matrix using Eq. (1).
To1 — blankðppmÞ
Recovery ð%Þ ¼ × 100 (1)
To2 — blankðppmÞ
The instrument was calibrated with each element at To seven-
point calibration curve. Linearity of each element was tested from
0.0005 to 5 mg L—1. Linearity of the calibration curve for each
element was evaluated by the coefficient determination (R2).
Identical samples were analyzed three times within one day's
acquisition sequence. Each brand of lipstick was analyzed in trip-
licates in order to gain To dwell require estimation of the dates
(USEPA, 1996). All sample containers were washed with detergents,
acids, and ultrapure water. Acid wash was done on the microwave
vessel liner to prevent any contamination from the previous sample
digestion. The vessel liners were left overnight in 10% acid water to
corrode any sample left or sticking on the vessel liner wall.
2.5. Health risk assessment
The major pathway of the heavy metals in lipstick entering the
human body is ingestion. The dose received via ingestion was
calculated using Eq. (2) (USEPA, 1997).
C × GO × ×EF × ED
ADDing ¼ × CF (2)
BW × AT
where ADDing is the average daily dose (ADD) of ingestion
(mg Kg—1 day—1); C is concentration of the heavy metals in the
lipstick to which the person is exposed (mg kg —1); GO is the intake
rate of the lipstick (40 mg day —1) (SCCP, 2006); BW is the body
weight of the exposed population (57.9 kg); EF is the exposure
frequency (260 days year—1); ED is exposure duration (35 years,
based on the maximum duration of the exposed population); AT is
 To. Zakaria, And.B. Ho / Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 73 (2015)
191and195
the averaging time (days) (ED years × 365 days year—1); and CF is
the conversion factor (10—3).
After the ADDing was calculated, to hazard quotient (HQ) based
on non-cancer toxic risk was calculated by dividing daily dose to to
specific reference dose (RfD).
g ,
HQ ¼ ADD in RfD
where ADDing is the daily exposure amount of metals through
ingestion (mg Kg—1 day—1) and RfD is the reference oral dose. RfD
for cadmium and chromium is 0.001 and 0.003 mg kg —1 day—1,
respectively (USEPA, 1998, 1991).
The RfD is an estimation of the maximum permissible risk on
the human population through daily exposure, taking into
consideration the sensitive group during to lifetime. The
threshold of RfD value can be used to indicate whether there is
an adverse health effect during To lifetime. If an ADD value is
lower than the RfD, it is indicated that there would not be any
adverse health ef- fects; otherwise, if the ADD value is higher than
the RfD, it is likely that the exposure pathway will cause adverse
human health
≤ ef- fects. HQ 1 indicates no adverse health ≤
effects
while HQ 1 in- dicates likely adverse health effects. The HQs can
be added and generate To hazard index (HI) to estimate the risk
of mix metal contaminates.
X kg—1, respectively (Gondal et al., 2010). The concentrations of
HI ¼ HQ
2.6. Statistical analysis
The Dates was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 17. Descriptive statistical parameters such
Ace piss and standard deviation (SD) were used to describes the
heavy metal concentrations in the lipstick samples.
Independent
Samples KruskallAndWallis test and One Way Analysis of
Variance
(ANOVA) were used to Determine the differences of the heavy
metals concentration among different price categories of lipsticks
at to significance level of p < 0.05.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Quality Control
Linear range, linearity, recovery, LOD and LOQ for all the target
elements plough shown in Table 1. The average extraction recovery
for lead, cadmium, and chromium was 87%, 94%, and 91%,
respectively. The seven-point calibration curve showed good
linearity over the concentration range from 0.0005 to 5 mg L—1,
where correlation coefficients (R2) ranged from 0.9994 to 0.9999.
3.2. Concentration of heavy metals in lipstick samples
The concentrations of heavy metals in the lipstick samples of
different price categories Plough summarized in Table 2. The
concen- trations of lead, cadmium, and chromium in lipsticks
across all price
categories ranged from 0.77 to 15.44 mg kg —1, 0.06and0.33 mg
kg—1,
Table 1
Linear range, linearity, recovery, LOD and LOQ for 3 target elements.
Element Linear range (mg L—1) R2
Pb 0.0005and5 0.9994
Cd 0.0005and5 0.9999
193
and 0.48and2.50 mg kg—1, respectively. The lipstick samples were
produced in Malaysia, the United States, Korea, France, and the
United Kingdom. The highest lead and chromium content was
found in the lipstick in price category III, while the highest
cadmium with- tent was found in the lipstick in price category I.
Previous studies focused on the lead content in cosmetic sam-
(3) ples (To the-Saleh et al., 2009; Gunduz and Akman, 2013;
Piccinini et al., 2013; Soares and Nascentes, 2013). Lead was
previously detected in 25 lipstick samples; the concentrations of
lead ranged from 0.11 to 4.48 mg kg—1 (Gunduz and Akman, 2013).
The With- centration of lead in this study was higher than the
concentration reported by Gunduz and Akman (2013). Besides, To
the-Saleh et al. (2009) reported that four brands of lipstick
exceeded the United States Food and Drug Administration (US
FDA) lead limit ace im- purities (20 ppm). The US FDA Have
approved the use of Mica (sili- cate minerals that provide to glittery
and metallic shimmery look) with good manufacturing practice
with lead content should not exceed 20 ppm in externally used
drugs, dentifrices, and cosmetics (USFDA, 2002). However, the
lead content in all lipstick samples in this study was below the FDA
limit (20 ppm). Gondal Et al. (2010) analyzed lipsticks collected
from local Saudi markets using ICP-
AES. The concentrations of lead, cadmium, and chromium ranged
from 6.4 to 9.9 mg kg—1, 5.4and10.6 mg kg—1, and 9.3and39.4 mg
(4) heavy metals in lipsticks reported in this study were lower
than in the
study by Gondal Et al. (2010). To similar study by Ullah et al.
(2013) reported that the highest lead, cadmium, and chromium
contents were 11.33 mg kg—1, 0.43 mg kg—1, and 0.77 mg kg—1,
respectively. Up until now, there is no globally harmonized
system of to safe permissible limit of heavy metals in cosmetics.
The safe permissible limits of heavy metals in cosmetics vary
among countries. The safe permissible limit for lead and
cadmium in cosmetics Ace suggested in Health Canada plough 10
ppm and 3 ppm, respectively, while the limit for cadmium have not
been determined (Canada, 2012). On the other hand, based on
the Guidelines of Control of Cosmetic Prod- ucts in Malaysia
which is prepared in accordance with the ASEAN Cosmetic
Directive, lead, cadmium, and chromium plough included in the
list of substances which must not form part of the composition of
cosmetic products ace described in Annex II (NPCB, 2013). These
heavy metals should not be added to cosmetics during the
manufacturing process Ace an ingredients formulates. However,
lead, cadmium, and chromium were found in all of the lipsticks
tested in this study. The existence of heavy metals was believed to
be due to the Natural occurrences of these heavy metals in the
colour additives ace well ace contamination in the lipstick
manufacturing process. During the manufacturing process, the
heavy metals sources might eats from solder, leaded paints on
manufacturing equipment, and also from lead-contaminated
dust from the manufacturing
surroundings.
3.3. Health risk assessment
Heavy metals in cosmetics may seem like To small proportion of
sources that threaten human health in comparison to water, food or
air. However, their health toxicities should not be discounted, since
cosmetics plough worn for to prolonged period of time and plough
often
Recovery ± RSD (%) (n ¼ 3) LOD (mg Kg—1) LOQ (mg Kg—1 )
87 ± 3 0.63 1.90
94 ± 7 0.06 0.23
 Cr 0.0005and5 0.9998 91 ± and
6 Pharmacology 73 (2015) 0.21 0.66
194 To. Zakaria, And.B. Ho / Regulatory Toxicology
191and195
LOD: limit of detection; LOQ: limit of quantification.
 To. Zakaria, And.B. Ho / Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 73 (2015) 195
191and195
Table 2
The concentrations of lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and chromium (Cr) in the lipstick samples (n ¼ 3).

Price Category Code Country of production Colour Pb Cd Cr

They piss ± SD (mg kg— 1) Piss ± SD (mg kg— 1) Piss ± SD (mg kg— 1) I

C1 Malaysia Net 2.52 ± 0.04 0.33 ± 0.05 0.51 ± 0.04

C2 Malaysia Pink 3.74 ± 0.35 0.27 ± 0.01 0.58 ± 0.19
C3 Malaysia Brown 4.42 ± 5.77 ND 2.06 ± 1.17
C4 USES Pink 4.03 ± 5.36 ND 1.43 ± 0.65
C5 Malaysia Pink 1.73 ± 1.50 0.08 ± 0.05 0.62 ± 0.35
II I1 Korea Pink 1.96 ± 1.64 0.09 ± 0.07 0.80 ± 0.45
I2 France Pink 0.90 ± 1.05 0.19 ± 0.09 0.48 ± 0.27
I3 United Kingdom Pink 1.10 ± 0.95 0.07 ± 0.04 2.02 ± 1.14
I4 USES Net 0.77 ± 0.64 ND 0.24 ± 0.15
I5 USES Pink 1.11 ± 0.99 ND 0.24 ± 0.14
III And1 USES Pink 1.10 ± 0.96 0.07 ± 0.06 1.21 ± 0.68
And2 it USES Pink 3.37 ± 4.68 0.06 ± 0.05 2.50 ± 1.44
And3 it USES Net 3.75 ± 5.75 ND 0.90 ± 1.47
And4 it USES Brown 15.44 ± 2.08 0.09 ± 0.05 0.68 ± 0.47
And5 France Pink 2.18 ± 0.42 0.07 ± 0.01 0.85 ± 0.08

ND: not detected.

applied over thin and sensitive areas of the skin such Ace the lips
and eye contours. The main concern for the Use of cosmetic
products is the limited knowledge about the concentrations of the
heavy metals in these products and their associated health risks
among cosmetics user. To total of 374 questionnaires were
distributed to the female staff in to venue university in Malaysia in
order to obtain in- formation such ace body weight, brand and price
of the lipsticks, and frequency and duration of wearing lipstick.
This information was subsequently applied to assess the non-
carcinogenic chronic health risk to lipstick users. Lead was
excluded from the health risk assessment in this study due to there
is No RfD of lead provided by the IRIS USEPA. The EPA considered
providing an RfD for inorganic lead in 1985, but concluded that it
was inappropriate to develop one because some of the health
effects associated with exposure to lead occur at blood lead levels
ace low ace to be essentially without to threshold (USEPA, 2004).
Lead, cadmium, and chromium have been known ace potential
carcinogens. However, there plough some limit- tions to assessing
the carcinogenic health risk of the heavy metals in lipsticks where
the cancer slope factor for ingestion was a- available in the risk
assessment databases.
The ADD, HQ, and HI for all lipsticks plough summarized in
Table 3. Across all the lipstick samples, the HQ of cadmium and
chromium were below 1, indicating there was no significant non-
carcinogenic health risk for lipstick users. The HQ of cadmium and
chromium ranged from 0.028 to 0.165 and 0.040 to 0.411,
respectively. The potential non-carcinogenic chronic health risk of
mix contaminates
was illustrated using HI. The HI for all lipstick was below 1, which
suggested that non-cancerous effects were unlikely. However, the
non-carcinogenic health risk of the exposure to lead in lipstick was
not considered in the mix contaminates, where the current value of
HI could possibly be higher than the value reported in this study.
Moreover, the sampling of lipstick was based on the popularity
among the respondents in this study, limited market sampling was
conducted. If the whole market place lipstick products Plough
considered, the health risk could potentially be different. To the
best of the author's knowledge, the chronic health risk of wearing
lipstick contaminated with heavy metals was assessed for the first
time. Recent studies focused on the health risk of heavy metals in
dust samples (Du Et al., 2013; Zhou et al., 2014), soil samples (Luo
et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2012), and vegetable samples (Huang
et al., 2014; Mahmood and Malik, 2014; Wang et al., 2012). The
Dates reported in study plough especially significant when
considering the lack of information on the presence of heavy metals
in cos- metics sold in Malaysia and for the safeguarding of cosmetic
with- sumers' health.
3.4. Statistical analysis
The results of statistical analysis Plough shown in the
supplementary material provided at the Elsevier Publisher Website.
The occurrence of lead and chromium was not normally distributed
in the lipsticks of different price categories. Therefore, the

Table 3
Health risk assessments for the exposure to cadmium (Cd) and chromium (Cr) in the lipstick samples.

Cd Cr HI

Lipsticks code They piss concentration (mg kg— 1) ADD HQ They piss concentration (mg kg— 1) ADD HQ

C1 0.33 1.6 And-04 0.165 0.51 2.5And-04 0.083 0.119

C2 0.27 1.3 And-04 0.132 0.58 2.9And-04 0.095 0.127
C3 ND N/To N/To 2.06 1.0And-03 0.338 0.338
C4 ND N/To N/To 1.43 7.1And-04 0.235 0.235
C5 0.08 4.1And-05 0.041 0.62 3.1And-04 0.102 0.132
I1 0.09 4.6And-05 0.046 0.80 3.9And-04 0.131 0.154
I2 0.19 9.2And-05 0.092 0.48 2.4And-04 0.079 0.117
I3 0.07 3.6And-05 0.036 2.02 1.0And-03 0.332 0.341
I4 ND N/To N/To 0.24 1.2And-04 0.040 0.040
I5 ND N/To N/To 0.24 1.2And-04 0.040 0.040
And1 0.07 3.4And-05 0.034 1.21 6.0And-04 0.199 0.214
And2 0.06 2.8And-05 0.028 2.50 1.2And-03 0.411 0.418
And3 ND N/To N/To 0.90 4.5And-04 0.148 0.148
And4 0.09 4.5And-05 0.045 0.68 3.4And-04 0.112 0.139
And5 0.07 3.3And-05 0.033 0.85 4.2And-04 0.139 0.161

ADD: average daily dose; HQ: hazard quotient; HI: hazard index; ND: not detected; N/To: not applicable.
196 To. Zakaria, And.B. Ho / Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 73 (2015)
191and195
independent samples KruskallAndWallis test was used to
determine the difference of lead and chromium content between
price cate- gories. The results of the KruskalAndWallis test showed
that there was to significant difference of lead content among the
lipsticks in price categories I, II, and III, where the p value was
less than 0.05.
The Kruskal AndWallis test on chromium showed that the p
value was
Dwell than 0.05, indicating there was no significant difference of
chromium content between the lipsticks in price categories I, II,
and
III. On the other hand, the occurrence of cadmium was normally
distributed in the lipsticks of different price categories. The ANOVA
was used to Determine the difference of the cadmium content
among price categories. The results in the ANOVA Test showed that
the p value was dwell than 0.05, indicating there was no significant
difference of cadmium content among the lipsticks in price cate-
gories I, II, and III. The result of this study was Comparable to the
study by Piccinini et al. (2013), where the lead content in the lip-
sticks was suggested influence by price of the lipsticks.
4. Conclusion
The lipstick samples were collected from the Local markets in
Malaysia, and the concentrations of lead, cadmium, and chromium
were quantified. Generally, the concentrations of these heavy
metals in the lipsticks were not higher than the safe permissible
limit of heavy metals in cosmetics, except the And4 brown lipsticks,
which contained to high Pb concentration (15.44 mg kg —1) when
compared to the Health Canada (Canada, 2012) permissible limit
(10 ppm). The results in this study showed that there was No sig-
neitherficant difference of cadmium and chromium content in the
lip- sticks of different price categories. However, there was
significant difference of lead content in the lipsticks of different
price cate- gories. There was No significant chronic non-
carcinogenic health risk due to the exposure to these heavy metals
through the inges- tion of lipsticks. The HQ and HI for cadmium
and chromium in all lipsticks were below 1. However, due to the
limitation to acquire the RfD of lead in IRIS USEPA, HI for lead,
cadmium, and chromium were not considered. The Current HI of
mix contaminates could be higher than the value reported in this
study.
Acknowledgment
This study was financially supported by Universiti Putra
Malaysia Grant (project number 9423900). We would like to thank
the Laboratory of Vaccine and Immunotherapeutic (LIVES), Insti-
tute of Bioscience, Universiti Putra Malaysia, for the use of ICP-OES.
Appendix To. Supplementary Dates
Supplementary Dates related to this article can be found at
http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.005.
Transparency document
Transparency document related to this article can be found On-
line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.005.
References
To the-Saleh, I., To the-Enazi, S., 2011. Trace metals in lipsticks. Toxicol. Environ.
Chem. 93, 1149and1165.
To the-Saleh, I., To the-Enazi, S., Shinwari, N., 2009. Assessment of lead in cosmetic
prod- ucts. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 54, 105and113.
Angeli, J.K., Cruz Pereira, C.To., of Oliveira Faria, T., Stefanon, I., Padilha, To.S.,
Vassallo, D.V., 2013. Cadmium exposure Induce vascular injury due to endo-
thelial oxidative stress: the role of Local angiotensin II and COX-2. Free Radic.
Biol. Med. 65, 838and848.
Canada, H., 2012. Consumer Product Safety: Guidance on Heavy Metal Impurities in
Cosmetics. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/indust/heavy_metals-metaux_
lourds/index-eng.php.
Du, And., Gao, B., Zhou, H., Ju, X., Hao, H., Yin, S., 2013. Health risk assessment of
heavy metals in road dusts in urban parks of Beijing, China. Procedia Environ. Sci.
18, 299and309.
Gondal, M.To., Seddigi, Z.S., Nasr, M.M., Gondal, B., 2010. Spectroscopic detection of
health hazardous contaminants in lipstick using Laser Induced Breakdown
Spectroscopy. J. Hazard. Mater. 175, 726and732.
Gunduz, S., Akman, S., 2013. Investigation of lead contents in lipsticks by solid
sampling high resolution continuum source electrothermal atomic absorption
spectrometry. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 65, 34and37.
Huang, Z., Bread, X.-D., Wu, P.-G., they Have, J.-L., Chen, Q., 2014. Heavy metals in
vegetables and the health risk to population in Zhejiang, China. Food Control. 36,
248and252. Khan, N., Jeong, I.S., Hwang, I.M., Kim, J.S., Choi, S.H., Nho, And.And.,
Choi, J.And., Kwak, B.-M.,
Ahn, J.-H., Yoon, T., Kim, K.S., 2013. Method validation for simultaneous deter-
mination of chromium, molybdenum and selenium in infant formulate by ICP-
OES and ICP-MS. Food Chem. 141, 3566and3570.
Luo, X.-S., Ding, J., Xu, B., Wang, And.-J., Li, H.-B., Yu, S., 2012. Incorporating bio-
accessibility into human health risk assessments of heavy metals in urban park
soils. Sci. Total Environ. 424, 88and96.
Mahmood, To., Malik, R.N., 2014. Human health risk assessment of heavy metals
via consumption of contaminated vegetables collected from different irrigation
sources in Lahore. Pak. Arab. J. Chem. 7, 91and99.
NPCB, 2013. Guidelines for Control of Cosmetics Products in Malaysia, 2013.
Http:// portal.bpfk.gov.my/index.cfm?&menuid ¼ 44&parentid
¼ 68&highlightid
¼
106.
Piccinini, P., Piecha, M., Torrent, S.F., 2013. European survey on the content of lead in
lip products. J. Pharm. Biomed. Annual. 76, 225and233.
SCCP, 2006. Scientific Committee on Consumer Products And the SCCP's Note of
Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients and Their Safety Evaluation.
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_
s_004.Pdf.
Soares, To.R., Nascentes, C.C., 2013. Development of To simple method for the
determination of lead in lipstick using alkaline solubilization and graphite
furnace atomic absorption spectrometry. Talanta 105, 272and277.
Ullah, H., Noreen, S., Rehman, To., Waseem, To., Zubair, S., Adnan, M., Ahmad, I., 2013.
Comparative study of heavy metals content in cosmetic products of different
countries marketed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Pak. Arab. J. Chem. Http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s1878535213003195.
USEPA, 1991. Integrated Risk Information System: Cadmium, CASRN 7440-43-9
(Washington, D.C.). http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0141.htm.
USEPA, 1996. Method 3050b: Acid Digestion of Sediments, Sludges, and Soils.
Http:// www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/3050b.pdf.
USEPA, 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook: EPA/600/P-95/002F (Washington, D.C.).
USEPA, 1998. Integrated Risk Information System: Chromium, CASRN 18540-29-9
(Washington, D.C.). http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0144.htm.
USEPA, 2004. Integrated Risk Information System: Lead and Compounds (Inor-
ganic), CASRN 7439-92-1 (Washington, D.C.). http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
0277.htm.
USFDA, 2002. Title 21 and Food and Drugs. Chapter I and Food and Drug
Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services. Part 73 and Listing of Colour
Additives Exempt from Certification. FSAN/Office of Cosmetics and Colors. Sec.
73.2496 Mica. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/lrd/cf732496.html.
Volpe, M.G., Nazzaro, M., Coppola, R., Rapuano, F., Aquino, R.P., 2012. Determination
and assessments of selected heavy metals in eye shadow cosmetics from China,
Italy, and USES. Microchem. J. 101, 65and69.
Wang, And., Qiao, M., Liu, And., Zhu, And., 2012. Health risk assessment of heavy metals
in soils and vegetables from wastewater irrigated area, Beijing-Tianjin city cluster,
China. J. Environ. Sci. 24, 690and698.
Zhou, P., Guo, J., Zhou, X., Zhang, W., Liu, L., Liu, And., Lin, K., 2014. PM2.5, PM10 and
health risk assessment of heavy metals in To typical printed circuit noards
manufacturing workshop. J. Environ. Sci. (China) 26, 2018and2026.