Brazilian hair straightening

Brazilian hair smoothing treatments (also called Brazilian Keratin Treatment, BKT, Brazilian Blowout, Escova Progressiva, Keratin Cure or keratin straightening) are a method used by licensed hair stylists of temporarily smoothing the hair by sealing a liquid keratin and a preservative solution into the hair with a hair iron.

Characteristics

Brazilian hair smoothing treatments eliminate frizz, smooth the hair and last about three months. They cost about $150-$600 depending on the length of your hair. Pioneered in Brazil, these keratin-based treatments are performed on all types of chemically-treated and virgin hair (bleached, hi-lights, coloured, permed, relaxed or previously straightened). The technique of the application is similar to the Japanese Yuko System in the way that heated flat irons are used to close the product into the hair cuticle, yet differ in that these treatments do not permanently alter the bonds of the hair.

These treatments aim to smooth out unruly curls and waves and to reduce frizz. The treatments do not guarantee completely straight hair, although if performed correctly they can reduce between 50 and 80 percent of the curl depending on the original hair texture. Treatments last around 10–12 weeks and repeating the treatment every few months will allow for treatment of new growth. Depending on the treatment used downtime after it is performed ranges from no-wait to a 72 hour period in which the recipient cannot wash or wet the hair, exercise, tuck the hair behind the ears, or pin it up with any hair clip, pony tail holder or headband, as doing so may compromise the result of the treatment.

Alleged health concerns

Concerns over the alleged presence of formaldehyde in various hair smoothing products centers around three issues. The first involves nomenclature. The second issue is the method by which formaldehyde concentration is measured. The third involves measurements of formaldehyde concentration in bottles of the product in which the reported concentration is dependent upon both the method of measurement and nomenclature.

Nomenclature

The Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) is "the most authoritative and comprehensive source for chemical information". In the CAS, formaldehyde and methylene glycol are listed as two different substances with two different CAS registry numbers. Formaldehyde's CAS Number is 50-00-0 and methylene glycol's is 463-57-0. The compounds have two different chemical structures, exist in two different chemical families and exhibit different physical properties. Formaldehyde is a colorless gas with chemical structure HCHO. Methylene glycol, or formaldehyde monohydrate, is a liquid with chemical structure CH4O2. Formaldehyde can be carcinogenic. Methylene glycol is not harmless, and can itself be metabolised by the kidneys to form formaldehyde.

Method of concentration measurement

There are two methods by which formaldehyde concentration is measured. The first is NMR Spectroscopy (13C-NMR), which differentiates between methylene glycol and formaldehyde. The second is the HPLC method, which cannot distinguish between methylene glycol and formaldehyde. Rather than measure the exact amounts of formaldehyde present, HPLC only measures the potential building blocks within methylene glycol that could create formaldehyde in a laboratory process but do not actually do so. HPLC cannot distinguish between formaldehyde originating from the product sample versus that originating from the reactive agent used in the HPLC process. The result is that the HPLC method exaggerates the amount of formaldehyde present in a bulk sample of a hair smoothing product.

Incorrectly reported formaldehyde concentrations

As a result of the improper use of nomenclature and improper testing methods, the presence of formaldehyde in bulk samples of hair smoothing products has been overstated by testing agencies (noted below). By incorrectly considering methylene glycol to be equivalent to formaldehyde, and then testing for methylene glycol using the inferior HPLC method, the results reported for the presence of formaldehyde are rendered unreliable and inaccurate.

Instead, since formaldehyde is a gas and does not exist in liquid form, the relevant issue is not bulk testing, but the exposure levels that exist in the air following a treatment. This is determined by performing air quality monitoring tests.

Controversy regarding Oregon's Occupational Safety & Health Administration Advisory

In September 2010, Oregon's Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) received complaints of difficulty breathing, nose bleeds and eye irritation from stylists in one salon who claimed to have used one such hair treatment as directed. Oregon OSHA conducted air sampling in salons during this product's treatments. The 8-hour average exposures ranged from 0.006 parts per million (ppm) to 0.33, below the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.75ppm. The short-term exposures ranged from 0.11ppm to 1.88ppm, also below the Short Term Exposure Limit of 2.0ppm.

HPLC tests on batches of this product from three different Oregon hair salons allegedly determined that there were high levels of formaldehyde. Oregon OSHA subsequently broadened their warning to include other hair-smoothing products, particularly those described as “keratin-based,” and said employers should take steps to protect their workers, while still relying on improper testing and nomenclature methods.

On November 22, 2010, Oregon OSHA received a letter from an independent scientist reiterating that Oregon OSHA utilized improper nomenclature and testing methods.

One manufacturer responded by issuing a statement to Good Morning America in which it accused Oregon's Occupational Safety & Health Administration of gross negligence because OSHA violated the proper testing protocol by using HPLC rather than using NMR Spectroscopy and using incorrect nomenclature, thereby invalidating the findings. It subsequently filed suit against Oregon OSHA. In the lawsuit, the manufacturer maintains that their products, when used as directed, fall well below the federally mandated Action Level (AL), Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), and Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) safety levels. They released their own Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

Other studies

HSA study shows exposure within limits

On Friday, October 15, 2010, Health Science Associates monitored air in a salon over eight hours, during which time the product in question was used for treatments. The company announced that the formaldehyde gas in the air was within federal OSHA's permissible exposure limit.

University study shows exposure within limits

On October 23, 2011, a study conducted by Dr. James Haw, director of the Environmental Studies Program and Ray R. Irani, Chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corp. and Professor of Chemistry at the University of Southern California, showed that at no point during two of the manufacturer's hair smoothing treatments did the air quality formaldehyde value exceed 0.160 parts per million for the STEL analysis, well below OSHA’s STEL of 2 parts per million. OSHA’s PEL standard is 0.75 parts per million. In Dr. Haw’s study the PEL measurement never exceeded 0.052 parts per million.

Federal air sampling tests

In Federal OSHA air monitoring studies, when the manufacturer's product was used as directed, it passed all air quality tests with regards to the federally mandated Action Level (AL), Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), and Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) safety levels.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Report

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on October 8, 2010 that it "was working with state and local organizations, as well as OSHA, to determine whether the products or ingredients would be likely to cause health problems under the intended conditions of use. The composition of the products and the labeling, including use instructions and any warning statements, will be factors in this determination. One safety issue we’ll be evaluating is whether formaldehyde may be released into the air after the product is applied to the hair and heated."

On August 22, 2011, the FDA issued its first warning letter to this same manufacturer, telling the company to stop labeling its products as formaldehyde-free, which it considers misleading, and stating that its products are "misbranded" and "adulterated."

The manufacturer responded with a ten-page letter to the FDA, challenging the FDA's assertions that the product was not adulterated because it did not contain formaldehyde, but methylene glycol, and that the FDA was also relying on incorrect nomenclature methods. Therefore, the product was not misbranded because it was, in fact, formaldehyde-free. However, the company voluntarily altered its label to remove the claim that the product was formaldehyde-free, saying it "is committed to ensuring that its products comply with all applicable legal and regulatory standards and seeks to partner with the FDA to achieve this result".