Biology Forums - Study Force

Hi, just to start the post by saying I’m not sure if this is being posted in the right place, I struggled to find a forum for this type of question. I am a layman about most of this stuff, but I figured this was the right place to ask.
   
I have been looking at hair glues (adhesives used to attach non surgical hair replacement systems to ones head), and researching the toxicity of some of the glues. We (have been discussing it on a hair loss forum) came to the conclusion that a brand called “ghost bond” was probably the safest, as it is water based not acrylic based. Having read the MSDS sheet for it however, it apparently contains “Acrylate/Copolymer-dispersion” or “Chemical characterisation (substance): Dispersion of acrylic polymers in water.” (listed differently for different products). Having researched this a bit, I found out this in itself probably isn’t harmful, however the monomers used to create it are, and some can be left over after the polymer is produced. I found a study that mentioned this (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10941612_Final_Report_on_the_Safety_Assessment_of_Acrylates_Copolymer_and_33_Related_Cosmetic_Ingredients) found this exact text block on multiple sites, not sure if there is an original study available for free.

Based on this, and the usage of hair adhesive, I have a few questions about the possible implications of this in regard to health:

1.   Would it be likely that applying an adhesive (which according to the study can be in concentrations of 25% of the polymer in glues), potentially could pose a risk, considering the fact the hair system is re-applied with the adhesive once or twice a week?
2.   I have heard that most of the absorption of chemicals from substances placed on the skin happens in the first few minutes, and that once the glue has set then there is no more absorption. However as this glue is water based it can sometimes “re-liquify” (not to the original extent, but it can go from solid to “a gooey mess” (direct quote from people who have used it). Would this “gooey mess” potentially mean more chemicals can be absorbed?
3.   How applicable are studies like this to humans? They are done on mice, is there a possibility that the chemicals could be much more carcinogenic to humans and therefore be dangerous at lower concentrations?
4.   Why is the amount that is dangerous quoted in terms of concentration? Is the volume not also important?
5.   If the chemical is dangerous at x concentration, how some it isn’t dangerous at all concentrations? Is it something to do with the liver flushing the chemicals out of the body?
6.   If the chemicals are carcinogenic, is there anyway to know how carcinogenic they are (i.e. do they increase your risk 40%, 400% or 4000%)?
I appreciate any and all help with this, we have been discussing it on another forum for a while but I figure some more specific insight could be helpful. Apologies again if this is posted in the wrong place, if there is a better place to post this I am happy to remove it and repost.

I'm not an expert in adhesives, but I am a biologist, so I might be able to chime in


Generally speaking. mice are excellent models for humans, but definitely not a replacement for human studies. Nonetheless, our skin is both permeable and impermeable. Depending on the (a) concentration, (b) molecular weight of the molecule, (c) duration of contact, (d) solubility of medication, and (e) other physical condition of the skin, etc., the absorption process varies.

Take nicotine patches, for instance, they stick to the skin via an adhesive, and are supposed to be applied for up to 16 hours so that the nicotine can fully absorb. Therefore, an adhesive applied to the scalp would definitely be a concern, especially if it needs to be applied multiple times a week. Maybe you could look into whether the adhesive found in nicotine patches are harmful, since they're more extensively studied that hair glue.


Concentration matters more, as they say, the dose makes the poison. Volume is only applicable when you're trying to cover more surface area.


The liver use various enzymes and chemicals to break a substance down to make it less toxic. However, the liver can also suffer from poisoning, known as liver toxicosis. Some substances contain hepatotoxic substances or compounds that are metabolized to hepatotoxic chemicals.


Every chemical as a LD50 level. You need to research that for the compound you're concerned about.

Let me know if you have any more follow-up questions :-]

Thank you for replying. In regards to the part about mice studies, a lot of studies say the chemicals are unlikely to pose a risk (example one https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X18300635#:~:text=With%20evidence%20that%20these%20chemicals,pose%20a%20human%20cancer%20hazard.) . Does this say anything about the potential very long term risk though, i.e. if it could cause cancer in 20 years or something? Or is that simply impossible to determine in a study like these ones?

I think it's impossible to tell. With all the research they've done on cigarette-smoking, they still cannot conclusively say that long-term cigarette smoking leads to lung cancer x-years from now. All they can say is that there's a correlation between cigarette smokers and lung cancer.

The review you've linked to is quite extensive, with excellent information distributed throughout the whole paper. Have you read it thoroughly, and if so, were you able to come up with the same conclusions as the author? It's important that you do your due diligence as well, because your interpretations of the results may be different than theirs. Read the discussion section, it holds all the juice you're looking for...

So if you did a study like these ones with cigarettes, it's entirely possible it wouldn't show them as being harmful? Should that be a cause for concern for these chemicals, as there are some documented negative effects in these studies, or could that be said about anything?

I will have to take a closer look at the review one. One thing that stood out to me from the first link was they said the concentration "may be as high as 1500 ppm, typical levels are 10 to 1000 ppm", however I looked up the recommended maximum dose and it's something like 6-8 ppm. This study which is of a specific acrylate says it's 1.2mg/kg, however that's weird because it also says on the same page that there was no observed effect at 100mg/mk (https://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/cicad04.pdf?ua=1 page 5 (9 of PDF)).

It's weird that the studies seem to give a much higher level of safe exposure than the decided safety regulation.

There can never be a study that proves anything of that nature because there are too many variables that cannot be controlled, including the subject's genetic makeup, age they started smoking, the number of cigarettes smokes per day, (the list goes on). In addition, there are too many chemicals that exist inside of a cigarette, so a scientist would have to investigate each one individually. And even if they investigated each ingredient individually, that would still be insubstantial evidence to consider that smokes actually *cause* lung cancer. You can only make a connection once the facts have been established, but science cannot prove it.

In the case of hair adhesives, if it's a single component that makes up the glue, then it'd be easier to make a connection that component-x, at this specific concentration, for this set amount of time, of this specific skin type leads to cancer, for example.

Science aside, here's my opinion: if it's concerning you, then the idea that using it might lead to something in the future becomes a self-fulling prophecy in itself, and hence should be avoided. Remember, the skin is permeable and breathable, so even if the stuff is harmless, you wouldn't want it seeping into your bloodstream anyway.

Don't mean to pry, but why wouldn't you consider a more permeant hair transplant instead?


1 ppm = 1 mg/kg

1.2 mg/kg there is 1.2 ppm.


Perhaps, but you'd be surprised how many regulations are outdated.

Not sure what you mean, do you mean it could cause some kind of placebo, or just that if your going to worry about it then it isn't worth it.

If it's harmless would it not be okay in your bloodstream?

Most of these studies seem to use inhalation, is that less harmful than being in your blood?

I would prefer that as an option, but they don't tend t give them to younger people as if hair loss continues after the transplant it ends up looking worse. Hair transplants often aren't possible if you have lost too much hair. I probably will get one if it's possible when I reach the right age.

Precisely that. If it doesn't feel right instinctually, then it should be avoided. I feel that way about marijuana, so I've always avoided smoking it. For all I know, it could actually be good for me - who knows? - but my gut instinct tells me otherwise.


When you inhale something, it potentially has a direct pathway to your bloodstream. However, inhaling a gas is far less concentrated than in liquid form, so I wouldn't say they're equivalent. Many adhesives contain solvents that are toxic by inhalation and skin contact. Acrylic plastic glues that contain methyl methacrylate, and instant bonding glues contain cyanoacrylates. See this section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanoacrylate#Toxicity) on Wikipedia regarding their toxicity.


Transplants have gone a long way. I'd look into FUE as opposed to the incision kind (worst). You can get it for relatively cheap if done overseas, namely in Turkey. If your case is advanced enough to require a headpiece, than I'd say you're in the correct age range. How far along is your hair line? And, what type of hair loss is occurring?

Non of the studies saw about methyl methacrylate talked about skin contact. I assume, given blood circulates around the whole body and as you said inhalation will lead to it getting into the blood anyway, that it's unlikely to be significantly more toxic if applied to the skin?

I asked the company about the ingredients, they didn't seem to want to be more specific than "Acrylate Copolymers" which is a bit annoying, do you know which one it is likely to be? Product is called Ghostbond, it's a water based adhesive.
At the moment I am only a norwood 3 ish (forehead further back than is typical, receeded temples, no thinning on top). I'd say there's a decent chance it won't get worse, as my Dad's hair is exactly the same as mine, same with my Uncle, so I think my family just has naturally receeded hairlines, but nobody is bald.

I'm looking into all this more to reassure myself that if I do go bald that I can do something about it, more than needing to do anything now. I suppose along with that comes the slight reassurance that in 5-10 years we may have a new treatment for it and transplants or systems will be a thing of the past.

I would assume that the liquid form is more concentrated than the vapor form discussed in the study. That being said, it's the dose (concentration) that makes the poison. According to Ghostbond's purchase page on Amazon, it mentions that it "contains no latex or harsh solvents so reduces irritation as well as being low odour and bacteria resistant." So it contains solvents, but aren't "harsh" -- doesn't sound too convincing to me.
 Another website states:



Forgive my ignorance, but how'd you use a hairpiece for a Norwood 3? They're the most difficult to conceal, since you're still at the earlier stages of hair loss. Have you tried using minoxidil foam? It's pretty good in keeping your hair vital; I believe it acts as a vasodilator, increasing blood circulation to the scalp. You can get a 3-month supply on eBay for like ~$60.


What's your grandfather's hair like on your mom's side?

Most of the studies seemed to be 1 or 2 years, I haven't seen any reports of people using ghostbond having any of the things in the studies happening to them after 2 years, so I assume the dose must be less. Are all solvents bad or are they just a category?

In regards to the hair piece, I wouldn't be planning on getting one yet, if my hair stays as it is now I would be happy with it and wouldn't really do much with it. I would only get one if it got significantly worse.

I asked my Mum a while and she said she didn't know of any bald relatives, so I assume my grandfather wasn't bald. The only 2 male relatives I know are my Dad, and my Uncle (Mum's side). So I don't think baldness runs in my family.

Any solvent other than water should be avoided when considering a biological system because you never know what they can dissolve.

It's very possible that your hairline could stop receding; I would still vouch for using minoxidil foam or Propecia if it's still concerning you. The fact that your mom's side doesn't have a history of hair loss is a positive thing, so it's either you inherited your dad's gene or a generation was skipped on your mom's side.

Is the Solvent in this glue not the water, is that why it's called water based, instead of the acrylic based glues where I assume acrylic is the solvent?

Hopefully it will stop where it is now, I'll have to keep an eye on it over the next few months to see if it gets any worse.

Also going back to the PPM and mg/kg thing, I didn't realise mg.kg was mg per kg of body weight. Is that the same with PPM I assume when they talk about it in studies (i.e. rats exposed to 400ppm, means they were exposed to 400mg per kg of their weight)?

If the solvent was water, it wouldn't a concern. Water-based means that the components dissolves in water; compare to lipid-soluble -- then it's get absorbed in fat tissue, which is dangerous. Alcohols are soluble in water, but are also considered solvents.


But don't obsess over it. Remember that each hair follicle follows a cycle of growth and shedding, so collectively your follicles might be in their growth stage; therefore, you'll experience better hair days than say next season. Watching this progress is like watching plants grow; try your best not to worry - easier said than done - and don't stair at the mirror too much! You'll end up developing a case of body dysmorphic disorder...


It's a 1-to-1 ratio so 400 ppm = 400mg per kg of their weight. You can use either or to describe the concentration of one compound dispersed in another. Assuming that the parts per million value is a mass per mass value, then the conversion can be done.

Why is it dangerous when absorbed in fat tissue? Does that not happen to every chemical if mixed with a solvent?

Yeah I try not to obsess over it too much. I'm just gonna take a few pictures and then take some more in a few months and compare them. I've never been too fussed over my appearance, but I know I wouldn't look good bald, especially at my age.

So when this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/10915810290169800
says "10-1000ppm", is that completely different to the studies saying "rats were exposed to 500ppm", as in the first case it's just the concentration in a solution, whereas in the second it is a dose per body weight?

When something is fat soluble, it gets stored in adipose tissue (fat). The danger with that is fat tissue isn't metabolized readily; people who are obese, for instance, usually remain obese. As the accumulation of poison in adipose tissue increases, the more harmful/toxic it becomes.


20s, I'm assuming? I think going bald at any age sucks, and takes time getting used to. For some people, they never get used to it, this is why the hair restoration industry is up in the billions.


Reading the report further, it mentions:

(https://biology-forums.com/gallery/42/6_19_10_20_10_57_57.png) (https://biology-forums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=42133)

This suggests it's 5-40 mg per kilogram of solution. So the concentration is 5 to 40 mg per 1 kilogram of say water.

Got a response from my email request from the company, they said the ingredients are "Xanthan gum, Glycerin, Water, Acrylate copolymer & Non Phenol ethoxylate."
Which one of those is the solvent do you think? It's annoying they weren't more specific with which copolymer it is.

Actually I'm only 18. I can imagine it does suck at any age, I hope they come up with a better solution soon.

Glycerin and water are, but harmless.

Picked up something concerning on Non Phenol ethoxylate

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonylphenol


Not sure I like the way that reads.

Thanks, I'll have to have a look at ethoxylate.

So would this glue be classed as a lipid-soluble and have the potential to get into fat, or would it not as it's only water and glycerin?

Also this is probably a stupid question but do we have that much fat on top of our heads, or can it spread to other areas?

Looks like it's lipid soluble.

As long as it's not ingested, don't worry so much about lipid solubility. Since your skin is composed of layers of dead skin anyway, the lipid solubility property doesn't matter.


When you consume something that's lipid soluble, that substance gets incorporated into fat deposits everywhere in the body, including liver fat.

If Glycerin is fat soluble, does that mean if you did ingest it, then it would end up in fat deposits, or would it also allow all of the other chemicals to go into the fat deposits? (i.e. would it potentially take the acrylates with it?)

Is glycerin the only thing that is fat soluble? I looked some of the chemicals up but could find a thing about fat solubility (or possibly I didn't know what terms to look for)

Don't forget that glycerine gets digested by enzymes in our intestines. It isn't dangerous. If glycerine acts as a vehicle for the acrylate polymer's entry into the gut, then that's a concern.

When I searched for Nonylphenol ethoxylate solubility, sources stated it's not water soluble, so I concluded the opposite is true.

Is there any way to tell whether it is acting as a vehicle? As if it was would that not mean all the studies are largely irrelevant to this as it may be entering the body more as it's in a solution with solvents?

If something isn't water soluble does that mean it is fat soluble?

Not sure why it's used for this adhesive, but it is a common additive in countless medicines and food products. Normally they add it to eardrop products, jellies and creams for topical use, etc.

Remember, we're talking hair adhesives here, so I'm guessing that because glycerin is relatively sticky, it'd only help in creating a stiffer bond between one's scalp and the hair piece. Adding it likely increases the water resistance, when combined with the film-forming polymers, leading to an increase the tackiness as well.

Again, all these are assumptions...

So do you think it is likely to pose a risk here? It sounds worrying, if glycerin can dissolve the toxic monomers then doesn't that mean they can get into the body?

I looked at methyl methacrylate and it says it is soluble in water, so on its own presumably can't get into fat. However could glycerol allow it too, potentially making it a lot more dangerous than all of the studies show?

Not if it's topical. It's only on the skin's surface. The molecule might even be too large to seep into your skin anyway. Most it will do is cause irritation, as the skin isn't as breathable with this stuff on it.


Through the skin? Not a chance. That would be a concern of mine if it was being ingested, but not if it's sitting on the skin.

Is it not possible for it to get into the blood? There was somebody talking about this on a forum about hair pieces and they mentioned that chemicals placed on the skin would be absorbed quite quickly and often end up in the bloodstream.

Yes, he's right. So the three ways chemicals seep into the bloodstream is either intracellular, intercellular, and transappendageal.

Intracellular is when chemicals penetrate the skin by passing directly through cells via permeation, or in-between cells (intercellular), or by passing through the hair follicles or sweat ducts - that's transappendageal. If a chemical successfully passes through the upper layers of skin, it has the chance to be absorbed by the bloodstream or lymphatic system. That's when it becomes a concern. Whether or not the chemicals in the glue are capable in doing this is difficult to say. Perhaps the chemicals stickiness, viscosity, or even molecular weight, makes it less likely to happen. This I'm uncertain of :s

Can glycerin do that? Is there any way to tell if a chemical can get into the blood? (other than studies)

I looked into the copolymers a bit, and found that a lot of suncreams also contain both glycerin and "acrylates copolymer". It's probably a low concentration of copolymer though, idk how much is in stuff like suncream, as it's a main ingredient in these glues I think isn't it?

Any chemical placed long enough on the skin will soften it up, and eventually allow entry - remember the nicotine patch example. I'm not sure how hair adhesive works, but let's assume it's like super glue for the sake of simplicity. Super glue dries very quickly, it doesn't remain in its liquid form for long. After it dries, what is left is the adhesive residue that sits on the surface. Whether or not that seeps into the skin is difficult to tell. Everyone sweats, everyone has changes in body temperature, so it's possible that the conditions will lead to some entry point discussed earlier.


I can see that, glycerin is used to make to make a substance sticky and spreadable.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6101675/

Studies like that talk about the effects of things building up in fat, like higher blood pressure or cholesterol. Is that something that could be tested for? i.e. if you used this glue for a few years, and then got a blood test, would that show if it was causing any harm, or could it take longer to do damage even if you stopped using it?

They wouldn't be able to pinpoint it to any specific chemical. High cholesterol is caused many by poor dieting and genetics, so they'd simply tell you to start making better food choices. High blood pressure is also related to poor dieting, age, and genetics.

If you did have it because of toxins being stored in fat, would there be any way to get rid of it?

Plus how quickly would it be likely to show, assuming you are completely healthy in every other way. If you used the glue or something for 2 years and took a blood test, is it possible that it doesn't show up, but does then show up 3 years later even if you stop using it? (i.e. can the effect be delayed significantly)?

But it'd be so hard to tell - if not, impossible. There are only a handful of toxins whose symptoms we're familiar, i.e. mercury, lead poisoning.

Toxins stored in fat tissue slowly damage the bloodstream by inhibiting enzymes from working correctly - enzymes are the pillar of countless bodily functions. Toxins may also directly damage the DNA of cells (and that could lead to cancer if the concentration is higher enough). Again, you're not eating this stuff, so the concentration that seeps in likely will not cause any of these things.

What do you mean by damage the bloodstream, like they kill blood cells?

Would there be any way to tell whether a particular chemical could damage DNA? 

In terms of concentration, is that cumulative over time as it can't actually get out of the fat cells?

Absolutely. For example, some toxins actually bind to hemoglobin, thereby preventing the protein from being able to pick up oxygen -- in fact, carbon monoxide does that. Other toxins may pass the blood-brain barrier, and in turn, impact neuronal functions.

Dying of poison really sucks -- either it happens quickly, or it takes it toll for several years and can't be reversed.


Usually, DNA damage results into cancer. Any damage to the genes that control the cell cycle can be fatal. Remember, cells beget cells, so if an important gene is damaged, that'll get passed on to all subsequent generations.


As more toxins accumulate, the concentration increases as well within the host.

What are your thoughts so far? Have I persuaded you to use it or discouraged you?

In some of the studies I found about methyl Methacryalate, it said it was "£rapidly absorbed when ingested", I assume that means into the blood stream. The study about it killing cells wasn't in an organism, it was an in vitro study. SO maybe that doesn't happen as much in organsims.

What kind of cancer would it be likely to cause? Would it depend where it was absorbed, so if it was in liver fat it would be a form of liver cancer etc?

Is there any way to remove this from the fat cells? I have read about stuff online that is supposedly for "de toxifying" the body, but I'm often sceptical to trust it as a lot of the websites just look like they are trying to sell my something lol


Thanks for all of your help, I think I would definelty feel safe using it for a few years, I'm just not sure about how long it would be advisable to use it for. TBH I feel like I might only feel the need to "hide" something like baldness when I am in my 20s, as it's not so much about how I look, rather just that I want to "blend in" to an extent, as I'm not very confident lol.

Cancers normally spread, so the location would be hard to determine once it starts happening. Most liver cancers are caused by viruses, such as hepatitis viruses. Maybe it'd lead to a blood cancer, such as leukemia or Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Who knows? Most likely none of that will happen, it's just glue :lol:


No such thing as detoxifying your body of toxins, don't buy into it.


No sense in hiding it with a hair piece. I don't want to call it this, but it's like 'living a lie' having to wear it everywhere you go. It's hard to maintain a lifestyle like that, eventually it'll catch up to you. If you or anyone I knew wore a headpiece to impress me, only to find out later that they're bald, I'd feel pity for that person.

Men, unlike women, are not valued for their beauty, they're valued for their resources. You see women 'living a lie' all the time, with hair extensions, high heels, makeup, etc., because instinctually they want to appear beautiful to attract a male. Of course they won't tell you that, or even admit to it, but that's what it's truly all about. Men cherish women for their beauty. Women don't select men based on their appearance; they want someone who's successful and resourceful.

I always think of stuff like this in terms of risk. And with cancer there are a lot of different types. Something that increase your likelihood for "cancer" in general by 100%, is a lot worse than something that increases your likelihood for a specific cancer by 500%, as that specific cancer is more rare than just the chance of getting any cancer. (i.e. double 20% is 40%, but quintuple 2% is only 10%, so the 2% becomes 10% and you get 28% risk).

Are there a lot of other sources of these toxins that increase cancer risk? As it would bother me less if I knew this was already happening with like 5 other things I use/ate. That might be weird but it's kindof the theory that a small increase to an existing risk is less scary than a totally new risk.


Does this stuff just stay in fat until you die then? If you have less fat, does that mean the concentration would be higher, or does ti just mean less would be absorbed?


Yeah I know what you mean. I think a lot of the modern ones are almost undetectable, although from what I've heard the maintenance is a bit of a pain, but tbh for me it wouldn't really be about making myself attractive (I'm pretty (a bit below) average anyway tbh), it's more about general confidence. If I had something about me that made me stand out it would bother me. Which is why I wouldn't really mind going bald at 35 or 40, as that wouldn't be that abnormal, but a bald 20 year old stands out a lot.

They stay for a long period of time, but I believe they're discharged into the bloodstream during weight loss. Look up "persistent organic pollutants", should give you an idea of what could potentially bioaccumulate in the human body.


Have you tried using an app that shows you as bald? -- snapchat has a filter than can do that. I've tried it on myself, and it's actually not that bad :lol:

For me, I wouldn't care once I reach 60-70, but before than, I'd still take it to heart. Change is scary at any age, but what sucks about hair loss is that it takes years sometimes before it becomes noticeable, so you're under this state of paranoia as it all unfolds, while everyone around you doesn't see the struggles you're undergoing. Take my advice, Ethan Gascoigne (https://biology-forums.com/index.php?action=profile;u=940278), Rogaine foam is where it's at!

I'll have to have a look thanks, I think I was reading a few studies about organic pollutants.

I did use an app that I found, I didn't look great in it to be honest lol, although I imagine I would look better if a) I was a bit older, b) I had some kindof beard and c) the app didn't remove the hair at the sides, which makes it look a bit off.

Yeah I think I'm still in the unnoticeable stage, although my hair looks really bad at the moment anyway as I haven't had it cut since lockdown started lol, haven't really been going out to do much so haven't bothered getting it cut.

That's probably it, you just need a change so that your mindset resets. I think getting a buzz cut helps reduce the anxiety of going bald because you don't actively see your hairline or find any long hairs in the sink :s