Heavy Metals Contents of Commonly‐used Cosmetics at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cosmetics are preparations used in contact with various parts of the body such as epidermis, hair, nails, teeth, lips, genitalia; and mucous membrane of the oral cavity, for purpose of cleaning, perfuming, protecting, changing appearances for ‘better’, converting body odours to pleasant fragrances, and generally keeping body surfaces in good condition. Several studies have shown unacceptable levels of heavy metals in cosmetics, and which were linked to chronic toxicities. The aim of this study was to determine heavy metals contents of commonly‐used cosmetics at Ahmadu Bello University Zaria ‐ one of Nigeria’s 165 universities, which offers 520 programs by 98 academic departments housed in 16 faculties with total student and staff populations (and approximate female percent representation) of >60,000 (~35%) and >10,000 (~20%) respectively. A survey at its main campus, revealed 11 cosmetic shops while some of the other 415 on‐campus shops also sold diverse cosmetics. These included body creams/lotions/toners (150 different brands), perfumes/splashes (145), soaps (93), face powders (57), lipsticks/lip glosses (33), shampoos (30), toothpastes (9) and shaving creams/powders (7). Using purposive/convenient sampling techniques, students from all 6 departments in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, were served a link to a questionnaire deployed on Survey Monkey TM platform; and the first 100 respondents‐indicated most‐commonly‐used cosmetics were identified, and analysed for 11 elements using flame atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Thus, 10 cosmetics used by the (stated percentage of participating) students, namely: oral‐B toothpaste (46%), veets shaving cream (32%), petals shampoo (19%), dettol medicated soap (19%), eva soap (19%), absolute lip gloss (16%), huda beauty pure matte lipstick (15%), iman makeup pressed powder (12%), dove lotion (7%) and jergen’s shea butter lotion (7%) were analysed; but not abraaj oud perfume (8%) due to the latter’s volatility. The concentrations in ppm were determined for the heavy metals; and compared where applicable, with standard limits set by the FDA, Health Canada, EU and WHO. The values obtained were: calcium (0.031–1.542), cadmium (0.001–0.067), cobalt (0.013–0.408), copper (0.004–0.178), iron (0.131–10.779), lead (0.00–0.590), magnesium (0.001–0.388), manganese (0.001–0.928), nickel (0.00–2.720), sodium (0.000–0.022) and zinc (0.000–0.736). None of the 11 heavy metals was undetected in all the 10 cosmetic samples studied; and the lipstick had the highest levels of 5 heavy metals ‐ cobalt, copper, magnesium, manganese and nickel. In addition, the concentration of nickel in the lipstick analysed, being 2.720 ppm, was several times higher than some nickel standard limits e.g. those specified by FDA (<0.6 ppm) and EU (<0.6 ppm), but not the standard limits specified by Health Canada (<10 ppm) and WHO (<10 ppm). While the vast majority of heavy metals contents of the cosmetics studied were below specified concentrations, possibilities of their accumulation in biological systems over time, constitute potential health risks. Absence of obvious standard limits for many heavy metals plus large disparities in those specified by various regulatory bodies complicate assessment of cosmetics toxicity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".