Antiperspirants Could Contribute to Particulate Pollution

MTorrice writes: Environmental scientists monitor particulate matter pollution because it poses risks to human health and can affect the climate. Ultrafine particles, up to 100 nm in diameter, are produced by vehicle exhaust and other combustion processes. They also form when volatile chemicals from other sources condense in the atmosphere, often through reactions triggered by sunlight.

Now atmospheric scientists propose that personal care products, such as antiperspirants, could be a potential source of ultrafine particulate matter. On the basis of data from the U.S. and Finland, they find that airborne nanoparticles in highly populated areas often contain silicon. They hypothesize that organic silicon compounds found in cosmetics waft into the air, get oxidized, and contribute to the growth of nanoparticles.

Comments

Heh

[MightyMartian]

Not using antiperspirants ain't so good for the air either.

Re:Heh

[Teresita]

Great, our communes already smell like a landfill because the greenies make us recycle, and now we all get to smell like they do.

Re:Heh

[perpenso]

Great, our communes already smell like a landfill because the greenies make us recycle, and now we all get to smell like they do.

Having once moved from a suburban environment to a ranch environment (horses, cows, etc) I can tell you the odor only bothers you for about three days. After that you still recognized the odors they just no longer have an effect. It seems a persistent ability. Many years after moving back to suburbia I drove near some dairies. While other passengers were nearly gagging I experienced nothing more than the thought "huh, cows".

Re:Heh

[R.Mo_Robert]

Not using antiperspirants ain't so good for the air either.

I know you're being funny, but it's actually worth noting that there is a difference between deodorants and antiperspirants (and that term itself is usually short for antiperspirant + deodorant). As you can probably guess now that the terms have been separated, the latter are supposed to stop you from smelling, while the latter are supposed to prevent you from sweating in the first place. I switched from antiperspirants to deodorants a few years ago after I became concerned that maybe jamming aluminum salts up my pores to block sweat in wasn't such a good idea. Most people would probably be fine with just a deodorant, and I say that as someone who is fairly physically active myself.

That being said, I'm not sure why the article singled out antiperspirants. I'm pretty sure you can find the siloxanes (one of the categories proposed as responsible for the problem) in many deodorants as well, e.g., as decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, which is used to make the product smooth. Off the top of my head (without being in the deodorant aisle at the store right now) I'd guess that "natural" brands like Toms or KMF would be some of the few that probably don't contain these. The specificity in the article seems unnecessary--to say nothing about whether personal care products are a significant source when the chemicals in question can also be found in building material and things that might be a larger source.

Re:Heh

[AmiMoJo]

No, this has nothing to do with deodorants. This is about antiperspirants, and in particular certain types of spray on ones which are not very good for your skin either.

In Japan you can buy clothing that deals with this problem. If your country is lucky enough to have Uniqlo shops you can try it out yourself. The material is anti-bacterial and deodorising. At the end of the day you can take it off and it sniff the arm pits, and they don't smell too bad. It also has fast drying features which act as a combination of antiperspirant and allowing the clothing to return to a relatively "clean" state after you stop exerting yourself or come in from the heat.

wrong crowd

[supernova87a]

The Slashdot audience is probably contributing less than average to the environmental problem of antiperspirants being used.

Holy fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Will these wackos ever stop finding shit that is supposedly screwing everything up? If we all lived in faces they'd bitch about the fact the fucking cave dwelling animals had no home because we kicked them out.

Human haters is what they are.

Your OWN air quality

[Pharmboy]

I gave up spray deodorant and switched to stick years ago, simply because I didn't want to be inhaling aluminum chlorohydrate and other goodies. That it isn't good for the environment is secondary to that.

Re:Your OWN air quality

[Chuckstar]

This does not seem to have anything to do with method of application. The stuff evaporates off your skin into the air.

Re:Your OWN air quality

[PopeRatzo]

simply because I didn't want to be inhaling aluminum chlorohydrate and other goodies.

Man, aluminum chlorohydrate is a hell of a buzz. But you have to be careful because it makes you think you can stop cars with your bare hands.

I don't think particulate contaminants evaporate.

[mmell]

Liquids evaporate. Particulates tend to be left behind after evaporation is completed.

Remember: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Building materials?

[Chuckstar]

This stuff is also heavily used in building materials -- sealants that keep water from soaking into concrete, for instance. I'd be curious to see why they dismiss such building materials as a source, focusing only on personal-care products. It's possible that there is simply so much more used in personal care products. But the one link that isn't slashdotted doesn't explain why the focus on personal-care products.

I use deoderant.

[gfxguy]

I use deoderant, not anti-perspirent. Not only have I heard other bad things about anti-perspirent, but I figure if my body wants to sweat then it wants to sweat for a reason.

Alum Crystal

[labnet]

I switch to alum crystal type deoderant years ago.

http://www.bodycrystal.com.au/...

They work well and last about 2 years per stick.

Re:Alum Crystal

[Krishnoid]

Another minor benefit of the crystal stick -- impossible to identify as a 'paste' in your carry-on luggage.

No, I didn't read the article.

[mmell]

This is /.

Re:I don't think particulate contaminants evaporat

[PopeRatzo]

The hypothesis is that evaporated siloxanes photo-oxidize (in the presence of hydroxyl radicals), then condense onto nanoparticles

Slow down, I'm trying to take notes.

Couldn't possibly be roads?

[macraig]

You know what also contains silicon? The material in roads. Cars drive over this material, breaking it up and wearing it down. Perhaps not all of it winds in topsoil and the water system?

Daffy Duck headline

[wonkey_monkey]

It needs a slight rewrite, but imagine the headline being read by Daffy Duck:

Antiperspirants Perhaps Partly Partake in Prolonging Particulate Pollution

Re:Europe/antiperspirants

[rockout]

... and THANK YOU for making Americans seem so reasonable, and not reinforcing the stereotype that Europeans already have.