Archives of Toxicology

, Volume 92, Issue 4, pp 1383–1392 | Cite as

A methodology for the assessment of inhalation exposure to aluminium from antiperspirant sprays

  • Katharina Schwarz
  • Gerlinde Pappa
  • Heike Miertsch
  • Julia Scheel
  • Wolfgang Koch
Inorganic Compounds


Inhalative exposure can occur accidentally when using cosmetic spray products. Usually, a tiered approach is applied for exposure assessment, starting with rather conservative, simplistic calculation models that may be improved with measured data and more refined modelling. Here we report on an advanced methodology to mimic in-use conditions for antiperspirant spray products to provide a more accurate estimate of the amount of aluminium possibly inhaled and taken up systemically, thus contributing to the overall body burden. Four typical products were sprayed onto a skin surrogate in defined rooms. For aluminium, size-related aerosol release fractions, i.e. inhalable, thoracic and respirable, were determined by a mass balance method taking droplet maturation into account. These data were included into a simple two-box exposure model, allowing calculation of the inhaled aluminium dose over 12 min. Systemic exposure doses were calculated for exposure of the deep lung and the upper respiratory tract using the Multiple Path Particle Deposition Model (MPPD) model. The total systemically available dose of aluminium was in all cases found to be less than 0.5 µg per application. With this study it could be demonstrated that refinement of the input data of the two-box exposure model with measured data of released airborne aluminium is a valuable approach to analyse the contribution of antiperspirant spray inhalation to total aluminium exposure as part of the overall risk assessment. We suggest the methodology which can also be applied to other exposure modelling approaches for spray products, and further is adapted to other similar use scenarios.


Aluminium Antiperspirant sprays Inhalation Droplet maturation Lung exposure Two-box model 



We would like to thank Dr. Clare Vickers and Dr. Helge Weingart for proofreading the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors G. Pappa, H. Miertsch and J. Scheel are employees of the sponsor of the studies. However, this did not influence the objectivity of the performed study. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Anjilvel S, Asgharian B (1995) A multiple-path model of particle deposition in the rat lung. Fundam Appl Toxicol 28:41–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bremmer HJ, Prud’Homme de Lodder LCH, van Engelen JGM (2006) Cosmetics fact sheet. To assess the risk for the consumer. Updated version for ConsExpo 4. RIVM report 320104001/2006Google Scholar
  3. Carthew P, Griffiths H, Keech S, Hartop P (2002) Safety assessment for hair-spray resins: risk assessment based on rodent inhalation studies. Inhal Toxicol 14:401–416. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. CEN (1993) European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Workplace atmospheres-size fraction definitions for measurement of airborne particles. CEN, British Standards Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng KC, Acevedo-Bolton V, Jiang RT, Klepeis NE, Ott WR, Fringer OB, Hildemann LM (2011) Modeling exposure close to air pollution sources in naturally ventilated residences: association of turbulent diffusion coefficient with air change rate. Environ Sci Technol 45:4016–4022. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Comiskey D et al (2015) Novel database for exposure to fragrance ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 72:660–672. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. DeVoto E, Yokel RA (1994) The biological speciation and toxicokinetics of aluminium. Environ Health Perspect 102:940–951CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. ECHA (2016) Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment; Chapter R.15: Consumer exposure assessmentGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards CJC, Mills AK (1999) A Guide to Understanding Antiperspirant Formulations. In: Laden K (ed) Antiperspirants and Deodorants, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. EFSA (2008) Scientific opinion of the panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and food contact materials (AFC). Safety of aluminium from dietary intake. EFSA J 6(7):754:1–34Google Scholar
  11. FEA (2009) Guide on particle size measurement from aerosol productsGoogle Scholar
  12. FEA (2013) Guide on inhalation safety assessment for spray productsGoogle Scholar
  13. Finley B, Proctor D, Scott P, Harrington N, Paustenbach D, Price P (1994) Recommended distributions for exposure factors frequently used in health risk assessment. Risk Anal 14:533–553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Koch W, Dunkhorst W, Lödding H (1999) Design and performance of a new personal aerosol monitor. Aerosol Sci Technol 31:231–246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koch W, Behnke W, Berger-Preiß E, Kock H, Gerling S, Hahn S, Schröder K (2012) Validation of an EDP assisted model for assessing inhalation exposure and dermal exposure during spraying processes, 1st edn. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA), DortmundGoogle Scholar
  16. Meek ME, Boobis AR, Crofton KM, Heinemeyer G, Raaij MV, Vickers C (2011) Risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals: a WHO/IPCS framework. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 60:S1-S14. Google Scholar
  17. RIVM (2002) Multiple path particle dosimetry model (MPPD v 1.0): a model for human and rat airway particle dosimetry. RIVM, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  18. Rothe H, Fautz R, Gerber E, Neumann L, Rettinger K, Schuh W, Gronewold C (2011) Special aspects of cosmetic spray safety evaluations: principles on inhalation risk assessment. Toxicol Lett 205:97–104. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Safford B et al (2015) Use of an aggregate exposure model to estimate consumer exposure to fragrance ingredients in personal care and cosmetic products. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 72:673–682. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Salem H, Katz SA (2006) Inhalation toxicology, 2nd edn. CRC Taylor & Francis, BocaRatonGoogle Scholar
  21. Schwarz K, Koch W (2017) Thoracic and respirable aerosol fractions of spray products containing non-volatile compounds. J Occup Environ Hyg 14:831–838. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Steiling W, Buttgereit P, Hall B, O’Keeffe L, Safford B, Tozer S, Coroama M (2012) Skin exposure to deodorants/antiperspirants in aerosol form. Food Chem Toxicol 50:2206–2215. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Steiling W et al (2014) Principle considerations for the risk assessment of sprayed consumer products. Toxicol Lett 227:41–49. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Zaripov S, Koch W (2014) Numerical Study of the RespiCon Sampler Performance in the Calm Air. Aerosol Sci Technol 48:74–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine ITEMHanoverGermany
  2. 2.Beiersdorf AGHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations