Risk Analysis

Potential Airborne Asbestos Exposure and Risk Associated with the Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder Products

Early View

  • Author(s): Amanda M. Burns, Christy A. Barlow, Amber M. Banducci, Kenneth M. Unice, Jennifer Sahmel
  • Article first published online: 12 Apr 2019
  • DOI: 10.1111/risa.13312
  • Read on Online Library
  • Subscribe to Journal

Abstract Over time, concerns have been raised regarding the potential for human exposure and risk from asbestos in cosmetic‐talc–containing consumer products. In 1985, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted a risk assessment evaluating the potential inhalation asbestos exposure associated with the cosmetic talc consumer use scenario of powdering an infant during diapering, and found that risks were below levels associated with background asbestos exposures and risk. However, given the scope and age of the FDA's assessment, it was unknown whether the agency's conclusions remained relevant to current risk assessment practices, talc application scenarios, and exposure data. This analysis updates the previous FDA assessment by incorporating the current published exposure literature associated with consumer use of talcum powder and using the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) nonoccupational asbestos risk assessment approach to estimate potential cumulative asbestos exposure and risk for four use scenarios: (1) infant exposure during diapering; (2) adult exposure from infant diapering; (3) adult exposure from face powdering; and (4) adult exposure from body powdering. The estimated range of cumulative asbestos exposure potential for all scenarios (assuming an asbestos content of 0.1%) ranged from 0.0000021 to 0.0096 f/cc‐yr and resulted in risk estimates that were within or below EPA's acceptable target risk levels. Consistent with the original FDA findings, exposure and corresponding health risk in this range were orders of magnitude below upper‐bound estimates of cumulative asbestos exposure and risk at ambient levels, which have not been associated with increased incidence of asbestos‐related disease.

Related Topics

Related Publications

Related Content

Site Footer


This website is provided by John Wiley & Sons Limited, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ (Company No: 00641132, VAT No: 376766987)

Published features on StatisticsViews.com are checked for statistical accuracy by a panel from the European Network for Business and Industrial Statistics (ENBIS)   to whom Wiley and StatisticsViews.com express their gratitude. This panel are: Ron Kenett, David Steinberg, Shirley Coleman, Irena Ograjenšek, Fabrizio Ruggeri, Rainer Göb, Philippe Castagliola, Xavier Tort-Martorell, Bart De Ketelaere, Antonio Pievatolo, Martina Vandebroek, Lance Mitchell, Gilbert Saporta, Helmut Waldl and Stelios Psarakis.