Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Saturday June 29 2024, @04:09AM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

A study of 17 commonly-used synthetic 'forever chemicals' has shown that these toxic substances can readily be absorbed through human skin.

New research, published in Environment International proves for the first time that a wide range of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl substances)—chemicals which do not break down in nature—can permeate the skin barrier and reach the body's bloodstream.

PFAS are used widely in industries and consumer products from school uniforms to personal care products because of their water and stain repellent properties. While some substances have been banned by government regulation, others are still widely used and their toxic effects have not yet been fully investigated.

PFAS are already known to enter the body through other routes, for example being breathed in or ingested via food or drinking water, and they are known to cause adverse health effects such as a lowered immune response to vaccination, impaired liver function and decreased birth weight.

It has commonly been thought that PFAS are unable to breach the skin barrier, although recent studies have shown links between the use of personal care products and PFAS concentrations in human blood and breast milk. The new study is the most comprehensive assessment yet undertaken of the absorption of PFAS into human skin and confirms that most of them can enter the body via this route.

Lead author of the study, Dr. Oddný Ragnarsdóttir carried out the research while studying for her Ph.D. at the University of Birmingham. She explained, "The ability of these chemicals to be absorbed through skin has previously been dismissed because the molecules are ionized. The electrical charge that gives them the ability to repel water and stains was thought to also make them incapable of crossing the skin membrane.

"Our research shows that this theory does not always hold true and that, in fact, uptake through the skin could be a significant source of exposure to these harmful chemicals."

[...] The amount absorbed seemed to correlate with the length of the carbon chain within the molecule. Substances with longer carbon chains showed lower levels of absorption, while compounds with shorter chains that were introduced to replace longer carbon chain PFAS like PFOA, were more easily absorbed. Absorption of perfluoro pentanoic acid, for example, was four times that of PFOA at 59%.

[...] "This is important because we see a shift in industry towards chemicals with shorter chain lengths because these are believed to be less toxic—however the trade-off might be that we absorb more of them, so we need to know more about the risks involved."

More information: Oddný Ragnarsdóttir et al, Dermal bioavailability of perfluoroalkyl substances using in vitro 3D human skin equivalent models, Environment International (2024). DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108772


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 29 2024, @02:39PM (5 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday June 29 2024, @02:39PM (#1362496)

    If LSD can be transferred through a temporary tattoo, you can bet most chemicals can also be transferred through the skin.

    Anybody ever do serious analysis of bug repellant or sunscreen, or makeup?

    --
    🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 29 2024, @04:57PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 29 2024, @04:57PM (#1362501)

      > Anybody ever do serious analysis of bug repellent or sunscreen, or makeup?

      Hoping someone here comes up with a reference or two...

      I'm northern European pale, sunburn in 5-10 minutes in the northern USA summer. I use sunscreen when I really have to, but I don't like smearing anything on my skin. After all, skin is the largest organ in the body (plenty of references on this topic) and, imo, worth taking care of.

      Instead I have a collection of light weight long sleeve shirts, long pants, hats with big brims, etc. Have even worn light gloves on a few occasions.

    • (Score: 2) by corey on Saturday June 29 2024, @11:55PM (2 children)

      by corey (2202) on Saturday June 29 2024, @11:55PM (#1362523)

      Yeah I’ve been wondering the same too. My wife is a absolute stickler for sunscreen, especially for our kids. While I think the risk of skin cancer is higher here in Australia than poisoning from chemicals, I wish we knew more about it. I also wonder if the zinc sunscreens are better since they have basically cream stuff plus zinc flakes rather than all these unpronounceable chemicals doing that job.

      • (Score: 2) by optotronic on Sunday June 30 2024, @01:46AM

        by optotronic (4285) on Sunday June 30 2024, @01:46AM (#1362527)

        I also wonder if the zinc sunscreens are better since they have basically cream stuff plus zinc flakes rather than all these unpronounceable chemicals doing that job.

        Consumer Reports says no, chemical sunscreens do a considerably better job. I do wonder whether chemical sunscreens have more potentially harmful ingredients.

        https://www.consumerreports.org/health/sunscreens/why-you-still-need-sunscreen-a6302179189/ [consumerreports.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2024, @01:53AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2024, @01:53AM (#1362529)

        Here's a possibly interesting book,
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK587270/ [nih.gov]

        This chapter provides an overview of the UV (ultraviolet) filters used as the active ingredients in sunscreens marketed in the United States. UV filters are a diverse set of chemicals with varying physical and chemical properties that influence their presence, behavior, and toxicity in the environment. This chapter introduces some of the basic properties of the UV filters; a more complete explanation of their environmental fate can be found in Chapter 4. What UV filters all share is the ability to absorb, reflect, and/or scatter UV radiation. The modes of action for UV absorption and reflection/scattering are described in this chapter. [...]

        PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROFILES

        The chemicals used as UV filters vary in their physical and chemical properties, which influence both their environmental fate and potential toxicity as well as their contributions to skin protection. The most significant difference is that two of the UV filters approved for use in the United States are inorganic particulates (titanium dioxide [TiO2] and zinc oxide [ZnO]) while the other UV filters are organic chemicals. Notably, as particulates, the inorganic UV filters can be found in a variety of shapes and sizes (though their different forms are not distinguished in their regulation as UV filters), leading to more variability in their environmental behavior than is seen in organic UV filters.

        If anyone reads through (it's full text), it would be great to see a summary or review here on SN.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Saturday June 29 2024, @04:21PM (1 child)

    by SpockLogic (2762) on Saturday June 29 2024, @04:21PM (#1362498)

    3M knowingly poisoned the world for profit. Just like the Tobacco and Oil companies they lied about it to put profit before people.

    [s] Yay for capitalism, we don't need no stinkin' regulations. [/s]

    See - Revealed: How to Poison a Planet https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32229091/ [imdb.com]

    --
    Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
    • (Score: 2) by aafcac on Sunday June 30 2024, @03:19PM

      by aafcac (17646) on Sunday June 30 2024, @03:19PM (#1362579)

      Just remember that everything includes tumors, so the tumors are larger in Texas as well.

(1)