A comparative study of formaldehyde detection using chromotropic acid, acetylacetone and HPLC in cosmetics and household cleaning products

Gryllaki-Berger, M; Mugny, C; Perrenoud, D.; Pannatier, André; Frenk, E.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1992.tb00284.x

Cited by 42 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Quantification of the formaldehyde concentration can be achieved by using an UVspectrophotometer (93,96). This method was found to be more efficient for formaldehyde detection in a clinical laboratory (94). In about 80% of the cases, the results obtained with this test are similar to those with the chromotropic acid method (95).…”

Section: Analytical Tests To Determine Formaldehyde In Productsmentioning

confidence: 50%

“…In the same year, in Switzerland, 34 cosmetic products were investigated for the presence of formaldehyde using three analytical methods including HPLC. Nineteen products (56%) were found to contain free formaldehyde (43). A 1993 study of washing and cleaning agents showed that formaldehyde-releasing compounds were among the most commonly registered preservatives in such products (36).…”

Section: Other Data On Exposure To Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde-relementioning

confidence: 99%

“…By comparing the intensity of the sample colour with those of standards, a rough estimation of the concentration of formaldehyde can be obtained. Unfortunately, other aldehydes and ketones can also react with chromotropic acid, giving yellow-brown discolorations that can interfere with the test (93)(94)(95). The acetylacetone method.…”

Section: Analytical Tests To Determine Formaldehyde In Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a reliable method, of which various modifications have been described (94,(97)(98)(99)(100). Official EU method.…”

Section: High Performance Liquid Chromatography (Hplc)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Analytical Tests To Determine Formaldehyde In Productsmentioning

confidence: 50%

Section: Other Data On Exposure To Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde-relementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analytical Tests To Determine Formaldehyde In Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a reliable method, of which various modifications have been described (94,(97)(98)(99)(100). Official EU method.…”

Section: High Performance Liquid Chromatography (Hplc)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

show abstract

“…[8] Common derivatization agents for the determination of formaldehyde in various matrices include chromotropic acid, [16][17][18][19] pentafluorophenylhydrazine, [20][21][22] O-(pentafluorobenzyl)hydroxylamine, [5,6,23,24] 2,4dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH), [14,17,[25][26][27][28][29][30] and acetylacetone (as 4-amino-3-penten-2-one). [14,17,[31][32][33][34][35] 2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine is perhaps the most commonly used derivatization reagent for the analysis of formaldehyde in PCPs. [30,36] High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with UV-absorbance detection is often employed for the detection of DNPH derivatives, [14,25,[28][29][30][37][38][39] although HPLC mass spectrometric methods are also used.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%