Chemicals of concern in personal care products used by women of color in three communities of California

Personal care products are widely used and are significant sources of exposure to chemicals associated with cancer and disruption of endocrine and reproductive systems via dermal, inhalation, and ingestion pathways. Prior biomonitoring studies link frequency and type of PCP use to higher body burdens of phthalates, parabens, and other chemicals. Evidence shows racial/ethnic differences in exposure levels and related health outcomes, with Black women, Latinas, and some Asian groups experiencing higher levels of certain chemicals and greater burdens of hormone-mediated conditions. Cultural norms, beauty standards, and product marketing may drive differential product use and exposures. Few studies have systematically assessed the presence of known or suspected carcinogens, reproductive/developmental toxicants, and endocrine disruptors in products used by different racial/ethnic groups. This study aimed to quantify such chemicals of concern (CoCs) in PCPs marketed to and/or used by Black/African American, Latina, and Vietnamese women in California communities, using ingredient label review and laboratory analysis (targeted and suspect screening by GCxGC-TOFMS) to detect chemicals not disclosed on labels.

Multiple national and community-based studies report racial/ethnic disparities in exposures to chemicals common in PCPs. African American and Mexican American women often have higher urinary levels of certain phthalates and parabens than White women, while Asians have shown higher triclosan levels. Black women experience higher rates of hormone-mediated outcomes (e.g., preterm birth) and disparities in breast cancer incidence and mortality. Product use patterns differ by race/ethnicity: higher use of fragrances, hair oils/perms/relaxers, and some intimate care products among Black women has been linked to elevated phthalate and VOC biomarkers. Hair dye and relaxer/straightener use has been associated with breast cancer risk, particularly among Black women. Research on Latinas and Asian women’s personal product use is more limited, though occupational exposures among Vietnamese nail salon workers have been documented. Prior product testing identified undisclosed EDCs and carcinogens in PCPs, with a large fraction being fragrance ingredients exempt from labeling. Earlier community surveys by the authors found differences in product types and frequency of use by race/ethnicity, motivating a targeted assessment of product ingredients and undisclosed chemicals.

Definition of chemicals of concern (CoCs): CoCs were defined as substances on one or more authoritative lists indicating association with cancer, reproductive/developmental toxicity, or endocrine disruption, including: California Safe Cosmetics Program Reportable Ingredients List (drawing on Prop 65, U.S. EPA, NTP Report on Carcinogens, NTP OHAT, IARC), Silent Spring Institute Mammary Gland Carcinogen Database, mammary gland developmental toxicants (Rudel et al.), EU Candidate List for endocrine disruption (REACH Article 57(f)), and The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) list. Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives were also included due to formaldehyde’s carcinogenicity. Product selection and label review: In a community-based approach, partner organizations serving Black/African American (San Bernardino and Riverside counties), Latino (Salinas Valley), and Vietnamese (Los Angeles and Orange counties) communities identified commonly used and marketed products. Selection was guided by prior survey data on use frequencies, inventories from 39 stores (Nov 2019–Mar 2020; spanning large chains to small community markets), and community knowledge. Products marketed to these communities (via imagery, color schemes, language) were photographed and cataloged. A total of 546 unique products across hair, skin, makeup, nail, deodorant/perfume, and intimate care categories were included for ingredient label review (Apr–Dec 2020). Ingredients were obtained from online labels, standardized, and screened using an Excel macro against a compiled list of CoCs and synonyms. Occurrences of “fragrance” or “parfum” were recorded as indicators of undisclosed fragrance mixtures. Descriptive statistics were calculated overall and by community and product category. Laboratory analysis: Due to cost, 31 products (approximately 10 per community; prioritizing those listing “fragrance” or ingredients prone to contamination such as ethoxylates) underwent laboratory testing to detect CoCs not identified on labels. The analytical platform was comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GCxGC-TOFMS), combining targeted analysis (with confirmation against NIST standards) and suspect screening using the NIST mass spectral library to identify additional CoCs. The subset included shampoos, hair styling creams/serums, facial cleansers/creams/masks, body lotions, intimate care products, deodorant, makeup, and one product marketed as “pure/safe/natural.” Data analysis summarized presence and concentrations of target analytes and detections from suspect screening, and compared laboratory detections with label disclosures.

- Ingredient labels (n=546): 65% of products listed at least one CoC. 74% listed “fragrance”/“parfum” (undisclosed ingredients). A total of 37 unique CoCs appeared on labels. The most prevalent groups were parabens, cyclosiloxanes, and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives. Tocopherol/tocopheryl acetate (vitamin E) appeared most frequently (36.3%) but was excluded from focused analyses due to limited endocrine evidence. Titanium dioxide appeared on 14.8% of labels (primarily makeup; inhalation is the concern). Talc appeared on 3.3% (few were inhalable powders). - By community/product category (Table 3): Any CoC on label: Black 71%, Latina 63%, Vietnamese 62% (overall 65%). Undisclosed fragrance on labels: Black 92.9%, Latina 77.8%, Vietnamese 56.6% (overall 73.8%). Hair products (n=203): fragrance on 93.1% of labels; parabens 12.8%; formaldehyde releasers 17.2%; lilial 14.8%. Skin products (n=238): fragrance 67.2%; parabens 18.1%; formaldehyde releasers 13.0%. Makeup (n=53): titanium dioxide 73.6%; parabens 18.9%; cyclosiloxanes 28.3%. Deodorant/perfume (n=20): fragrance 85%; cyclosiloxanes 30%; BHT 25%; lilial and galaxolide each 10%. Nail (n=9): fragrance 33.3%; triphenyl phosphate 33.3%. - Laboratory analysis (n=31 products): Detected 29 unique CoCs in total; 22 were not identified on labels, and 7 appeared on some labels (ethylparaben always labeled when detected). All products contained 1–10 CoCs; only 23% of detected CoCs (38/165 detections) were disclosed on labels. Eleven products with no CoCs on labels each contained 2–7 CoCs in lab testing. - Types of CoCs identified by lab: Predominantly fragrance ingredients; also preservatives, solvents, plasticizers, and UV filters. Contaminants included benzyl chloride (up to 39 µg/g in a leave-on lotion) and 1,4-dioxane (found in a shampoo, an intimate wash, and a moisturizer). - Concentrations/examples: DEP up to 1431 µg/g in a leave-on skin moisturizer used by Latinas; DEHP 1019 µg/g in a leave-on hair styling serum used by Black women (trace in two others); DBP detected at trace levels in three products; methylparaben and other parabens in eight skin/makeup products with single-paraben concentrations 223–2537 µg/g; octyl methoxycinnamate detected in a hair styling product, intimate wash, and skin lightening cream; homosalate 30,915 µg/g (~3%) in a sunscreen (label listed 10%); tonalid 6.1 µg/g in a leave-on hair styling lotion; beta-myrcene found in 18/31 products (highest >12 µg/g in a product marketed as “natural”); diethylhexyl adipate detected in 12/31 products, more frequently than phthalates. - Additional observations: Fragrance listed on a majority of labels across most categories; non-English labels were present in 21/39 stores; 52 non-English product labels (e.g., Japanese/Korean) could not be reviewed due to unavailable translations.

The study demonstrates that PCPs used by Black/African American, Latina, and Vietnamese women commonly contain CoCs tied to cancer, reproductive/developmental toxicity, or endocrine disruption, addressing the research objective to quantify such chemicals. Label review showed widespread presence of parabens, cyclosiloxanes, and formaldehyde releasers, and undisclosed fragrance mixtures. Laboratory analyses revealed numerous additional CoCs not listed on labels—particularly fragrance ingredients—highlighting incomplete disclosure and potential underestimation of exposure when relying solely on ingredient lists. The findings underscore endocrine disruption as an underregulated concern and point to cumulative, potentially additive exposures from multiple products used daily, often containing overlapping CoCs. Comparisons with prior studies show similar or higher concentrations for certain analytes (e.g., parabens, phthalates), and emerging substitution (e.g., diethylhexyl adipate) with limited endocrine data. The high prevalence of undisclosed fragrance components and detection of contaminants like benzyl chloride and 1,4-dioxane emphasize the need for improved transparency and manufacturing controls. These results are relevant for risk assessment, exposure modeling, and environmental justice, given observed differences in product use and targeted marketing that may contribute to health inequities.

Over half of 546 PCPs marketed to and/or used by women of color contained ingredients linked to cancer, reproductive/developmental harm, or endocrine disruption, and nearly three-quarters listed undisclosed fragrance mixtures. GCxGC-TOFMS of a subset identified many additional CoCs not disclosed on labels, including fragrance ingredients, preservatives, solvents, UV filters, and contaminants. These data can inform exposure and risk assessments that consider simultaneous use of multiple products and multiple routes, with implications for reducing exposures in communities at higher risk. Future research should: (1) compare products targeted to specific groups with mainstream products; (2) evaluate how affordability constrains access to safer alternatives; (3) expand chemical scope (including non-volatile and metals) using complementary analytical platforms; (4) scale automated screening of larger product datasets; and (5) integrate product chemical data with biomonitoring to assess disparities and intervention opportunities. Enhanced ingredient disclosure and awareness can help drive market shifts toward safer formulations.

Product selection was limited to inventories from 39 stores and community partner knowledge, which may not capture the full market or use patterns. Reliance on online ingredient lists risks discrepancies with in-store formulations; products sold exclusively online were not examined. Different product categories were selected by each community, limiting direct racial/ethnic comparisons within the same category and precluding comparisons to products not targeted to women of color. Non-English product labels were underrepresented; 52 products could not be reviewed due to unavailable translations. Laboratory screening was limited to chemicals amenable to GCxGC-TOFMS, potentially missing very volatile (e.g., formaldehyde), non-volatile, and inorganic contaminants (e.g., metals). Sources of detected chemicals (undeclared ingredients vs. impurities, processing, or packaging) were not investigated. Toxicity data gaps and mixture/cumulative effects remain substantial, and endpoints such as asthma or allergies were outside the study scope.