| Literature DB >> 32825657 |
Ching-Chang Lee1,2, Yi-Hsin Lin1, Wen-Che Hou3, Meng-Han Li3, Jung-Wei Chang4.
Abstract
Concerns about the effects of nanoparticles (NPs) on human health are being raised by researchers because the risks of nanocosmetics like sunscreen are unknown. We explored the association between urinary oxidative stress markers and exposure of cosmetics salesclerks to 20 cosmetics that might contain titanium dioxide (TiO2)/zinc oxide (ZnO) NPs. We then recruited 40 cosmetics salesclerks and 24 clothing salesclerks and categorized them based on their exposure to ZnO and TiO2 NPs. Nineteen and 15 samples met the EU definition for TiO2 and ZnO nanomaterials, respectively. Participants with a higher co-exposure index of ZnO and TiO2 NPs had a significantly higher base level of urinary 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosin (8-OHdG) concentrations than the lower co-exposure group (5.82 vs. 2.85 ng/mL, p < 0.001). After potential confounding factors had been adjusted for, the TiO2 and ZnO NP co-exposure index was significantly positively associated with the urinary 8-OHdG base concentration (β = 0.308, 95% CI = 0.106 to 0.510) and the creatinine-adjusted concentration (β = 0.486, 95% CI = 0.017 to 0.954). Current evidence suggests that the likelihood of harm from using sunscreens containing nanoparticles might result in higher urinary 8-OHdG. However, our limited number and types of sample cosmetics might underestimate the risk.Entities:
Keywords: nanocosmetics; oxidative stress markers; titanium dioxide; zinc oxide
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32825657 PMCID: PMC7504197 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17176088
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Size, number, and weight concentration of TiO2 in sunscreens by SP-ICP-MS.
| Sample ID | SPF | Geo-Mean Size | TiO2 # | Mode Size | Fraction of Nanosized TiO2
1 | TiO2 Weight Percentage 2 | TiO2 Labeling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #001 | 50+ | 98.8 | 6.04 × 109 | 55.6 | 64 | 0.01 | No |
| #002 | 30 | 85.2 | 1.13 × 1013 | 62.3 | 77 | 3.17 | Yes |
| #003 | 40 | 75.1 | 2.00 × 1013 | 60.3 | 91 | 2.40 | Yes |
| #004 | 0 | 268.3 | 4.91 × 1012 | 111.0 | 0 | 30.07 | Yes |
| #005 | 50+ | 91.8 | 1.50 × 1012 | 61.3 | 66 | 0.62 | Yes |
| #006 | 15 | 72.8 | 1.02 × 1012 | 53.7 | 86 | 0.16 | Yes (1.23%) |
| #007 | 50+ | 71.8 | 1.25 × 1011 | 52.7 | 84 | 0.03 | No |
| #008 | 50 | 74.6 | 7.86 × 1011 | 58.0 | 85 | 0.10 | Yes |
| #009 | 50 | 75.6 | 1.06 × 1011 | 52.8 | 80 | 0.03 | Yes |
| #010 | 19 | 71.4 | 2.23 × 1012 | 54.0 | 89 | 0.55 | Yes |
| #011 | 50+ | 86.9 | 2.15 × 1011 | 65.6 | 78 | 0.06 | Yes |
| #012 | 50 | 81.8 | 7.00 × 1012 | 66.0 | 85 | 1.23 | Yes |
| #013 | 50+ | 101.5 | 1.83 × 107 | 66.9 | 65 | 0.00 | No |
| #014 | 50 | 79.6 | 7.34 × 1012 | 63.2 | 85 | 1.23 | Yes |
| #015 | 15 | 107.8 | 2.54 × 1012 | 63.7 | 57 | 2.84 | Yes |
| #016 | 50 | 94.1 | 8.39 × 1012 | 56.6 | 61 | 3.06 | Yes |
| #017 | 24 | 82.2 | 1.76 × 1012 | 62.6 | 80 | 0.37 | Yes |
| #018 | 50+ | 106.4 | 3.60 × 1010 | 64.1 | 54 | 0.03 | No |
| #019 | 20 | 74.3 | 5.09 × 1012 | 56.1 | 87 | 1.21 | Yes |
| #020 | 25 | 112.0 | 1.14 × 1012 | 68.0 | 50 | 1.24 | Yes |
#: number of particles; 1: The ratio of the number concentration of nano-size TiO2 and full-range particle size TiO2; 2: The ratio of the mass concentration of nano-size TiO2 and full-range particle size TiO2.
Size, number, and weight concentration of ZnO in sunscreens by SP-ICP-MS.
| Sample ID | SPF | Geo-Mean Size | Zno # | Mode Size | Fraction of Nanosized Zno 1 | Zno Weight Percentage 2 | Zno Labelled |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #001 | 50+ | 57.7 | 3.66 × 107 | 51.6 | 95 | 0.00 | No |
| #002 | 30 | 102.3 | 4.51 × 1011 | 83.0 | 53 | 0.22 | No |
| #003 | 40 | 66.2 | 2.22 × 107 | 67.1 | 94 | 0.00 | No |
| #004 | 0 | 61.7 | 1.64 × 108 | 62.4 | 100 | 0.00 | No |
| #005 | 50+ | 98.2 | 2.36 × 1012 | 72.1 | 30 | 1.72 | Yes (12.53%) |
| #006 | 15 | 69.7 | 4.29 × 107 | 59.4 | 88 | 0.00 | No |
| #007 | 50+ | 136.0 | 9.19 × 1012 | 91.5 | 21 | 9.14 | Yes (9.45%) |
| #008 | 50 | 55.6 | 1.72 × 108 | 48.5 | 98 | 0.00 | No |
| #009 | 50 | 67.0 | 1.37 × 107 | 50.2 | 89 | 0.00 | No |
| #010 | 19 | 65.2 | 5.42 × 107 | 55.3 | 93 | 0.00 | No |
| #011 | 50+ | 101.0 | 6.16 × 1011 | 96.1 | 39 | 0.37 | Yes (7.36%) |
| #012 | 50 | 99.1 | 1.27 × 107 | 80.5 | 60 | 0.00 | No |
| #013 | 50+ | 144.4 | 6.98 × 1011 | 103.3 | 16 | 1.22 | Yes (9.59%) |
| #014 | 50 | 92.2 | 1.68 × 108 | 59.0 | 69 | 0.00 | No |
| #015 | 15 | 67.7 | 1.51 × 109 | 57.3 | 97 | 0.00 | No |
| #016 | 50 | 88.7 | 1.51 × 108 | 73.4 | 79 | 0.00 | No |
| #017 | 24 | 96.0 | 1.48 × 108 | 78.9 | 74 | 0.00 | No |
| #018 | 50+ | 91.6 | 3.02 × 106 | 60.2 | 62 | 0.00 | No |
| #019 | 20 | 77.7 | 1.32 × 108 | 72.4 | 86 | 0.00 | No |
| #020 | 25 | 106.3 | 4.34 × 1012 | 76.4 | 42 | 2.47 | No |
#: number of particles; 1: The ratio of the number concentration between nano-size ZnO and full-range particle size ZnO; 2: The ratio of the mass concentration between nano-size ZnO and full-range particle size ZnO.
Demographic characteristics of the study population grouped by sampling site.
| Cosmetics | Clothing |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) c | 27.3 (20–47) | 42.2 (23–54) | <0.001 |
| Weight (kg) d | 54.4 (6.56) | 60.6 (10.1) | 0.004 |
| Height (cm) d | 161.8 (5.27) | 161.5 (6.62) | 0.812 |
| BMI | 20.7 (2.0) | 23.2 (3.28) | <0.001 |
| Marital status e | |||
| Unmarried/Divorced | 29 (72.5) | 11 (45.9) | 0.033 |
| Married | 11 (27.5) | 13 (54.2) | |
| Educational level | |||
| 15 (37.5) | 17 (70.9) | 0.069 | |
| Tech school | 4 (10.0) | 2 (8.3) | |
| Bachelor’s degree | 21 (52.5) | 5 (20.8) | |
| Monthly income (NT$) | |||
| <24,999 | 11 (27.5) | 9 (37.5) | 0.048 |
| 25,000~29,999 | 5 (12.5) | 9 (37.5) | |
| 30,000~34,999 | 15 (37.5) | 5 (20.8) | |
| 35,000~39,999 | 5 (12.5) | 1 (4.2) | |
| 40,000~44,999 | 4 (10.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Seniority (years) | 4.72 (5.70) | 11.9 (7.70) | <0.001 |
| Working time (day/month) | 20.5 (2.80) | 21.3 (2.63) | 0.262 |
| Weekday working time (h/day) | 8.59 (0.53) | 7.96 (2.13) | 0.078 |
| Weekend working time (h/day) | 8.70 (0.71) | 8.52 (2.03) | 0.611 |
| Exposed to Tobacco Smoke Exposure | |||
| Active | 7 (17.5) | 2 (8.3) | 0.264 |
| passive | 13 (32.5) | 10 (41.7) | 0.317 |
| Alcohol drinker f | 5 (12.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0.086 |
| Tea drinker f | 26 (65.0) | 13 (54.2) | 0.275 |
| Coffee drinker f | 15 (37.5) | 14 (58.3) | 0.087 |
a Continuous variables between two groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test; b Categorical variables were compared with χ2 test; c Expressed as Mean (range); d Expressed as Mean ± SD; e n (%); f Once a week at least.
Figure 1Oxidative stress analytical results grouped by Co-Exposure index integrating ZnO and TiO2 NPs showing in (A) ng/mL and (B) μg/g creatinine. # p < 0.1; * p < 0.05
Multiple regression analysis of urinary 8-OHdG concentration and exposure index a.
| Exposure Index b | ZnO NPs | TiO2 NPs | ZnO and TiO2 NPs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urinary 8-OHdG | β = −0.047 | β = 0.383 ** | β = 0.308 ** |
| Urinary 8-OHdG | β = −0.087 | β = 0.649 ** | β = 0.486 * |
a Adjusted for BMI, smoking, alcohol drinking, and tea drinking habits; b log-transformations of exposure index was used; c Expressed as coefficient β and 95% CI; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.