Secondary Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Isothiazolinone Content of US Consumer Adhesives

Ultrahigh-Performance Liquid Chromatographic Mass Spectrometry Analysis

Goodier, Molly C., BS*†; Zang, Lun-Yi, PhD; Siegel, Paul D., PhD; Warshaw, Erin M., MD, MS†§∥

doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000455
STUDIES
Buy
SDC

Background There are limited data regarding the prevalence and concentration of isothiazolinone preservatives in consumer adhesives.

Objectives The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and concentration of 5 specific isothiazolinones (methylisothiazolinone [MI], methylchloroisothiazolinone [MCI], benzisothiazolinone [BIT], butyl BIT, and octylisothiazolinone) in US adhesives.

Methods Thirty-eight consumer adhesives were analyzed using ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatographic–mass spectrometry. Fisher exact tests were used to test for isothiazolinone content and: 1) glue format (2) application purpose and 3) extraction method.

Results Nineteen adhesives (50%) had at least 1 isothiazolinone, and 15 contained 2 isothiazolinones. Frequencies and concentrations were as follows: MI (44.7%; 4–133 ppm), MCI (31.6%; 7–27 ppm), BIT (15.8%; 10–86 ppm), and octylisothiazolinone (2.6%; 1 ppm). Butyl BIT was not detected in any of the adhesives. Format (stick vs liquid) was not statistically associated with isothiazolinone presence. At least half of adhesives in the following application purposes had at least 1 isothiazolinone: shoe, craft, fabric, and school. All-purpose glues had a statistically significant lower concentration of MI and MCI, whereas craft glues were associated with higher concentrations of MI and MCI. Compared with other glues, fabric adhesives were associated with a higher risk of containing BIT.

Conclusions Half of the tested adhesives contained at least 1 isothiazolinone. Methylisothiazolinone and MCI were the most common. Consumers and dermatologists should be aware of adhesives as a source of isothiazolinones.

From the *University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis;

Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, MN;

Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV; and

§Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota Medical School; and

Park Nicollet Contact Dermatitis Clinic, Minneapolis, MN.

No reprints available.

Funding was provided by an American Contact Dermatitis Society Research Grant.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

This study involved the use of resources and facilities at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center as well as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The contents do not represent the views of the US Department of Veterans Affairs or the US Government. The findings and conclusions of this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

© 2019 American Contact Dermatitis Society
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article:

Note: If your society membership provides full-access, you may need to login on your society website