Talk:Methylchloroisothiazolinone

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ikhan94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I think that it would be harable to be allergic to methylchloroisothiazolinone. If you were allergic to methylchloroisothiazolinone then you could not use flushable wippes. this would be very tragic. Thy should make flushable wippes withought this ingrediant. Just think of all the people who can't use flushable wipes.

Methylisothiazolinone

The article on methylisothiazolinone has more info regarding possible dangers of the substance, etc. Is the difference between the two articles more related to a difference in the characteristics of the chemicals, or is it the result of less work having been done on this one? Jafafa Hots 06:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering what this was for ages. Almost beats antidisestablishmentarianism, in the amount of letter department.

I just looked it up because it was on my shampoo bottle, so I read it every day and wonder what it is and whether it's good for me or poison. User:justfred

Poison - it's about ten times as bad as Methylisothiazolinone as a contact sensitizer. As far as I know it's not used alone as a biocide preservative. It's mixed with Methylisothiazolinone and sold as Kathon CG®. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A section on how it is made would be informative. Scottcmu 12:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The work on methylisothiazolinone is a bit more complete since it had been available from commercial sources (e.g. Sigma, Fluka) for a while. Methylchloroisothiazolinone has now been available for academic research purposes for 2-3 years and thus it is likely that work on this substance will appear in the coming years. Cafeturco (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayo Clinic Warning

This new report from the Mayor clinic describes new recommendations against using producst containing MCI

reuters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolte (talk • contribs) 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation

The article says: "It was largely removed from most cosmetic products except for those with only short duration skin contact such as rinse-offs." Baloney, sunscreens are full of this crap - methylisothiazolinone, methylchloroisothiazolinone and Kathon® CG (both). Senor Cuete (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

The article says that eczematous symptoms will go away after a few weeks. In my case I had to have several series of systemic steroid shots(methylprednisolone and triamcinolone) and after that I was sick for another year. This article white washes the danger of this shit. It must have been written by Rome & Haas. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

I agree with Senor Cuete. I've been suffering from this for more than 3 years now, and I don't understand why someone is removing the warnings from this page. this is a public safety issue and I also start to suspect that someone who has incentive to make a profit from this product is misleading the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.108.189 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence

The statement "Prevalence more than doubled from 1.7% in the late 1990s to about 4% of individuals in 2004" is inaccurate. The 1.7% figure comes from a study that is specific to the general population in Israel. The 4% figure comes from a study of people who "have suspected allergic contact dermatitis". The two groups are of course not comparable because the second group is limited to a more susceptible population. In fact, the most recent reference in the article from 2013 finds "allergy to this preservative of approximately 1.5%", which by using the article's currently faulty logic would indicate a decline in prevalence. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you deleted were made in good faith and did contain reliable sources but your point is well taken. The journal abstracts you can read at the NLM are all over the place in respect to prevalence for several reasons: They are from different dates with the prevalence increasing with the newer articles and they study different groups. The articles about testing say that it's difficult to test for contact dermatitis because the concentrations used in the patches can cause dermatitis and for this reason patch testing might be missing as many as half of the cases. Obviously it's hard to gage the prevalence of this problem. I can cherry pick the citations and cite articles that say that it's as high as 10% and that it's probably under reported. What should the article say? The purpose of this talk page is to improve the article. What do you want it to say? Do you want to revue the literature? It would take some time to do this. Do you work for Rohm and Hass and do you want to white wash this problem? Make some suggestions. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that I work for Rohm and Hass or any company associated with making methylchloroisothiazolinone is absurdly unfounded. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I realize you edits were made in good faith and were sourced to reliable sources; however, the conclusion drawn from those sources is untenable. None of the cited sources claim that the prevalence of contact dermatitis due to methylchloroisothiazolinone more than doubled in any time period, so this falls under WP:SYNTH. If the primary scientific literature is inconsistent in its estimations of the prevalence, then what should be done here is that we should follow the guidance of WP:MEDRS and find reliable secondary sources that review the primary literature. If there are no reliable secondary sources that speak on whether the prevalence is increasing or not, then this Wikipedia article should not do so either. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the abstracts of those articles and they back up what the author says vis. increasing contact dermatitis, in fact I think he made good choices as to which articles to cite. I'm sorry you don't like them but they are reliable sources. You really can't decide which reliable sources you do and don't like. The text that the author added does meet the criteria for inclusion in the article. I can add a whole lot more that say the same thing if you want. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said that I don't like those sources. I'm just saying that they don't seem to support the claim the article was making based on those sources. Can you point me to the abstract that states the prevalence doubled from the late 1990s to 2004? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think it is important for the article to discuss contact dermatitis regardless of whether the prevalence can be reliably quantified or not, or whether it is growing or not. The fact that the American Contact Dermatitis Society named methylchloroisothiazolinone as the Contact Allergen of the Year in 2013 suggests that this is a current area of medical concern. We can probably include some discussion about various estimations of its prevalence. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So put the text back in and edit it to state what it says in the references more precisely. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still no constructive suggestions from Ed about how to include information about contact sensitization. If you aren't prepared to improve what the editor added to the article that his text should go back in. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made some improvement on the former article content. I'll suggest some additional specific modifications to the article's current content shortly, but I'm waiting on my institution's library to supply a copy of one more journal article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a citation but an interesting fact is that most people that test as positive for contact sensitivity to methylisothiazolinone/methylchlorothiazolinone are also allergic to formaldehyde-releasing preservatives like diazolidinyl urea Senor Cuete (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. I wonder what the connection is. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mendeley.com/research/concomitant-contact-allergy-methylchloroisothiazolinone-methylisothiazolinone-formaldehyde-releasing/ Senor Cuete (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21332463 Senor Cuete (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've obtained copies of some recent articles relating to dermatitis. One difficulty I have in determining the relevance of these studies is that they deal with the combination methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI), not just MCI itself. One report suggests that most allergic reaction to the combination is due to MI, not MCI. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balderdash! MCI is about times as strong as MI as an allergen and that's why many companies are using MI, not Kathon CG in their products. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another study, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2012.02157.x, suggests that increased use of MI is leading to an increase in consumer sensitization to MI, thereby driving the increase in the rate of dermatitis due to the MCI/MI combo. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information regarding Canada?

"In Canada, the accepted concentrations are 15 ppm and 7.5 ppm respectively.[6] The Canadian levels are also reflected in a paper published in the International Journal of Toxicology.[7]"
[6] states that methylchloroisothiazolinone is only allowed in a mixture with methylisothiazolinone (probably the same 3:1 mixture as in EU, Japan, S. Korea etc.). However, it explicitly states that it is forbidden in leave-on products. Also, I couldn't find any mention of Canada in [7]. I think that the sentence whose source is [7] is unnecessary anyways, especially since the paper is from 1992.
Thus I propose:
Delete the second sentence in the quote above alongside [7] and change the remaining sentence to "In Canada, methylchloroisothiazolinone may only be used in rinse-off products in combination with methylisothiazolinone, the total concentration of the combination may not exceed 15 ppm." or something similar.
--2003:F6:2715:3300:8826:A6B9:F5D7:FC30 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]