Barrett Emily S, Wadie Karolin, Getz Kylie, Greenberg Patricia, Moore Taina, Llanos Adana A M
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2025 Feb 21. doi: 10.1038/s41370-025-00751-9.
Personal care products (PCPs) are a source of environmental chemical exposures. Little research has examined the specific PCPs people use, the environmental hazards posed by those PCPs, and factors informing PCP selection.
To examine chemical hazards of the specific products used in relation to sociodemographic factors, purchasing behaviors, and perceptions about PCP safety.
In a cross-sectional, university-based sample (NJ, USA, N = 593), participants reported on sociodemographics, PCP purchasing behaviors and perceptions, and PCP use in the last 24-48 h (including brand and product name). Those PCPs were linked to product hazard scores (1=least hazardous, 10=most hazardous) in the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep® database. For each participant, we calculated average hazard scores across all PCPs used and by category (e.g., haircare, skincare) and evaluated use of PCPs with high hazard scores (7-10). We fitted adjusted regression models examining associations of sociodemographic factors and participants' perceptions and purchasing behaviors with product hazard scores.
Of 9349 unique PCPs used by participants, 68% matched to Skin Deep®. Average hazard scores varied by participant characteristics (e.g., age) for perfumes/colognes, beauty, and skin care products. The relative risk (RR) of recent use of a hair product with a high hazard score was twice as high in non-Hispanic Black women compared to non-Hispanic White women (RR:1.99; 95%CI:1.37, 2.89). Frequent use of healthy product apps (β = -0.49, 95%CI:-0.77, -0.21), reading product ingredient labels (β = -0.26; 95%CI:-0.82, -0.30), and seeking eco-friendly products (β = -0.17; 95%CI:-0.36, -0.01) were associated with use of skin care products with lower hazard scores. Results for hair and beauty products were similar. Concerns about PCP health impacts and regulation were associated with using products with lower hazard scores.
Personal care products (PCPs) can contain numerous endocrine disrupting and carcinogenic chemicals. In a U.S. university-based sample, we linked the PCPs used by participants in the last 24-48 h to hazard scores in the Skin Deep® database. Average hazard scores of the PCPs used by participants varied by sociodemographic factors. Participant behaviors (e.g., use of healthy product apps) and perceptions of PCP safety and regulation were associated with the average hazard scores of the PCPs they used. Our findings suggest that education and tools to inform PCP choice may help consumers choose safer products and potentially, reduce chemical exposures.
个人护理产品是环境化学物质暴露的一个来源。很少有研究考察人们使用的具体个人护理产品、这些产品所造成的环境危害以及影响个人护理产品选择的因素。
考察所使用的特定产品的化学危害与社会人口学因素、购买行为以及对个人护理产品安全性的认知之间的关系。
在一个基于大学的横断面样本(美国新泽西州,N = 593)中,参与者报告了社会人口学信息、个人护理产品购买行为和认知,以及过去24至48小时内个人护理产品的使用情况(包括品牌和产品名称)。这些个人护理产品与环境工作组织的“皮肤深层”数据库中的产品危害评分(1 = 危害最小,10 = 危害最大)相关联。对于每位参与者,我们计算了所有使用的个人护理产品以及按类别(如护发、护肤)划分的平均危害评分,并评估了使用高危害评分(7 - 10)的个人护理产品的情况。我们拟合了调整后的回归模型,以考察社会人口学因素以及参与者的认知和购买行为与产品危害评分之间的关联。
参与者使用的9349种独特个人护理产品中,68%与“皮肤深层”数据库匹配。香水/古龙水、美容和护肤产品的平均危害评分因参与者特征(如年龄)而异。与非西班牙裔白人女性相比,非西班牙裔黑人女性近期使用高危害评分护发产品的相对风险(RR)高出两倍(RR:1.99;95%置信区间:1.37,2.89)。频繁使用健康产品应用程序(β = -0.49,95%置信区间:-0.77,-0.21)、阅读产品成分标签(β = -0.26;95%置信区间:-0.82,-0.30)以及寻找环保产品(β = -0.17;95%置信区间:-0.36,-0.01)与使用危害评分较低的护肤产品相关。头发和美容产品的结果类似。对个人护理产品健康影响和监管的担忧与使用危害评分较低的产品相关。
个人护理产品可能含有多种内分泌干扰物和致癌物。在一个基于美国大学的样本中,我们将参与者在过去24至48小时内使用的个人护理产品与“皮肤深层”数据库中的危害评分相关联。参与者使用的个人护理产品的平均危害评分因社会人口学因素而异。参与者的行为(如使用健康产品应用程序)以及对个人护理产品安全性和监管的认知与他们使用的个人护理产品的平均危害评分相关。我们的研究结果表明,为个人护理产品选择提供信息的教育和工具可能有助于消费者选择更安全的产品,并有可能减少化学物质暴露。