Talcum powder's story stretches back more than a century, tracing its roots to both industrial innovation and changing consumer habits. In the late 1800s, talc became a household staple. Early users found comfort in powders for soothing skin irritation and keeping dryness at bay, especially in babies. Manufacturers quickly caught on, with brands like Johnson & Johnson making it a signature product. Over time, the powder moved from pharmacy shelves to medicine cabinets and nurseries around the globe. My own grandmother kept a tin beside her hairbrush, dabbing the stuff beneath her arms before leaving for work. As society shifted toward convenience and personal care, talcum powder’s rise mirrored the evolution of grooming itself—from a luxury for the few to a product for nearly every bathroom counter.
Commercial talcum powder usually consists of finely ground talc, a mineral made mainly of magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. Besides talc, some powders feature fragrances or cornstarch. The unmistakable silky feel comes from its plate-like structure. Most consumers recognize it as a post-bath skin protector and a way to ease chafing—though some use it for curious home hacks, like untangling sticky playing cards or managing squeaky floorboards. Beauty products manufacturers blend talc into makeup for its smooth application, while pharmaceutical companies favor its absorbent qualities. Folks look for it in products for feet, infants, and underarms—demonstrating quite a range of practical uses that cross generations.
Talc stands apart with its softness, rated as number one on the Mohs scale. Rubbed between the fingers, it feels slippery, almost greasy. Water beads on its surface, showing off its hydrophobic traits. Its chemical structure—magnesium silicate hydroxide—gives it stability under everyday conditions. Talc's laminar form, where sheets of atoms stack together, creates its unique texture and bulkiness. Chemists measure its melting point above 1500°C, though daily users rarely see talc anywhere near this temperature. The powder resists acids and does not react with most common chemicals, which is part of why it’s found in both medicine bottles and industrial factories.
Manufacturers produce talcum powder by crushing, sorting, and grinding raw talc ore. The resulting fine powder comes in different grades, depending on purity and fineness—medical, cosmetic, and industrial. Regulations require that packaging clearly states “talc” along with any additives or fragrances, especially for products touching infant or sensitive skin. In the United States, health authorities such as the FDA closely monitor labeling to catch asbestos contamination, which sometimes occurs if the ore is not carefully managed. Internationally, exporters in China and India must also comply with variances in labeling requirements, with some governments demanding certifications for each batch. Transparency in labeling gained traction after lawsuits linked certain powders to health concerns, leading companies to rethink both language and contents in a bid for consumer trust. In stores today, shoppers want not just a soothing experience, but also plain information about what they’re pressing onto their skin.
Making talcum powder starts with mining—the talc rock gets unearthed from open pits or underground seams, often in places like the United States, Italy, or Brazil. Workers sort through the rough stones, separating higher-quality material. This raw talc moves down a conveyor belt and into crushers. At the factory, machines reduce the talc to a soft fine powder by pulverizing it in mills. Technicians screen the powder to sift out oversized grains and ensure consistency. To meet health standards, especially in cosmetics or baby powder, manufacturers send samples for asbestos testing before green-lighting mass production. If needed, they blend in fragrance oils or antimicrobial agents, then funnel everything into sealed containers. From mining to finished product, every step depends on rigorous checks—an effort to reassure both inspectors and the millions who will shake some out over their bodies.
On the molecular level, talc itself doesn’t join the action in too many chemical reactions under ordinary conditions. That’s the point; its unreactivity anchors its safety appeal. Manufacturers occasionally modify surface features to help it blend into complex mixtures or to improve how it behaves in cosmetics or pharmaceuticals. By chemically coating talc with surfactants or polymers, businesses tweak how powders disperse in creams or tablets. Scientists experiment with ion exchange or acid treatments, adjusting how talc interacts with skin and other ingredients. Research in engineering fields looks for ways to tailor the mineral’s properties—sometimes they want it more hydrophobic, or to cling less to other powders. Any changes must meet a long list of chemical identity checks before reaching commercial shelves, since any slip could invite regulatory trouble or health risks.
Talcum powder goes by many names across industries and markets. Some containers say “talc,” while others list “magnesium silicate” or “baby powder.” Makeup counters offer foundation with “hydrous magnesium silicate” front and center. Industrial supply catalogs use “industrial talc,” which might contain other minerals. In the pharmaceutical sector, managers order talc USP (United States Pharmacopeia grade). People at home just call it powder—“Johnson’s,” “Nivea,” or with a family nickname passed down at diaper-changing stations. Understanding this spectrum of names benefits both shoppers trying to decode ingredient labels and professionals making purchasing decisions for their businesses or clinics.
These days, the world pays close attention to talcum powder’s safety. Years of lawsuits and health scares shaped how companies approach risk. Each batch bound for cosmetic or baby powder must undergo testing for asbestos fibers, since talc and asbestos can share rock layers in nature. In response to public concern, safety protocols grew stricter. Equipment at talc mines now often includes air monitoring and dust control technologies to protect workers from inhaling fine particles. Factories conduct routine quality assurance on both the raw mineral and the finished dust. Companies post warnings about keeping powder out of children’s mouths and away from the nose, because inhalation can cause respiratory distress. Pressure from regulators and health advocates convinced more firms to reassess their sourcing and update production floors with the latest detection equipment. Consumer groups and researchers encourage open reporting of test results, arguing that full transparency drives improvements and public trust.
Talcum powder finds its way into homes, factories, beauty kits, clinics, and labs. In personal care, it shows up for skin comfort, hygiene, and as a makeup base or filler. In hospitals, talc helps reduce friction on surgical gloves and acts as a dusting agent in wound care. The plastics sector values talc as a filler for polymers—car dashboards, kitchen spatulas, and even bicycle frames sometimes contain it for added stiffness. Ceramics factories use it to boost firing characteristics, while paint makers blend talc for a smoother finish. Farmers sometimes see it as a carrier for pesticides and fertilizers. Now and then, mechanics coat garage tools with a pinch to prevent sticking. Talc’s reputation for usefulness comes from doing small but essential jobs across fields far beyond the average person’s bathroom shelf.
Innovation in talc-based products keeps moving. Scientists in industry settings explore finer grades to improve texture in high-end cosmetics. Others investigate new blends for pharmaceuticals—making pills that dissolve more predictably or stay firmer in storage. Environmental researchers consider alternative minerals, like cornstarch, to replace talc where supply gets tricky or contamination fears run high. A surge of work focuses on improved detection of trace asbestos fibers, using faster spectroscopy or more sensitive electron microscopes. Engineers look for chemical treatments that cut down on airborne dust in industrial plants or limit static electricity in powdered forms. Development teams test new packaging designs too, hoping recyclable canisters will appeal to eco-conscious shoppers. Public demand for transparency and health information steers much of this work, with research groups publishing more of their results and openly discussing safety questions online and at industry conferences.
Talcum powder’s recent decades carry the heavy weight of toxicity debates. Some studies linked frequent talc use in the genital area with increased risk of ovarian cancer, though evidence remains mixed. Legal battles have highlighted cases where powdered products contained trace asbestos, a known carcinogen. Inhalation risk, especially for babies, draws warnings from pediatricians—lung irritation or chronic inflammation can result if talc particles reach deep into the airways. Health authorities cite the need for strict controls, urging that only asbestos-free powder ever touch consumer skin. Researchers press for long-term epidemiological studies involving tens of thousands of people, including miners and factory workers, to bring clarity to ongoing uncertainty. Lawmakers and regulators already raised the bar for purity, but consumers remain wary, often switching to cornstarch-based alternatives or skipping powder altogether for newborn care. Conversations about risk and responsibility continue on social media and in scientific journals, reflecting a deep need for clear, public-facing research on health outcomes.
Talcum powder faces an uncertain but intriguing future. Growing safety concerns and consumer pushback encourage companies to rethink formulas. Alternatives—like rice powder, oat flour, or mineral blends—start to crowd drugstore shelves. At the same time, talc still draws demand from industrial applications where its unique properties remain unmatched. High-tech detection methods promise to improve screening for asbestos, which could restore some confidence. Researchers and entrepreneurs eye plant-based ingredients to keep meeting comfort and convenience needs without the baggage of past controversies. Continuous investment in safer mines, ethical sourcing, and open communication about health research may give talc a path forward, but it has to travel through a more informed and cautious marketplace than ever before. The powder that once symbolized modernity now serves as a reminder that familiar products can never escape scrutiny—and that health, trust, and innovation must always travel together.
Growing up, most people remember the scent of talcum powder as part of daily routines: after a shower, on a baby’s skin, tucked into bathroom shelves with trusted brands. Generations relied on it, believing it to be harmless. Science and real-world stories over recent years have challenged this sense of safety.
Talcum powder contains finely ground talc, a mineral made of magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. On its own, talc keeps skin dry and fresh. The problem starts with the natural close relationship between talc and asbestos underground. Sometimes, mining causes asbestos contamination in talc products. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asbestos can cause cancer when inhaled. Knowing asbestos and talc sometimes mix adds a layer of caution.
A 2020 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found no strong link between using talcum powder in the genital area and ovarian cancer in a large group of women. That said, an absence of strong proof doesn’t automatically clear talc of all risk — especially since some lawsuits have pointed to contaminated talc. The World Health Organization classifies perineal use of talc-based body powder as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
Companies paid out billions to people who claimed talc gave them cancer, especially ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, a rare cancer tied to asbestos. Watching friends panic over recalls shows how trust can crumble in an instant. For some families, a beauty staple turned suspicious overnight.
Talcum powder also carries risk for the lungs. Inhaling small particles can lead to talcosis, a form of lung damage. Pediatricians urge parents to skip talc powders for babies and use cornstarch instead. A cough, a wheeze, or labored breathing after a little powder in the air sharply underlines the dangers of something once seen as gentle.
No one wants to rethink old routines, but shifting habits brings peace of mind. Look for products labeled “talc-free” or those using cornstarch, baking soda, or other safe alternatives for personal hygiene. The FDA hasn't banned talc in cosmetics, though careful shoppers ask questions and read labels, especially for infant care or after-shower use.
Asking a doctor makes sense, especially for those with medical vulnerabilities. For adults still set on using talc, keeping it away from the face and genitals lowers the risk. Personalized advice fits better than blanket statements.
Greater transparency from manufacturers offers hope. Testing batches for asbestos, improving mining and purification, and sharing results builds trust. People remember headlines about recalls and want action. Government agencies and consumer watchdogs have more data now than ever before, and pushing for stricter standards may prevent problems before they start.
Talcum powder has a long history in people’s lives, but changing times invite new solutions. Health beats nostalgia. Knowledge, real-life cases, and common sense show that while the powder’s risks remain under debate, replacing it with something safer asks little and might end up saving a lot.
Talcum powder has been a familiar item in bathrooms for decades. Growing up, almost every household had that recognizable white bottle. Parents would shake it over babies after diaper changes and adults would use it to feel fresh. In recent years, though, controversy has shadowed this common product. Reports link talc to cancer, with lawsuits and health warnings prompting people to question whether something so ordinary could actually be dangerous.
Talc found in nature sits alongside asbestos deposits. Asbestos is a mineral known to cause cancer when inhaled, so cross-contamination has doctors and researchers worried. The American Cancer Society points out that some talc in the past may have contained traces of asbestos, although regulations in many countries ban asbestos in talc products now. Still, testing isn’t foolproof, and research continues.
One area of concern comes from the link between talc and ovarian cancer. Some lawsuits feature women who say long-term genital use of talc products contributed to ovarian tumors. Several studies show a small increase in risk, with a pooled analysis suggesting an increased chance of 20 to 30 percent for women who use talcum powder in the genital area. Other research offers conflicting results, so debate continues among scientists. The U.S. National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention both stop short of calling talc a proven cause, but recognize the possible danger.
Recent years show major court battles involving companies like Johnson & Johnson. Plaintiffs brought forth thousands of cases, alleging companies failed to warn customers about the risk. The result: Several large verdicts and settlements, plus growing public awareness. It’s clear that juries and the public hold companies responsible for the safety of their products, expecting clear labeling and transparency.
Paying attention to these court cases, I started checking labels at home with more care. For years, my family used baby powder as a remedy for heat rash, not thinking twice. Now, looking back, I recognize how easy it is to trust a staple without considering potential risks.
Putting trust in long-standing products comes naturally, especially when marketing paints them as safe and gentle. Given the research and legal action, people consider alternatives. Cornstarch-based powders now line store shelves, and many consumers turn to them for peace of mind. Dermatologists and cancer groups often suggest these options since they do not carry risk of asbestos contamination.
Education matters. Doctors, scientists, and regulators continue to watch outcomes, press for stronger rules, and push for better studies. Transparency and honest communication between companies and the public can prevent future harm. For those worried about exposure or looking for ways to lower risk, staying informed and sticking to well-regulated, clearly labeled products goes a long way.
At the end of the day, consumers should feel confident using basic items in their home. It’s fair to demand honesty from companies and to hope public health policy keeps pace with science. While answers about talc and cancer may still evolve, the lesson is simple: keep asking questions, keep reading labels, and don’t ignore small warnings about the things we trust the most.
Talcum powder holds a familiar place on many household shelves. The soft texture and ability to soak up moisture make it popular in nurseries and bathrooms. But grab a bottle and there’s a good chance you’ll spot just a handful of ingredients on the label—often just talc, a mineral that’s been ground down to a fine, silky dust. That’s the headliner. In a plain talcum powder, manufacturers keep the ingredient list short, relying mainly on talc itself.
Talc, also called hydrated magnesium silicate, appears in small, flat crystals. It feels slippery to the touch. Mining companies dig it from the earth, then clean, crush, and mill it to get the fluffy powder most people recognize. In basic powders, nothing competes with talc for space on the label.
Some products branch out. Cornstarch often stands in for or joins talc—especially in products flagged as “talc-free.” Cornstarch comes from ground corn kernels, bringing another safe and absorbent option for folks who want to avoid talc for one reason or another.
Fragrances land on the list in most baby or body powders. These might turn up as a single word, or as a vague “parfum.” There’s little detail because scents can come from dozens of unnamed ingredients blended to give powder a comforting smell. Some people discover allergy issues linked to fragrances, which makes full transparency tricky in these formulas.
Preservatives stay rare in classical talcum powder since the dry environment keeps bacteria and mold from growing. If a formula adds moisturizing agents or other botanicals, small amounts of preservatives could sneak in to give the product a longer shelf life. But, in plain talcum powder, expect them less often.
Years of legal battles have cast a spotlight on the health risks lurking in talcum powder. In the past, talc mined near asbestos—another natural mineral—sometimes picked up traces of asbestos along the way. Asbestos is a proven carcinogen. Scientific studies and court cases pushed manufacturers to test and purify talc rigorously, but the risk fueled a huge conversation around product transparency and personal safety. People want honest answers about what they’re putting on their skin, and for good reason.
I’ve seen people toss out their talcum powder because their doctors flagged respiratory issues after years of use. Tiny particles in the air can make breathing tough, especially for infants or those with asthma. Plus, thousands of women took their stories to court, alleging a connection between talc-based powders and ovarian cancer. While science hasn’t reached a unanimous verdict on risk, these stories drove big companies to change formulas, swap talc for cornstarch in sensitive products, or put clearer warning labels on packaging.
More people now read labels closely. Simple swaps like choosing cornstarch over talc or picking powders labeled “fragrance-free” help limit exposure to any unwanted extras. Larger brands and small-batch makers offer powders with fewer, familiar ingredients—sometimes just talc or cornstarch and a hint of natural scent from essential oils rather than synthetic fragrances.
Companies respond when customers ask hard questions, and government bodies keep raising safety standards. Clear labeling builds trust, and honesty keeps folks healthy. Talcum powder has a place in many daily routines, but knowing its ingredients gives everyone a chance to make the smartest decision for themselves and their families.
Talcum powder, made from the mineral talc, has held a place on nursery shelves for decades. People sprinkle it on babies to keep skin dry and prevent rashes, trusting in traditions passed down through family. In older generations, relatives would dust babies’ bottoms after every diaper change. Many still do. No one thought much about what the fine, soft powder contained.
Over the last twenty years, scientific research has cast a shadow over that easy confidence. People started asking questions after cases of lung problems surfaced in babies who inhaled the powder. Talc in its natural state can contain asbestos, a mineral tied firmly to cancer. The U.S. banned asbestos in talc products for home use back in the 1970s. The FDA checks modern powders, but trace contamination can evade detection because screening is not foolproof.
Lung risks don't disappear just because talc is marketed as pure. A Cleveland Clinic pediatrician explained in a recent interview how inhaling even small amounts of talc powder can irritate young lungs, causing coughing, trouble breathing, or worse. Babies breathe quickly and deeply, so these particles enter their airways and settle in, and their bodies struggle to expel the dust. There’s no way to apply powder to a wriggling baby without some puff of it becoming airborne.
I remember my own grandmother using talcum powder for diaper changes—a cloud of the stuff filling the air. Later, when my cousin's daughter suffered weeks of coughing, the pediatrician traced it back to powder inhalation. That hit close to home and made our family reevaluate what we keep in the nursery.
Stories about ovarian cancer linked to years of talcum powder use added more worry for parents. Lawsuits and studies point to a connection in adults who apply the powder around the genital area, mostly women using it for personal hygiene. The science isn’t settled, but the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies genital use of talc as "possibly carcinogenic." It’s not proven, but it’s not ruled out either.
The potential for harm—irritated lungs, higher odds of cancer—has led pediatricians, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, to urge against talc powder for babies. Cornstarch-based baby powders offer an alternative, though they still create clouds if sprinkled. Cornstarch particles are bigger, less likely to get deep into the lungs, but pediatricians suggest using creams or ointments if dry skin or diaper rash needs help.
Parents hear conflicting advice from friends, family, and advertisements. In my experience raising two kids, skin-to-skin contact, gentle soap, and regular diaper changes worked better than any powder. If a rash pops up, a barrier cream protects just as well. Small changes matter—letting skin dry before putting on a new diaper and avoiding extra products unless a doctor recommends them.
The dust has not settled on the science, but erring on the side of caution makes sense. The urge to reach for what’s familiar often slips into our routine, but newborn lungs and health deserve a closer look. Instead of relying on talcum powder, parents have safer tools at their disposal. That switch costs very little, except for leaving an old habit behind.
Talcum powder once seemed like a staple in bathroom cabinets everywhere. My own family used it after every bath, convinced that it was the best thing to keep skin fresh and dry. Today, a link between talc-based powders and ovarian cancer has left many of us searching for safer choices. Johnson & Johnson, one of the biggest names behind talc, has faced lawsuits about the safety of talc. These raised the alarm for many parents, caregivers, and anyone with a concern for what they put on their bodies.
Concerns about inhaling fine powders and fears around cancer linger. The idea that a product we counted on for so long could pose risks still shocks many of us. Conversing with friends and checking online parenting groups, I notice families want peace of mind when using daily care products. For those with babies or sensitive skin, this hits a nerve.
One easy shift involves cornstarch-based powders. Cornstarch sits at the top of many “best baby powder” lists because of its gentle and absorbent qualities. In my experience, cornstarch powder works just as well for managing sweat and keeping skin smooth in hot summers. It's usually inexpensive and easy to find at any supermarket. Dermatologists, including those quoted by the American Academy of Dermatology, endorse it as a safe pick for adults and infants alike.
Some folks lean on arrowroot powder, another plant-based option. This product feels silky and absorbs moisture efficiently. Health-conscious shoppers often reach for it at natural food stores. Those with allergies appreciate that arrowroot carries almost no scent and very little risk of irritation. I tried it a while back to deter chafing during a hiking trip and found it gentle and effective.
Kaolin clay belongs on the list of lesser-known choices. This natural clay absorbs oil and soothes irritated skin. Estheticians recommend kaolin for acne-prone or sensitive skin. Products with a clay base can feel heavier than cornstarch but offer a sense of protection in humid climates. Safety data supports kaolin as a non-toxic, low-irritation option.
Baking soda sometimes replaces talc, especially in homemade blends. People love its odor-absorbing traits, but some users (myself included) find baking soda can sting or cause redness, especially after shaving or during sweaty weather. Patch testing before daily use helps avoid nasty surprises.
No powder should go unquestioned. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies these powders as cosmetics, so manufacturers must list ingredients, but self-regulation still dominates. While plant-based options carry fewer headlines about risk, people with allergies or lung diseases should take care. Any fine dust—whether talc, cornstarch, or another—can cause trouble if someone inhales too much. Open communication with a dermatologist goes a long way, especially for babies or anyone with chronic health concerns.
Reading ingredient labels helps shed light on what’s inside powders marketed as “talc-free.” Simple recipes, such as single-ingredient cornstarch or arrowroot, mean fewer surprises. Cooling off after a shower, dusting on a safe powder keeps the skin dry and comfortable, as many parents find with their own kids. Keeping containers away from faces and from children’s reach limits inhalation risks—wise advice for any powder, no matter its ingredients.
Switching from talcum powder isn’t tough. With science, lived experience, and precaution on our side, powder users have plenty of reliable options to consider.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | magnesium bis(silicate) |
| Other names |
Talc Talc powder Baby powder Magnesium silicate |
| Pronunciation | /ˈtæl.kəm ˈpaʊ.dər/ |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Magnesium silicate |
| Other names |
Talc Talc powder Baby powder French chalk Magnesium silicate |
| Pronunciation | /ˈtæl.kəm ˈpaʊ.dər/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 14807-96-6 |
| Beilstein Reference | **3628216** |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:46745 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL: CHEMBL1201731 |
| ChemSpider | 86510 |
| DrugBank | DB11361 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 100.133.50 |
| EC Number | 238-877-9 |
| Gmelin Reference | 108484 |
| KEGG | C14333 |
| MeSH | D013601 |
| PubChem CID | 16666559 |
| RTECS number | WW2710000 |
| UNII | F4VNO44C02 |
| UN number | UN3077 |
| CAS Number | 14807-96-6 |
| Beilstein Reference | 3586965 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:46745 |
| ChEMBL | CHEBI:13199 |
| ChemSpider | 5293473 |
| DrugBank | DB09334 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 100.133.50 |
| EC Number | 238-877-9 |
| Gmelin Reference | Gmelin Reference: **14156** |
| KEGG | C14078 |
| MeSH | D013614 |
| PubChem CID | 16666513 |
| RTECS number | **YO7260000** |
| UNII | FWH66CWW7A |
| UN number | UN3077 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 |
| Molar mass | Molar mass: 379.27 g/mol |
| Appearance | White, fine, smooth, odorless powder |
| Odor | Pleasant |
| Density | 0.8 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble |
| log P | Talcum Powder |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Basicity (pKb) | 9.5 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | Diamagnetic (-0.19 × 10⁻⁶ cgs) |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.53 |
| Viscosity | Low |
| Dipole moment | 0.74 D |
| Chemical formula | Mg₃Si₄O₁₀(OH)₂ |
| Molar mass | Molar mass: 379.26 g/mol |
| Appearance | White or off-white fine, smooth, odorless powder |
| Odor | Sweet, Floral |
| Density | D = 0.45 - 0.80 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble |
| log P | 2.5 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | Diamagnetic (-0.8 × 10⁻⁶) |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.54 |
| Viscosity | Low |
| Dipole moment | 0.00 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 427.4 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) of Talcum Powder is -2020 kJ/mol |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 298.4 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | −2850 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | D02AB02 |
| ATC code | D02AB02 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause respiratory irritation, prolonged inhalation can cause lung damage, may cause skin or eye irritation, possible carcinogen if containing asbestos. |
| GHS labelling | GHS label: Not classified as hazardous according to GHS |
| Pictograms | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | May cause respiratory irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | Keep out of reach of children. For external use only. Avoid contact with eyes, nose, and mouth. Do not inhale powder. Use only as directed. Store in a cool, dry place. If irritation or rash occurs, discontinue use and consult a physician. |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 0-0-0 |
| Autoignition temperature | 450°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | Rat oral LD₅₀: > 16,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose) of Talcum Powder: 16 g/kg (oral, rat) |
| NIOSH | TNFC |
| PEL (Permissible) | 20 mppcf |
| REL (Recommended) | 20 mg/m³ |
| Main hazards | May cause respiratory irritation, prolonged inhalation may cause lung damage, suspected of causing cancer, may cause skin or eye irritation |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | No signal word |
| Precautionary statements | Keep out of reach of children. For external use only. Avoid contact with eyes, nose, mouth, and broken skin. Do not inhale. Use in a well-ventilated area. If irritation or rash occurs, discontinue use and consult a physician. |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-0-0 |
| Autoignition temperature | 450°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | Oral rat LD₅₀: > 16,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | > 16 g/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | RN245 |
| PEL (Permissible) | 20 mppcf |
| REL (Recommended) | 10 mg/m³ |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Talc Magnesium silicate Soapstone Cosmetic powder Face powder |
| Related compounds |
Magnesium silicate Steatite Soapstone Calcium carbonate Zinc oxide Cornstarch Kaolin |