Formaldehyde Contact Allergy Research Articles

Trends in formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releaser contact allergies as compared with market exposure in Thailand.

Formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers (FRs) are common preservatives in cosmetics and household products. Their contact allergy trends are decreasing in Europe and America, but trend data for Asia are limited. The first objective was to determine the prevalences of and trends in contact allergies to formaldehyde and FRs. The second objective was to establish how often formaldehyde and FRs were mentioned on the labels of products sold in the Thai market. Twenty years of data on patch test results for formaldehyde and FRs were reviewed. Their frequency of mention on the labels of 5855 products was analysed. The trends in contact allergy to formaldehyde and FRs were decreasing. The overall prevalence of formaldehyde contact allergy was 2.5%. The most common FR to cause contact allergy was quaternium-15. Formaldehyde and FRs were identified as ingredients in 10.2% of the products surveyed. Dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin was the most common FR (5.2%). The highest use of formaldehyde and FRs (15.5%) was in hair care products. Although contact allergy trends in Thailand were decreasing, the proportion of products with FRs remained high. Comprehensive and universal legislation is needed to control the presence of formaldehyde and FRs.

CD01: An association between tosylamide/formaldehyde resin and formaldehyde contact allergy? Changing trends in allergic contact dermatitis to tosylamide/formaldehyde resin across a 38‐year period from a tertiary dermatology centre

CD01: An association between tosylamide/formaldehyde resin and formaldehyde contact allergy? Changing trends in allergic contact dermatitis to tosylamide/formaldehyde resin across a 38‐year period from a tertiary dermatology centre

Patch Testing With Formaldehyde 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm2) Detects More Contact Allergy to Formaldehyde Than 1.0.

The International Contact Dermatitis Research Group increased the patch test concentration of formaldehyde from 1.0% aqueous (aq) to 2.0% aq (in 2011). This study was designed to investigate the outcome of the decision. Consecutive dermatitis patients in 8 different clinics were patch tested with formaldehyde 1.0% aq and 2.0% aq. The test solutions were applied with a micropipette to the filter paper discs in the respective chamber. A total of 2778 patients were tested with 1.0% aq and 2766 to 2.0% aq. Sixty-five patients (2.3%, calculated from 2766 tested, to 2.0% aq) had positive patch test reactions interpreted as contact allergy to formaldehyde. This is a rather low frequency. Of these 65, 46 were women (46/1703 [2.7%]) and 19 were men (19/1063 [1.8%]). Thirty-six reacted only to 2.0% aq, 21 patients reacted to both concentrations, and 8 patients reacted only to 1.0% aq. Significantly, more patients reacted to 2.0% aq compared with 1.0% aq (P < 0.001). There was no significant sex difference. A total of 0.8% irritant reactions were recorded to formaldehyde 2.0% aq and 0.1% to 1.0% aq. The increased formaldehyde patch test concentration to 2.0% aq revealed more formaldehyde contact allergy.

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

This is part of a series of review articles on formaldehyde-releasers and their relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Formaldehyde-releasers used in metalworking fluids (MWF) and a group of releasers not presented in previous articles are discussed. Here, in Part 1 of the article, there is a short overview of the composition and functions of MWF, the function of biocides in them, and adverse reactions to MWF. In addition, the releasers in MWF that have caused contact allergy are presented with CAS, synonyms, molecular formula, chemical structure, applications, patch test studies, and amount of formaldehyde released by them. 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.

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

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 P-1487 and Bioban CS-1246, and 2.8% for Bioban 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 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 D2.

Formaldehyde‐releasers: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Part 2. Formaldehyde‐releasers in clothes: durable press chemical finishes

This is the second part of a review article on formaldehyde-releasers used as durable press chemical finishes (DPCF) in textiles. The early finishes contained large amounts of free formaldehyde, which led to many cases of allergic contact dermatitis to clothes in the 1950s and 1960s. Currently, most finishes are based on modified dimethylol dihydroxyethyleneurea, which releases less formaldehyde. Nevertheless, recent studies in the United States and Israel have identified patients reacting to DPCF, considered to have allergic contact reactions to clothes, either from formaldehyde released by the DPCF therein or from the DPCF per se (in patients negative to formaldehyde). However, all studies had some weaknesses in design or interpretation and in not a single case has the clinical relevance been proven. The amount of free formaldehyde in most garments will likely be below the threshold for the elicitation of dermatitis for all but the most sensitive patients. The amount of free cyclized urea DPCF in clothes is unlikely to be high enough to cause sensitization. Patch test reactions to formaldehyde-releasing DPCF will in most cases represent a reaction to formaldehyde released from the test material.

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

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.

Twenty‐five years quaternium‐15 in the European baseline series: does it deserve its place there?

For allergens to be included in the European baseline series, they should have allergy rates of at least 1%. In several studies quaternium-15 had lower scores. Also, many cases of sensitization are already detected by formaldehyde contact allergy. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether quaternium-15 deserves continued inclusion in the baseline series on the basis of current criteria: 1% positive reactions, common occurrence in the environment, many relevant reactions. We used the literature survey method in this study. Only the United Kingdom has rates consistently over 1%. The mean for all other countries together and for many individual nations is lower than 1%. At least half of the reactions are already detected by formaldehyde sensitivity, which lowers rates for allergy to quaternium-15 per se (i.e. not caused or at least detected by formaldehyde sensitivity) to less than 0.6% for all countries except the United Kingdom. Neither common occurrence in the environment nor a high percentage of relevant reactions has been ascertained. It may well be argued that quaternium-15 does not deserve its place in the European baseline series and could be incorporated in a cosmetic screening series or preservative series instead. In the United Kingdom, routine testing should be continued.

Formaldehyde‐releasers in cosmetics: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy

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 in cosmetics: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy

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: 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.

Experience with n‐hydroxymethyl succinimide (HMS) in TRUE TestTM patches for the diagnosis of formaldehyde contact allergy

Experience with n‐hydroxymethyl succinimide (HMS) in TRUE Test^TM patches for the diagnosis of formaldehyde contact allergy

Proallergens of formaldehyde applied in patch testing of formaldehyde contact allergy

The ability of the nonliquid, nonvolatile proallergen of formaldehyde, N-hydroxymethylsuccinimide, to test for contact allergy to formaldehyde has been investigated by in vitro penetration studies in human epidermis. Compared with the standard test, 1% formaldehyde in water, N-hydroxymethylsuccinimide equal to 0.8 mg formaldehyde gave a similar penetration profile. This is explained by cleavage of N-hydroxymethylsuccinimide into formaldehyde and carrier (succinimide) by transepidermal water on the surface of the skin. Results were confirmed by a guinea pig maximazation test on animals sensitized to formaldehyde and in a preliminary clinical study on nine patients with known allergy to formaldehyde.