What Are Micronized Minerals In Mineral Makeup?

Some Confusion Clarified

Micronized minerals have been the buzz word for advising consumers who purchase mineral makeup products, to avoid these at all costs to prevent the health issues that may be associated with them.

Then on the other side of the coin non-micronized minerals have been the descriptive for informing the consumer that these are safer and are non-penetrable to skin and lungs.

The actual truth of it is and to clarify, is that all mineral makeup is micronized in order for it to flow nicely and apply with perfection onto the skin without a heavy made up look.

Perhaps some of you may also be seeing the new buzz word of “micro-formulated minerals.” This is surely another great way to describe the makeup, but again it gives the connotation of teeny tiny particles, which may cause undue concern. It’s in the name “micro” which is examined.

Why The Variation?

Micronized was really about describing micron size of the particles. It was easier to ascribe to the theory, when you were buying micronized minerals which were commonly referred to as TiO2 (Titanium Dioxide) or micronized ZnO or Z-cote (Zinc Oxide), that these were the mineral ingredients with a tiny micron particle size. These are also referred to as sub micron or nano size of 0.25-0.30 more or less, and these are equal to 250-300 nanometers. This size is literally below an actual single micron.

Non-micronized would define those mineral cosmetics as being 3 microns or larger with them typically being similar to our micron size. Our minerals for example, range from 5-10 microns or equivalent to 5000-10,000 nanometers. So by accurate definition, ours can also be considered micronized, but they are not nano sized particles due to the finished size of the micron particles.

However, both types of minerals are micronized. Anything described as crushed has been a great way to eliminate confusion. However, finely milled would would be a better way to convey nice smooth, silken coverage, but that the mineral powders are not necessarily micronized by the original definition or in the minds eye of the consumer. The reality of the “crushed” description though, is that crushed would also create a powder that would have a coarser texture with sharp edges that would be extremely irritating to skin.

I, myself have described our mineral powders this way and for the most part has worked for keeping things clear in the consumers mind. But with all that is occurring with CFSC and Skin Deep Database of late, I felt it was time to make some clarifications that will end confusion for anyone shopping for mineral cosmetics.

I recently changed this descriptive also on our website to end the confusion for our own customers, and why today I am writing this article.

What Is A Nano Sized Particle?

True Nanos, are particulates that are typically below 1 micron or 1000 nanometers. Also realize that when you see the nanometers reduced in number, the smaller the micron will be….example 0.1 micron size is 100 nanometers and is a sub micron….. this is basically so tiny, it is invisible to the naked eye, or I should say basically aerosol. In fact, at even the larger size of 1 – 2 microns, if this size particle were to be dropped from chest height it would not even reach the ground before being absorbed by the environment.

It is nano particles which may draw concern rather than statements like minerals being micronized. It suits the needs of the consumer if this is clarified for them and is why the statement “No Nano Size Particles” is being widely used now as a better way to convey the differences.

This sends a much clearer message that the micron size will not penetrate the skin or will not travel deep into the lungs, where they then can become lodged if inhaled by accident. Regardless of this fact, no one really goes around inhaling their mineral powders. And for those who may have a concern, that can even be reduced to practically eliminated by applying with the moist method we recommend.

Also realize that nano particles are in our environment naturally and are in the air we breathe every day in the form of pollens, dust, pollutants, etc. etc.

Creating Perspective

To really give the proper analogy, take a human hair for instance, it is as thick as 40 microns, and of course we can see our hair, so shrink this down in your mind to the numbers I gave earlier.

Huge difference isn’t it?….so you can see how powders created with 5-8 microns are still very fine and provide smooth coverage, but to get smaller than that in micron size down to 2.5 or sub micron size as the minerals exampled above, is where questions of health begin to arise.

This is also why we once referred to them as non-micronized vs micronized minerals since the latter are more sheer in coverage and do not have the whitening effect. This is why Z-cote and TiO2 are the popular choice for being used in liquid sunscreens and foundations to avoid the ashy look on skin. They are more readily absorbed and basically disappear against and / or into the skin.

Clearly, also another reason when these types of minerals are used in mineral powders, and some still do use these, women don’t achieve the coverage they need. The answer is, larger particle size, better coverage! However, for those that still want better coverage with less opacity, then a product like our Delicate Rose Petal Formula would be the choice since it is higher in Zinc Oxide which gives a very natural look. For more opacity and heavy coverage, then you would choose Velvet, and Dewy is in between both of these. But no matter what formula you choose there will be no ashy appearance or whitening of the skin due to the formulation structure of our mineral powders.

For those wishing to learn more about Micronized Minerals and gain a better perspective through scientific data as to health risks, here is an article I wrote more than 2 years ago on this subject: Micronized Minerals Versus Non-Micronized Minerals.

Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author:  Katherine Corkill is the founder and creative director of Sterling Minerals Cosmetics. She became inspired to create products that would assist men and women in restoring the radiant healthy skin of their youth. Read more from this author


Related posts:

  1. Micronized Minerals vs. Non-Micronized Minerals
  2. Titanium Dioxide In Mineral Makeup, Final Report By EPA
  3. The Safety Of Titanium Dioxide Used In Mineral Makeup
  • http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine

    The EPA has come out with their final report on the effects of TiO2 in drinking water and in sunscreens since I published this latest article….The report is dated November 2010. They also go further into refining TiO2 in terms of identifiers within the study as nano-TiO2 and conventional TiO2. They further establish the nanometers between ultra fine and nano, but the entire study is dedicated to TiO2 in all particulate sizes. There seems to be refined differences as they interact with the environment, oral, inhalation and dermal. All makes for interesting reading, but for the purposes of the article I wrote and past articles, the information which is most crucial and has been a cause for concern, is in relation to the use of titanium dioxide in mineral makeup products. For the purposes of this article, the information is most telling when dealing with dermal and possible inhalation, depending on application technique of the powders. Surface treatments also played a huge role in how this ingredient reacts in the environment and in relation to uptake within the blood brain barrier. For example; rutile vs anatase, coated vs uncoated, or if penetration enhancers were used and many of the studies in determination were done with injection and oral.

    Furthermore the EPA makes it clear there are still unknowns in some aspects of the research, yet make it very clear that animal studies do not necessarily extrapolate to human ones, and to date there are very limited studies done in relation to humans, especially those in relation to dermal exposure, and that mice or rat skin is much thinner than human skin. They followed research provided by the EU and it is provided within the report. The EPA further clarifies dose is the regulator to risk and hazard with this ingredient.

    Analytical methods are also crucial for final analysis since distinctions are rarely made on sites as EWG or the CFSC. The report states that sensitive and accurate analytical methods for nanomaterials are critical tools for nanomaterial risk assessment, because measurement and characterization of nanomaterials, alone and in various media, are required for properly assessing exposure, conducting toxicological studies, estimating dose-response relationships, and understanding the behavior and effects of nanomaterials. The standardization of characterization method and sample preparation protocols will also greatly facilitate the physicochemical characterization of the nanomaterials.

    Many techniques can be used to measure and characterize nanomaterials in the laboratory and manufacturing workplace, and some are available for detecting nanomaterials in the environment. However, no single instrument can characterize all of the physicochemical properties of interest. Technical difficulties still exist in certain aspects, such as measuring and characterizing nanomaterials in organisms, and distinguishing naturally-occurring nanomaterials from engineered nanomaterials in the environment.

    Shown by example in the report, in general, anatase nano-TiO2 is more photocatalytic than the rutile form, and nanoscale rutile is less photoreactive than either anatase and rutile mixtures or anatase alone.

    Dermal uptake of nano-TiO2 is particularly relevant for sunscreens containing nano-TiO2, and both human and animal studies are available. These studies predominantly indicate that nano-TiO2 does not penetrate beyond the stratum corneum or hair follicles into living cells of healthy skin. In a study comparing psoriatic and healthy skin, nano-TiO2 in a sunscreen formulation penetrated into deeper areas of the stratum corneum of psoriatic skin, but still did not reach living cells. No studies have been identified that evaluated nano-TiO2 penetration in damaged skin (e.g., from sunburn), although preliminary results indicate greater penetration of quantum dots and nano-silver in damaged skin compared to healthy skin. The extent and duration of nano-TiO2 accumulation on the skin via reapplication of sunscreen and the ultimate fate of nano-TiO2 from sloughed skin cells are both open questions at this time.

    In terms of usage in mineral makeup powders, I am satisfied with the report that there is little concern over blood brain barrier exposure through dermal contact, with inhalation also not being a sole issue for exposure due to varying particulate sizes tested. It is clearly shown with particulate size increased, exposure becomes of little concern in this context.

    For those who wish to wade through the 204 page report in its’ entirety, please follow the link below.

    http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=230972#Download

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention What Are Micronized Minerals In Mineral Makeup?: Some Confusion Clarified Micronized minerals have been ... -- Topsy.com

  • Pingback: Titanium Dioxide In Mineral Makeup, Final Report By EPA | Personal Care Truth or Scare

  • Becky

    Hi Kayla
    If a mineral powder product has a ti02 of 2.4 microns, but has
    mica added to the product mix making the final product to be 12 microns,
    would there be any required EPA Prop 65 warning label needed?

    • http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine

      Hi Becky,

      This is actually not Kayla’s article, but mine.  Prop 65 does have some ambiguous regulations in it.  Best thing to do is contact OEHHA to determine what is required. 

      http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/admin_listing/intent_to_list/052711LCset12b.html

      Based on the latest info as of last month, it appears that Ti02 is only placed on an intention list to add.  I cannot locate that this ingredient has officially been added to prop 65 yet.  Furthermore, the criteria seems to apply to “unbound” TD, not those bound, such as in a formula or surface treated with another component to reduce any issue related to free particles.

      Also 2.4 microns is not considered nano, but if you meant .24 then this would be a nano scale product.