Skip to content
Heavy Metal Index

Heavy Metals in Cosmetics

Overview

Sahu, Saxena, and Johnson reported a Centre for Science and Environment Pollution Monitoring Laboratory survey of commonly available cosmetics purchased from markets in Delhi, India. The study tested 30 lipsticks, 8 lip balms, and 3 anti-ageing creams for lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), total chromium (Cr), and nickel (Ni), and tested 32 fairness/skin-whitening creams for total mercury (Hg). This page preserves the report’s ppm units and total-metal speciation while suppressing brand and shade names attached to individual contamination values.

Key numbers

  • Report identity: CSE Pollution Monitoring Laboratory report PML/PR-45/2014, dated January 2014; investigators listed on the title page were Ramakant Sahu, Poornima Saxena, and Sapna Johnson.
  • Sample frame: 30 lipsticks, 8 lip balms, and 3 anti-ageing creams were tested for Pb, Cd, total Cr, and Ni; 32 fairness creams, including 26 women’s products and 6 men’s products, were tested for total Hg.
  • Lipsticks, Table 4 (ppm): Pb was ND in all 30 samples, and Cd was ND in all 30 samples.
  • Lipsticks, Table 4 (ppm): total Cr was detected in 15 of 30 samples, with reported concentrations from 0.45 ppm to 17.83 ppm.
  • Lipsticks, Table 4 (ppm): Ni was detected in 13 of 30 samples, with reported concentrations from 0.57 ppm to 9.18 ppm.
  • Lip balms, Table 4 (ppm): all 8 lip-balm samples were ND for Pb, Cd, total Cr, and Ni.
  • Anti-ageing creams, Table 4 (ppm): all 3 anti-ageing cream samples were ND for Pb, Cd, total Cr, and Ni.
  • Chromium risk comparison, Table 5 and Results text: the report compared total Cr in the 15 chromium-positive lipstick samples to a Cr+6 ADI by conservatively assuming all measured total Cr was Cr+6. Under average lipstick use of 24 mg/day, source-calculated intake was 10.8% to 427.9% of ADI and exceeded 100% in 4 of 15 samples; under high use of 87 mg/day, the source-calculated intake reached 1551.2% of ADI and exceeded 100% in 13 of 15 samples.
  • Fairness/skin-whitening creams, Table 6 (ppm): total Hg was detected in about 44% (14 of 32) samples, with reported concentrations from 0.10 ppm to 1.97 ppm as total mercury.
  • Fairness/skin-whitening creams, Table 6 (ppm): the report converted total Hg to HgCl2 using molecular weights, giving HgCl2 values from 0.14 ppm to 2.67 ppm among detected samples.
  • Men’s fairness creams, Table 6 (ppm): total Hg was detected in 1 of 6 men’s fairness-cream samples at 0.24 ppm; the other 5 men’s fairness-cream samples were ND.
  • Methods QA note: all sample and standard measurements were run in triplicate, and recovery tests for all metals were reported as more than 90%.

Methods (brief)

The Pollution Monitoring Laboratory bought cosmetic samples from Delhi markets. Lipsticks, lip balms, and anti-ageing creams were prepared by digesting about 1.0 g sample in 5.0 mL concentrated HNO3:HClO4 (3:1), heating for 2-3 hours, cooling, adding more acid mixture, reheating, diluting to 25 mL, and filtering through Whatman filter paper Number 41. Pb, Cd, and Ni were determined by flame atomic absorption spectrometry with an air-acetylene flame; total Cr used an air-acetylene-nitrous oxide flame. Fairness creams were prepared for Hg using the CETAC application-note digestion sequence with about 0.2g sample, H2SO4, HNO3, KMnO4, HCl, and hydroxylamine, then analyzed for Hg by flameless atomic absorption spectrometry. The report states that five-point calibration curves, triplicate measurements, deuterium background correction, and recovery tests were used, but it does not report LOD/LOQ values, uncertainty intervals, or a representative-market sampling design.

Speciation: the report measured total Cr in lipsticks, not Cr(VI). Its Cr+6 risk comparison is a source-side conservative assumption for exposure modeling and is not an occurrence measurement of Cr(VI). Mercury in fairness creams is reported as total Hg and converted by the source to HgCl2 equivalents; no methylmercury or other mercury speciation is reported.

Update history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git.

CommitDateChangeDescription
b01ec52c312026-08-04major1 section added
3171d069e32026-08-02major1 section added
90a2f9a38e2026-07-30major1 section added and 1 removed; narrative text revised
eaa8eeeedf2026-07-27major1 section added
50de6ab2172026-07-27minorNarrative text revised