Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Environ Int. 2013 Jan;51:82-7. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.008. Epub 2012 Nov 28.

Plasma concentrations of cyclic volatile methylsiloxanes (cVMS) in pregnant and postmenopausal Norwegian women and self-reported use of personal care products (PCPs).

Author information

1
Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromso, NO-9037 Tromso, Norway. linda.hanssen@uit.no

Abstract

Dermal application of personal care products (PCPs) is considered an important human exposure route for siloxanes. Their presence as minor or major constituents in many personal care products (PCPs) and cosmetics is of concern for human exposure. The aim of this study was to quantify cyclic volatile methylsiloxanes (cVMS) in blood plasma of pregnant and postmenopausal women, and to investigate possible links to self-reported use of PCPs for the latter group. Participants were recruited from two studies, namely the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study (NOWAC) and the North Norwegian Mother-and-child Study (MISA). For the NOWAC cohort, 94 plasma samples from postmenopausal women were analyzed (blood drawn in 2005) and information about PCP use and breast implants was derived from a self-administered questionnaire. In the MISA study, the collection of the plasma samples (blood drawn in 2009) constituted a re-sampling because the original serum vacutainers used were contaminated with cVMS. D4 (octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane) was the dominant compound in plasma for both cohorts. For the NOWAC samples, more than 85% of the women had D4 concentrations above the LOQ (2.74 ng/mL), while the detection frequency was only 18% for the MISA participants. The highest cVMS plasma concentrations were observed for D4: 12.7 ng/mL (NOWAC) and 2.69 ng/mL (MISA). For the other cVMS, decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) and dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6) concentrations were below the detection limit in most samples. There was no significant correlation between the concentrations of D4 and the reported total body cream use. Sampling time (2005 versus 2009) and age of the donors could explain the differences between the two cohorts.

PMID:
23201819
DOI:
10.1016/j.envint.2012.10.008
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center