This study focuses on the determination, as well as, the composition of some heavy metals contained in 12 eye shadow cosmetic samples. An elemental analysis of heavy metals (Ti, Cr, Fe, Ni, Cu, Co, Mn, Pb, and Zn) was performed by X-ray Fluorescence. The constitution of some samples was studied by Powder X-Ray Diffraction. Heavy metals exist as zinc oxide, Titanium dioxide, Iron oxide, Bismuth oxychloride, and lead sulfide. The quantification of selected toxic heavy metals lead, copper and nickel were achieved by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry after digestion with concentrated acids. In all analyzed samples lead had a concentration less than 20 ppm, which indicated good manufacturing practice. Copper and nickel levels were within acceptable concentrations, but overpasses the safe limit appeared in China samples. The prolonged use of cosmetics case an allergic problem for consumers. Therefore, quality controls are highly controlled for imported products with different regulations.
Cosmetic products since ancient civilizations were indicated the power and beautiful [
A total of 12 samples of eye shadow makeup were selected from products available in the shops at Jeddah markets in Saudi Arabiain May 2016. Samples were chosen depending on the results of the questionnaire for Saudi women about the most brands they use. The analyzed colored eye shadow samples were divided into 4 groups, manufactured in different countries. Three of the selected samples were locally manufactured while the 9 others were produced in China, Italy, Canada, and USA. To achieve this work many techniques were used for analysis, included; ICP-OES, X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) for quantitative multi-elemental analysis, X-Ray Powder Diffraction (XRD) to investigate the structural information on the crystalline content.
Sample Analysis: powdered eye shadow samples were analyzed using a Powder XRD diffractometer (Model Equinox1000 ? INEL (France) with Co Kα (λ = 1.7890 Å) radiation at 30 kV and 30 mA. Minimal eye shadow powder sample was preparation, fixed into sample holders and located into the instrument. Sample was scanned over a 2θ range 0˚ - 120˚. PXRD data was used to detect the crystalline phases present in the samples and comparing them to the ICDD (International Centre for Diffraction Data) database. Data Processing: To describe the components that present in eye shadow samples, MATCH software (Ver. 12.0, Crystal Impact, Germany) was used to achieve a search/match analysis by balance sample diagram to reference diagram from an ICDD Powder Diffraction Files (PDF) and COD (Crystallographic Open Databases) databases.
For EDXRF analysis, finely grounded powder was mounted in sample cups. Diffraction data were collected by Amptek spectrometer with X-123 Silicon Drift Detector SDD and 22 KeV Ag X-Ray source (50 KV, 60 uA). These data were used to determine the elemental composition, as percent by weight of the element, present in samples. The detection was qualitative and the elemental range covered all elements from Si to UU.
Reagents and standards: Great pureness HNO3 and HClO4 (65% - 60%, Sigma Aldrich) were adjusted to digesting the eye shadow samples [
Lead concentration is summarized in (
Samples S5 and S8 are lead-free. The analyzed samples had content of lead less than 20 μg∙g−1, which represents the highest lead limit as contaminant in color additives in the cosmetics for outer treatment, according to US FDA (United
Brand | Sample no. | Origin country | Colour | Pb |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | S1 | China | Black | 4 ± 0.01 |
S2 | Blue | 10.4 ± 0.01 | ||
S3 | Brown | 16.6 ± 0.04 | ||
2 | S4 | Saudi Arabia | Black | 7.6 ± 0.11 |
S5 | Blue | ND | ||
S6 | Brown | 1.2 ± 0.04 | ||
3 | S7 | China | Black | 9.2 ± 0.07 |
S8 | Blue | ND | ||
S9 | Brown | 2.8 ± 0.02 | ||
4 | S10 | Italy | Black | 3.8 ± 0.05 |
S11 | Canada | Blue | 7.8 ± 0.00 | |
S12 | U.S.A | Brown | 4.6 ± 0.03 |
(ND = Not Detectable).
States Food and Drugs Administration), but exceeds the limits of SASO (Saudi Standards, Metrology and Quality Org.) and health Canada organisms which limits are 10 ppm (
The concentrations of copper and nickel are showed in (
In order to minimize allergic risks related to cosmetic products use, preferred amounts of heavy metals represent as copper and nickel are less than 5 μg∙g−1 [
Cu | Ni | Pb | Refs. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended limits | SASO | - | - | 10 μg∙g−1 | [ |
FDA | - | - | 20 μg∙g−1 | [ | |
Health Canada | - | - | 10 μg∙g−1 | [ | |
Toxicities | Liver damage, insomnia, Wilson disease | dermatitis, nausea, chronic asthma, coughing, a human carcinogen | fetal brain damage, kidney disease, circulatory system, nervous system, and autoimmunity problems | [ |
Sample No. | Copper | Nickel |
---|---|---|
S1 | 167 ± 0.01 | 2.8 ± 0.00 |
S2 | 337.4 ± 0.02 | 10.2 ± 0.01 |
S3 | 7.2 ± 0.00 | 10.2 ± 0.02 |
S4 | ND | 1.4 ± 0.00 |
S5 | 0.6 ± 0.00 | 6 ± 0.01 |
S6 | 4.4 ± 0.00 | 11.8 ± 0.01 |
S7 | ND | 0.8 ± 0.00 |
S8 | ND | ND |
S9 | ND | 8 ± 0.00 |
S10 | ND | ND |
S11 | 8 ± 0.00 | 14.8 ± 0.01 |
S12 | ND | 6.6 ± 0.017 |
(ND = Not Detectable).
under this limit, so they consider as harmless and safe. However, several Chinese samples had a concentration of copper and nickel over this limit. XRF instrument usually used to detect many elements of cosmetic products [
Bi is identified at levels of product weight as 47.65% in S11 and 8.47% in S12 (
Sample | Ti | Cr | Fe | Ni | Cu | Co | Mn | Pb | Zn | Bi |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | 47.5 | 0.016 | 4.85 | 0.0355 | 0.0906 | 0.072 | 0.095 | 0.174 | 0.148 | 0 |
S2 | 0.928 | 0.00054 | 4.7 | 0.00051 | 0.3899 | 0.076 | 0.323 | 0.398 | 0.1272 | 0 |
S3 | 0.65 | 0.00134 | 14.35 | 0 | 0.137 | 0.1921 | 0.168 | 0.58 | 0.15 | 0 |
S4 | 0.62 | 0.05 | 66.33 | 0 | 0.024 | 0.69 | 0.18 | 0.015 | 0.1 | 0 |
S5 | 60.14 | 19.12 | 1.69 | 0 | 0.064 | 0.05 | 0.316 | 0.047 | 0.058 | 0 |
S6 | 9.6 | 0.003 | 51.84 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.42 | 0.351 | 0.163 | 0 |
S7 | 5.6 | 0.02 | 68.1 | 0 | 0.22 | 0.754 | 0.469 | 0.413 | 0.265 | 0 |
S8 | 44.6 | 0.0313 | 7.68 | 0.036 | 0.23 | 0.09 | 0.3 | 0.164 | 0.1139 | 0 |
S9 | 7.09 | 0.0432 | 62.85 | 0 | 0.162 | 0.81 | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.213 | 0 |
S10 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 82.9 | 0 | 0.169 | 1.26 | 0.615 | 0.316 | 2.368 | 0 |
S11 | 0.56 | 0.08 | 5.02 | 0.207 | 0.256 | 0 | 20.17 | 3.26 | 5.85 | 47.65 |
S12 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 82.6 | 0 | 0.172 | 1.1 | 0.535 | 0.785 | 1.88 | 8.47 |
Greatest levels were detected in dark Italian and American samples S10 and S12. The iron-based sample, contained hematite (Fe2O3) has assigned by PXRD results. The search matched diffraction patterns of iron oxide Fe2O3, titanium dioxide TiO2, bismuth oxychloride, zinc oxide ZnO, and lead sulfide PbS to sample diffraction pattern in the structure of Hematite, anatase, BiOCl, zincite, and Galena respectively. Compared these results to the relative elemental concentrations of zinc, titanium and Fe, Bi and Pb obtained by XRF analysis.
The amounts of heavy metals in various eye shadow products were achieved by X-ray Fluorescence and ICP-OES in this work. The composition of some samples was studied by PXRD. The overall results of these study reported that heavy metals present in eye shadow are within acceptable limits while some of those imported from China can be harmful, the prolonged use of such products can be a potential threat to human health since heavy metals can accumulate in human tissues over time and induce allergic problems. To minimize health risks related to cosmetic products use, it is highly recommended to control the quality of these products.
We would like to thank Dr. Hafedh Driss Assistant Professor at King Abdulaziz University for his precious help in performing XRF and XRD experiment and analysis.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Zainy, F.M.A., Bannani, F. and Alotaibi, O.A. (2018) Elemental Compositions of Some Eye Shadow Products Marketed in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Cosmetics, Dermatological Sciences and Applications, 8, 236-243. https://doi.org/10.4236/jcdsa.2018.84024