12 research outputs found

    Formaldehyde-releasers: Relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy, Part 2: Metalworking fluids and remainder

    No full text
    We have reviewed formaldehyde-releasers used in metalworking fluids (MWFs) in this and a previous part of a two-part article. These biocides do not appear to be frequent or important sensitizers. Even in highly selected patient groups of metalworkers, mean prevalence rates of sensitivity are low: 0.2% for Tris(hydroxymethyl)nitromethane, 1.6% for tris(N-hydroxyethyl)hexahydrotriazine, 1.9% for Bioban (R) P-1487 and Bioban (R) CS-1246, and 2.8% for Bioban (R) CS-1135. In the case of the Biobans, many reactions may have been irritant. Only N,N'-methylenebis(5-methyloxazolidine) has a fairly high mean score of 4.0% in metalworkers. With the exception of Bioban (R) P-1487, there is a clear relationship between positive patch test reactions to the releasers and formaldehyde sensitivity: 40-70% of reactions to releasers occur in patients sensitive to formaldehyde and may therefore be caused by formaldehyde allergy. There is a lack of reliable data on the clinical relevance of contact allergy to the formaldehyde releasers in MWF. In most studies, no data on relevance were provided and in those that did, relevance was often found for a (very small) minority of the reactions only. Also discussed here are the formaldehyde-releasers MDM hydantoin, methenamine, N-methylolchloracetamide, paraformaldehyde, and Preventol (R) D2

    Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy Part 1. Characterization, frequency and relevance of sensitization, and frequency of use in cosmetics

    Get PDF
    In this part of a series of review articles on formaldehyde-releasers and their relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy, formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics are discussed. In this first part of the article, key data are presented including frequency of sensitization and of their use in cosmetics. In Europe, low frequencies of sensitization have been observed to all releasers: 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 0.4-1.2%, diazolidinyl urea 0.5-1.4%, imidazolidinyl urea 0.3-1.4%, quaternium-15 0.6-1.9% (for DMDM hydantoin no recent data are available). All releasers score (far) higher prevalences in the USA; the possible explanations for this are discussed. The relevance of positive patch test reactions has been insufficiently investigated. In the USA, approximately 20% of cosmetics and personal care products (stay-on products: 17%, rinse-off products 27%) contain a formaldehyde-releaser. The use of quaternium-15 is decreasing. For Europe, there are no comparable recent data available. In the second part of the article, the patch test relationship of the releasers in cosmetics to formaldehyde contact allergy will be reviewed and it will be assessed whether products preserved with formaldehyde-releasers may contain enough free formaldehyde to pose a threat to individuals who have contact allergy to formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy Part 2. Patch test relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy, experimental provocation tests, amount of formaldehyde released, and assessment of risk to consumers allergi

    No full text
    This is the second part of an article on formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics. The patch test relationship between the releasers in cosmetics to formaldehyde contact allergy is reviewed and it is assessed whether products preserved with formaldehyde-releasers may contain enough free formaldehyde to pose a threat to individuals with contact allergy to formaldehyde. There is a clear relationship between positive patch test reactions to formaldehyde-releasers and formaldehyde contact allergy: 15% of all reactions to 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol and 40-60% of the reactions to the other releasers are caused by a reaction to the formaldehyde in the test material. There is only fragmented data on the amount of free formaldehyde in cosmetics preserved with formaldehyde donors. However, all releasers (with the exception of 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, for which adequate data are lacking) can, in the right circumstances of concentration and product composition, release > 200 p.p.m. formaldehyde, which may result in allergic contact dermatitis. Whether this is actually the case in any particular product cannot be determined from the ingredient labelling. Therefore, we recommend advising patients allergic to formaldehyde to avoid leave-on cosmetics preserved with quaternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM hydantoin, or imidazolidinyl urea, acknowledging that many would tolerate some products

    Formaldehyde-releasers: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Formaldehyde-releasers in clothes: durable press chemical finishes. Part 1

    No full text
    This is one of a series of review articles on formaldehyde-releasers and their relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy and in this paper formaldehyde-releasers used as durable press chemical finishes (DPCF) in textiles are discussed. The literature on allergy to DPCF since 1980 is presented in two parts. Part 1 (this article) presents a short historical overview of the problems with formaldehyde in clothes and discusses the chemistry of durable press chemical finishes, legislation in various countries, and studies on the amount of formaldehyde present in clothes. In addition, the DPCF that have caused contact allergy are presented with CAS, synonyms, molecular formula, chemical structure, applications, and patch test studies. In the forthcoming part 2, the frequency of sensitization to DPCF, occupational contact sensitization, relevance of patch test reactions, and relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy will be reviewed, followed by a discussion of both parts of the article together

    Formaldehyde-releasers: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Metalworking fluids and remainder. Part 1

    Get PDF
    In Part 2 of the article, the relationship between formaldehyde-releasers used in MWF and formaldehyde contact allergy is discussed as are data on miscellaneous releasers not previously presented, followed by a discussion of Parts 1 and 2 of the article
    corecore