Moment of Truth - Our Particle Sizes

I wanted to follow up on our Response to Dr. Oz Blog.  It is one thing to sit and say what we use and don't use, but as reputable small-business owners, we need to lay it on the line... Truth in Labeling and Full Disclosure. It is your right as a consumer to know what you are putting on your face and body.

At Saphoros, we believe in truth in labeling and full disclosure. In light of all the controversy over nanoparticles, particularly in loose powder formulations, we felt we should provide information to our clients and to the public regarding the particle sizes of the ingredients we use, and even a few that we don't that people are questioning. The bottom line is NO... We do NOT use nanoparticles in Lueur Jeune formulations.

The particle size information listed in the chart below was obtained from our supply manufacturers.

Particle Size Chart

Powder	Size in Micrometers (or Microns, symbolized with µm)	Size in Nanometers (symbolized with nm)	Notes
Sericite Micas Treated with Carnauba Wax or Jojoba	11-16 µm	11,000-16,000 nm
Regular Titanium Dioxide (Oil and Water Dispersible)	1-2 µm	1,000-2,000 nm
Regular Zinc Oxide	325 mesh (US Standard) (equates to  approx 44 µm)	Approx 44,000 nm	Mesh sizes are not exact measurements for microns. For a better explanation and a conversion chart, please visit here.
Plain, Untreated Sericite Mica	4.5-11.5 µm	4,500-11,500 nm	The most commonly available form ranges on the smaller end of the micron scale. The untreated sericite we use has an average micron size of 11.5.
Silica	4-20 µm	4,000-20,000 nm	We use several sizes of silica, and average particle size varies with each - the smallest being 4 µm and the largest averaging 20µm
Boron Nitride	6-30 µm	6,000-30,000 nm	We use 4 sizes of Boron Nitride, with the smallest particles averaging 6 µm and the largest at 30 µm
Colored Micas	10-150 µm	10,000-150,000 nm
Silk Powder	2-4 µm	2,000-4,000 nm
Pearl Powder	2-4 µm	2,000-4,000 nm
Diamond Powder	3 µm	3,000 nm
Kaolin Clay	1-4 µm	1,000-4,000 nm
Silk Mica	17-26 µm	17,000-26,000 nm
Pigments (Iron Oxides, Ultramarines, etc)	1-2 µm	1,000-2,000 nm
Talc	6-8 µm	6,000-8,000 nm	Not used in any of our loose powder formulations
Z-Cote Zinc Oxide	0.2 µm	200 nm	Not currently used in any of our formulations
Zinc Stearate	6-7 µm	6,000-7,000 nm
Lo-Micron Zinc Oxide	0.31 µm	310 nm	Not currently used in any of our formulations
Magnesium Stearate	6-7 µm	6,000-7,000 nm
Calcium Carbonate	4-6 µm	4,000-6,000 nm
Rice Powder	7-11 µm	7,000-11,000 nm	Not currently used in any of our formulations
Magnesium Myristate	5-6 µm	5,000-6,000 nm

The Great and Powerful Dr. Oz has Done You a Disservice

After viewing the Dr Oz segment on dangerous beauty products, I was appalled by the spectacle I witnessed, and absolutely amazed that such incredibly educated and respected individuals such as Mehmet Oz and Arthur Perry would stoop to cherry-picking and all-out scare tactics to promote ratings. In my eyes, they have done their audience a great disservice by giving in to such sensationalism and not providing the whole story, as well as injured the cosmetics industry – particularly micro-businesses such as my own.

The first section of this travesty, and my main irritation in all of this, is the fact that Dr. Oz has vehemently implied that ALL mineral makeup contains nanoparticles. Hold the phone there brother… THEY DON’T. I can attest to the fact that my cosmetic line, Lueur Jeune, does NOT contain nanoparticles. In terms of particle size, the smallest particle ANY of our minerals contain is 1 micron, which equates to 1000 nanometers. All these sizes and metrics don’t make sense? Let’s put it into perspective…

The ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials) gives the following standard definition of a nanoparticle¹:

“Nanoparticle, n – in nanotechnology, a sub-classification of ultrafine particle with lengths in two or three dimensions greater than 0.0001 micrometer (1 nanometer) and smaller than about 0.1 micrometer (100 nanometers) and which may or may not exhibit a size-related intensive property.”

Still doesn’t make sense? What they are basically saying is that for a particle to be considered a true nanoparticle, it will be smaller than 100 nm or 0.001 µm.

A micrometer (or micron, typically represented with the symbol “µm”) is 1 millionth of a meter. A nanometer (represented as “nm”) is 1 billionth of a meter. When you see something written in micrometers/microns, multiply it times 1,000 to convert it to nanometers.

Object	Micrometers (Microns)	Nanometers
Human Hair	50 – 100 µm	50,000 – 100,000 nm
Grain of Beach Sand	100 – 2,000 µm	100,000 – 2,000,000 nm
Atmospheric Dust/Particles we breathe in every day	.0001 – 30 µm	0.1 – 3000 nm

Do NOT get me wrong… I am NOT advocating use of nanoparticles. Quite the opposite. There have been enough studies done to satisfy me, personally, that inhaling nanoparticles is a bad, bad thing. The lungs are the first things that come to mind. There are two areas of the lungs: the airways and the alveoli. The airways have a nice, robust layer of mucous that stops larger particles from making it into the deep lung, or alveolar area.² We tend to cough, spit, blow and swallow those particles. Nano particles, and even some larger than nano-sized particles make a beeline straight to the alveoli, where the blood/air barrier is very thin. This is where all the problems occur. The ill-effects are dependent on the base material of the nanoparticle, its size, structure, coatings, etc. Something you may not know about inhalation of nanoparticles that very much concerns mineral makeup is there are studies that show nano-sized titanium dioxide can also travel to the brain and cause oxidative stress and neuronal degeneration in several areas, including the area attributed to short-term memory.³

OK, the education session on nanoparticles and inhaling them are done. Back to my rant…

First, this grotesquely exaggerated display of loading a brush with mineral powder and kicking up this 2-foot toxic cloud… Who actually does this when putting on their makeup? Not anyone I know. Not anyone with common sense. I know I can certainly apply my minerals without kicking up a half inch of dust. By golly, I can do it without kicking up an eighth inch. In case you don’t know how to do that, gently tap the minerals into the lid of the jar. Place your brush carefully into it at the very tip and GENTLY swirl it around to load the brush. You will be amazed at how much powder you DON’T kick up. After that, GENTLY tap the excess off the brush and GENTLY apply. The key word here is “gentle.” You don’t have to be in a big hurry and fluff the stuff on. Buff it gently into the skin. There’s that word again. These gentle techniques ensure minimum powder kick-up. Am I right, girls? How about applying them with a sponge or mixing into a moisturizer? It would have been nice for Dr. Oz to show the safe and proper ways to apply minerals, rather than dismissing them as “deadly” – lock, stock and barrel.

The second scare tactic I take issue with is the fact that Oz and Perry bring up construction workers and miners, and the exposure of particulates to their lungs. Let’s be realistic. This is an apples and oranges comparison at best. Construction workers, miners and the like are exposed to these particulates for a steady 8-12 hours per day, in an uncontrolled environment, and take measures to protect themselves. Women applying mineral makeup are exposed maybe 1-2 minutes per day, the environment is most likely well-controlled, and with proper application, protective gear isn’t needed. In the same breath as the scare tactic, Perry states there are “no cases of people getting sick”, and admits that he does not know if potential problems such as pulmonary fibrosis will be seen in women in the next 20-30 years. Mineral makeup has been commercialized for over 30 years now… AND NO ONE HAS GOTTEN SICK. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree there is a potential for illness, BUT could some of this lack of documented illnesses be attributed to the FDA and even more to the common sense of the women who use it? Give us some credit!

On a smaller note, the duo states the smaller the particle, the better they perform on the skin. This is another fallacy, and only an opinion. There are MANY companies out there who do not use these nanoparticles (like Saphoros’ Lueur Jeune), and are able to create flawless, perfected finishes just fine without them.

I cannot speak for other mineral makeup companies, but I did years of research and testing formulations to ensure the safety as well as performance of my products. For my loose foundations, I chose coated sericites (those treated with Jojoba and Carnauba Wax) for several reasons. The benefits of the treated sericites include longevity of wear, colorfastness, water resistance, additional skin benefits, feel and consistency – and dig this – they KICK UP LESS DUST and the particles are much larger than plain, uncoated sericites and micas.

Dr. Oz’s recommendations for tossing your minerals in the trash are extreme and unnecessary. His recommendations for using liquid foundation are also questionable. I’m not saying liquid, cream or mousse foundation is bad, but you really need to know what to look for in their ingredients, because some of them can be just as bad – if not worse – than toxic mineral clouds. Many liquid/cream foundations contain unhealthy chemicals, chemical by-products, penetration enhancers, and – gasp – NANOPARTICLES! He could have at least given some insight into what to look for and avoid in liquid foundations since he so adamantly recommends them. And pressed powders? Hello… They can aerosolize and make big toxic clouds too, you know.

What I would like to have seen is a little more fairness and a little less sensationalism. Dr. Oz could have made that segment quite informative had he been completely honest and given full disclosure that not all minerals (and lip glosses, for that matter) are alike. He could also have done well to touch on beauty issues where there are hundreds of reported cases per year, and that is infections… infections from sharing makeup, using makeup that is too old or is contaminated.

As much respect as I have for Dr. Oz and the tremendous amount of people he has helped over the years, I have to say I am disappointed in him now. He has insulted our intelligence, demeaned our industry, and potentially affected our livelihoods. And for what? Ratings? That’s just sad, Doc. And it is a disservice to your audience.

Sources

1: ASTM Standard E 2456 - 06, "Standard Terminology Relating to Nanotechnology," ASTM International,  West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/E2456-06, http://www.astm.org/.

2: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Pneumologie, Longtoxicologie, Campus GHB, Herestraat 49, Leuven B-3000, Belgium
GSF-Forschungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit, GmbH Ingolstädter Landstraß1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany
Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3RE, UK

Journal of Nanobiotechnology 2004, 2:12doi:10.1186/1477-3155-2-12

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:
http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/2/1/12

3: “Potential Risks of Nanomaterials and How to Safely Handle Materials of Uncertain Toxicity,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Environment, Health and Safety Office, Cambridge, MA 2009.
http://web.mit.edu/environment/ehs/topic/nanomaterial.html

Other Recommended Reading

My very dear friend, fellow business owner and talented formulator, Valerie Reed of Valana Minerals has also posted an eloquent response:
http://www.valanaminerals.com/blog/post.php?post_id=43

A must-read blog from friend and colleague Karrie Welch, of Fortunate Face Minerals:
http://fortunateface.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-oz-great-mis-informer.html

UCLA Study, “Nanoparticles used in common household items caused genetic damage in mice”, Nov 2009,
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=35436