Isothiazolinone in Residential Interior Wall Paint: A High-Performance Liquid Chromatographic–Mass Spectrometry Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding isothiazolinone content in residential wall paints in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of 5 isothiazolinones-methylisothiazolinone (MI), methylchloroisothiazolinone, benzisothiazolinone (BIT), butyl BIT, and octylisothiazolinone-in US residential wall paints. METHODS: Forty-seven paints were obtained from retailers in Minneapolis/St Paul, Minnesota. Paint samples were assessed for the presence of the 5 isothiazolinones using high-performance liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometry. RESULTS: At least 1 isothiazolinone was detected in all 47 paints. However, no paint contained butyl BIT, and only 1 paint had octylisothiazolinone. The MI and BIT were found in 96% and 94% of the paints, respectively. Methylisothiazolinone ranged in concentration from 17 to 358 ppm, whereas BIT varied from 29 to 1111 ppm. Methylchloroisothiazolinone was found solely in oil-based paints. Isothiazolinones were declared in 15% of Safety Data Sheets but did not correlate with high-performance liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometry. One "preservative-free" paint had BIT at 71.5 ppm. Paint sheen was not statistically associated with BIT or MI concentrations. Unpigmented paints and paints with volatile organic compound claims had significantly lower concentrations of MI, but not BIT. CONCLUSIONS: All paints contained at least 1 isothiazolinone. Methylisothiazolinone and BIT were the most common. Safety Data Sheets are insufficient for ascertaining isothiazolinone content in US paints.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".