Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2026
Application of Biochip Microfluidic Technology to Detect Serum Allergen-specific Immunoglobulin E (sIgE)
Published on: April 21, 2019
Analysis of allergens in metalworking fluids
Maj-Len Henriks-Eckerman1, Katri Suuronen, Riitta Jolanki
1Chemical Agents, Turku, Finnish Institute of Occupetional Health (FIOH), 00250 Helsinki, Finland. maj-len.henriks-eckerman@ttl.fi
Background:
Metalworking fluids (MWFs) are well-known causes of occupational contact dermatitis in machinists.
Objective:
To gain information about skin sensitizers in MWFs and to compare it with the information in safety data sheets (SDSs).
Methods:
A total of 17 samples of MWF concentrates were analysed for skin sensitizers known or suspected to be used in MWF. Alkanolamines, formaldehyde, isothiazolinones, methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN), and iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC) were separated by liquid chromatography. Resin acids of colophonium (colophony) were separated by gas chromatography. The substances were identified with mass spectrometric detection and ultraviolet detection.
Results:
Of the MWFs, 15 contained 6-39% of alkanolamines, mostly monoethanolamine and triethanolamine. Formaldehyde was detected in all MWFs: the concentrations of total formaldehyde ranged between 0.002% and 1.3%. Benzisothiazolinone and octylisothiazolinone were detected in one fluid each. IPBC was detected in nine MWFs, and the highest concentration was 0.09%. Methylisothiazolinone and MDBGN were not detected in any of the fluids. Resin acids of colophonium were detected in seven MWFs in concentrations ranging from 0.41% to 3.8%. On the whole, the allergens analysed were poorly declared in the SDSs.
Conclusions:
The content of total formaldehyde was not declared in any SDS. IPBC, a relatively new allergen, seems to be common in MWFs. Isothiazolinones may be relevant allergens of machinists, and they should be analysed in MWFs in case other sources are not identified. The occupational relevance of positive patch test results to MWF ingredients in machinists is difficult to determine if information in the SDSs is relied upon.
Insights
Metalworking fluids (MWFs) contain common skin sensitizers like formaldehyde and iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC). Safety data sheets (SDSs) often fail to accurately declare these allergens, complicating occupational dermatitis assessments for machinists.
Area of Science:
- Occupational Dermatology
- Analytical Chemistry
- Industrial Hygiene
Background:
- Metalworking fluids (MWFs) are a known cause of occupational contact dermatitis in machinists.
- Accurate identification of skin sensitizers in MWFs is crucial for worker safety.
Purpose of the Study:
- To identify skin sensitizers in MWF concentrates.
- To compare identified sensitizers with information provided in safety data sheets (SDSs).
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 17 MWF concentrates for specific skin sensitizers.
- Utilized liquid and gas chromatography with mass spectrometry and UV detection.
- Targeted compounds included alkanolamines, formaldehyde, isothiazolinones, MDBGN, IPBC, and colophonium.
Main Results:
- Alkanolamines were present in 15 MWFs (6-39%).
- Formaldehyde detected in all MWFs (0.002%-1.3%).
- Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC) found in nine MWFs (up to 0.09%); colophonium in seven (0.41%-3.8%).
- SDS declarations of allergens were generally inadequate.
Conclusions:
- Formaldehyde content was not declared on any SDS.
- IPBC is a prevalent, relatively new allergen in MWFs.
- Isothiazolinones may be significant allergens for machinists.
- SDS inaccuracies hinder determining the occupational relevance of MWF ingredient allergies.
