Formaldehyde-related textile allergy: an update

Flame-Retardance Functionalization of Jute and Jute-Cotton Fabrics

Jute is a ligno-cellulosic natural fiber that ranks second in terms of the volume of cellulosic fibers and is extensively utilized for technical textile applications. The goal of this study is to determine the flame-retardance (FR) properties of pure Jute and Jute-Cotton fabrics treated with Pyrovatex CP New at concentrations of 90% (owf), M:L: 1:7. Both fabrics exhibited a substantial improvement in flame-retardancy. After the ignition period, the recorded flame spread time in both FR treated fabrics was zero seconds; whereas for untreated Jute and Jute-Cotton fabrics, the flame spread time was measured 21 s and 28 s, respectively, to burn their entire length (15 cm). Within these flame-spread times, the length of the char was 2.1 cm and 2.57 cm in the Jute and Jute-Cotton fabrics, respectively. After FR finishing, on both fabrics in the warp and weft directions, the physico-mechanical properties significantly decreased. The deposition of flame-retardant finishes on the fabric surface was determined by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images. According to Fourier Transform Infra-Red Spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis, the flame-retardant chemical had no effect on the inherent properties of the fibers. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) analysis revealed that FR treated fabrics had early degradation, resulting in the formation of more char than in the untreated samples. After FR treatment, both fabrics showed a significant improvement in residual mass (more than 50%). Although the formaldehyde content observed in the FR treated samples was significantly greater, it was still within the permitted limit formaldehyde content in textiles intended for outerwear and not worn next to the skin. The results of this investigation demonstrate the potential use of Pyrovatex CP New in jute-based materials.

An Unusual Case of Contact Dermatitis

We report a case of acute psoriasiform contact dermatitis of the forehead and scalp related to the use of a low-laser light cap. The patient had a positive patch test to dimethylol dihydroxyethyleneurea (DMDE), methylisothiazolinone, kathon CG, and cobalt. We believe that DMDE in the fabric of the cap was responsible for the allergic contact dermatitis in this case as the lesions resolved with cessation of cap use.

The effect of clothing care activities on textile formaldehyde content

Textiles are commonly treated with formaldehyde-based residues that may potentially induce allergic contact dermatitis in sensitive individuals. This study examined the initial formaldehyde content in clothing and resulting changes due to care activities. Twenty clothing articles were examined and 17 of them did not have detectable levels of formaldehyde. One shirt contained a formaldehyde concentration of 3172 ppm, and two pairs of pants had formaldehyde concentrations of 1391 ppm and 86 ppm. The two highest results represent formaldehyde levels that are up to 40-fold greater than international textile regulations. The two items with the greatest formaldehyde content were washed and dried in a manner similar to that used by consumers, including hand and machine washing in hot or cold water followed by air or machine drying. The washing and drying procedures reduced formaldehyde levels to between 26 and 72% of untreated controls. Differences in the temperature or type of washing and drying did not result in a clear trend in the subsequent formaldehyde content. In addition, samples were hot ironed, which did not affect the formaldehyde content as significantly. Understanding the formaldehyde content in clothing and its potential reduction through care activities may be useful for manufacturers and formaldehyde-sensitive individuals.

Exposure to formaldehyde and its potential human health hazards

A widely used chemical, formaldehyde is normally present in both indoor and outdoor air. The rapid growth of formaldehyde-related industries in the past two decades reflects the result of its increased use in building materials and other commercial sectors. Consequently, formaldehyde is encountered almost every day from large segments of society due to its various sources. Many governments and agencies around the world have thus issued a series of standards to regulate its exposure in homes, office buildings, workshops, public places, and food. In light of the deleterious properties of formaldehyde, this article provides an overview of its market, regulation standards, and human health effects.

Hand/face/neck localized pattern: sticky problems--resins

Plastic resin systems have an increasingly diverse array of applications but also induce health hazards, the most common of which are allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. Contact urticaria, pigmentary changes, and photoallergic contact dermatitis may occasionally occur. Other health effects, especially respiratory and neurologic signs and symptoms, have also been reported. These resin systems include epoxies, the most frequent synthetic resin systems to cause contact dermatitis, (meth)acrylics, polyurethanes, phenol-formaldehydes, polyesters, amino resins (melamine-formaldehydes, urea-formaldehydes), polyvinyls, polystyrenes, polyolefins, polyamides and polycarbonates. Contact dermatitis usually occurs as a result of exposure to the monomers and additives in the occupational setting, although reports from consumers, using the raw materials or end products periodically surface. Resin- and additive-induced direct contact dermatitis usually presents on the hands, fingers, and forearms, while facial, eyelid, and neck involvement may occur through indirect contact, eg, via the hands, or from airborne exposure. Patch testing with commercially available materials, and in some cases the patient's own resins, is important for diagnosis. Industrial hygiene prevention techniques are essential to reduce contact dermatitis when handling these resin systems.

Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde textile resins in surgical uniforms and nonwoven textile masks

Despite a trend for reduction in the concentration of free formaldehyde in textiles, formaldehyde textile resin (FTR) allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) remains an important clinical issue and is likely underdiagnosed. Patients with FTR ACD may react to formaldehyde released from the resin or to the resin itself. Screening with formaldehyde and ethyleneurea/melamine formaldehyde resin will uncover most cases. Patch testing with the suspected offending fabric most often leads to false-negative results. We present a case of a 49-year-old pediatrician who developed a severe widespread dermatitis caused by contact with FTRs from her hospital "greens" ("scrubs") and mask.

Textile dermatitis in patients with contact sensitization in Israel: a 4-year prospective study

BACKGROUND

The exact incidence of textile dermatitis is unknown because of the lack of controlled epidemiological studies. Nevertheless, the increasing frequency of contact dermatitis to clothing has been demonstrated, thus indicating the importance of further investigations in this field.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the results from a 4-year prospective study of the clinical and aetiological features of contact dermatitis to textiles in Israel. We also aimed to assess the frequency and relevance of sensitization to textile dyes and resins in these patients.

METHODS

Six hundred and forty-four patients (441 female and 203 male), referred for the investigation of contact dermatitis, and suspected of having textile allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), were studied. All patients were patch tested with the standard series (TRUE Tests), textile colour and finish series (TCFS) clothing extracts and pieces of garment in some cases. Readings were performed on days 2, 3 and in many patients also on day 7.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients (12.9%) had an allergic reactions to a dye and/or resin allergen. Of them, 43 (51.8%) had positive patch tests to the textile dye allergens, 28 (33.7%) to the formaldehyde and textile finish resins and 12 (14.4%) to allergens from both groups. The highest incidence of sensitization from the dye group allergens was due to Disperse Blue (DB) 124 (30.6%), DB 106 (27.0%) and DB 85 (8.1%) and from the resin group to melamine formaldehyde and ethyleneurea melamine formaldehyde (20.7% each) and urea formaldehyde (18.3%). Present relevance of the patch tests was found in 81.4% of the cases. Concomitant sensitization with allergens from the standard series included nickel sulphate, potassium dichromate, formaldehyde, rubber additives and others. Although chronic dermatitis was the typical clinical presentation, less frequent forms such as purpuric, hyperpigmented and papulopustular lesions and atypical forms such as erythema multiforme-like, nummular-like lesions, lichenification and erythrodermia were observed in 24.4% of the cases. The atypical manifestations were provoked by sensitization to dye allergens and never to resins. Along with the typical distribution in areas of friction on the trunk and extremities, less frequent areas including the hands, face, genital area and the soles were affected too.

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the increasing frequency of contact dermatitis to clothing, the clinical assessment should include awareness of the classical as well as the unusual and atypical clinical forms and locations of ACD to textiles, for they are not infrequent. Although dyes and among them DB 106 and DB 124 are the most frequent allergens inducing textile dermatitis, concomitant testing with allergens from the textile dyes and resin groups is recommended when investigating patients with textile dermatitis.

Patch testing for permanent-press allergic contact dermatitis

During the decade of the 90s, 24 cases of permanent-press textile-resin contact dermatitis were identified. The most common allergen associated with these cases was dimethylol propylene urea (DMPU). Although previous reports had suggested ethylene urea melamine formaldehyde resin (EUMF) or dimethylol dihydroxy ethylene urea (DMDHEU) as the most appropriate test materials for this type of contact dermatitis, we could not confirm EUMF as appropriate but, with some limitations, can support DMDHEU due to its widespread and continued use. DMPU has been withdrawn from the marketplace and replaced with what may be less reactive materials. In this study, we also observed discordance between EUMF patch tests in the range of 30%, which is consistent with previous reports about the biovariability of patch test results.

Adverse reactions to cosmetic ingredients

Numerous cosmetics are used on a daily basis by men, women, and children. Despite a few adverse reactions, cosmetics are a remarkably safe group of products.