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

[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.

wrong crowd

[supernova87a]

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

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.

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.

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.