Everything You Didn’t Want to Know About Cockroaches

Amongst its many epicurean, architectural and otherwise louche charms, New Orleans has another infamous, uncelebrated one: a problematically vibrant cockroach population. Every summer (oh, let’s be honest here: they’re here spring, summer and fall), the German brown cockroach can be seen snatching its way around your house, flitting on sidewalks at dusk, and intimidating the locals.

They fly down here in the Deep South, did you know?

One Saturday night back in August, one such creature dive-bombed into my cleavage. After one spilled G&T (Oh God, not my drink!) and many sputtered expletives, the critter was ousted and a friend graciously stomped it into a unrecognizable smear into the pavement.

And so with the impending cockroach population explosion coming any summer day now, I figure why not have a chat about what diseases they can harbor and spread on your tabletops. Hmmm? And lest you think that this article is a paean extolling their overlooked virtues – alas! – they really are as filthy as everyone thinks they are.

A colored scanning electron micrograph of Periplanta americana, the American cockroach, one of the smallest known species. Note the ubiquitous hairs covering the insect, allowing for microbes to be picked up during its feedings. Image: Dr. Biology, Arizona Board of Regents. Click for source.

I’ll try to make this as painless as possible.

Out of the 4000 species of cockroach that exist, there are three major species that plague humanity – Periplaneta americana, Blattella germanica and Blattella orientalis. They feed on just about anything, even their deceased brethren, but they do have a sweet tooth and prefer to eat sugary and starchy items such as sweets, cardboard and book-bindings (1). Included in their rather diverse diet is their consumption of human detritus such as feces, sputum, toe nails, and bodily residue on surgical swabs. These unseemly dietary choices lead to their contamination of food, utensils and surfaces for food prep and have direct consequences on human health in three interrelated ways – their arbitrary feeding habits, eating both human excrement and human food; their indiscriminate defecation habits; and the fact that they regurgitate digestive fluids in the process of eating (2). Endearing, no?

Roaches also serve as an important source of infectious pathogens. They serve as a sort of public transit for the busy microbiological world, a bus ferrying bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites between filth and human comestibles; really, every buggy imaginable rides on this double-decker of an arthropod. Bacteria and viruses settle into the crevices and cracks between thorax and head, and begin to multiply. There are so many fissures and clefts and crannies on a cockroach. Everywhere there are hairs, but especially on the six legs that escort these scuttling creatures from one dark, humid hideaway to another. Microbes snatch a ride on these hairs or are accidentally consumed by the cockroach only to pass into the alimentary canal where they may multiple in number. In one study, the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa was found to have increased multiple-fold over the course of 114 days in the gut of a cockroach (3).

Colored scanning electron micrograph (SEM) of Blattella germanica, the German cockroach, one of the smallest known species. This roach’s long antennae can be seen protruding from its head and its wings (blue) can be seen at lower left. The anatomy of the cockroach provides several areas for bacteria, viruses and parasitic eggs/cysts to settle into. Image: Volker Steger, Science Photo Library. Click for source.

In this regard, roaches are not so much vectors as they are reservoirs; a mosquito will squelch its proboscis in your ankle, inoculating you with malaria in their quest for blood but a cockroach indiscriminately contaminates anything lying around. Entomologists describe this process as “mechanical transmission”, indirectly transmitting disease to humans. It’s not personal, it’s just business. 

All types of passengers are welcome on this cockroach bus. Over 30 species of bacteria have been found on the cuticle and gut of roaches, including those of serious medical import such as E. coli, various species of Salmonella and Staphylcoccous, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumoniae (4). These bacteria cause diseases such as urinary tract infections, dysentery, diarrhea, pneumonia, cholera, polio, septicemia and wound infections (5). One study that trapped cockroaches in order to measure their bacterial load found that number was as high as 14 million microbes found on the exterior of the bodies, and 7 million in their fecal droppings (5).

Viable eggs and dormant cysts of parasites also hitch a ride; the culprits include the ova of Ascaris lumbricoides (giant roundworm), Anchylostoma deodunale (hookworm), Trichuris trichura (whipworm), Enterobius vermicularis (pinworm) and Strongyloides stercoralis (threadworm), and the cysts of Entomoeba hystolitica, Balantidium coli, C. parvum, C. cayetenensis and Isospora belli (4). Even the virus that causes polio, poliomyelitis, has been found within the guts of cockroaches (6).

There are several documented cases of small outbreaks that pinpoint to cockroaches playing an indirect but prominent role in disease transmission. In one county in Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, fifteen food-handlers in various establishments fell ill to dysentery caused by the Shigella bacterium over the course of eight weeks (2). These restaurants had serious infestations, particularly in the kitchen and dining areas, and the stomach contents of trapped roaches showed viable Shigella dysenteriae serotype 7 bacteria, incriminating the arthropods in the spread of the disease.

Cockroaches were also suspected to be the cause of a hepatitis A outbreak in a Los Angeles housing project in the late 1950s. From 1956 to 1959, the Carmelitos Housing Project represented 39% of all cases of hepatitis A in Los Angeles County with numbers of the infected steadily increasing through the years (7). It was only until a full-scale cockroach control program employing a newly developed insecticide, the industrial silica aerogel Dri-Die 67, was the outbreak halted. Two years following the program, incidences of hepatitis A from the Housing Project dropped to 0.0% and cockroaches traversing between the sewage system and the Project were pinpointed as the source of the epidemic.

A colored scanning electron micrograph close-up of Periplaneta americana, the American cockroach, which can be found around the world. Image: Stephen Gschmeissner. Click for source.

Typhoid patients in Italy were found to have cockroaches harboring S. typhi in their homes in a study conducted in 1943 (2). Similarly, the same organism was found in cockroaches infesting a Belgian hospital’s children’s ward undergoing an epidemic of gastroenteritis in 1950 (2). Most recently, outbreaks of Klebsiella pneumoniae in neonatal units have been tied to cockroach infestations in hospitals in Ethiopia and South Africa (8)(9). These studies indicate that cockroaches may play an unappreciated role in the epidemiology of infections in both the home and hospital.

Though it’s difficult to say what part roaches play in small disease outbreaks, they are capable of harboring antibiotic-resistant bacteria. A 2012 study in Ethiopia looked at cockroaches trapped in a neonatal intensive care unit and found widespread multi-drug resistance among individual species of bacteria residing in the roaches. Reading the lists of antibiotics these bacteria were found to be resistant to is like a “who’s who” of the antibiotic world – ampicillin, augmentin, tetracycline, chloramphenicol, amoxicillin, doxycycline, and ciprofloxacin (8). An earlier study in South Korea found that cockroaches trapped in homes located 3 miles from a hospital harbored bacteria that were resistant to anywhere from 6 to 12 commonly used antibiotics (3). These medications are the mainstay for treating bacterial infections and the discovery that cockroaches in hospitals harbor bacteria no longer susceptible to them is discomfiting to say the least.

Bugs are such an inescapable component of our day-to-day living, whether we care to acknowledge them or not. They live their own buggy lives, spinning webs, squirming through our compost or draining picoliters of our blood. We pay little attention to them until they inconvenience us and spoil our clean, bleached perception of the world.

Cockroaches are especially gifted at this. They are the boldest creepy-crawlies, not only daring to openly traverse our homes and personal spaces but thriving in those environments. They need us for the waste and shelter we provide, and for that we despise them. And, sadly, the public opinion of them isn’t wrong. They really are gross – they serve as an efficient means for microbes of all kinds to traverse between sites of human waste and food preparation and consumption. Their traipsing through family dwellings, food establishments and hospitals compromises public health and may also contribute to the ongoing antibiotic-resistance in bacteria worldwide.

Check out the Resources below to see how you can prevent buggies and bacteria from getting a free ride into your kitchen. In the meantime, happy hunting!

Resources

The most recent cockroach-related outbreaks of disease have happened in developing countries that may lack adequate municipal sanitation and regular garbage disposal. Hospitals and multi-family dwellings that rely on old buildings may also suffer cockroach infestations due to shoddy construction or inevitable decay (3)(10). The WHO has a very helpful, fact-filled PDF here on how to protect your home from these little invaders.

Really wanna get in deep with Blattella germanica, the German cockroach? For only $326, this book could be yours. What a deal!  If you’re just into skimming, then you can check it out on Google here.

Cockroaches can dirty up human spaces but at least they have little friends that can keep their own bodies clean – mites!

From the ignominious Daily Mail, a collection of scanning electron micrograph images of the buggies that live in your home with you. More images can be found here but they’re sadly unlabeled.

References
(1) Rozendaal JA. October 1997. “Cockroaches.” Vector control: Methods for use by individuals and communities. World Health Organization. PDF of chapter is accessible here. Click here for access to the entire resource.
(2) Burgess NR & Chetwyn KN. (1981) Association of cockroaches with an outbreak of dysentery. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 75(2): 332-3
(3) Hsiu-Hua P et al. (2005) Isolation of bacteria with antibiotic resistance from household cockroaches (Periplaneta americana and Blattella germanica) Acta Tropica 93: 259–265  T
(4) Tatfeng YM et al. (2005) Mechanical transmission of pathogenic organisms: the role of cockroaches. J Vect Borne Dis. 42: 129–134
(5) Chaichanawongsaroj et al. (2004) Isolation of gram-negative bacteria from cockroaches trapped from urban environment. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 35(3): 681-4
(6) Healing TD. (1993) Arthropod Pests as Disease Vectors. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Urban Pests. Accessible here.
(7) Tarshis IB. (1962) The cockroach–a new suspect in the spread of infectious hepatitis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 11: 705-11
(8) Tilahun et al. (2012) High load of multi-drug resistant nosocomial neonatal pathogens carried by cockroaches in a neonatal intensive care unit at Tikur Anbessa specialized hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control. 1: 12
(9) Cotton MF et al. (2000) Invasive disease due to extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a neonatal unit: the possible role of cockroaches. J Hosp Infect. 44(1): 13-7
(10) Fakoorziba MR et al. (2010) Cockroaches (Periplaneta americana and Blattella germanica) as potential vectors of the pathogenic bacteria found in nosocomial infections. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 104(6): 521-8

Pai, H., Chen, W., & Peng, C. (2005). Isolation of bacteria with antibiotic resistance from household cockroaches (Periplaneta americana and Blattella germanica) Acta Tropica, 93 (3), 259-265 DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2004.11.006

The Good Housekeeper: GBV-C Co-infection with HIV

I know that the study of infectious diseases seems grim. Bacteria are increasingly becoming antibiotic resistant, baby parasites nest in your brain and tuberculosis spreads to your toes. I get it – all this devotion to the study of what gruesome-thing-du-jour is in your blood and saliva isn’t sunshine, puppies and rainbows. So in the interests of maintaining public optimism, I offer you GBV-C, a virus that has been found to offer a protective, antiviral effect against HIV infection. Yes, that HIV.

GBV-C is a member of the Flaviviridae family of viruses; a truly distinguished and deadly lot that includes hepatitis C, yellow fever, West Nile virus, dengue and a slew of nasty encephalitis-causing viruses that roost in mosquitoes and ticks. GBV-C, however, appears to exist within the body as a benign, harmless infection. It provokes no identifiable clinical symptoms of disease and seems to be the black sheep of the noxious Flaviviridae family (2).

The one thing that makes this virus notable, even outstanding!, is that for those who are co-infected with HIV and GBV-C have been shown to live significantly longer than those without GBV-C (3). If HIV is an unwelcome houseguest in the human body, then infection with GBV-C is like waking up one day and unexpectedly finding a housekeeper doing the dirty dishes and containing the mess created by this destructive guest.

A model showing the morphology of the GBV-C virus. The human body’s antibody to the E2 envelope glycoprotein may assist in stymieing HIV infection. Source: the Physician Research Network. Click for source.

GBV-C is spread in ways similar to the transmission of HIV: through sex, birth and blood. Human infection with this virus is common, with 1–8% of healthy blood donors showing evidence of infection worldwide (1). So common in fact that isolated indigenous populations in Papua New Guinea have been found to harbor the virus (3). The global distribution and evolution of the major genotypes of this virus echoes human migration patterns, indicating that this is one old viral dude that’s been hitchhiking along with humans for millions of years (3).

GBV-C provides a beneficial, antiviral effect by stymieing HIV’s advances into immune cells and spurning its replication efforts in the body. It does so in a dizzying number of ways (reader beware: it’s gonna get molecular up in here). The infection stimulates messenger signals known as cytokines to activate a cellular response and consume HIV infected cells (otherwise known as the T helper 1 (Th1) cellular response system). The virus also encourages the innate immune response by boosting pathogen-fighting interferons; this innate response can be considered one of the “first responders” of the immune system as it responds to nearly every type of infection while also activating the more advanced components of the immune system to respond to any bacterial/viral/protozoal invaders.

GBV-C stops the human cells that HIV infects, CD4+ T cells, from killing themselves in the programmed-cell-death process known as apoptosis. Apoptosis is induced by HIV-infected T cells and can affect uninfected and infected cells alike; GBV-C protects these cells maintaining their population levels. This discovery is particularly noteworthy as a crash in the population of CD4+ T cells (“CD4+ counts”) is a hallmark of immune deficiency and disease progression from HIV to AIDS.

On the left, a T cell is covered in budding HIV virus particles and will soon undergo programmed-cell-death or apoptosis. On the right, a close-up of the budding virions. Infection with GBV-C may halt this process and prevent a population crash in the numbers of CD4+ cells. Image source: Roingeard P & Brand D (1998) Budding of Human Immunodeficiency Virus. N Engl J Med. 339(32). Click for source.

The GBV-C virus causes a decrease in the cellular presence of the receptors that HIV uses to gain entry into the cell (in science speak: there’s a down-regulation of the CCR5 and CXCR4 chemokine receptors); this is akin to temporarily removing the doors of your house to predators and thieves instead of just locking them shut. In addition, GBV-C infection seems to decrease the presentation of special “activation markers” on the surface of  T cells, interfering with signaling pathways that activate the production of T cells (2). Unfortunately, it’s not entirely clear what effect this “reduced immune activation” has on the immune system and whether this assists or hinders the immune system’s response to HIV infection. Certain proteins produced by GBV-C also inhibit HIV replication (1)(3).

Overall, co-infection with the two viruses leads to increased survival of HIV-infected patients and decreased mortality (1). Not too shabby! How it does this is largely uncertain – is it due to the presence of GBV-C virus particles (known as viremia) or the body’s response to GBV-C infection and its concomitant production of antibodies against the GBV-C virus (namely the anti–GBV-C envelope glycoprotein (E2) antibody)? The fact that 15-43% of HIV-positive people show active GBV-C infection and that another 31-55% show evidence of previous infection makes it difficult to disentangle these two questions (1). However, by all accounts, what we have here looks like a symbiotic relationship between GBV-C and humans.

Two researchers behind most of the work into GBV-C have suggested that this delightful house keeper may more accurately be called the “good boy virus”, a phrase that heartily captures its place in a HIV-positive body (2). The Flaviviridae family needs all the good PR it can get and this GBV-C do-gooder might be the trick.

Though it’s unlikely HIV physicians are going to start recommending GBV-C infection to HIV-infected patients anytime soon, the work of this benign virus has intriguing implications for future virology research. Study of the virus’s housekeeping efforts may yield new targets for anti-HIV medications and alternative avenues for future research. Perhaps this virus could even be genetically-modified to magnify its HIV-fighting ways and be employed as a form of HIV treatment? We already do the opposite of this with many virulent pathogens, using weak or killed viruses as vaccines, and there are physicians out there that advocate for the use of bacteria-killing viruses; using bacteriophages to fight stubborn infections was an especially popular treatment in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the 1950s (4). In the face of mounting antibiotic resistance across the globe, using do-gooder viruses like GBV-C may soon be the only option we have left.

Resources

The United State’s FDA does not screen donated blood for GBV-C. Dozens of studies have failed to find any link whatsoever between GBV-C infection and disease and, as such, an estimated 1000 Americans a day receive blood with GBV-C virions or antibodies (2). I covered blood screening for infectious diseases in this article here.

The Phage Therapy Center in the Republic of Georgia is the pioneer in providing bacteriophage treatment for a smorgasbord of bacterial infections.

A 2006 review looks at natural resistance to HIV in certain individuals, whether that be from GBV-C, the host immune response or host genetics. It’s free!

References
1. Xiang J et al. (2004) Inhibition of HIV-1 replication by GB virus C infection through increases in RANTES, MIP-1, MIP-1, and SDF-1. Lancet. 363(9426): 2040-6
2. Bhattarai N & Stapleton JT. (2012) GB virus C: the good boy virus? Trends Microbiol. 20(3):124-30
3. Polgreen PM et al. (2003) GB virus type C/hepatitis G virus: a non-pathogenic flavivirus associated with prolonged survival in HIV-infected individuals. Microbes Infect. 5(13): 1255–1261
4. Sulakvelidze A et al (2001) Bacteriophage Therapy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45(3): 649-659. Accessible here.

Polgreen, P., Xiang, J., Chang, Q., & Stapleton, J. (2003). GB virus type C/hepatitis G virus: a non-pathogenic flavivirus associated with prolonged survival in HIV-infected individuals Microbes and Infection, 5 (13), 1255-1261 DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2003.08.006

Ophthalmology of the Pharaohs: Antimicrobial Kohl Eyeliner in Ancient Egypt

The bold eye makeup in the ‘60s, best exemplified by Sophia Loren’s winged ‘cat eye’ liner and Twiggy’s spidery eyelashes, had nothing on the ancient Egyptians and their gods. Their eyelids were heavily smeared with black kohl eyeliner, thick lines rimming the eyes, and the fashion was sported by everyone from peasants to pharaohs to effigies of the worshiped gods Horus and Ra. Though it may seem nothing more than a cosmetic fancy nowadays, kohl was considered to have potent magical powers and it has since turned out to possess unique pharmaceutical and antimicrobial properties. In fact, this deceptively simple beauty product may actually be one of the most ancient ophthalmological preparations known to man.

A piece of limestone pottery shows a woman nursing her child while a servant holds up a mirror and a crayon of khol. Dated from the 19th to 20th dynasty, 1285-1069 BCE, this shard is held at the Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Egyptiennes, Paris, France. Click for source.

Kohl served multiple roles in Egyptian antiquity. Egyptians of all social classes applied the eyeliner daily in veneration of the deities, satisfying both religious obligations and beautifying desires. Wearing the glossiest, highest quality kohl denoted one’s upper class status in society while the less wealthy adulterated their kohl with fire soot. Before the advent of Ray-Bans, it was applied liberally around the eyes to reduce the sun’s glare, to repel flies and to provide cooling relief from the heat. It also trapped errant dust and dirt, a simple remedy to curb the desert’s regular assaults on the body. Besides lining the eyes, the substance was also used to outline the eyebrows and enhance facial tattoos. In death, pouches containing the cosmetic and applicators were buried alongside the deceased, a testament to its importance not just in day-to-day living but also in the afterlife (1).

Kohl’s vast presence throughout history and across the globe testifies to its cultural, social, and hygienic purchase and evidence for its usage has been unearthed at the sites of ancient civilizations across North Africa, Central Asia, the Mediterranean and East Asia (2). It’s an incredibly old product, having been present since the Bronze Age (3500-1100 BC) and it’s usage has even been alluded to in the Old Testament, with two allusions at Kings II 9:30 and Ezekiel 23:40 to “painted eyes”.

An ancient Egyptian alabaster kohl pot dated from 1550 BC to 1070 BC. The opening was large enough to allow for a finger, feather or small stick to be dipped into the pot and then applied to the face. Image: Unknown. Click for source.

As with any product with a wide geographic distribution, it has picked up multiple labels. Arabs and modern Egyptians refer to it as “kohl”, while the Romans and Greeks named the product “kollurion”. The Iranians and those in the Indo-Pakistan region to this day call our eye-lining friend ‘surma” (2).

Kohl is predominantly composed of the mineral galena, a dark, metallic lead-based product that is also known by the chemical name lead sulfide (PbS). The mineral would be crushed and mixed  with several other ingredients such as ground pearls, rubies and emeralds, silver and gold leaves, frankincense, coral, and medicinal herbs such as saffron, fennel, and neem (1)(2). These compounds were then diluted in liquids such as oil, gum, animal fats, milk, or water to solubilize the lead and assist in its eventual facial smearing. Today we use galena for less prestigious and artistic purposes, in rechargeable batteries and as lead shot to fill shotgun shells.

A sample of the mineral galena, an ancient Egyptian source of lead sulphates. Image: Creative Commons. Click for source.

In 2010, French researchers analyzed samples from 52 kohl containers residing at the Louvre museum in Paris and found that the cosmetic contained trace amounts of four uncommon lead species: galena (PbS), cerussite (PbCO3), phosgenite (Pb2Cl2CO3), and laurionite (Pb(OH)Cl) (3). These last two compounds, the lead chlorides, are not naturally found in Egypt, which points to the possibility of deliberate manufacturing using lead oxide (PbO), rock salt (NaCl), natron (Na2Co3 and NaHCo3), and water. The authors of the study reckon that “it is clear that such intentional production remains the first known example of a large scale chemical process.” (4)

When researchers exposed skin cells to the lead sulfates found in kohl, they discovered that the lead ions elicited a profound immunological response. The cultured cells released one of the most important messaging molecules in the immune system, nitric oxide gas (NO); this gaseous molecule serves an activating messenger to bacteria-eating macrophage cells and stimulates blood flow by increasing the diameter of capillaries, encouraging rapid immune cell movement within the bloodstream (3). A 240-fold increase in NO production was sparked by the presence of lead ions, a bona fide tsunami of molecules flooding surrounding cells to respond to invading bacteria. This intense biochemical interaction suggests that kohl was more than just a beautifying cosmetic and the forefather of sunglasses, but also an important antibacterial ointment.

Why does it matter that the Egyptians were smearing black antibacterial gunk around their eyes? Aside from dastardly sandy winds introducing grit and irritating the sensitive eye region, infections of the eye were a serious and widespread concern (5). The desert conditions and annual flooding of the river Nile primed the eye for inflammations and bacterial infections. Antibacterial eyeliner seeping into the conjunctiva of the eye would activate an immune response, killing off pathogenic bacteria and preventing infections before they even started. The cosmetic’s regular usage could have cut down on the prevalence of ocular scarring, cataracts and blindness, nothing for an Egyptian living in antiquity to scoff at.

The Ebers Papyrus, a sort of medical textbook in ancient Egypt. It is considered to be one of the most complete and most exquisite of the medical papyri to be found. Click for source.

Perhaps it’s not all that strange that kohl has been found to have medicinal properties: the chemists and pharmacists in Egypt were considered quite knowledgeable by their Greek and Roman counterparts and their mastery of anatomy, diseases and pharmaceuticals were widely respected throughout the Mediterranean (3). We’re fortunate enough to actually have concrete evidence of this, in the form of several medical papyri scavenged by scrappy archaeologists in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

One of these is the Ebers papyrus dating from 1550 BC, the oldest known medical texts in existence (in existence, ladies and gentlemen!), and the hieroglyphic manuscript describes a plethora of ophthalmological multisyllabic quandaries including “blepharitis, chalazion, ectropion, entropion, trichiasis, granulations, chemosis, pinguecula, pterygium, leucoma, staphyloma, iritis, cataract, hyphaema, inflammation, ophthalmoplegia and dacryocystitis” (6). It contains detailed herbal preparations for eye drops, salves, ointments and even plaster dressings for the eyelids. Some of it seems to be clearly nonsense – beetle honey, anyone? – and in some unfortunate cases the papyrus recommends prayers and magical incantations to cure an ailment, another way of saying “You’re S.O.L., pal. Speak to my falcon-god-friend Horus here.” Aside from attendant ocular dilemmas, there are also remedies for gynecological, intestinal and dermatological issues and more.

A painted wood mask of an Egyptian face with kohl-lined eyes. Dated from 2000 BC, this object is located at the Swansea Museum, Swansea UK. Click for source.

The very existence of these papyri suggests a dedicated core of physicians and pharmacists collating their experiences, observations and empirical testing to create one of mankind’s first monstrously large medical textbook. Really, we contemporary humans are so damn lucky to have captured this surviving piece of ancient medical history, thanks to several original Indiana Jones-types from a century ago.

Kohl is still used today in North Africa and Central Asia, despite its considerable toxicity. I know what you’re thinking, “Now, a warning?” Heavy metals such as lead, mercury and arsenic often contaminate today’s product leading to cases of ‘saturnism’ or lead poisoning. This is particularly a serious issue with young children sporting the cosmetic as protection against the evil eye, as they are more likely to engage in hand-to-mouth behavior while learning about their environment (See here).

Even today, women mimic the application of kohl to enhance and brighten eyes but, sadly, there aren’t any therapeutic side-effects to expertly drawn winged cat-eyes. This idea of “cosmetics as medicine” that is vigorously pursued by the beauty industry in the form of “plumping” lipsticks, skin foundations embedded with minerals to combat acne, anti-aging creams and so much more was originally the province of Egyptian chemists. Maybe the secret to Cleopatra’s beauty wasn’t Maybelline but lead sulfate.

Note: The title of this article is derived from this short letter in the British Medical Journal: The Ophthalmology Of The Pharaohs. (1909) Brit Med J (2): 2543: 902. View it here on JSTOR.

Resources

Nothing’s safe from the FDA: Kohl, Kajal, Al-Kahal, or Surma: By Any Name, a Source of Lead Poisoning.

A group at Bard College completed an “interlinear transliteration” and English translation of parts of the Ebers Papyrus that they believe covered what we now know as diabetes mellitus. Neat, huh? Go here to check out their incredible work.

For a short but captivating read on kohl’s usages among women in North Africa in the early 1900s, download this pdf from Harquus, a website devoted to traditional women’s tattoos and facial markings.

References
(1) Cartwright-Jones C (2005) Introduction to Harquus: Part 2: Kohl as traditional women’s adornment in North Africa and the Middle East. Ohio: TapDancing Lizard Publications
(2) Mahmood ZA (2009) Kohl (Surma): Retrospect and Prospect. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 22(1): 107-122
(3) Tapsoba I et al (2010) Finding Out Egyptian Gods’ Secret Using Analytical Chemistry: Biomedical Properties of Egyptian Black Makeup Revealed by Amperometry at Single Cells. Anal. Chem. 82(2): 457–460
(4) American Chemical Society (2010, January 11). Ancient Egyptian cosmetics: ‘Magical’ makeup may have been medicine for eye disease. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from here.
(5) Finlaysonthe J (1893) Ancient Egyptian Medicine. Brit Med J. 1(1689): 1014-1016
(6) CN Chua. (Date unknown) A Historical Tour To Ophthalmology: The Ancient East. MRCOPTH. Accessed April 18, 2012, from here.

Tapsoba I, Arbault S, Walter P, & Amatore C (2010). Finding out egyptian gods’ secret using analytical chemistry: biomedical properties of egyptian black makeup revealed by amperometry at single cells. Analytical chemistry, 82 (2), 457-60 PMID: 20030333

sciseekclaimtoken-4f983dd1267ec