Allergic contact dermatitis from urea‐formaldehyde resin in medium‐density fibreboard (MDF)

Bell, Hazel Κ.; King, Charlotte

doi:10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.460417.x

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This current study found similar results as in the study of Mortz et al [38], who indicated that persistent atopic dermatitis was particularly prevalent in those with early-onset allergic rhinitis and hand eczema in childhood. Bell and King [9] also found that male workers with atopic eczema whose jobs involved cutting MDF laminated flooring had a positive patch test for urea–formaldehyde resin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The noncarcinogenic effects of MDF dust and formaldehyde include eye and skin irritation [2, 7, 8], dermatitis, [9] respiratory illnesses such as nasal inflammation [10], asthma [7, 11, 12], bronchitis [13], coughing, loud breathing, and wheezing [11, 12], and lower chest discomfort [8]. Compared to those not exposed to MDF products, their lung function, for example, forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), may also be reduced [7, 14, 15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Respiratory Symptoms due to Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde and MDF Dust in a MDF Furniture Factory in Eastern Thailand

Thetkathuek

Yingratanasuk

Ekburanawat

2016

Advances in Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aimed to investigate factors associated with respiratory symptoms in workers in a medium-density fiberboard (MDF) furniture factory in Eastern Thailand. Data were collected from 439 employees exposed to formaldehyde and MDF dust using questionnaire and personal sampler (Institute of Occupational Medicine; IOM). The average concentration of formaldehyde from MDF dust was 2.62 ppm (SD 367), whereas the average concentration of MDF dust itself was 7.67 mg/m3 (SD 3.63). Atopic allergic history was a factor associated with respiratory irritation symptoms and allergic symptoms among the workers exposed to formaldehyde and were associated with respiratory irritation symptoms and allergic symptoms among those exposed to MDF dust. Exposure to MDF dust at high level (>5 mg/m3) was associated with respiratory irritation symptoms and allergic symptoms. Excluding allergic workers from the study population produced the same kind of results in the analysis as in all workers. The symptoms were associated with the high concentrations of formaldehyde and MDF dust in this factory. If the concentration of MDF dust was >5 mg/m3, the risk of irritation and allergic symptoms in the respiratory system increased. The respiratory health of the employees with atopic allergic history exposed to formaldehyde and MDF dust should be monitored closely.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Respiratory Symptoms due to Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde and MDF Dust in a MDF Furniture Factory in Eastern Thailand

Thetkathuek

Yingratanasuk

Ekburanawat

2016

Advances in Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It cannot be concluded that polyoxymethylene urea is safe for use in cosmetic products intended to be aerosolized. 1 The Expert Panel reviewed newly available studies (see references) 2–14 since that assessment, along with updated frequency and concentration of use information. The Expert Panel determined to not reopen this safety assessment and confirmed that polyoxymethylene urea is safe as a cosmetic ingredient, except those that are intended to be aerosolized, when formulated to ensure that concentrations of free formaldehyde do not exceed 0.2%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual Review of Cosmetic Ingredient Safety Assessments: 2007-2010

Andersen¹

2011

Int J Toxicol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Annual Review of Cosmetic Ingredient Safety Assessments updates and affirms the findings of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel's assessment of almost 30 compounds used in cosmetic ingredients. The review also summarizes new findings from epidemiology studies of hair dyes. The CIR Expert Panel's re-review process is intended to uncover any new data since the last safety assessment. In some cases, newly available data are largely redundant compared with the data available in the original safety assessment. In other cases, new data present new safety issues. If after considering the newly available information, the CIR Expert Panel decides to not reopen a safety assessment, this finding, along with any background material, is summarized and announced publicly. To assure that the scientific community is aware of any new information and the decision not to reopen, this Annual Review of Cosmetic Ingredient Safety Assessments is prepared. A list of reference sources is provided after each ingredient re-review summary that updates the available published literature and includes any unpublished data made available since the original safety assessment. The re-review also captures information on the industry's current practices of ingredient use, updating the data available in the earlier report. Although this material provides the opinion of the CIR Expert Panel regarding the new data described, it does not constitute a full safety review. The CIR Expert Panel has assessed the safety of over 2100 cosmetic ingredients since its inception in 1976. These safety assessments were published in the

show abstract

“…Independent contact allergies to UFR are even rarer than those to MFR. One case related to handling medium density fiberboard (MDF) has been described in the literature [93].…”

Section: Urea-formaldehyde Resinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Allergic reactions mostly occur in formaldehyde-sensitive patients. One case of allergic contact dermatitis due to UFR in mediumdensity fiberboard (MDF) has been reported [93]. UFR releases formaldehyde, and UFR glues can cause dermatitis in formaldehyde-sensitive patients [126].…”

Section: Formaldehyde Resin-based Gluesmentioning

confidence: 99%