Formaldehyde Release From Eyelash Glues: Analysis Using the Chromotropic Acid Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Popularity of eyelash enhancements has increased dramatically. Eyelash enhancements are available as an over-the-counter consumer product with glue included and as a professional product where proprietary glues are typically used. Both types of eyelash extension glues may release formaldehyde despite not being declared as an ingredient. Although formaldehyde is a carcinogen and may cause allergic contact dermatitis, few studies have assessed its presence in eyelash glues. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate professional and consumer eyelash glues for the presence of formaldehyde using the chromotropic acid method (CAM). METHODS: A total of 37 eyelash glues were evaluated: 17 consumer eyelash glues (2 of which declared formaldehyde) and 20 professional eyelash glues (none of which declared formaldehyde) were purchased and analyzed with the CAM of testing. RESULTS: For consumer eyelash glues, the 2 glues that declared formaldehyde were positive on CAM testing as well as 2 glues (13.3% [2/15]) that did not declare formaldehyde. Of the 20 professional eyelash glues, 15 (75.0%) were positive for formaldehyde. CONCLUSIONS: Some consumer eyelash glues and most professional eyelash glues released formaldehyde when evaluated with CAM. Patients and clinicians should be aware that both consumer and professional eyelash glues can be sources of formaldehyde.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".