Robin E Dodson1, Bethsaida Cardona2, Ami R Zota3, Janette Robinson Flint4, Sandy Navarro5, Bhavna Shamasunder6. 1. Silent Spring Institute, Newton, MA, USA. dodson@silentspring.org. 2. Silent Spring Institute, Newton, MA, USA. 3. Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, DC, USA. 4. Black Women for Wellness, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. LA Grit Media, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Occidental College, Urban and Environmental Policy Department, Los Angeles, CA, USA. bhavna@oxy.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Personal care product use may contribute to elevated body burdens of consumer product chemicals among women of color; however, racial/ethnic differences in product use has been understudied. Community-engaged research can support the recruitment of diverse participants. OBJECTIVE: To document personal care product use among a diverse group of women (aged 18-34 years) living in California. METHODS: Through a community-academic partnership, we surveyed 357 women in California about product use information for 54 cosmetic, hair, menstrual/intimate care, and leave-on and rinse-off personal care products. We compared type and frequency of product use among Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian, and White women. We also summarized use of scented products and reasons women select products. RESULTS: Women reported using a median of 8 products daily, with some women reporting up to 30 products daily. Hispanic/Latinx and Asian women used more cosmetics, and Black women used more hair and menstrual/intimate products than other women. Of the 54 products compared, there were significant differences in use by race/ethnicity for 28 products, with the largest number of significant differences between Black and White women. SIGNIFICANCE: There is growing information on chemical exposures from personal care products and consequent adverse health effects, with implications for health disparities. Yet, there remains limited information on the range and types of products used by diverse racial/ethnic communities. This study helps close an important gap on product use inventories that can enable more informed public health interventions to limit exposures from personal care products.
BACKGROUND: Personal care product use may contribute to elevated body burdens of consumer product chemicals among women of color; however, racial/ethnic differences in product use has been understudied. Community-engaged research can support the recruitment of diverse participants. OBJECTIVE: To document personal care product use among a diverse group of women (aged 18-34 years) living in California. METHODS: Through a community-academic partnership, we surveyed 357 women in California about product use information for 54 cosmetic, hair, menstrual/intimate care, and leave-on and rinse-off personal care products. We compared type and frequency of product use among Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian, and White women. We also summarized use of scented products and reasons women select products. RESULTS:Women reported using a median of 8 products daily, with some women reporting up to 30 products daily. Hispanic/Latinx and Asian women used more cosmetics, and Black women used more hair and menstrual/intimate products than other women. Of the 54 products compared, there were significant differences in use by race/ethnicity for 28 products, with the largest number of significant differences between Black and White women. SIGNIFICANCE: There is growing information on chemical exposures from personal care products and consequent adverse health effects, with implications for health disparities. Yet, there remains limited information on the range and types of products used by diverse racial/ethnic communities. This study helps close an important gap on product use inventories that can enable more informed public health interventions to limit exposures from personal care products.
Entities:
Keywords:
Community-based participatory research; Endocrine disrupting chemicals; Environmental health disparities; Fragrance; Personal care products; Race/ethnicity
Authors: Allan C Just; Jennifer J Adibi; Andrew G Rundle; Antonia M Calafat; David E Camann; Russ Hauser; Manori J Silva; Robin M Whyatt Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Roni W Kobrosly; Lauren E Parlett; Richard W Stahlhut; Emily S Barrett; Shanna H Swan Journal: Environ Res Date: 2012-04-01 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Vy Kim Nguyen; Adam Kahana; Julien Heidt; Katelyn Polemi; Jacob Kvasnicka; Olivier Jolliet; Justin A Colacino Journal: Environ Int Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Joe M Braun; Allan C Just; Paige L Williams; Kristen W Smith; Antonia M Calafat; Russ Hauser Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Xiangmei May Wu; Deborah H Bennett; Rebecca E Moran; Andreas Sjödin; Richard S Jones; Daniel J Tancredi; Nicolle S Tulve; Matthew Scott Clifton; Maribel Colón; Walter Weathers; Irva Hertz-Picciotto Journal: Environ Health Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Andrea L Deierlein; Alexis R Grayon; Xiaotong Zhu; Yanwen Sun; Xun Liu; Kaelyn Kohlasch; Cheryl R Stein Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Jelonia T Rumph; Victoria R Stephens; Joanie L Martin; LaKendria K Brown; Portia L Thomas; Ayorinde Cooley; Kevin G Osteen; Kaylon L Bruner-Tran Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Inkyu Han; Jin Young Seo; Dana Boyd Barr; Parinya Panuwet; Volha Yakimavets; Priya Esilda D'Souza; Heyreoun An-Han; Masoud Afshar; Ying-Yu Chao Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 4.614