Formaldehyde-releasers: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Contact allergy to formaldehyde and inventory of formaldehyde-releasers

This is one of series of review articles on formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers (others: formaldehyde in cosmetics, in clothes and in metalworking fluids and miscellaneous). Thirty-five chemicals were identified as being formaldehyde-releasers. Although a further seven are listed in the literature as formaldehyde-releasers, data are inadequate to consider them as such beyond doubt. Several (nomenclature) mistakes and outdated information are discussed. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde allergy are reviewed: applications, exposure scenarios, legislation, patch testing problems, frequency of sensitization, relevance of positive patch test reactions, clinical pattern of allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde, prognosis, threshold for elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis, analytical tests to determine formaldehyde in products and frequency of exposure to formaldehyde and releasers. The frequency of contact allergy to formaldehyde is consistently higher in the USA (8-9%) than in Europe (2-3%). Patch testing with formaldehyde is problematic; the currently used 1% solution may result in both false-positive and false-negative (up to 40%) reactions. Determining the relevance of patch test reactions is often challenging. What concentration of formaldehyde is safe for sensitive patients remains unknown. Levels of 200-300 p.p.m. free formaldehyde in cosmetic products have been shown to induce dermatitis from short-term use on normal skin

A Reexamination of the Additivity Issue of Extrinsic & Intrinsic Motivation

The effects of extrinsic rewards upon an individual\u27s intrinsic motivation were examine\u27.; in this paper. Initially, four tasks (computer, geometric, letter erasure, and verbal) which have been used in past studies were evaluated for their degree of intrinsic motivation. The two tasks with the highest level of intrinsic motivation (computer and verbal) as identified by significant differences on attitudinal measures of task satisfaction and competency were selected for the second experiment. Manipulation of the extrinsic rewards (contingent, noncontingent, and no-reward) provided a test of the additivity notion of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Results indicated by analysis of attitudinal measures that the effects cf extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation are interactive rather than additive for an intrinsically motivating task (verbal). That is, contingent rewards have a detrimental effect on intrinsic motivation. However, for a highly intrinsically motivating task (computer), as indicated by significant differences on a behavioral measure and an attitudinal measure, the results indicated that the effects of extrinsic rewards nay in fact be additive. The discussion considered the theoretical and practical significance of the findings