Formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers: How much avoidance of cross‐reacting agents is required?

Herbert, Cassie; Rietschel, Robert L.

doi:10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.00381.x

Cited by 36 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Herbert and Rietschel have suggested that it is only necessary to avoid the specific preservatives to which an individual tests positive. 70 Quaternium-15 deserves special mention since it is the most common cosmetic preservative allergen. 1,14 It was the fourth most frequently positive allergen (10.3%) in the most recent NACDG patch test results study (2005)(2006) period), after nickel sulfate, Myroxylon pereirae, and fragrance mix I.…”

Section: Formaldehyde Releasing Preservativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Cosmetic Contact Allergy

Castanedo-Tardan

Zug

2009

Dermatologic Clinics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Formaldehyde Releasing Preservativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Cosmetic Contact Allergy

Castanedo-Tardan

Zug

2009

Dermatologic Clinics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Indeed, only with a few compounds such as diazolidinyl urea (12) and imidazolidinyl urea (13), have experimental use test exposure studies have been performed in patients allergic to formaldehyde. Some authors have suggested that for formaldehyde-sensitive patients, it is sufficient to avoid only those formaldehyde-releasers that, in addition to formaldehyde, also elicited a positive patch test reaction (14). Others, however, think that it is prudent for formaldehyde-sensitive subjects to recommend avoidance of products containing any releaser (15)(16)(17).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 Several (nomenclature) mistakes and outdated information are discussed.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. Formaldehyde is a common cause of contact allergy. In Europe, 2-3% of patients suspected of contact dermatitis have positive patch test reactions, and in the USA prevalence rates of sensitization of 8-9% are reported in this selected group of patients. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by formaldehyde is often chronic, presumably because it is difficult to avoid exposure to the allergen completely. Indeed, formaldehyde may be found in many cosmetics, toiletries, household products such as washing and cleaning agents and in a great number of industrial applications including adhesives, paints, lacquers and metalworking fluids. Often, the products are not preserved with formaldehyde itself, but with agents that release formaldehyde under usage conditions, the so-called formaldehydereleasers (or formaldehyde donors). Well-known examples are quaternium-15, imidazolidinyl urea, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM hydantoin and 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, preservatives frequently used in cosmetic products. Industrial products such as metalworking fluids frequently contain formaldehyde donors, such as the Bioban ® product range of biocides and tris(N-hydroxyethyl) hexahydrotriazine (better known by its trade name Grotan ® BK).Other products containing and releasing formaldehyde are the formaldehyde resins including urea formaldehyde and melamine formaldehyde resins. These were formerly used extensively as textile

show abstract

“…These concentrations are the previously reported thresholds for dermal sensitization in FA-sensitive individuals. 8,9) It is suspected that most of the cosmetics that claimed to contain FA-donor preservatives are possible dermal sensitizers for FA-sensitive individuals.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It remains controversial whether FA is the major cause of the allergic reaction caused by FA-releasing compounds. [6][7][8] However, previous reports showed that the threshold of allergic reaction to FA is 30 mg/kg 9) or 250 mg/kg 10) in FA-sensitive individuals; hence, the involvement of FA levels in allergic activity is not negligible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Survey of Formaldehyde (FA) Concentration in Cosmetics Containing FA-donor Preservatives

Doi

Kajimura

Taguchi

2010

JOURNAL OF HEALTH SCIENCE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We measured the amount of formaldehyde (FA) in cosmetics containing FA-donor preservatives [imidazolidinyl urea (IU), dimethyloldimethyl hydantoin (DM), diazolidinyl urea (DU), quaternium-15 (QU), and bronopol (BP)] and explored the factors affecting FA release. FA was detected in all the 89 cosmetic products tested. FA concentrations of cosmetics declared to contain DM and DU were significantly higher than those of cosmetics declared to contain IU and BP. Detected FA concentration of samples produced in the U.S.A. was significantly higher than that of samples produced in European countries. A weak proportional relationship was observed between the pH value and the released FA concentration of the cosmetic products containing DM and DU. There were no significant differences in the FA concentrations of various categories of cosmetics (lotion, gel, conditioner, shampoo, body wash, and others). Cosmetics containing a blend of amines, amides, or hydrolyzed proteins together with FA-donor preservatives had a lower FA concentration than the others.

show abstract

Formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers: How much avoidance of cross‐reacting agents is required?

Cited by 36 publications

References 8 publications

Patterns of Cosmetic Contact Allergy

Patterns of Cosmetic Contact Allergy

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

Survey of Formaldehyde (FA) Concentration in Cosmetics Containing FA-donor Preservatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About