Skip to content
Heavy Metal Index

20款爽身粉测评 (Test of 20 infant powders by the Shenzhen Consumer Council), news report

A Southern Metropolis Daily article of 19 June 2020 reports a Shenzhen Consumer Council survey and comparative test of 20 infant powders, covering heavy metals, asbestos, particle size, moisture absorption, and slip.

A Southern Metropolis Daily article of 19 June 2020 reports a Shenzhen Consumer Council survey and comparative test of 20 infant powders, covering heavy metals, asbestos, particle size, moisture absorption, and slip. The reference standards named are China’s Safety and Technical Standards for Cosmetics (2015 edition), industry standard QB/T 1859-2013 for body and prickly-heat powders, and EU Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.

All 20 samples met the Chinese national standard for heavy metals. Four samples did not meet the German BVL technically avoidable values for lead, arsenic, or cadmium. The article states that all four were plant-starch powders without talc. No asbestos was found in any talc powder.

Key numbers

AnalyteHighest value among 20 samplesSamples above the German valueGerman value as quoted
Lead3.5 mg/kg12 mg/kg
Arsenic (species not stated)0.87 mg/kg10.5 mg/kg
Cadmium0.31 mg/kg40.1 mg/kg

One sample exceeded the German values for all three metals. The German values quoted match the BVL 2017 general cosmetics values (see Technically avoidable heavy metal contents in cosmetic products).

Four samples had more than 30% of particles below 10 µm by volume. Moisture absorption ranged from 0.24% to 15.38% by mass, and plant-starch powders absorbed more than talc powders. These are physical results, not metal results.

Methods (brief)

The article does not describe the metal method, the laboratory, or detection limits. The council’s result chart for heavy metals is shown as an image in the original article; in the printed copy used here the image did not load.

Evidence fitness

The report supports three maxima and three exceedance counts across 20 infant powders on the Chinese market in 2020, and the statement that the higher metal results came from plant-starch powders. It supports nothing at the level of an individual product.

Limitations

Secondary news reporting of an unobtained council report. No per-sample values, no method, and no basis statement. Arsenic species is not stated. No author email is printed; the newsroom tip address is not an author contact.

Update history

No substantive edit history is available in this build. The full commit record is available in git.