ReviewRSC advances2025
Advancements of paper-based microfluidics and organ-on-a-chip models in cosmetics hazards.
Review in RSC advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent advances in immunocompetent human skin-on-chip models: Construction strategies and biomedical applications.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Lab-on-a-tip platform with cotton matrices for colorimetric detection of carmine in lipsticks.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Microfluidic paper-based analytical extraction devices (µPAEDs): a cost-effective and portable solution for biomarkers, contaminants and VOC detection.Mikrochimica acta · 2025Review
- Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Microfluidic Devices for Glucose Detection.ACS sustainable chemistry & engineering · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cosmetics have been used in society for centuries for beautification and personal hygiene maintenance. Modern cosmetics include various makeup, hair, and skincare products that range from moisturizers and shampoos to lipsticks and foundations and have become a quintessential part of our daily grooming activities. However, dangerous adulterants are added during the production of these cosmetics, which range from heavy metals to microbial contaminants. These adulterants not only reduce the quality and efficacy of cosmetic products but also pose a significant risk to human health. Detecting the presence of adulterants in cosmetics is crucial for regulating substandard cosmetic products in the industry. The conventional methods to detect such adulterants and quality testing are expensive and take a lot of effort, particularly when involving advanced analytical detection and clinical trials. Recently, efficient methods such as microfluidic methods have emerged to detect adulterants rapidly. In this review, we mainly focus on various adulterants present in cosmetics and their detection using paper-based microfluidic devices. In addition, this review also sheds light on the organ-on-a-chip model with the goal of developing a human tissue model for cosmetic testing. Combined, these approaches provide an efficient, inexpensive, and sustainable approach for quality testing in the cosmetics industry.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.