Alblooshi 2025 — Perfumes and cosmetics human-health narrative review

Open-access narrative review (Frontiers in Toxicology) synthesizing 2005–2025 literature on health risks of perfumes and cosmetic products across seven outcome domains: endocrine disruption, fertility, lung health and asthma, cancers (with sub-sections on hormone-mimicking chemicals, talc/asbestos, and heavy metals), allergies, skin disorders, and neurological effects. The review’s heavy-metal evidence is concentrated in Section 3.4.3 (Heavy metals) and Table 1 (Common cosmetic contaminants), with additional regulatory framing in Section 3.9 and Table 2 (US/EU/Canada/ASEAN comparative regulatory frameworks) and a study-summary in Table 3. Numerical metal data are passed through from cited primary studies (Irfan et al. 2022 fairness-cream toxicology, Salles et al. 2023 costume cosmetics, Voica et al. 2023 facial cosmetics, Lim et al. 2018 Korean-market 200-product risk assessment); the review does not generate original occurrence measurements. Single-author manuscript with declared generative-AI assistance and no formal systematic-review protocol — useful as a 2025 framing and regulatory-comparison anchor, not as an authoritative occurrence source.

Key numbers

Table 1 — Heavy-metal contaminant row (review’s own “Average exposure/Levels” column)

The Table 1 “Average exposure/Levels” figures are reported without basis annotation, sample-size attribution, or a sourcing footnote tying the percentages to a specific underlying study. They appear in the row labelled “Heavy Metals (e.g., lead, cadmium, arsenic)” alongside the FDA ≤10 ppm Pb limit citation; treat as the review’s summary figure, not as a measured concentration. Cited as “(Limiting lead in lipstick and other cosmetics FDA, 2024; Nnorom et al., 2005; Attard et al. 2022)” in the row footer.

Table 2 — Comparative regulatory frameworks (Section 3.9)

The four-jurisdiction comparison is the most-citable analytical contribution of the review; cosmetic Pb specifically is covered in only two rows of the comparison (US ≤10 ppm; EU “banned unless technically unavoidable”).

Section 3.4.3 (Heavy metals) — figures passed through from cited primary studies

• Irfan et al. 2022 — nine commercially available fairness creams (local and international brands): “mercury and zinc were detected at very high levels, with mercury exceeding international safety thresholds and being associated with elevated hazard quotients (HQ) and lifetime cancer risk (LCR) scores.” Quoted figures: “mercury and zinc at concentrations up to 141 mg/kg and 138 mg/kg.” Cited products also contained Pb, Cd, Ni, Cr (associated with carcinogenic effects). Hydroquinone in 89% of creams; microbial contamination in 44% one month after opening (exceeding EU safety thresholds).
• Salles et al. 2023 — 95 costume cosmetics used by children and adults: “all samples contained multiple toxic metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, and nickel.” Arsenic dominant lifetime cancer risk (LCR) contributor: “LCR up to 10⁻⁵” in children via ingestion and “LCR up to 10⁻³” in adults via dermal contact. (Table 3 lists the targeted-metal panel as Al, As, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Sb, Sn, Sr.)
• Voica et al. 2023 — 14 facial cosmetics (10 lipsticks, 4 eye shadows): “Lead, chromium, and mercury exceeded international safety thresholds in several lipstick and eye shadow samples.” Quoted figures: “Lead levels reached 27.0 mg/kg in lipstick and 40.9 mg/kg in eye shadow, while chromium ranged up to 149 mg/kg” (and “mercury up to 138 mg/kg”). Targeted metals listed as Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, As, Pb, Hg, Cd. Bio-accessibility modeled at 50% and 100% scenarios.
• Lim et al. 2018 — 200 cosmetic products from the Korean market, 14 heavy metals (Al, Cr⁶⁺/Cr³⁺, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Pb, Hg, Cd, Sb, Ti): “Most products showed margins of safety (MOS) > 100 and hazard indices (HI) < 1, suggesting negligible systemic toxicity. Lifetime cancer risk (LCR) values for Cr⁶⁺, Ni, As, Pb, and Cd were below the regulatory threshold of 10⁻⁶.” Heavy-user caveat: “some lip and eye products exceeded acceptable daily intake for Cr⁶⁺, Mn, and Pb among heavy users.”

Section 3.4.3 (Heavy metals) — review’s own framing

• “Heavy metals such as lead and arsenic, often present as unintentional contaminants in cosmetics, pose another significant carcinogenic threat” (p. 6).
• “Lead, found in some lipsticks, can accumulate in the body and is linked to DNA damage and endocrine disruption.”
• “Arsenic, detected in certain skin-lightening creams, is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen and associated with cancers of the skin, lungs, and bladder.”
• The review explicitly flags lifetime cancer risk (LCR) and hazard-quotient (HQ) framings as the operative cosmetic heavy-metal-toxicology metrics in current literature; no review-author original LCR/HQ computation is presented.

Exposure routes (Figure 1, Section 3)

The review’s Figure 1 is a textual flow diagram: “Cosmetic use → Exposure routes (Dermal absorption / Inhalation) → Systemic effects → Health outcomes (Allergies / Respiratory irritation / Cancer / Hormone disruption).” Two-route framing only (dermal + inhalation); ingestion is mentioned in the Salles 2023 section for child-via-mouthing exposure but is not in Figure 1.

Methods (brief)

Narrative review of peer-reviewed literature published 2005–2025, sourced from PubMed, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate using six declared keyword strings (“perfume toxicity”, “cosmetic ingredients health effects”, “fragrance VOCs”, “allergies and cosmetics”, “endocrine disruption cosmetics”, “cancer risk cosmetics”). Inclusion criteria: studies of perfume/cosmetic effects on human health, observational or experimental, covering fertility / lung health / cancer / allergies / skin disorders / endocrine disruption / neurological effects / heavy-metal effects. Exclusion criteria: non-peer-reviewed articles, opinion pieces, and studies “with limited relevance or non-generalizable results (e.g., small sample sizes).” No formal PRISMA protocol, search-date cut-off documentation, screening-flow diagram, or risk-of-bias assessment is reported. No quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis. The author declares generative AI use “for some parts of the paper” and Frontiers AI-generated figure alt-text; the explicit AI-assisted-writing disclosure is in the Generative AI statement on the last page. Single-author manuscript (Sharifa Alblooshi, College of Natural and Health Sciences, Zayed University, Dubai, UAE).

Implications

Certification (HMTc): This review is regulatory-and-framing context for Cat 2 (Children Personal Care) and cosmetic-related work, not occurrence evidence in its own right. The Table 1 “Average exposure/Levels” figures (Pb 0.000719%, Cd 0.00036%) lack a basis annotation and underlying-study citation and should not be used to anchor any HMTc threshold; the cited primary studies (Irfan 2022, Salles 2023, Voica 2023, Lim 2018) are the authoritative occurrence sources and are independently citable. The Table 2 four-jurisdiction regulatory comparison is the review’s most-citable analytical contribution and overlaps the Attard & Attard 2022 review’s regulatory framing (see attard2022-heavy-metals-cosmetics-review); the two together support a US/EU/Canada/ASEAN crosswalk for Cat 2 limit-setting work.

Courses: The exposure-route framing (dermal + inhalation as the two systemic routes in Figure 1) is suitable for an introductory regulatory-affairs course module; the systematic-review weaknesses (single author, AI assistance, no PRISMA protocol) make it unsuitable as a primary teaching reference for evidence appraisal.

App: Cosmetics are outside the food-ingredient taxonomy; no contamination_profile rollup is appropriate.

Microbiome: Not addressed in the heavy-metal context. Section 3.5 (allergies) discusses skin microbiome briefly in dermatitis pathophysiology but does not connect it to metals exposure.

Wiki pages this source may touch

• lead
• cadmium
• mercury-total
• arsenic-total
• nickel
• chromium
• chromium-hexavalent
• fragrance-preparations
• lipstick
• eye-makeup
• skin-lightening-cream
• childrens-makeup
• face-paint
• makeup-foundation-powders-blush
• deodorants
• sun-suntan-products
• leave-on-hair-preparations
• manicuring-preparations-leave-on
• shampoo-adult

Verification notes

• Evidence tier C, not B: single-author manuscript, declared generative-AI assistance in writing, no PRISMA-style protocol, no formal inclusion/exclusion screening flow, no risk-of-bias assessment, no quantitative synthesis. The compiled regulatory comparison (Table 2) is internally consistent and citable; the heavy-metal occurrence figures should be drawn from the primary studies, not this review.
• metals: [Pb, Cd, tHg, tAs, Ni, Cr, Cr-VI]: the review uses unqualified “mercury” and “arsenic” in the narrative (so tHg and tAs are the correct abbreviations for the review-as-source). The Lim 2018 study cited inside Table 3 explicitly separates Cr⁶⁺/Cr³⁺ and the review carries that distinction through (“LCR values for Cr⁶⁺, Ni, As, Pb, and Cd…”, “heavy users exceeded ADI for Cr⁶⁺, Mn, and Pb”) — so Cr-VI is also included. Generic “Cr” stays because the review also uses unqualified “chromium” in the Voica 2023 section.
• matrices: []: the matrices vocabulary is food-domain. Cosmetics-relevant categorization is carried by the products: field. Same convention as Attard & Attard 2022 (attard2022-heavy-metals-cosmetics-review).
• products: chosen from the current wiki/products/ taxonomy. Twelve slugs verified. Notable absences: (a) no eye-shadow slug — the review’s eye-shadow content routes to eye-makeup (the umbrella slug). (b) no mascara or eyeliner slug — same routing. (c) “fairness creams” route to skin-lightening-cream (the closest match in the taxonomy; fairness creams are a marketing-positioned subset of skin-lightening creams). (d) “costume cosmetics” (Salles 2023) route to childrens-makeup and face-paint — the Salles 2023 source population includes both child and adult users but the costume-cosmetic context is the closest taxonomy match.
• jurisdictions: [US, EU, CA, ASEAN, AE]: includes ASEAN (the regulatory framework discussed in Table 2 is the ASEAN Cosmetic Directive, not a country-level code) and AE (author affiliation; the manuscript does not present UAE-specific data but the regulatory context is implicitly UAE-relevant via the Zayed University affiliation).
• Brand firewall (Part 12): the review does not name brands at the value level; categories (lipsticks, eye shadows, fairness creams, etc.) are the unit of reporting. Sections 3.4.3 and 3.5 discuss “products” generically. No firewall edits required.
• Part 2 firewall: Implications explicitly mark the review as framing context, not occurrence evidence, and decline to translate Table 1’s basisless averages into any HMTc threshold proposal. The Table 2 regulatory comparison is reported as comparative regulatory framing only.
• Two declared limitations of the review (Section 4): “Most existing studies are observational, limiting causal inference due to potential confounding and exposure misclassification”; “There is also a lack of standardized biomarkers and biomonitoring data specific to cosmetic-related compounds.” Both are consistent with the C-tier rating.
• Correction note on the manuscript itself: “A correction has been made to this article. Details can be found at: 10.3389/ftox.2025.1713750.” The corrected version (16 December 2025) is what is in raw_path; the correction notice does not flag any heavy-metal section as affected.

Page history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page. The full version history lives in git; when DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.