Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2026
07:10
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
Contact Dermatitis
|November 4, 2008
Summary
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.
