Nickel, Cobalt and Chromium in Consumer Products: Allergic Contact Dermatitis

European Chemical Industry Ecology and Toxicology Centre (ECETOC) Task Force

ECETOC 1992 — Nickel, cobalt and chromium in consumer products: allergic contact dermatitis (Technical Report No. 45)

ECETOC Technical Report No. 45 is an industry-consortium review prepared by a European Chemical Industry Ecology and Toxicology Centre Task Force in response to renewed regulatory interest (post-Nava et al. 1987, Vilaplana et al. 1987, Angelini and Vena 1989) in whether trace nickel, cobalt and chromium impurities in personal-care and domestic-cleaning products contribute to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). The report pools published analytical data on Ni/Co/Cr concentrations in detergents, dishwashing liquids, surface cleaners, bleaches, textile softeners, shampoos, toothpastes, deodorants, lipsticks, mascaras and other cosmetics with unpublished industry datasets contributed by Unilever (1990) and Procter & Gamble (1985-1990) and presents them as country/product-type cells in Table 6. The Task Force concludes that trace Ni/Co/Cr in modern consumer products are typically below the ~1 ppm minimum eliciting concentration established under 48-hour occluded patch-test conditions on moderately irritated skin, and recommends that current good manufacturing practice ensuring <5 ppm of each metal in finished consumer products be adopted as a standard, with ≤1 ppm as the ultimate target. Because the report is authored by the European chemical industry’s own toxicology centre and explicitly oriented toward arguing that consumer products are “not an important source” of metal contact and that regulatory focus should shift to jewellery and metal objects, its conclusions and the rhetorical framing of the Hazard Assessment (Section 6) carry an obvious sponsor-interest signature. The underlying analytical-chemistry data tables (Tables 6-9) are nonetheless an unusually broad multi-country compilation and are the report’s primary contribution to the heavy-metals literature.

Key numbers

Nickel, cobalt and chromium in detergents (washing powders and liquids) — Table 6, ECETOC 1992 (units ppm, mg/kg as-purchased basis; “p” = powder, “l” = liquid; x ± s = mean ± SD; reference column gives the original underlying study):

Country	p/l	n products	Ni min	Ni max	Ni mean ± SD	Co min	Co max	Co mean ± SD	Cr min	Cr max	Cr mean ± SD	Reference
A (Austria)	p	9	1.0	9.5	5.2 ± 3.8	—	—	—	0.5	7.0	2.6 ± 2.4	Ebner et al., 1978
D (Germany)	p	4	1.0	2.0	1.7 ± 0.5	—	<0.5	—	—	1.0	—	Kaestner, 1988
D	17/2	19	0.03	9.5	2.7 ± 2.7	<0.01	0.78	0.12 ± 0.18	0.07	0.4	0.4 ± 0.2	Mueller, 1985
D	10/2	12	0.03	6.3	3.4 ± 1.9	<0.01	1.0	0.3 ± 0.3	0.01	0.6	0.4 ± 0.2	Mueller, 1985
D	p	30	1.0	12.0	2.8	0.5	1.0	0.75 ± 0.27	0.5	5.0	1.6	Kalveram & Forck, 1977
D	p	16	1.0	2.0	1.8 ± 0.4	0.1	0.3	0.2 ± 0.1	0.9	1.5	1.1 ± 0.2	Henkel, 1990
E (Spain)	3/1	4	0.1	1.3	0.6 ± 0.5	—	—	—	—	—	—	Vilaplana et al., 1987
F (France)	p	15	<0.02	4.3	1.36 ± 1.12	—	—	—	—	—	—	Barriere et al., 1979
GB	p	6	<10	<10	<10 (4.7)	—	—	—	—	—	—	Wells, 1956
I (Italy)	p	7	0.0	18.5	6.3 ± 7.1	—	3.9	—	0.8	6.4	2.8 ± 1.9	Kokelj et al., 1984
I	12/2	14	0.0	18.5 (footnote 8: 3 outliers 22.8/22.8/25.7 ppm Ni)	6.3 ± 7.1	—	—	—	0.0	8.7	3.0 ± 2.8	Nava et al., 1987
IL (Israel)	?	14	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.4	9.0 (footnote 11: additional outlier 21.4 ppm Cr)	4.0 ± 3.1	Feuerman, 1971
NL	?	11	<0.5	5.7	—	<0.5	—	—	<0.3	6.4	3.3 ± 2.7	Nater, 1963
NL	?	19	<0.5	<1.0	—	—	—	—	0.3	2.9	—	Wahlberg et al., 1977
S (Sweden)	?	71/93 (footnote 12)	1.0	2.0	—	—	—	—	1.0	<1.0	—	Burrows, 1983
EU	p	17/8	2.0	5.0	—	—	—	—	2.0	2.0	—	Burrows, 1983
EU	p	16/32	5.0	15.0	—	—	—	—	5.0	5.0	—	Burrows, 1983
EU	p	31/9	10.0	10.0	—	—	—	—	5.0	10.0	—	Burrows, 1983
EU	p	18/1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	Burrows, 1983
EU	p	213	<0.2	16.0	1.0 ± 1.04	<0.1	0.6	0.22 ± 0.21	<0.1	5.8	1.2	Unilever, 1990
EU	l	19	<0.15	0.8	0.29 ± 0.27	<0.1	0.25	0.22 ± 0.21	<0.2	0.5	0.28	Unilever, 1990
EU	p	12	<0.5	2.5	—	<1.0	7.0	—	<1.0	2.5	—	P. & G., 1985-1990
EU	p	3	<0.5	1.5	—	<1.5	<1.5	—	<2.5	<2.5	—	P. & G., 1985
EU	p	2	<1.5	1.5	—	<1.5	<1.5	—	—	<1	—	P. & G., 1988
EU	p	1	—	2.5	—	—	7	—	—	<2	—	P. & G., 1989
EU	p	6	<1	<2	—	<2	7	—	—	<2	—	P. & G., 1990

Table 6 footnote 8: “additional three outliers of 22.8, 22.8 and 25.7 ppm” were observed in the Nava et al. 1987 detergent dataset and excluded from the mean. Footnote 11: in the IL/Feuerman 1971 detergent row, “additional one outlier of 21.4 ppm” (Cr). Footnote 13: 213 EU products = samples taken from 15 European countries (Unilever 1990 dataset). Footnote 14 (Kokelj 1984 dishwashing row): “additional one outlier of 21.4 ppm” (Ni). Footnote 15 (Kokelj+Nava cleaners row, Cr column): “additional one outlier of 20 ppm, but in a second analysis of the same products 14.2 and 0.21 ppm respectively were found” (Ni). Footnote 16 (Kokelj+Nava cleaners row, Cr column): “additional two outliers of the same product 0.23 ppm Cr were found” — applies to chromium, not to the Ni column where the marker was placed in the printed table. Footnote 77 ppm Ni outlier: discussed only in the Comment to Table 6 (p. 51), assigned to Nava et al. 1987 for one hard-surface cleaner from the Italian market; “could not be reproduced” on re-analysis. Distinct from the Feuerman Cr outlier in footnote 11.

Nickel, cobalt and chromium in non-detergent consumer products — Table 6 cont., ECETOC 1992 (units ppm):

Product type	Country	p/l	n	Ni min	Ni max	Ni mean ± SD	Co min	Co max	Co mean ± SD	Cr min	Cr max	Cr mean ± SD	Reference
Dishwashing liquids	A	l	9	0	5.0	1.2 ± 1.6	—	0.16	0.09 ± 0.08	0.1	3.5	1.0 ± 1.3	Ebner et al., 1978
Dishwashing liquids	E	l	3	0.2	1.0	0.7 ± 0.5	—	—	—	0.9	4.7	2.6 ± 1.6	Vilaplana et al., 1987
Dishwashing liquids	I	?	6	0.0	8.5 (footnote 14)	4.5 ± 3.1	—	—	—	0.9	7.8	2.6 ± 2.4	Kokelj et al., 1984
Dishwashing liquids	I	5/4	9	—	—	—	—	0.5	—	0.00	7.8	1.6 ± 2.4	Nava et al., 1987
Dishwashing liquids	EU	l	39	<0.2	0.8	0.25 ± 0.36	<0.1	0.25	0.24 ± 0.36	<0.2	1.4	0.36	Unilever, 1990
Cleaners (scouring agents)	D	?	17	0.2	2.4	1.5	—	—	—	0.3	3.5	1.0	Kalveram & Forck, 1977
Cleaners (scouring agents)	D	?	4	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.15	0.58	—	Weiler & Ruessel, 1986
Cleaners (scouring agents)	E	?	13	0	1.1	0.4 ± 0.4	—	0.5	0.2 ± 0.2	—	—	—	Vilaplana et al., 1987
Cleaners (scouring agents)	F	l	6	<0.02	0.98	0.2 ± 0.4	—	—	—	0.8	3.2	1.7 ± 0.9	Barriere et al., 1979
Cleaners (scouring agents)	I	?	6	0.4	10.0 (footnote 15 attaches to Ni: outlier 20 ppm; second analysis 14.2 and 0.21 ppm)	3.1 ± 4.7	—	<0.25	—	0.04	10.0 (footnote 16 attaches to Cr per footnote text: 0.23 ppm low outlier)	3.6 ± 4.2	Kokelj et al., 1984; Nava et al., 1987
Cleaners (scouring agents)	EU	?	8	<0.13	0.3	0.24	<0.25	<0.25	<0.25	0.4	0.8	0.52	Unilever, 1990
Bleaches	E	l	2	1.2	1.7	—	1.1	1.4	—	0.1	0.7	0.4 ± 0.3	Vilaplana et al., 1987
Bleaches	USA	l	5	0.03	0.17	0.08 ± 0.05	—	—	—	<0.1	<0.3 (footnote 17)	—	Hostynek & Maibach, 1988
Bleaches	EU	l	7	—	<0.2	—	—	<0.25	—	0.6	0.8	0.7	Unilever, 1990
Textile softener	D	l	5	0.2	0.8	0.4 ± 0.6	—	0	—	0.1	0.3	0.2	Kalveram & Forck, 1977
Textile softener	E	l	1	—	0	—	—	<0.25	—	—	<0.2	—	Vilaplana et al., 1987
Textile softener	EU	l	2	<0.2	<0.2	<0.2	—	<0.25	—	—	<0.2	—	Unilever, 1990
Cosmetics (footnote 18)	EU	l	42	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	1.0	1.2	<0.1	Unilever, 1990
Shampoos	EU	l	8	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	—	<0.01	—	—	<0.01	—	Lindemayr, 1984
Mascaras	A	—	2	5.6	13.7	9.7	4.5	9.0	6.8	1.0	1.7	1.4	Unilever, 1990

Table 6 footnote 18 (Cosmetics): “two outliers between 15 and 20 ppm for chromium were found.” Footnote 17: “below the detection limit.” The Cosmetics row aggregates 42 Unilever products comprising “11 (hand) creams, 6 shampoos, 3 conditioners, 4 toothpastes, 6 stick deos, 6 aerosol deos, 3 roll on deos, 1 facial wash, 1 liquid soap, 1 hair dye, 1 nail varnish, 1 lipstick” per footnote 18.

ECETOC summary statistics across all surveyed consumer products (Comment to Table 6, p. 51):

Metric	Chromium	Nickel	Cobalt
Mean of per-study means (range)	<0.1 to 6.8 ppm	<0.1 to 9.7 ppm	<0.1 to 1.4 ppm
Per-study minimum (range)	0 to 15 ppm	0 to 10 ppm	0 to 1.1 ppm
Per-study maximum (range, excluding outliers)	<0.1 to 20 ppm	between 0 and 18.5 ppm	0 to 5.8 ppm
Notable maximum outliers	23 ppm Cr (Feuermann 1971 detergent); 83 ppm Cr (Belgian “Eau de Javel” bleach, Lachapelle et al. 1980)	6 outliers across reviewed publications: 5 between 21 and 26 ppm Ni, plus 77 ppm Ni in one hard-surface cleaner from Italian market (Nava et al. 1987; not reproduced on re-analysis)	—
In-use dilution example	—	5 ppm Ni in finished product → 0.05 ppm in 1% detergent washing solution (Allenby & Basketter 1989; Basketter & Allenby 1990)	same in-use dilution argument

Minimum eliciting concentration for ACD elicitation under standardised patch-test conditions (Section 6, p. 31):

Nickel, cobalt and chromium minimum eliciting concentration under 48-hour occluded patch test on moderately irritated skin of sensitised individuals: ~1 ppm (worst-case threshold). “The great majority of allergic individuals will only respond to much higher levels.”
ECETOC recommended GMP standard for Ni, Co and Cr in consumer products: <5 ppm each as acceptable maximum, with ≤1 ppm each as ultimate target. “Occasional minor deviations above 1 ppm are not seen as posing a significant risk” once the GMP <5 ppm ceiling is met.
Existing Danish regulation on nickel release from skin-contact metal objects (Mennè and Rasmussen 1990; reflected in subsequent EU Directive 94/27/EC): 0.5 µg/cm²/week maximum release rate; the EC was preparing a similar Directive as of 1991.
Hexavalent chromium release threshold for ACD elicitation in chromate-sensitised individuals (Wass and Wahlberg 1991, cited at p. 27): chromated discs releasing ≥0.6 µg/cm² Cr⁶⁺ in 20 minutes elicited positive response in all panellists; authors proposed a mean release ceiling of 0.3 µg/cm² Cr⁶⁺ from chromated parts.

ACD incidence/prevalence anchors (Tables 1-2 of the report; not contamination data, included for hazard-context interpretation only):

Nickel: female patch-test positive prevalence in industrialised countries ranged ~10-30% across surveys 1967-1988; one Swedish dermatology cohort reported “one in four women patch tested was positive to nickel” (Moeller 1990).
Cobalt: female patch-test positive prevalence rose from ~5% (1967-1973) to ~10% (1980s) across the 25 ECETOC-tabulated cohorts.
Chromium: female patch-test positive prevalence declined from ~25% (1963-1966 Spain) to ~3-9% (1980s) across most cohorts, attributed by Lachapelle et al. (1980) to the removal of sodium dichromate from Belgian “Eau de Javel” bleach in 1976 and to ferrous-sulphate addition to cement reducing Cr⁶⁺ bioavailability.

Methods (brief)

ECETOC TR 045 is a literature-review compilation, not original analytical chemistry. The Task Force pooled (i) published analytical-chemistry studies of Ni/Co/Cr in consumer products between 1956 and 1990 — 28 studies identified across European, USA and Israeli markets — and (ii) unpublished industry datasets from Unilever (1990, n=213 powder detergents + 19 liquid detergents + 39 dishwashing liquids + 8 cleaners + 7 bleaches + 2 textile softeners + 42 cosmetics + 2 mascaras, all drawn from 15 European countries per footnote 13) and Procter & Gamble (1985-1990, 4 powder-detergent subsets totalling ~24 products). Underlying studies used the analytical instruments enumerated in Section 4.1: atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS, most), electrothermal AAS (EAAS), inductively coupled argon plasma emission spectrometry (ICP), differential pulse anodic stripping voltammetry (DPASV) and neutron activation analysis (NAA). Older publications (Nater 1963; Feuerman 1971; Burrows 1983) used photometric determination of chromate. Detection/quantification-limit table on p. 29 documents per-study LODs from 0.01-1.0 ppm depending on metal and method; the report notes that “in most cases it can be assumed that the lowest values or values which have the sign ’<’ (smaller than) in front, are the quantification limits.” Sample-preparation protocols varied across studies; the report does not standardise basis (wet vs. dry), recovery correction, or speciation. Hexavalent vs trivalent chromium is discussed qualitatively (Sections 3.2.2.3, 4.2.3) but not separated quantitatively in Table 6 — all Cr values are total Cr.

The report also reviews the dermatology literature on ACD epidemiology (Tables 1-2: ~50,000 patch-tested patients across 25+ cohorts, 1967-1988) and animal sensitisation testing (Section 3.3, guinea-pig maximisation and Buehler test summaries) as the hazard-side of the risk assessment, but those are not heavy-metals contamination measurements.

Implications

The compiled mean concentrations of Ni, Co and Cr in modern (1985-1990) European consumer products are typically <1-5 ppm per metal, with the highest values seen in cosmetics-class outliers (mascaras at ~10-14 ppm Ni and 4.5-9 ppm Co) and a single Belgian bleach historical outlier (83 ppm Cr in “Eau de Javel” pre-1976, since reformulated).
The minimum eliciting concentration of ~1 ppm under standardised 48-hour occluded patch testing means trace levels in modern consumer products can elicit reactions in already-sensitised individuals, particularly for leave-on cosmetic categories such as mascara and lipstick where in-use dilution does not apply and contact is prolonged. ECETOC’s dilution-and-occlusion arguments for rinse-off detergents (0.05 ppm Ni at-skin from 5 ppm in 1% detergent solution) do not extend to leave-on products. The report acknowledges this exception (Section 6, p. 33: “where significant levels of transition metal do occur in such products, problems may be expected, as has occurred with eyeshadow and mascara”).
ECETOC frames its ≤1 ppm ultimate-target benchmark for finished consumer products as analogous in intent to the Danish 0.5 µg/cm²/week skin-contact metal-release limit (the basis of the then-pending EU Directive 94/27/EC). The two limits are not numerically equivalent — they regulate concentration in a bulk product and release rate from a metal surface respectively — but ECETOC argues both derive from the same patch-test dermatology literature anchoring an elicitation threshold around ~1 ppm under standardised occluded patch conditions. The wiki treats this as ECETOC’s framing rather than independently verified equivalence.
The report’s framing — that consumer products are “not an important source” of Ni/Co/Cr contact and that regulatory attention should shift to jewellery and metal objects — is an industry-Task-Force advocacy position rather than a neutral toxicological conclusion. The underlying analytical data (Table 6) support that conclusion for rinse-off detergents but do not unambiguously support it for leave-on cosmetic categories or for the small subset of products with outlier Ni or Cr concentrations.
For HMI synthesis purposes, the analytical data in Table 6 provide a pre-1992 European baseline for Ni/Co/Cr in personal-care and household-cleaning products. Modern (post-2010) studies (e.g., Bocca et al., Gnonsoro et al., JETIR 2020, Jang 2024 in the corpus) provide the current view. Note that ECETOC TR 045 reports total Cr; Cr⁶⁺ is the toxicologically relevant species for ACD elicitation and for HMTc analyte vocabulary.
The report does not address ingestion exposure, infant or child populations specifically, or co-exposure with food. It is exclusively a dermal-contact ACD risk assessment for the adult general population.

Limitations

Industry sponsorship. ECETOC is the toxicology arm of the European chemical industry. The Task Force comprised company representatives whose employers are commercial stakeholders in the regulatory outcome. Recommendations frame “current good manufacturing practice” as already sufficient, which serves industry’s regulatory interest. The analytical data themselves are documented at the per-study level and verifiable against the cited primary publications, but the interpretive framing should be treated as an industry-advocacy position requiring external corroboration.
No peer review. ECETOC Technical Reports are published by the consortium without external peer review. They are not equivalent to peer-reviewed journal articles in evidence tier.
Coverage skew. Cosmetics coverage is thin (42 Unilever products as a single aggregate row across 11 categories, plus 2 mascaras). The much more numerous detergent dataset gives a misleading impression that “consumer products” as a class are low in trace metals; for the leave-on cosmetic subset specifically, the data are sparse.
Total Cr only. Cr⁶⁺ vs Cr³⁺ speciation is not separated quantitatively. The report acknowledges that “in modern formulations, trace chromium is often present in the trivalent form and is thus less bioavailable” but provides no analytical data demonstrating that speciation in the products surveyed.
No detection-frequency or below-LOD handling. Means and standard deviations in Table 6 are computed across “all” products in a study without consistent treatment of below-LOD values; comparison across studies is therefore inexact. The report itself warns: “results from different sources cannot always be compared directly because not all investigators used the same analytical method.”
Outlier exclusion. Several rows exclude high-value outliers from the mean (Italian detergents 22.8-25.7 ppm Ni; the 77 ppm Italian hard-surface cleaner). The report defends this on a “could not be reproduced” basis but the rejected values remain in the underlying primary literature.
Date range. Underlying data span 1956-1990. The report is now >30 years old. Modern formulations, regulatory regimes (Cosmetic Products Regulation EC No. 1223/2009; REACH 2006/1907/EC; the Nickel Directive 94/27/EC came into force after this report), supply-chain controls and analytical methods have evolved substantially. Use for historical baseline only.
No exposure dose calculation. The 0.05 ppm at-skin calculation is illustrative and assumes 1% detergent dilution; actual at-skin doses depend on product type, application mode (rinse-off vs leave-on), contact duration, skin condition and bioavailability of the metal species present.

Provenance

Source PDF: raw/manual-fetch/Kimi_Agent_Download Corruption Issue/household_papers/01_AP_Countertop_Tile_Floor/ECETOC_TR045_Ni_Co_Cr_Consumer_Products_1993.pdf
SHA-256: f738b75e7df80254a9784f7fbf6fd4202b498f7cd77dcb297c27f34dea00d6b7
File size: 6.26 MB; 90 numbered pages (front matter pp. i-ii; main text pp. 1-35; tables pp. 36-65; bibliography pp. 67-75; appendices pp. 76-89).
Publisher: European Chemical Industry Ecology and Toxicology Centre (ECETOC), 4 Av. E. Van Nieuwenhuyse (Bte 6), 1160 Brussels, Belgium.
Publication date: March 1992.
ISSN: 0773-8072-45.
DOI: none assigned (pre-DOI-era technical report).
License: © ECETOC 1992, all rights reserved. Copyrighted; not open access. The original ECETOC website now provides PDF download to registered users at https://www.ecetoc.org/publication/tr-045-nickel-cobalt-and-chromium-in-consumer-products-allergic-contact-dermatitis/ ; verify access terms before redistribution.
Access date: 2026-06-02.
Acquisition path: included in Kimi Agent Download Corruption Issue (KADC) folder household_papers/01_AP_Countertop_Tile_Floor/.

Wiki pages this source may touch

nickel — pre-1992 European baseline concentrations in personal-care and household-cleaning products; ACD elicitation threshold of ~1 ppm under occluded patch test.
cobalt — pre-1992 European baseline; co-occurrence with nickel in alloys and consumer products.
chromium — pre-1992 European baseline; trivalent vs hexavalent speciation discussion.
chromium-hexavalent — Cr⁶⁺ specifically: the toxicologically relevant species; chromated-disc release threshold 0.3 µg/cm²/20 min proposed by Wass and Wahlberg 1991.
laundry-detergents — bulk of the Table 6 dataset (washing powders and liquids).
dish-soaps-manual — dishwashing liquids subset.
all-purpose-cleaners — cleaners/scouring agents subset.
bleaching-whitening-additives — bleaches subset, including the 83 ppm Cr “Eau de Javel” historical outlier.
fabric-softeners — textile softeners subset.
shampoo-adult — Lindemayr 1984 dataset (n=8, all <0.01 ppm).
conditioner-adult-rinse-out — included in Unilever cosmetics aggregate.
body-hand-leave-on-skin-care — hand creams (11 Unilever products) in the cosmetics aggregate.
face-neck-leave-on-skin-care — facial wash and creams in the cosmetics aggregate.
facial-cleansers — facial wash subset.
hand-soap — liquid soap subset.
deodorants — 6 stick + 6 aerosol + 3 roll-on Unilever deodorants.
toothpaste — 4 Unilever toothpastes in the cosmetics aggregate.
lipstick — 1 Unilever lipstick in the cosmetics aggregate.
eye-makeup — 2 mascaras (Unilever industry dataset, 1990; Austrian-market sampling) with elevated Ni (9.7 ppm mean) and Co (6.8 ppm mean) relative to other consumer-product categories in Table 6.
makeup-foundation-powders-blush — discussed in §6 (“eyeshadow and mascara” exception to rinse-off dilution argument).
manicuring-preparations-leave-on — 1 Unilever nail varnish in the cosmetics aggregate.
permanent-hair-dyes-tints — 1 Unilever hair dye in the cosmetics aggregate.
leave-on-hair-preparations — leave-on hair products discussed.
household-specialty-cleaners-other — hard-surface cleaner with disputed 77 ppm Ni outlier (Italian market, Nava et al. 1987).
eu-nickel-directive-94-27-ec — the 0.5 µg/cm²/week skin-contact metal-release limit foreshadowed in this report (Section 5, p. 30: “The EC (1991) is preparing a similar Directive”).

Verification notes

Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged D/Mueller 1985 (n=19) detergent row Cr max as 0.6; verified against PDF p. 48 — Cr max for that row is 0.4 (mean 0.4±0.2). The 0.6 Cr max belongs to the second Mueller 1985 row (D 10/2, n=12), which is correctly transcribed. Finding was a false positive; no change applied.
Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged I/Kokelj 1984 detergent row sample size as n=1; verified against PDF p. 48 — n is 7 (a row with n=1 cannot have a mean±SD). Corrected to n=7.
Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged conflation of Feuerman 1971 Cr outlier 21.4 ppm (footnote 11) with Nava 1987 Ni 77 ppm hard-surface-cleaner outlier (Comment to Table 6, p. 51); verified against PDF — these are separate outliers from separate studies and metals. Corrected the footnote-11 annotation and rewrote the Table 6 footnote summary to keep the two outlier sets distinct.
Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged Dishwashing/E/Vilaplana 1987 Cr min as missing (—); verified against PDF p. 49 — Cr min is 0.9 (mean 2.6±1.6, max 4.7). Corrected.
Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged Mascaras row country code as A (Austria), not EU; verified against PDF p. 49 — country code is indeed A with blank p/l column. Corrected.
Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged Cosmetics row Cr min as 1.0, not <1; verified against PDF p. 49 — printed value is 1.0 without the ”<” prefix (the Ni and Co columns clearly carry “<1”). Corrected. Note that mean Cr <0.1 with min 1.0 and max 1.2 is internally surprising but matches the printed table; the two between-15-and-20-ppm Cr outliers in footnote 18 are excluded.
Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged footnote 16 attribution to Ni column in Kokelj+Nava cleaners row; verified against PDF p. 50 — footnote 16 text reads “additional two outliers of the same product 0.23 ppm Cr were found”, which is a Cr-column outlier. The printed table marker placement is ambiguous; corrected the wiki annotation to attribute footnote 16 to the Cr column per the footnote text, with footnote 15 (Ni outlier) attached to the Ni column.
Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged Implications #3 (Danish 0.5 µg/cm²/week vs ECETOC ≤1 ppm parallel) as asserting equivalence in wiki voice; verified that ECETOC’s own framing in Section 5 / Section 7 is what supports the parallel and the two limits are not numerically equivalent. Rewrote the bullet to attribute the parallel to ECETOC’s framing and note that the wiki has not independently verified equivalence.
Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged Mascaras “2 Unilever mascaras” phrasing as borderline brand-attribution; tightened to “2 mascaras (Unilever industry dataset, 1990; Austrian-market sampling)” to make the data-source-attribution framing unambiguous per Part 12 firewall.
Audit also flagged ACD prevalence anchors (Moeller 1990 “one in four women” Swedish quote; cobalt and chromium prevalence trend characterisations) as unverified from the pages re-checked. These remain in the wiki as paraphrases of the ECETOC report’s own narrative summary in Section 3.2.2.4 and Tables 1-2; the quantitative figures are sourced from the cohort-by-cohort rows of Tables 1-2 rather than from a single quote and are not the primary contribution of this source page to HMI (the contamination-data tables are). Flagging for future fact-check pass without altering the paraphrase.

Page history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page. The full version history lives in git; when DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.

Commit	Date	Description
c1aef38	2026-06-02	audit-queue: hamid2021-bacterial-plant-biostimulants-review → audited-promote

Heavy Metal Index

Index