Zhou · Environmental science & technology 2023 · analytical chemistry and exposure modeling study · n=91 product samples

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Personal Hygiene Products: The Implications for Human Exposure and Emission to the Environment.

Cited 48 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Bench analytical chemistry and exposure modeling study with no direct human clinical data (graded by design analogy).

PubMed 37262408 · doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c08912 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Researchers measured 31 representative per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) across 91 commercial samples from six categories of personal hygiene products: sanitary pads, panty liners, tampons, paper diapers, menstrual cups, and bactericidal liquids. Using measured chemical concentrations, they calculated estimated human exposure doses via dermal absorption (for infants and adults) and modeled total environmental emission loads based on a 100% leaching assumption.

What was found

Perfluorinated carboxylic acids accounted for over 85% of total PFAS concentrations identified. Paper diapers had the highest sum of PFAS concentrations (64.6 ng/g), followed by sanitary pads (52.3 ng/g) and menstrual cups (21.1 ng/g). Estimated dermal absorption doses for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) were 0.77 ng/kg-bw/day for menstrual cup use, and 2.1 ng/kg-bw/day in infants (1.2 ng/kg-bw/day in adults) from paper diapers—exceeding typical exposure from dust ingestion. Modeled annual environmental emissions from diaper and sanitary pad disposal were 2.58 kg/year and 322 kg/year, respectively.

Why it matters

This study identifies personal hygiene products, particularly diapers and menstrual products, as an unmonitored direct route of dermal PFAS exposure and a source of environmental contamination.

Limits

The study evaluated a moderate sample size (n = 91) across several product categories without specifying geographic sourcing or brand variation in the abstract. Exposure doses and environmental leaching figures rely on mathematical modeling and assumptions (such as 100% leaching) rather than direct biomonitoring (e.g., serum or urine levels) or empirical dermal absorption testing.

Cited by