Evaluation of asbestos exposure resulting from simulated application of spiked talcum powders

Abstract

This study characterizes airborne asbestos exposures resulting from the adult application of cosmetic talc body powders spiked with known concentrations of tremolite. Raw talc ores were spiked with 0.005% and 0.1% asbestiform or non-asbestiform tremolite. Personal samples were collected during 16 simulated events, including puff and shaker application and associated clean-up activities. Airborne fiber levels (PCM) were not significantly different for simulations involving talc spiked with asbestiform and non-asbestiform tremolite (p = 0.6104). For application and clean-up of talc spiked with 0.005% asbestiform tremolite, 2 of 24 (8.3%) samples were above the LOD for TEM (0.003 f/cc). For application of talc spiked with 0.1% asbestiform tremolite, 21 of 24 (87.5%) were above the LOD for TEM. The corresponding mean PCME asbestos concentrations were 0.016 f/cc for puff and shaker for samples collected in the first 15 min, 0.002 f/cc for puff and 0.004 f/cc for shaker in the second 15 min, and 0.005 f/cc for puff and 0.013 f/cc for shaker for the full 30 min. Mean PCME concentrations for samples collected during clean-up following application of talc spiked with 0.1% asbestiform tremolite were 0.003 f/cc for samples collected in the first 15 min following puff application, 0.005 f/cc for samples collected in the second 15 min following shaker application, and 0 f/cc for the remaining clean-up samples. Using the EPA’s exposure factors, we determined the range of cumulative asbestiform fiber exposures that would result from product use, assuming asbestiform tremolite was present at 0.1%.

Keywords:

• Talc
• asbestos
• risk
• exposure

Disclosure statement

Six of the authors are (KK, TT) or were formerly (EM, BR, AM, NZ, JP) employed by Cardno ChemRisk, a consulting firm that provides scientific advice to the government, corporations, law firms, and various scientific/professional organizations. The remaining author (AS) is employed by Segrave Technical Consulting LLC, a forensics analytical laboratory and scientific consulting firm. Both firms have been engaged by companies involved in asbestos and talc litigation, and four of the authors (EM, AM, JP, AS) have served and may serve again as experts in future cases. However, the time invested by the authors to write this paper was provided by their employers, and no client of Cardno ChemRisk, or Segrave Technical Consulting LLC, or defendant in litigation requested that this work be performed. No external funding was received for the laboratory analysis, the research supporting the analysis, nor the time needed to prepare the article. Furthermore, the work product, including but not limited to the study design, results and conclusions drawn, is exclusively those of the authors, and no party to asbestos or talc litigation reviewed this paper prior to its publication.

Notes

1 Two air samples were collected for 4 or 5 min (on page 321 of the manuscript, the sampling duration was reported as four minutes; on page 323 of the manuscript, the sampling duration was reported as five minutes) in the breathing zone of the applicator. An additional sample was collected in the breathing zone of the applicator for 3.3 min, which included the application time.