16 metal(loid)s were evaluated in different kinds of tampons.
Several toxic metals, including lead, were detected.
Tampon use is a potential source of exposure to metals in menstruating people.
The highest concentration was found for zinc (geometric mean = 52,000 ng/g)
A geometric mean lead concentration of 120 ng/g was found in our samples.
Background
Between 52–86% of people who menstruate in the United States use tampons—cotton and/or rayon/viscose ‘plugs’—to absorb menstrual blood in the organ. Tampons may contain metals from agricultural or manufacturing processes, which could be absorbed by the receptive organ’s highly absorptive tissue, resulting in systemic exposure. To our knowledge, no previous studies have measured metals in tampons.
Objectives
We evaluated the concentrations of 16 metal(loid)s in 30 tampons from 14 tampon brands and 18 product lines and compared the concentrations by tampon characteristics.
Methods
About 0.2 – 0.3 g from each tampon (n = 60 samples) were microwave-acid digested and analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) to determine concentrations of arsenic, barium, calcium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, mercury, nickel, lead, selenium, strontium, vanadium, and zinc. We compared concentrations by several tampon characteristics (region of purchase, organic material, brand type) using median quantile mixed models.
Results
We found measurable concentrations of all 16 metals assessed. We detected concentrations of several toxic metals, including elevated mean concentrations of lead (geometric mean [GM] = 120 ng/g), cadmium (GM = 6.74 ng/g), and arsenic (GM = 2.56 ng/g). Metal concentrations differed by region of tampon purchase (US versus European Union/United Kingdom), by organic versus non-organic material, and for store- versus name-brand tampons. Most metals differed by organic status; lead concentrations were higher in non-organic tampons while arsenic was higher in organic tampons. No categoriy had consistently lower concentrations of all or most metals.
After a Study Found Lead in Tampons, Environmentalists Wonder if Global Metal Pollution Is Worse Than They Previously Thought
Activists say the research marks a growing awareness connecting everyday life to the toxic contamination of the planet and ongoing harm to the climate. More research is examining how women are disproportionately impacted.
Robin Dodson, an exposure scientist at Silent Spring Institute, where she researches the environment and women’s health, said that the findings about lead and arsenic made her wonder what other metals and substances people are unknowingly exposed to.
“It’s just really concerning,” she said. “This is ending up in these kinds of products. What else is it ending up in that we don’t test for? Keep track of?”
“It really speaks to the need for greater federal oversight and scrutiny, and putting more accountability on companies as well…”
For some, it’s more than just about tampons. The trace metals found there are essentially a canary in the coal mine on the extent of global pollution and how that contamination seeps into products people use everyday.
“The beauty of thinking about Rachel Carson’s work in ‘Silent Spring’ is that she was not showing an impact on human health necessarily,” Dodson said. “It was the more subtle effects, like this idea of what happens if the animals in our environment can’t reproduce effectively.”
She said these small shifts and changes are very important because “it’s those preliminary or first subtle effects that I think are just kind of indicators of the larger problem.”
“And it’s important to look there,” said Dodson. “We don’t have to say, ‘Look, let’s just wait to see if this becomes a big deal.’ Let’s use the first hint that maybe there’s a connection here so that we can be more mindful as we’re moving forward about the potential broader impacts of what we’re seeing on a more subtle level right now.”
My experience is this is an extremely sensitive test method. It can be used to fingerprint materials. You can figure out which manufacturing plant made the product. Often the metal comes from trace impurities in the water used in processing, sometimes from corrosion.
“No safe level” is an impossible goal. These materials are natural and occur in trace amounts everywhere. Some processes concentrate them. Some plants extract them from the soil they grow in (or fertilizer impurities, etc). Raising plants to remove toxics from soil is a well known bio-remediation technique. You can remove toxics from soil by planting and then harvesting the crop to remove from the site.
“None there” is not a scientifically valid regulation. None detectable is the best you can do. And define your test method. Concentration in the analytical method can usually increase sensitivity. The problem is open ended.
Levels acceptable for food should be suitable for tampons. No doubt detailed studies will follow. But imagine trying to measure the health effects of ultra-trace amounts of say lead.
Articles I have seen point out that the method used measures all the metal present in the sample. Often the metal is bound in the sample and is not released. Soil testing in agriculture routinely addresses this problem by measuring nutrients that are extracted under conditions that mimic those used by plants. That aspect too remains to be explored.
And presumably the health effects of metal exposure are known. Since there are millions/billions of women who have used tampons for many decades, health issues from metal exposure should have shown up by now.
As metals are used throughout industry the effects of acute exposure should be known. The effects if ultra-trace exposure can be subtle and difficult to detect. The no safe level for lead is typical.
No doubt this subject will get some attention. Manufacturers must be checking their products, tracing sources, and should be eager to say theirs are safe and free of metals.
Lots of toxics have been foisted on the public for decades by corporations without the public knowing.
The public health/medical researchers and environmental regulators have not been able to study all the sources of toxic intakes by the public. Just look at the history behind lead in potable water pipes, in paints, in brass, in gasoline, in bullets, in solder, and many other other sources. We have lived through toxins in smoking, auto exhausts, and emissions/discharges from power plants, refinerys, chemical plants, steel/copper/aluminum processing We are now catching up on toxins from tampons, PFAS, herbicides, pesticides, food, and many other public exposures not identified until recently.
How do you know what health effects to look for in women who are exposed to lead and other toxics for years from tampons?
We still live with mercury, arsenic, and other toxics emissions from coal mining and coal fired plants.
In this case we are talking about naturally occurring materials that have been around forever. It is very likely that measurable amounts are present in a sample taken from your lawn. Humans have been exposed to these materials forever. Man has used some of them from ancient times.
Now we recognize that some of them have toxic effects when exposed at low levels for the long term. But to suddenly decide they are a serious problem is very extreme. We know that iron is toxic under some circumstances but also a necessary ingredient for our hemoglobin.
“No safe level” does not make sense. We need to know more.
I would assume that the effects of exposure to metals are very well known at this point in time. With a quarter of the population exposed for decades, significant effects would be an epidemiologist’s dream.
Nope. There are a lot of things not considered when a person shows up with a medical condition that lacks a known cause. Removing the potential toxins is a start, but the real effects won’t be known for 50-100 years.
How can it be a epidemiologist’s dream when there is no data on the toxic effects on women. The only thing we know now is that there are toxins in tampons.
You seem to think there is toxin data for 50 to 90 year old Tampax products and health data for 60 to 100 year old women presenting toxin problems. That is weird thinking . A doctor of science would never claim such foolishness because there are many sources of toxins contaminating human bodies.
Well maybe, just maybe, if you had a quarter of the population exposed to the metals on a regular basis for decades then problems would have shown up. If there were problems…
That is the problem. The manufactured products are regularly changed for a variety of reasons: tech changes, materials change (type, supplier, and so on), demand changes, customers change products due to change in their bodies/age, and so on. Thus, there is no source of the baseline information needed.
Remember the toxic shock syndrome problem from new, highly absorbant tampons. Was that 40 years ago. Health effects of tampons were closely examined. But looking for infection. Would they have overlooked effects from metals, adhesives, other components?