4.4 Article

The purity of tattoo inks, screening substances of high concern

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 129, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105123

Keywords

Tattoo; Ink; Screening; Primary aromatic amines; Risk assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tattoos have become increasingly popular in Europe, but there is currently no harmonized legislation. The study found that low-quality tattoo inks are easily available in the European market, with most issues observed with red/brown inks.
Background: Tattoos have grown in popularity in recent years with over 60 million Europeans having a tattoo nowadays. Currently, there is no harmonized legislation in Europe but from 2022 on, tattoo inks will be regulated through a REACH Amendment implementing compound-specific restrictions.& nbsp;Methodology: A screening method based on LC-QqQ-MS was developed and validated for screening 40 substances of high concern in tattoo inks. An additional quantification method was validated to quantify 5-nitro toluidine and 4-chloroaniline in tattoo inks with high accuracy. The method was validated according to the total error approach with an acceptance value of +/- 20%& nbsp;Results: The methodology was applied to 86 samples of which 26 are violating the current Resolution ResAP (2008). 5-nitro toluidine was found in 16 samples, all of them having an unacceptable health risk, with an average concentration of 29 mu g/g basic violet 10, basic red 1, 4-chloroaniline, and basic red 9 were detected 8, 7, 4, and 3, times respectively. Counterfeit products with lower quality were observed.& nbsp;Conclusion: Our results show that low-quality tattoo inks are easily available to the European consumer. In line with literature, most infringements were observed with red/brown inks which is not surprising since these colors are most often associated with adverse health effects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available