Critical Commentary. How to interpret the evidence

Summary

A 2026 toxicological risk assessment by Jin and colleagues, scientists at the United States Food and Drug Administration, concluded that the metals measured in tampons pose negligible concern for the people who use them, and the paper has been widely read as a clean bill of health. However, the conclusion only holds for a single endpoint, the fraction of metal that crosses the vaginal wall and is absorbed systemically into the bloodstream, and the entire verdict turns on one word: bioavailable. In this paper, bioavailable means absorbed into the body. The vaginal microbial community, by contrast, does not live in the bloodstream. It lives on the tampon and in the fluid held against the mucosa, for hours at a time, and to those organisms a metal that never reaches the blood is not unavailable. It is simply available. A margin of safety built on systemic absorption is simply the wrong instrument for that community. It does not consider where these microbes actually live. The FDA study answered a real question about systemic absorption, and answered it well. It did not answer the question about the safety of a labile pool of heavy metals in the vaginal cavity, where microbes respond to and compete for metals at concentrations far below the levels that raise concern in the bloodstream.

Key takeaways

  • The risk assessment measured one endpoint well: systemic toxicity to the tampon user. Every margin of safety exceeded one, and for that endpoint the conclusion is defensible.
  • Its central term, bioavailable, means absorbed into the bloodstream. The authors argue real absorption is low because menstrual-fluid proteins bind the metals, citing a lead-absorption estimate below 0.5 percent.
  • Metal that is bound in menstrual fluid, and so kept out of the blood, still sits at the mucosal surface where the vaginal microbes live. A host margin of safety does not describe microbial exposure.
  • Microbes respond to and compete for metals far below the levels that harm a person. Nutritional immunity shows the host must actively withhold metals such as nickel and zinc from microbes, which means those metals are biologically potent at the surface (metals and the microbiome).
  • Nickel is the cofactor of urease. In gut and urinary pathogens, nickel-fueled urease raises local pH; the vaginal community is pH-structured too, which makes the same mechanism a hypothesis worth testing, not a settled fact.
  • The paper never mentions microbes, Lactobacillus, or the vaginal community, and states it did not assess local exposure. This is a scope gap, not a flaw in what was measured.
  • The study that would close the gap is straightforward: leaching under vaginal-like conditions, measured against microbial endpoints such as Lactobacillus viability and community composition.

What the study did, and what it gets right

The paper under discussion is a formal toxicological risk assessment of metals in tampons [1]. Its design is clean and conservative. The authors took eleven tampon products legally sold in the United States, measured total metal content by acid digestion and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, and then measured how much metal came off the products under an exaggerated extraction protocol: acidified water at 50 degrees Celsius for 24 hours, an internationally standardized worst-case leaching condition. They fed the extractable amounts into a risk assessment built on international consensus standards, comparing exposure against systemic tolerable intakes.

The exposure model was deliberately harsh. It assumed 100 percent absorption of every extractable metal and a heavy usage scenario of six tampons a day for seven days. Even under those assumptions, every detected metal returned a margin of safety greater than one. The lowest margins were antimony at 7, lead at 8, and calcium at 9. Arsenic, cadmium, and lead were present only at trace levels, and mercury was not detected at all. On that basis the authors concluded that the metals in tampon materials present negligible toxicological concern.

None of that is being disputed here. For the endpoint the study set out to evaluate, the analysis is careful and the conclusion is reasonable. If the question is whether the metals in a tampon are likely to poison the person using it through systemic absorption, this paper is a serious attempt to answer it, and the answer it reaches is probably right. The problem is not the arithmetic. It is the boundary drawn around the question.

The pivot word: what bioavailable means here

The whole argument turns on a single word. In its discussion, the paper strengthens its reassuring conclusion by noting that the 100 percent absorption assumption is unrealistic. Menstrual fluid is rich in proteins and red blood cells, and metals such as lead and antimony bind to those components, so only a fraction of the released metal would ever enter the bloodstream. The authors cite a mechanistic estimate that less than 0.5 percent of lead released from tampons would actually be absorbed [2], and they conclude that of the metal present, only a proportion will become bioavailable.

Read that sentence closely. Bioavailable, throughout this analysis, means absorbed into the human bloodstream and delivered to internal organs. The margin of safety is a ratio between a tolerable systemic intake and an estimated systemic exposure dose. Every protective argument in the discussion, the protein binding, the red-blood-cell sequestration, the sub-1-percent absorption figure, is an argument about what reaches the blood. That is a coherent and legitimate definition for a systemic risk assessment. But it quietly narrows the meaning of harmless. The paper does not show the metal is inert. It shows the metal is unlikely to be absorbed.

Those are not the same claim, and the difference is the entire point. The mechanism the authors invoke to reassure, that the metal stays bound in menstrual fluid rather than crossing into the body, places the metal exactly where the vaginal microbes are. The protective argument for the host is, at the same time, a description of sustained metal presence at the microbial surface.

The surface the analysis skips

A blood test reports an average concentration in a well-mixed compartment. A microbe never experiences that average. It experiences the local chemistry of the few micrometers around it. This distinction between total or systemic metal and locally available metal is foundational to how host and microbe compete for metals, and it is well established in the nutritional-immunity literature [3][4].

Nutritional immunity is the host's strategy of starving microbes of the metals they need. Corbin and colleagues showed that the neutrophil protein calprotectin chelates metal in tissue abscesses and directly restricts bacterial growth there [3]. The existence of that machinery carries an implication that is easy to miss: if the host must spend energy actively withholding a metal to control microbes, then that metal is biologically potent for microbes at concentrations the host tolerates without difficulty. Human calprotectin even sequesters nickel and, in doing so, shuts down nickel-dependent microbial enzymes [5]. The host does not treat these metals as harmless. It treats them as ammunition to be denied.

Metal restriction is not even uniformly protective. In the inflamed gut, calprotectin's zinc sequestration was shown to help Salmonella outcompete organisms less able to scavenge zinc under restriction [4]. The lesson is that microbial communities respond competitively to shifts in metal availability that are far too small to register as toxicity in a person. A margin of safety of 8 for lead, computed against a systemic tolerable intake, tells you the user is unlikely to be poisoned. It tells you nothing about whether a persistent lead and nickel source at the mucosa reshapes which organisms thrive there.

There is even a hint of this gap in the biomonitoring literature the risk frame relies on. In the BioCycle study, blood cadmium, lead, and mercury did not differ in any clear, significant way between tampon users and non-users [6]. A reasonable reading is not that tampons are irrelevant, but that the bloodstream is the wrong place to look for their effect. The metal can be present and releasable at the surface while leaving the systemic signal these studies measure essentially untouched.

Nickel, urease, and the acid that guards the vagina

The clearest worked example of a metal that is nearly irrelevant to the host yet decisive for microbes is nickel. Mammals make no known nickel-requiring proteins, yet nickel is essential for the virulence of dozens of bacterial and fungal pathogens, because it is the cofactor of two important microbial enzyme classes, urease and the [NiFe] hydrogenases [7]. A metal that a person can lose without consequence is a metal a pathogen cannot do without. That asymmetry is precisely why a host-centered margin of safety is silent about it.

Urease matters here because of what it does to pH. The enzyme hydrolyzes urea into ammonia, and ammonia raises the local pH. In urease-positive pathogens this is a documented virulence strategy, and critically, the rate-limiting input is not urea, which is abundant, but nickel, which must be inserted into the enzyme for it to work at all [7]. Nickel availability regulates urease expression directly in Helicobacter pylori [8]. The most striking human evidence is therapeutic: in a randomized pilot study of 52 patients, adding a nickel-free diet to standard triple therapy raised H. pylori eradication from 46 percent to 85 percent [9]. Starving the bacterium of environmental nickel disabled the nickel-dependent machinery its persistence depends on.

Now consider the vaginal environment. A healthy vaginal community is dominated by Lactobacillus species that produce lactic acid and hold the pH below about 4.5, and that acidity is itself a primary defense that suppresses the anaerobes of bacterial vaginosis. Ammonia-generating ureolysis is the chemical opposite of that defense. Ureaplasma, a genuine resident of the genital tract, is obligately urease-positive and depends on a nickel-containing urease for growth [7]. The mechanistic chain, nickel feeds urease, urease makes ammonia, ammonia raises pH, higher pH disfavors the acid-producing Lactobacillus, is established in the gut and urinary tract [7][8]. Applying it to the vagina is a hypothesis, and this article flags it as one. But it is a specific, testable hypothesis about a pH-structured community fed by a nickel source held against it, which is a far cry from a question the systemic risk assessment even acknowledges. The same nickel-urease pathway is developed in depth for the gut in our companion post on dietary nickel and the gut microbiome.

Selection below the toxic threshold

Even setting urease aside, a chronic low-level metal source can reshape a microbial community by simple selection, without any organism being killed. Bacteria carry dedicated metal-homeostasis and resistance systems, efflux pumps, metalloregulators, sequestration proteins, and the strains that carry the best of these survive metal stress that inhibits their neighbors [10]. A metal load does not need to be lethal to matter. It only needs to be unequal in its effect, advantaging tolerant organisms over sensitive ones.

That selection has documented downstream costs. Across 381 Enterococcus isolates spanning more than a century, genes for tolerating metals such as mercury, arsenic, and copper were repeatedly found co-located with antibiotic-resistance genes on the same mobile genetic elements, so that metal pressure can drag antibiotic resistance along with it [11]. Sub-lethal cadmium alone was enough to reprogram roughly 47 percent of the genome of an Enterococcus faecium strain, a whole-cell adaptive response to a metal dose well short of killing [12]. Metal exposure is a lever on community composition, not merely a poison.

For the vaginal case, the most direct human signal concerns the keystone genus itself: in a 109-participant occupational cohort, nickel exposure was associated with a reduction in Lactobacillus and other protective commensals [13]. That cohort is not vaginal, and this is where honesty about the evidence matters. The idea that heavy metals selectively disadvantage vaginal Lactobacillus, which has limited metal-resistance machinery, while metal-tolerant bacterial-vaginosis organisms expand, is a coherent extension of these findings, but it has not been demonstrated in the vaginal niche and should be read as a hypothesis, not a result. What is established is that loss of Lactobacillus dominance carries real consequences, including association with preterm birth [14], and that the vaginal surface is already an active site of metal competition, with host lactoferrin rising 6.6-fold during bacterial vaginosis [15].

The fungal side has to be stated precisely, because the evidence points in a particular direction rather than a simple one. The direct claim that nickel makes Candida multiply is not one this article can source, and there is no basis for a leap from tampon metals to candidiasis; some metal compounds are in fact being developed as antifungal agents [16]. What the evidence does support is a selection argument that runs through the same competitive logic as the bacterial case, and a role for the fungus that is anything but passive. Candida albicans is extraordinarily metal-tolerant, growing and biosorbing heavy metals at concentrations that inhibit most bacteria [17]. A metal load that suppresses metal-sensitive commensals such as Lactobacillus is therefore a load a metal-tolerant fungus can withstand, the same differential pressure that lets a tolerant organism gain ground when its acid-producing neighbors cannot.

What makes that gain consequential is what Candida does once established. It forms mixed fungal-bacterial biofilms at mucosal surfaces, and within them it can shield co-resident bacteria from host defenses. In a mixed biofilm with a bacterial pathogen, Candida albicans attenuated the macrophage and fibroblast response and suppressed cytokine and chemokine production, so the bacterium was less well recognized by the host and its infection was sustained [18]. The link to the toxic-shock organism is more direct still: the C. albicans hyphal adhesin Als3p binds Staphylococcus aureus and carries it across the mucosal barrier, turning surface colonization into invasive, disseminated staphylococcal infection in a co-colonization model [19]. A metal-loaded surface that weakens the Lactobacillus barrier and favors a metal-tolerant fungus is therefore relevant to S. aureus in a second way, on top of that pathogen's own metal dependence: it can enlarge the fungal partner that helps S. aureus invade tissue and evade recognition. As with the bacterial argument, extending these findings, which come from oral and periodontal models, to the tampon-worn vaginal surface is a specific and testable hypothesis rather than a demonstrated result, and this article flags it as one.

Toxic shock: a metal-dependent pathogen

Any discussion of tampons and microbes has to address toxic shock, and it has to be stated precisely, because the precise version is stronger than the loose one. Menstrual toxic shock syndrome is driven mainly by Staphylococcus aureus and its superantigen toxin, toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 (TSST-1). This was worked out across the foundational literature: the syndrome was first described in 1978 [20], the responsible staphylococcal exotoxin was identified shortly after [21][22], and it is now a well-characterized member of the superantigen family [23]. S. aureus and TSST-1 are gram-positive. The toxin is not lipopolysaccharide (LPS), the endotoxin of gram-negative bacteria. Saying toxic shock is caused by LPS would be wrong.

Endotoxin still belongs in the story, but in its correct role. TSST-1 dramatically amplifies the host's response to gram-negative endotoxin: pretreatment with the staphylococcal pyrogenic exotoxin increased susceptibility to lethal endotoxin shock by as much as 50,000-fold in a classic experiment [24], and blocking endotoxin with polymyxin B protected against otherwise lethal toxin doses [25]. So a vaginal environment that also supports gram-negative organisms is one in which the superantigen has more endotoxin to amplify. The driver is the staphylococcal superantigen; LPS is the accelerant.

Where do metals enter? Through the pathogen's dependence on them. Menstrual toxic shock requires colonization by a TSST-1-producing strain in a person lacking protective antibody, and S. aureus is carried vaginally in roughly one in ten menstruating women [26]. That organism runs its virulence and survival machinery on metals. It uses a nickel-dependent urease [7], and it depends on manganese to power the superoxide dismutase that lets it survive the oxidative burst of host immune cells, which is exactly why host calprotectin tries to starve it of manganese and zinc [27]. A metal source at the mucosal surface that is, by the risk assessment's own logic, not absorbed by the host is nonetheless a metal source available to relieve this microbial restriction. That is not a claim that tampon metals cause toxic shock. It is a reason that the interaction between a metal-bearing device and a metal-dependent pathogen is a legitimate scientific question rather than a settled non-issue.

What the paper itself concedes

The strongest evidence that this is a genuine scope gap comes from the paper itself. In its discussion, Jin and colleagues[1] write that the study focused on systemic exposure and did not attempt to assess local exposure within the uterus, and they acknowledge that higher concentrations could be present locally than in systemic circulation. The authors are careful scientists and they drew their own boundary explicitly. The critique here is not that they overstepped. It is that a great deal of public commentary has treated a systemic-exposure conclusion as though it were a whole-organism, whole-ecosystem all-clear, which is more than the authors claimed.

The surrounding literature makes the same admission. A peer-reviewed epidemiologic review of menstrual products as a chemical-exposure source noted that vaginal and vulvar absorption of these compounds is poorly quantified and called for direct data [28]. And the metal is unambiguously there to be studied. A 30-tampon study detected every one of the 16 metals it tested for, nickel among them, with a geometric mean lead concentration of 120 ng/g [29], and older work found nickel in every tampon sample and measured nickel, chromium, and copper released from all of them into an artificial acidic sweat [30]. Metal is present, some of it is releasable, and by the risk assessment's own reasoning much of it stays at the surface rather than entering the blood. Everything needed for the microbial question exists except the study that asks it.

The experiment that would settle it

A hypothesis is only worth as much as the test that could refute it, and here the test is straightforward. Take the same products and leach them not in acidified water at 50 degrees, but under vaginal-like conditions: simulated vaginal fluid, body temperature, a realistic wear time of several hours, and a physiological pH. Measure what metal actually comes off under those conditions. Then, and this is the part the systemic frame omits entirely, pair that leachate with microbial endpoints. Does it reduce Lactobacillus viability? Does it shift the balance of a defined vaginal community in culture? Does nickel availability change urease activity or ammonia production in urease-positive residents such as Ureaplasma? Does it alter the growth or biofilm behavior of S. aureus?

Those are answerable questions with established methods. A result showing no microbial effect under realistic conditions would be genuinely reassuring in a way the current paper cannot be, because it would test the right compartment. A result showing an effect would identify a real exposure pathway that a bloodstream-only analysis is structurally unable to detect. Either way the field would know something it does not know now.

What we can and cannot conclude

We can conclude that the metals in tampons are unlikely to poison the user through systemic absorption. The risk assessment makes that case well, and nothing in the microbial evidence overturns it. We cannot conclude that tampon metals are harmless to the vaginal microbiome, because that question was never studied. A margin of safety built on absorption into the blood is the wrong instrument for measuring exposure to a community that lives on the surface and never waits for anything to cross into the body.

The honest summary is narrow and, precisely because it is narrow, hard to dismiss. Bioavailable to the host and available to the microbe are two different quantities. The paper measured the first and, reasonably, found little cause for concern. The second, the one that governs which organisms colonize the tissue, whether the protective acid of the vagina holds, and how a metal-dependent pathogen like S. aureus fares, sits outside the frame. That is the blind spot. It is not evidence of harm. It is an open question wearing the costume of a closed one, and it deserves to be asked directly. The larger case for taking metal-microbe interactions seriously as a driver of disease is laid out in the metal–microbiome–disease axis, and the product-level metal data for menstrual products is cataloged on the Heavy Metal Index tampons page.

Cite this page

Karen Pendergrass. (2026-09-28). Tampon Metals and the Vaginal Microbiome: The Blind Spot in the Risk Assessment. Microbial Metallomics. https://microbialmetallomics.com/blog/tampon-metals-vaginal-microbiome-blind-spot

This citation identifies this website page. The original source is available at the publisher or repository.

Published at https://microbialmetallomics.com/blog/tampon-metals-vaginal-microbiome-blind-spot

Related concepts

Nickel Lead Vaginal microbiome Urease Nutritional immunity

Frequently asked questions

Did the FDA study find that tampon metals are dangerous?

No. The study concluded that the metals it measured pose negligible toxicological concern for the person using the tampon, because every calculated margin of safety exceeded one. That conclusion is specific to the endpoint it tested: metal absorbed through the vaginal wall into the bloodstream. It did not test, and does not speak to, the vaginal microbial community that sits in direct contact with the tampon.

What does bioavailable mean in this risk assessment?

In this paper bioavailable means absorbed into the human bloodstream. The authors assume 100 percent systemic absorption as a worst case, then argue the real figure is far lower because menstrual-fluid proteins and red blood cells bind metals such as lead and antimony, keeping them out of circulation. One cited estimate puts lead absorption below 0.5 percent. Bioavailable is therefore a statement about the host, not about the microbes at the surface.

If a metal is not absorbed into the blood, why would it matter?

Because the organisms that live on the vaginal surface do not need the metal to cross into the body. A metal that is bound in menstrual fluid, and so kept out of the bloodstream, is still sitting in the exact microenvironment where vaginal bacteria live for hours at a time. Microbes respond to and compete for metals at concentrations far below the levels that would harm a person, so a margin of safety calculated for the host does not describe the exposure the microbial community experiences.

Is nickel proven to harm the vaginal microbiome?

No, and this post does not claim so. What is established is a chain of separate findings: urease is a nickel enzyme, nickel availability limits urease activity in gut and urinary pathogens, and nickel exposure was associated with lower Lactobacillus in a 109-person occupational cohort. Whether tampon-derived nickel reaches the vaginal community at a dose that shifts it is an untested hypothesis. The point of this article is that the question was never asked, not that the answer is known.

Does this mean tampon metals cause toxic shock syndrome?

No. Menstrual toxic shock is driven by Staphylococcus aureus and its superantigen toxin TSST-1, a gram-positive organism and toxin. Metals enter the picture only as a mechanistic hypothesis: S. aureus depends on metals such as manganese and nickel for the machinery that lets it survive host defenses, so a surface metal source is biologically relevant to a pathogen whose virulence is metal-dependent. That is a reason to study the interaction, not evidence that tampon metals cause toxic shock.

References

  1. Jin Y, Eppihimer M, Alam MS, Powell AT, Margerrison E, Nawaby AV. (2026). Do metals in tampons pose a health risk? A toxicological risk assessment study. Toxicological Sciences, 209(6), kfag065. View source↩1↩2
  2. Ellison CA, Doyle PR, Haven CA, McClenathan DM, Obringer CM, Woeller KE. (2026). Integrating experimental data and mechanistic modeling to assess potential lead exposure from tampon use. Toxicological Sciences, 209(5), kfag052. View source↩
  3. Corbin BD, Seeley EH, Raab A, et al. (2008). Metal chelation and inhibition of bacterial growth in tissue abscesses. Science, 319(5865), 962–965. View source↩1↩2
  4. Liu JZ, Jellbauer S, Poe AJ, et al. (2012). Zinc sequestration by the neutrophil protein calprotectin enhances Salmonella growth in the inflamed gut. Cell Host & Microbe, 11(3), 227–239. View source↩1↩2
  5. Nakashige TG, Zygiel EM, Drennan CL, Nolan EM. (2017). Nickel sequestration by the host-defense protein human calprotectin. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 139(26), 8828–8836. View source↩
  6. Singh J, Mumford SL, Pollack AZ, et al. (2019). Tampon use, environmental chemicals and oxidative stress in the BioCycle study. Environmental Health, 18, 11. View source↩
  7. Maier RJ, Benoit SL. (2019). Role of nickel in microbial pathogenesis. Inorganics, 7(7), 80. View source↩1↩2↩3↩4↩5
  8. van Vliet AHM, Kuipers EJ, Waidner B, et al. (2001). Nickel-responsive induction of urease expression in Helicobacter pylori is mediated at the transcriptional level. Infection and Immunity, 69(8), 4891–4897. View source↩1↩2
  9. Campanale M, Nucera E, Ojetti V, et al. (2014). Nickel free-diet enhances the Helicobacter pylori eradication rate: a pilot study. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 59(8), 1851–1855. View source↩
  10. Chandrangsu P, Rensing C, Helmann JD. (2017). Metal homeostasis and resistance in bacteria. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 15(6), 338–350. View source↩
  11. Rebelo A, Mourão J, Freitas AR, et al. (2021). Diversity of metal and antibiotic resistance genes in Enterococcus spp. from the last century reflects multiple pollution and genetic exchange among phyla from overlapping ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment, 787, 147548. View source↩
  12. Cheng X, Yang B, Zheng J, Wei H, Feng X, Yin Y. (2021). Cadmium stress triggers significant metabolic reprogramming in Enterococcus faecium CX 2-6. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 19, 5678–5687. View source↩
  13. Yang J, Feng P, Ling Z, et al. (2023). Nickel exposure induces gut microbiome disorder and serum uric acid elevation. Environmental Pollution, 324, 121349. View source↩
  14. Pruski P, Correia GDS, Lewis HV, et al. (2021). Direct on-swab metabolic profiling of vaginal microbiome host interactions during pregnancy and preterm birth. Nature Communications, 12(1), 5967. View source↩
  15. Roberts SA, Brabin L, Diallo S, et al. (2019). Mucosal lactoferrin response to genital tract infections is associated with iron and nutritional biomarkers in young Burkinabé women. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 73(11), 1464–1472. View source↩
  16. do Carmo PHF, Garcia MT, Figueiredo-Godoi LMA, et al. (2023). Metal nanoparticles to combat Candida albicans infections: an update. Microorganisms, 11(1), 138. View source↩
  17. Acosta Rodríguez I, Cárdenas-González JF, Martínez Juárez VM, et al. (2018). Biosorption of heavy metals by Candida albicans. In N. Shiomi (Ed.), Advances in Bioremediation and Phytoremediation. IntechOpen. View source↩
  18. Bartnicka D, Gonzalez-Gonzalez M, Sykut J, et al. (2020). Candida albicans shields the periodontal killer Porphyromonas gingivalis from recognition by the host immune system and supports the bacterial infection of gingival tissue. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(6), 1984. View source↩
  19. Schlecht LM, Peters BM, Krom BP, et al. (2015). Systemic Staphylococcus aureus infection mediated by Candida albicans hyphal invasion of mucosal tissue. Microbiology, 161(1), 168–181. View source↩
  20. Todd J, Fishaut M, Kapral F, Welch T. (1978). Toxic-shock syndrome associated with phage-group-I staphylococci. The Lancet, 312(8100), 1116–1118. View source↩
  21. Schlievert PM, Shands KN, Dan BB, Schmid GP, Nishimura RD. (1981). Identification and characterization of an exotoxin from Staphylococcus aureus associated with toxic-shock syndrome. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 143(4), 509–516. View source↩
  22. Bergdoll MS, Crass BA, Reiser RF, Robbins RN, Davis JP. (1981). A new staphylococcal enterotoxin, enterotoxin F, associated with toxic-shock-syndrome Staphylococcus aureus isolates. The Lancet, 317(8228), 1017–1021. View source↩
  23. Spaulding AR, Salgado-Pabón W, Kohler PL, Horswill AR, Leung DYM, Schlievert PM. (2013). Staphylococcal and streptococcal superantigen exotoxins. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 26(3), 422–447. View source↩
  24. Schlievert PM. (1982). Enhancement of host susceptibility to lethal endotoxin shock by staphylococcal pyrogenic exotoxin type C. Infection and Immunity, 36(1), 123–128. View source↩
  25. Stone RL, Schlievert PM. (1987). Evidence for the involvement of endotoxin in toxic shock syndrome. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 155(4), 682–689. View source↩
  26. Parsonnet J, Hansmann MA, Delaney ML, et al. (2005). Prevalence of toxic shock syndrome toxin 1-producing Staphylococcus aureus and the presence of antibodies to this superantigen in menstruating women. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 43(9), 4628–4634. View source↩
  27. Cassat JE, Skaar EP. (2012). Metal ion acquisition in Staphylococcus aureus: overcoming nutritional immunity. Seminars in Immunopathology, 34(2), 215–235. View source↩
  28. Upson K, Shearston JA, Kioumourtzoglou MA. (2022). Menstrual products as a source of environmental chemical exposure: a review from the epidemiologic perspective. Current Environmental Health Reports, 9(1), 38–52. View source↩
  29. Shearston JA, Upson K, Gordon M, et al. (2024). Tampons as a source of exposure to metal(loid)s. Environment International, 190, 108849. View source↩
  30. Shin JH, Lee KK, Chung MH. (2009). Determination of heavy metals in sanitary products of women. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles, 33(6), 853–859. View source↩

Keep reading

BlogDietary Nickel, the Gut Microbiome & Gut Disease Risk BlogThe Metal–Microbiome–Disease Axis