Talk:Methylisothiazolinone

Untitled

CMIT(MCIT) appears to be much more toxic than MIT. This is probably due to increased penetration rather than distinct reactive properties (Cafeturco (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Many of the references (e.g. the Lancet article, the British Journal of Dermatology article, & others) were done with methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone blends and are therefore invalid when discussing MIT alone! For a comparison of MCIT vs. MIT see "An assessment of the comparative sensitization potential of some common isothiazolinones", Contact Dermatitis, 2002, 46, 191-196. MIT is an order of magnitute less sensitizing than MCIT. Senecherub (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fewings J, Menne T An update of the risk assessment for methylchloroisothiazolinone methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) with focus on rinse-off products CONTACT DERMATITIS 41 (1): 1-13 JUL 1999

Methylisothiazolinone, A Neurotoxic Biocide, Disrupts the Association of Src Family Tyrosine Kinases K He, J Huang, CF Lagenaur, E Aizenman - Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 2006

The Functional Group section sounds like pure BS to me... If someone truly wants to explain how the functional groups assist in MIT's antibacterial properties, they should put up a more exact mechanism, for example "MIT forms a thioester bond with protein X at position Y, and disables it, killing the bacteria". This, just like the current section, is pure speculation, but at least it's more detailed, rather than the hand-wavey version up now. I would really like to just erase the whole section, but that would likely be reverted by a RC patroller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.228.48 (talk • contribs) --Leyo 09:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong sensitizer

This article is EXTREMELY biased. The section on human health mostly contains the denials of the health risks by the consumer products industry. Inclusion of this product in consumer products is causing an epidemic of contact dermatitis. Kathon is such a strong sensitizer that it's difficult to patch test patients safely because just exposure to the patch can cause dermatitis: http://www.mendeley.com/research/contact-allergy-preservative-kathon-cg/. A review of the science regarding this fact should be included in the article for example: http://journals.lww.com/dermatitis/Abstract/1990/09000/Methylisothiazolinone_Methylchloroisothiazolinone.3.aspx. The literature is full of articles about this:http://www.mendeley.com/research-papers/search/?query=kathon+sensitization. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

Much content should move to Isothiazolinone article

Isothiazolinone is sparse and would benefit from the 'other Isothiazolinones' section here. - Rod57 (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph should rather go to a new article on DCOI (see other languages). --Leyo 10:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Methylisothiazolinone/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The overall discussion on the possible adverse effects of this and related compounds is now balanced. It is imperative than an open and science-based discussion continues of safety concerns regarding these substances. Cafeturco 14:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 23:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)