Isothiazolinone Detection in Dish Soap and Personal Care Products: Comparison of Lovibond Isothiazolinone Test Kit and Ultrahigh-Performance Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Isothiazolinones are commonly used preservatives, which may cause allergic contact dermatitis. The Lovibond Isothiazolinone Test Kit (LITK) has been reported to successfully identify clinically relevant, occult isothiazolinones in patient personal care products. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyze dish soaps and personal care products that do not declare isothiazolinones ("no-ISO") for the presence of isothiazolinones via 2 methods: LITK and ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS). METHODS: No-ISO dish soaps (n = 9), a convenience sample of patient products (n = 6), and controls (positive [isothiazolinone declared], n = 5; negative, n = 2) were tested with LITK (X3) and UHPLC-MS/MS. RESULTS: Several no-ISO dish soaps and personal products were positive for isothiazolinones (LITK, n = 12; UHPLC-MS/MS, n = 3). Ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry specifically identified methylisothiazolinone alone in 1 no-ISO dish soap, methylchloroisothiazolinone in another, and both in a third. Using UHPLC-MS/MS as the criterion standard, we observed the accuracy of LITK for 9 dish soaps was poor (sensitivity, 66.7%; specificity, 20%) and very poor for 6 personal care products (sensitivity, 0%; specificity, 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Personal products may contain undeclared isothiazolinones. The current study found that LITK had poor accuracy for testing dish soap and personal care products. Clinicians should be aware of these factors when managing patients with contact allergy to isothiazolinones.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".