Bismuth Oxychloride – What is it and is it Safe?

Mineral Makeup and BrushIn today’s day and age, many people are choosing to go as “natural” as possible in regards to food, household products, and health and beauty items. This is a worthwhile endeavor, as switching to non-toxic substances can be quite beneficial to one’s health and overall well-being. However, in some cases consumers may be finding themselves spending more time and money than necessary in their efforts to avoid certain products deemed “unnatural” and therefore unsafe. This does indeed seem to be the case when it comes to the controversy over bismuth oxychloride, a chemical compound taking quite a bit of heat from opponents though it is found as a harmless ingredient in a variety of cosmetics.

In fact, bismuth oxychloride can be found on the ingredient list of cosmetics ranging from nail polish to bronzers to blush and eyeshadow. But where it is found in highest concentration levels, and therefore meeting the most controversy, is in mineral powders. Bismuth oxychloride is a synthetically-prepared powder created from bismuth, oxygen and chlorine that is used in cosmetics because of its abilities to create a white pigment, shimmery look, and silky feel in addition to its exceptional ability to adhere to the skin.

Though it is synthetically prepared, bismuth oxychloride is derived from natural elements.  Everyone should be familiar with oxygen and chlorine, chlorine being approved for use up to certain concentration levels in numerous products, including cosmetics, so the element in question is bismuth. Bismuth is a natural metal, number 83 on the periodic table. It is actually the only non-toxic heavy metal, and thereby approved for use as a color additive in cosmetics by the U.S. FDA.

So, if bismuth oxychloride has been approved for use in cosmetics, why all the contention? Well, there are two main issues that opponents like to raise. First, bismuth appears in the same family of elements as arsenic, and thus “resembles” it. Obviously no-one wants to be putting a “relative” of arsenic on their face, but this is a ridiculous claim at the face of it. Nitrogen is just as closely related to arsenic, but the gas is a part of our atmosphere and we breath it every day with no ill effects.

The second concern touted by opposers of the compound is that they’ve read in Material Safety Data Sheets that bismuth oxychloride can cause irritation of the skin. This is an unlikely event that is probably worsened by the fact that mineral powders can irritate the skin sometimes anyway, regardless of inclusion of bismuth oxychloride. Add to that the fact that many users of powder foundations reapply the powders multiple times per day in order to “freshen up,” and there is bound to be redness or irritation by those who already have skin sensitivity. If there is a problem, the easy solution to this problem is for those with sensitive skin to either avoid foundations containing bismuth oxychloride or reduce the number of applications per day, but it is important to keep in mind that it may not be the bismuth oxychloride to which one is sensitive. Mica and other compounds found in cosmetics are also known to cause irritation to sensitive skin. Just because a small group of people have a mild reaction to a compound does not mean it should be outlawed- if we were to do that we may as well kill all stinging bees, for surely the great danger they pose some people outweighs the usefulness of their pollination.

As it is approved by the FDA, cosmetic users and consumers will most likely continue to see bismuth oxychloride on the list of ingredients found on many makeup labels. It is up to each individual whether or not she will continue to purchase products found with the compound. Those with sensitive skin may want to avoid it, and those who truly want to be all-natural will probably continue to find fault with the ingredient as even though it is derived from natural elements, it is produced synthetically. Regardless, the vast majority of cosmetic consumers can confidently purchase products containing bismuth oxychloride, knowing that it is not only a preferred ingredient by a number of cosmetics manufacturers due to its numerous positive attributes, but more importantly, it is perfectly safe to be used as an ingredient in the products put on one’s face on a daily basis.

_____________________

Natalie Hunter grew up wanting to be a teacher, and is addicted to learning and research. As a result she is grateful for the invention of the internet because it allows her to spend some time outside, rather than just poring through books in a library. She is fascinated by the different methodologies for education at large today, and particularly by the advent of online education. She also loves to travel and learn via interaction with other people and cultures

Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author:  Guest posts are provided through article submissions. Read more from this author


  • Anonymous

    I looked this up online and have only a few questions :)

    1) Oxygen (it’s blue!) and chlorine seem to both be in gas form. How do you get it to mix with a solid mineral?
    2) One site I found states bismuth in the main ingredient in Pepto-Bismol. Wikipedia actually has a fine page discussing this. Although bismuth is listed the chemical formula appears completely different. Thoughts?
    3) Another site I found states that natural bismuth is found only is small amounts and that what is used here in the US is a byproduct of the refining of lead, tin, copper, silver and gold ores. It is being called unnatural because it must still be further refined to remove impurities and then mixed with other chemicals to actually make bismuth oxychloride. (okay, wait, even without my first cup of coffee these paragraphs that I’m reading are starting to not sound scary. Like it’s supposed to.) The remainder of this will be debunked once the first question is answered.

    Good morning and thank you!

    • Rich Summers

      Most chemcial reactions take a lot of heat and other conditions to be able to occur, I don’t actually know the exact conditions for this particular reaction, but I would guess that the metal would be heated so it becomes molten and the gases added, the reaction maight need a catalyst of some description, it is the way most similar sorts of compound are manufactured.

      Bismuth is like pretty much every other element, it can react with other things and create very different compounds. Take hydrogen for example, if you react it with Oxygen you get water, if you reat it with chlorine you get a fairly unpleasant comound that is not something you would want to drink 2 litres of a day. Bismuth is similar, bismuth oxychloride is pretty much unreactive, safe and used for a wide range of applications ( including radio opacity in tubing and such like used in operations ). Bismuth Salicylate ( the one used in peto Bismol ) also ustilises the properties of the salicylate bit, whcih is sligthly alkaline and acts as an ant-acid.
      Personally I want all my things to be refined to remove as many of the impurities as possible. It is no different to manufacturing any other metal. Iron for example exists as ore, and then has to be transformed into metalic iron, then steel by refining and additon of various other elements to make the metal useful. i woudln’t like to try using iron ore to make a decent kitchen knife for example ( I am happy with my high carbon steel ones :-) )

      • Anonymous

        Ah, thank you! I do love learning about chemicals with multiple uses and that can change when mixed with something else.

        Isn’t everything we use refined somehow? Foods, cosmetics, etc. Is this where we start getting into the gray area of how much refining is needed and how much refining makes the original ingredient less natural? (I’m not saying this right) I’d been thinking about people’s requests to remove all traces of lead, arsenic (apple juice), etc. and wondering when let’s say the apple juice becomes less real or natural apple juice versus it has been cleaned up so much it barely resembles real apple juice. I may have to look up refining processes. I would like to know what happens to the impurities (?) after they are removed.

        I like refining, too, at least what I understand of it! I like your final paragraph very much.

        • Rich Summers

          The subject of refining or processing is a major issue with regards to Natural and organic materials, teh Soil Association here in the UK for example only allow certain processess to be used otherwise the material is not cosidered natural any more, and Organic is even more stringent. I think that it is good though as it means that cleaner more environmentally friendly process are being developed than some of the older harsher processes that are being used in some cases.
          i am not sure whether or not refining out the materials to avoid all the “nasties” is a good idea though, as the over processing of materials increases the environmental burden of the ingredient, without any proper evidence currently to show if it is needed.

          unfortunately I can’t answer the part about what happens to the impurites as I haven’t done industrial chemistry for a very long time :-)

  • http://www.jepowell.com Joshua Evan Powell

    I know my skin itches like crazy when I use products contain bismuth oxychloride (as it also does with products containing zinc oxide).

    • Sarah

      I itch and sneeze only if I use pigmented face products near my eyes (flesh-toned things like foundation or tinted moisturizer with iron oxides–I think–in them).  I think it’s a mechanical irritation from the particles, not a true allergy.  I don’t sneeze as long as I don’t put the products near my eyes, but as soon as they irritate my eyes, it sets off a sneeze reflex.

  • Anonymous

    could you please shed some light on mica and corn starch too…they also get the heat and they are main ingredient in mineral makeup…

    • Rich Summers

      I am not really sure why they get greif to be honest. Corn starch may be derived from GM crops if produced in some parts of the US, but at least 99% of it isn’t as most cosmetic companies don’t use GM materials so it is really really unlikely. As a material it is a nice, inoccuous filler that has a good skin feel and and is a nice re-newable powder to use instead of talc, which will eventually ( long way off i will add ) run out as it is mined, which is probaby the issue people have with Mica as well.

      Mica is used a lot because it is currently widely available, it is a very good substrate for pearlescent pigments and is reasonably cheap. Although there are a lot of synthetic substrates out in the market for those people wanting to avoid natural mica althogether, they are also a lot more expensive than natural mica and consequently I am not aware of any product that uses entirely synthetic mica.

      the only other reason may be that you get a dry feeling to the skin after using them, which I am not suprised about as they are powders which are absorbent, hence why they are used in make-ups to give you that nice soft skin finish. i seriously doubt consumers would buy a foundation or face powder if it make you look all shiny and greasy skinned.

      • Anonymous

        thanks a lot for clearing this!!!

      • Anonymous

        I hadn’t heard that corn starch was being bashed, too. I thought it was a favored substitute for talc?

        • Sarah

          I think at this point, it’s safe to assume anything is being bashed until proven otherwise:)

          • Anonymous

            That’s so funny and so very sad.

      • Sarah

        I have read (not sure if it’s true) that mica causes (mechanical) irritation.  Many people do describe preferring matte eyeshadows to pearlescent ones for comfort, and I suspect it’s because the shiny ingredients in pearlescent eyeshadows irritate the eyelid.  Any basis for that idea?

        • Rich Summers

          Quite possibly. In the US there is a maximum allowed particle size for mica ( 150 microns off the top of my head ). There were a few products available using bigger particles in the EU, but to be honest they were quite scratchy. But this is only for the biggest end of the particles, the smaller ones can actually add a really pleasant feel to the products, but you don’t get the glittery appearance, it is more satiny. So yes, the more matte the product the less scratchy it would tend to be.

          • Sarah

            But if I’m not misquoting, Dr. Oz perpetuated a myth that mica in cosmetics exposes you to a significant amount of silica and therefore, to a risk of getting silicosis.  This is quite different from saying it can be scratchy…

          • Sarah
          • Rich Summers

            ok, this is scare tactics, based on very very small disparate parts of science. Mica is a silicate, that doesn’t mean you will get silicosis. Respiratable particulates have to be <0.5 microns to be able to pass into the lungs, an average cosmetic grade mica has the particle size of 5-50 microns ( this is the range for a "standard" type pearl pigment ), ie. not small enough to pass into the lungs. Particles of this size are largely deposited in the nose and throat which, while sounding unpleasant, does no harm to you. Mica is an approved food additive, as a carrier for colours, and consequently is completely non toxic by ingestion ( in fact the LD50 is greater than 15g per KG of body weight which would mean that I as a slightly unhealthy 110kg would have to consume at least 1.6kg of a mica based pearl, and even then it is unlikely anything would happen ). There is some eye irritation, but this is purely mechanical as mentioned before.
            Sorry.

          • Sarah

            Why are you sorry–I was making the same argument as you, that Dr. Oz’s claim was ridiculous.

          • Sarah

            Though, admittedly, I’m not qualified to make any argument–but that doesn’t seem to stop me:D

          • Perry Romanowski

            While Dr. Oz is a nice guy (I met him), some of the stuff he puts on his show is just awful.  I would take almost nothing he says seriously.  Pseudoscientific rubbish.

          • Sarah

            e.g., resveratrol…

          • Rich Summers

            :-) ok, I will apologise now, for slightly going off on one, when you agree. I really hate part scince fear mongering from “educated” people as this is the way that these myths perpetuate and snowball. Sense should prevail !!!!

          • Sarah

            Agreed, no worries:)

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

            This is exactly what is wrong with a peoples’ physician representing non facts to the audience and then inviting a cosmetic surgeon along with Paula Begoun to support his baseless supposition.  He did not nor cannot provide a single study showing this claim including the lambasting of mineral makeup which he loads a brush and then proceeds to explode the powders all over the room…so much theatrics.  Where was the data or an actual chemical scientist which could actually explain the structure of this ingredient?

            Silicosis is typically associated with Silica, (silicon dioxide) and not the form used in mineral makeup.  Nor the form that causes this should ever be found in mineral makeup.  No matter what…… it is still about particle size and nano is crucial to avoid.  My fave is when many try to equate silicone as being a form of silica, this is a stretch as to it in regard to its purest form.  Silicones are polymers that include silicon together with carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and sometimes other chemical elements and should never be confused with the metalloid chemical element Silicon.

            I wrote an article on this since many have written to me, utterly confused about the ingredient silica.  And it is confusing, especially when those of fame spread misinformation without having any knowledge at all in the field of cosmetic ingredients.

            http://www.sterlingminerals.com/blog/2011/04/silica-in-mineral-makeup/

            Cheers

          • Sarah

            Thanks for the clarification, Katherine.  Yeah, we beauty brains forum members tried our best as non-chemists to sort out the various molecules that contain silicone and their health effects.  I don’t think we ever quite got clear–but the bottom line that I came to–via university of google (lol)–is that the mica does not contain “free” silica.  I took that to mean that any silica present in mica are bound to other “stuff” and can’t become airborne or behave toward the human respiratory tract in the ways that quartz dust apparently can.

          • Sarah

            And like we really explode our mineral makeup all over the room when applying it.  Theatrics, indeed.  Do we really need a label on mineral makeup–or baking flour–that says “warning: do not snort this–particulates can cause respiratory problems if you blow them up your nose and breathe deeply on purpose?”

    • Marchu2

      I would like to know as well. I do use mica along with cornstarch, but bismuth oxychloride in mineral make-up makes me itch.

  • Dene62

    I am disappointed that this article seems to be directed towards perpetuating the complete myth that “natural” is safe – from the first paragraph. There is no connection whatsoever between the origin of a substance and its toxicity. This is not nit-picking; this myth is the basis for most of the scaremongering that abounds over the cosmetics industry these days. Moreover, the statement that bismuth oxychloride is manufactured from elements that occur in nature can be extrapolated to EVERY substance because, unless matter itself is artifically created, EVERYTHING in existance is manufactured from elements that occur in nature – where else would they come from?

    I am not aware that chlorine is permitted as an ingredient in any cosmetic – it is a gas, and would never be added so, unless I have totally misunderstood what was being explained, this is incorrect.

    Sorry to put such a negative comment into this discussion, but these points spoil an otherwise useful and interesting post, imo.

    • http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk Colin

      I appreciate what you are saying Dene, but I think you might be being just a little too harsh this time.  

      Natural is a bit of a fuzzy term, but I think it is clear enough what Natalie means in the context of this article.  Bismuth oxychloride is not natural in the way materials like chalk, diamond and asbestos are.  But it isn’t synthetically manufactured via a great number of steps to produce a totally novel entitity in the way say DDT or ibuprofen are.  The introduction just sets it up for readers who don’t know what it actually is.  

      It would be more precise to describe it as synthetic anologue of a natural structure – there are some naturally occuring minerals that contain it after all.  But I suspect the way Natalie describes makes more sense to people who don’t do chemistry for a living.

      • Dene62

        If my comment sounds harsh, it was not meant to be, but you perhaps mean that I was being too scientific. I disagree! It’s not too difficult a concept, surely, and this site exists to bring the truth (and, possibly, to make the science accessible?), and I think that this leads to gross misunderstandings as to the nature of chemicals (of whatever origin). You are completely right that this is a fuzzy area, but that needs to be understood by those who only want “natural” chemicals. How many synthetic steps does it take before a substance is no longer “naturally-derived”? Who makes that decision? I can accept “nature-identical” – especially as I was not aware that it does exist in nature, but “nature-derived” is a much more subjective concept (as, indeed, is “natural”!)

        Having said that, my main point was the one regarding the implied safety of “naturals”, anyway!

      • Sarah

        Whether or not Dene was harsh, I agree that the first paragraph suggests that natural equals less toxic.  ”In today’s day and age, many people are choosing to go as ‘natural’ as possible…This is a worthwhile endeavor, as switching to non-toxic substances can be quite beneficial to one’s health and overall well-being.”  Natural = non-toxic is a fallacy.

    • http://www.sterlingminerals.com Katherine

      The most widely used version of Bismuth Oxychloride is created through the BETTS process or Betterton – Kroll process, the former being more expensive of a process.

      Through an extraction method it is typically a by–product of lead and copper
      refining and in its unrefined form, it is initially considered an
      impurity and many of its’ chemical properties are closely related to
      antimony and arsenic.  However, let me state bismuth is less toxic than its’ counterpart.
      Throughout the entire refining process bismuth accompanies lead and the
      other impurities such as tellurium and the aforementioned compounds are
      gathered in anode slimes.

      Basically, once it is collected, it is run through an electrolytic solution of lead
      fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid and is then filtered, dried, and
      smelted and then further refined depending on the purity desired.  The process continues as impurities are further removed through adding
      molten caustic zinc and then chlorinated. This then creates Bismuth
      Chloride.

      Bismuth Chloride is then treated with water then dried to form a
      white precipitate so formed to expel the water. Then treated further
      with a dilute nitric acid solution of bismuth nitrate and sodium
      chloride….hence the latter being where certain companies want to claim
      it as a naturally occurring mineral salt.

      Now through evaporation and crystallization, the compound produced is
      the safer non-toxic by-product which is now the pearlescent, creamy
      feeling ingredient used as a filler giving mineral makeup its’ glow or
      shine on the skin enhancing the appearance of younger looking skin. It
      also enhances excellent adhesion properties. As you can interpret here however, Bismuth Oxychloride is far from natural or straight from the earth.

      And no matter the process, many women have reported extreme irritation using mineral makeup with this ingredient in it.  Remove it and their skin then does fine even though there are still some that experience problems with mica based formulas.

      When researching and learning about this product when I was beginning my own line of mineral cosmetics, my research comes from:  Very interesting reading, especially for those that discuss its natural origins as a mineral from the earth.  Even so, this raw ingredient would still require refinement to achieve purity, making this very uneconomical to mine it.  And again, even though Bismuth is found naturally in the earth, it actually
      is more commonly found in types of ores and is extracted through a
      smelting process and then followed with the two processes I stated earlier.

      Ref; Handbook of Inorganic Chemical Compounds by Pradyot Patnaik
      Ref; Chemistry of Arsenic, Antimony and Bismuth by Nicholas C. Norman

      • Anonymous

        It sounds like the process is not environmentally-friendly (not a criticism, just an observation.)

    • Eerie

      very valid, plenty of NATURAL plants and other substances are very very toxic and deadly, ie: Deadly Nightshade, Angel’s Trumpet, and so on.
      Alcohol, brewed and distilled from fermenting fruits,grains and vegetables can be toxic in the right amounts and if made wrong can be harmful.
      Also, there are things that are natural that aren’t toxic or deadly that can have a very mortal affect on the right person.
      For example peanuts,Seafood, seeds… on someone with a serious allergy it can be harmful.
      Such a common misconception that Natural means healthier.

  • Sarah

    I’m glad to see some commentary on this ingredient–it gets a lot of bad press on the net by mineral makeup users.

  • SG

    I am just reading this now. I don’t dispute that bismuth oxychloride is natural, but for myself and many others, it is an irritant. I have tried many different mineral makeups and only the ones without bismuth oxychloride are kind to my skin.  Nothing scientific about my methods, just the tried and true process of elimination.

  • http://www.bellena.co.uk/ fashion magazine

    I am having the oily skin, i used many beauty products for my skin care routine, there is no difference on my skin. Which product is best for me?

  • Pingback: Things I Like! » Thanks Syracuse University — I can use my brain