Human health risks of lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals in lipsticks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigates the concentration of heavy metals in various lipsticks sold in Ghana and assesses the potential health risks associated with their use. A total of 12 lipstick samples were analyzed using an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer for metals, including chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), and lead (Pb). The findings revealed that Cr levels ranged from below detection limits to 2554.20 mg/kg, with five samples significantly exceeding the acceptable 1 mg/kg limit set by Health Canada. Mn concentrations varied from 0.09 mg/kg to 823.00 mg/kg, and Ni levels were detected up to 228.40 mg/kg, indicating potential risks of neurotoxicity and contact dermatitis. Cu was found in extremely high concentrations, particularly in samples S1 (14053.33 mg/kg) and S7 (1939.84 mg/kg), exceeding the acceptable 100 mg/kg limit, suggesting severe contamination and potential systemic toxicity. Cd concentrations in most samples surpassed the FDA limit of 3 mg/kg, posing risks of kidney damage. In comparison, Pb concentrations in several samples approached or exceeded the FDA limit of 10 mg/kg, indicating potential neurotoxic effects. Health risk assessments for dermal and oral exposure were conducted, with hazard quotients for non-carcinogenic risks remaining below 1, suggesting minimal immediate health risks. However, the relative intake indices (RII) for Cr, Cd, and Pb in oral risk assessments indicated significant exposure levels far exceeding acceptable daily intakes (ADI) for heavy users. These findings highlight the need for stricter regulation and consumer awareness of the potential dangers posed by heavy metals in cosmetics. Enhanced safety standards and regular monitoring are imperative to protect public health from the adverse effects of toxic metals in beauty products.
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) | 0.000 | 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".