Carlin 2020 - tampon and eyeshadow analytical-chemistry review

Carlin’s New College of Florida thesis reviews consumer-product research and regulation for tampons and eyeshadows. It is C-tier secondary evidence: the occurrence values are transported from cited primary studies, not generated by this thesis. The page is useful context for tampon dioxin/furan literature, eye-makeup metal literature, and analytical-method gaps, but transported values should not be double-counted when the cited primary studies are separately ingested.

Key numbers

The tampon section summarizes dioxin and furan literature rather than heavy-metal measurements. For a 1989 Swedish paper on paper products, the thesis reports a tampon 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ of 0.3 pg of 2,3,7,8-TCDD per gram of tampon, total 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 0.92 pg/g, and other chlorinated dioxins each under 0.1 pg/g.

For the Schecter 1998 U.S. tampon work, the thesis reports PCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ values between 0.003 pg/g and 0.042 pg/g. It reports PCDF TEQ values as between 0.4 pg/g and 0.235 pg/g; that range is copied in the source’s order, even though the endpoints are not ascending.

For the DeVito and Schecter 2002 exposure assessment, the thesis states that average daily intake of dioxins in TEQs ranged from 0.00069 to 0.016 pg, compared with the source’s estimated dietary dioxin intake of 1 pg dioxin TEQ/kg/day. For Archer et al. 2005, the thesis reports a method-detection-limit study total TEQ of 0.125 pg/g tampon, an LOD-derived average detectable TEQ of 0.0145 pg/g, and a theoretical exposure estimate of 0.108 pg/kg body weight per month for a 50-kg test case.

Table 4 transports Shin and Ahn 2007 tampon dioxin/furan values:

For eye makeup, Table 5 summarizes U.S. FDA-linked contaminant limits in cosmetics as mercury <1 ppm with <65 ppm allowed as preservatives in eye-area products, lead <10 ppm as an impurity, and no listed chromium limit apart from allowed chromium hydroxide/oxide dyes. These are source-reported regulatory context values, not HMTc thresholds.

Table 6 transports Conti et al. 1996 atomic-absorption spectroscopy results for 18 eyeshadow samples, reported in ppb. The thesis states that lead was below the 5 μg/L detection limit in 9 samples; cadmium was not above the 0.1 μg/L detection limit in 8 samples; chromium was found in all samples; and mercury was not detected above the 1 microgram/L detection limit in any sample. Among detected rows in Table 6, lead ranged from 14.2 ± 4 to 184.4 ± 6.0 ppb, cadmium from 0.7 ± 6.5 to 35.0 ± 7.0 ppb, and chromium from 3.8 ± 4.0 to 270.7 ± 61.5 ppb.

Table 7 transports Sainio et al. 2000 eyeshadow maxima and detection limits from Helsinki-market samples:

The same section states that 9 samples had water-soluble chromium above 2 ppm, 2 samples had water-soluble chromium above 10 ppm, and the highest water-soluble chromium value was 318 ppm.

Table 8 transports Bocca et al. 2013 powder-based cosmetics/eyeshadow ICP-MS means in ppm:

Methods (brief)

This thesis is a literature and regulatory review. It discusses analytical techniques including FTIR, GC/MS, HPLC, AAS, AES, ICP-MS, and ICP-AES, but does not perform original product analysis. Its tampon occurrence values come from cited dioxin/furan studies using Soxhlet extraction and GC/HRMS or related methods. Its eye-makeup metal values come from cited AAS and ICP-MS studies of eyeshadow/cosmetic samples.

Implications

Certification: This source should not contribute primary occurrence values to tampon or eye-makeup metals pools. It can serve as C-tier secondary context and as a pointer to primary studies that should be ingested directly when available.

Courses: The thesis is useful for teaching how consumer-product research, regulatory categories, and analytical-method choices shape what data exist. It also illustrates the distinction between literature review tables and primary lab-generated occurrence rows.

App: The source can support background copy about why tampons and eye makeup have historically attracted analytical-chemistry scrutiny, but it should not be presented as a primary contaminant test.

Microbiome: The tampon discussion mentions toxic shock syndrome and vaginal microflora in a regulatory/history context, but no microbiome endpoint or new microbiological measurement is reported.

Wiki pages this source may touch

• menstrual-tampons
• eye-makeup
• lead
• cadmium
• mercury-total
• chromium
• arsenic-total
• cobalt
• nickel

Verification notes

Identity checks before drafting found no existing wiki/sources/ hit for raw handle MFK_paper-24-carlin-2020-thesis-tampons, cite key carlin2020-tampons-eyeshadows-chemistry, the Digital Commons handle theses_etds/5847, or the exact title. The repository citation lists the work as 2020, while the title page says Sarasota, Florida, December 2019; the cite key and year follow the repository/work-list year and the date discrepancy is recorded here. The thesis has no DOI printed; doi: null and no_doi_assigned: true are retained. The PDF SHA-256 is 17ff24948afc70bb33f3dcc53f274b38d0b48b25bd4862b0e6ef7af30143f811. Tables 4-8 and Sections 2.2-2.3 were re-opened from /tmp/hmi-fem-016.txt; units are preserved without conversion. Table 8’s Cd LOD/LOQ ordering is copied as displayed even though the LOD value exceeds the LOQ value. The thesis labels arsenic as Ar in Table 7, but the row text says Arsenic; this page routes it as total arsenic (tAs) because no inorganic-arsenic speciation is reported. The brand firewall is clean: this page reports sample/location codes and aggregate literature values, not brand-linked contamination values.

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.