Primary aromatic amines (PAAs) are broadly used as raw materials in the manufacture of chemical materials. Many PAAs have either a proven or suspected carcinogenic nature and are rated as highly toxic, so there are a range of potential health risks, which have led to worldwide regulations. Despite the toxic and carcinogenic nature of PAAs, they are an important feedstock used in the production of many commodity products such as pharmaceuticals, pesticides, explosives, epoxy polymers, rubber, aromatic polyurethane products, and azo dyes.
While not desirable in final products, the presence of PAAs may be due to incomplete reactions, impurities, by-products, or as degradation products. For example, PAAs can be produced as by-products of azo dyes, which are a diverse and extensively used group of organic dyes. Azo dyes are used in special paints, printing inks, varnishes and adhesives, and can be found in many products such as textiles, cosmetics, personal care products, plastics, and also in food contact material.
In order to ensure public safety and product efficacy, the cosmetics and personal care industry is highly regulated. Therefore, manufacturers who use feedstock materials such as PAAs in the production of their products must monitor and quantify various regulated parameters, such as the presence or absence of PAAs.
Many previously used methods for PAA analysis lack robustness, selectivity and sensitivity, and require lengthy, costly, and time-consuming pre-treatments (derivatization, SPE).
This application note describes an accurate, fast, and robust alternative method for the rapid analysis of PAAs in cosmetic and personal care products, using the ACQUITY UPLC H-Class System coupled with the ACQUITY QDa Detector, and controlled by Empower 3 Software.
ACQUITY QDa linked to the ACQUITY UPLC H-Class System provides improved confidence in the identification and quantification of Primary Aromatic Amines (PAAs) in cosmetics and personal care products offering:
Primary aromatic amines (PAAs) have been broadly used in large amounts as a chemical feedstock within the chemical industry. Many PAAs have either a proven or suspected carcinogenic nature and are rated as highly toxic,1,2,3 so there are a range of potential health risks, which have led to worldwide regulations. In the EU Cosmetic Regulations (EC) No 1223/2009,4 many PAAs are prohibited for use in cosmetic products.
Despite the toxic and carcinogenic nature of PAAs, they are an important feedstock used in the production of many commodity products such as pharmaceuticals, pesticides, explosives, epoxy polymers, rubber, aromatic polyurethane products, and azo dyes. While not desirable in final products, the presence of PAAs may be due to incomplete reactions, impurities, by-products, or as degradation products. For example PAAs can be produced as by-products of azo dyes which are a diverse and extensively used group of organic dyes. Azo dyes are used in special paints, printing inks, varnishes and adhesives, and can be found in many products such as textiles, cosmetics, personal care products, plastics, and also in food contact material.
In order to ensure public safety and product efficacy, the cosmetics and personal care industry is highly legislated. Hence, manufacturers who use feedstock materials such as PAAs in the production of their products must monitor and quantify various regulated parameters, such as the presence or absence of PAAs. Previous example methodologies for the analysis of PAAs include:
However, many previously used methods for PAA analysis lack robustness, selectivity and sensitivity, and require lengthy, costly, and time-consuming pre-treatments (derivatization, SPE).
An ideal solution for the cosmetic and personal care industry for the analysis of PAAs, would overcome the limitations of prior methodologies, while ensuring confidence and versatility in order to meet the regulatory requirement.
This application note describes an accurate, fast, and robust alternative method for the rapid analysis of PAAs in cosmetic and personal care products, using Waters ACQUITY UPLC H-Class System coupled with the ACQUITY QDa Detector, and controlled by Empower 3 Software.
LC system: |
ACQUITY UPLC H-Class |
Runtime: |
10.00 min |
Column: |
ACQUITY BEH C18, 1.7 μm, 2.1 x 50 mm |
Column temp.: |
40 °C |
Sample temp.: |
10 °C |
Mobile phase A: |
Water + 0.1% formic acid |
Mobile phase B: |
Methanol + 0.1% formic acid |
Flow rate: |
0.4 mL/min |
Injection volume: |
10.0 μL |
Mobile phase gradient is detailed in Table 1.
Time (min) |
Flow (mL/min) |
%A |
%B |
Curve |
---|---|---|---|---|
Initial |
0.4 |
95 |
5 |
- |
1.00 |
0.4 |
95 |
5 |
6 |
3.10 |
0.4 |
75 |
25 |
6 |
6.10 |
0.4 |
59 |
41 |
6 |
8.00 |
0.4 |
0 |
100 |
6 |
9.00 |
0.4 |
0 |
100 |
6 |
9.01 |
0.4 |
95 |
5 |
6 |
10.00 |
0.4 |
95 |
5 |
6 |
Mass detector: |
ACQUITY QDa |
Ionization mode: |
ESI + |
Capillary voltage: |
0.8 kV |
Probe temp.: |
450 °C |
Acquisition: |
Selected Ion Recording (SIR) |
Cone voltage: |
15 V |
The list of PAAs, associated CAS number, m/z, and expected retention times, are detailed in Table 2.
An ideal solution for the cosmetic and personal care industry for the analysis of PAAs, would overcome the limitations of prior methodologies, while ensuring confidence and versatility in order to meet the regulatory requirement.
This application note describes an accurate, fast, and robust alternative method for the rapid analysis of PAAs in cosmetic and personal care products, using Waters ACQUITY UPLC H-Class System coupled with the ACQUITY QDa Detector, and controlled by Empower 3 Software.
Empower 3 Software was used to control the ACQUITY UPLC H-Class System and the ACQUITY QDa Detector, as well as for data acquisition and quantitation.
Cosmetic and personal care product sample analysis (eyeshadow, blush, shampoo)
Optimum UPLC and SIR conditions were developed, with the elution of all compounds occuring within a 10 minute run. The speed of method development was markedly improved using the ACQUITY QDa Detector instead of UV detection.
Typically during method development, different conditions/parameters are considered such as choice of columns, mobile phases, and gradients. These choices could potentially result in changes to the elution order of the compounds being considered. The peak tracking when using UV detection only would require the analysis of the individual authentic standards in order to confirm the elution order (Rt). However, with mass detection, the movement of chromatographic peaks can easily be followed, and the presence of co-eluting peaks can also be easily identified.
An illustration of the identification of the co-eluting peaks is shown in Figure 1 which shows two PAAs (4,4'-Methylene-Dianiline and 2-Methoxy-5-Methylaniline) that have similar optimum wavelengths.
Mixed calibration standards, over the range of 0.001 µg/mL to 1.0 µg/mL were prepared and analyzed for all the PAAs considered (equivalent range of 0.08 to 80 mg/Kg in the extracted sample, using the developed method, greater with extract dilution). The SIR chromatograms for each PAA are shown in Figure 2.
The SIR mass detection conditions detailed in Table 2 were used after appropriate sample preparation to screen for PAAs in cosmetic and personal care samples.
Samples were fortified at various levels with selected PAAs, then prepared for analysis as described in the Experimental section. The results obtained for shampoo, blush, and eyeshadow are detailed in Tables 3, 4, and 5, and a selection of SIR chromatograms achieved are shown in Figure 3.
Table 3. Shampoo fortified at various levels with aniline. Results quantified against mixed calibration standards.
*Blank corrected recovery data.
Table 4. Blush fortified with various levels of selected PAAs. Results quantified against mixed calibration standards.
*Blank corrected recovery data.
Table 5. Eyeshadow fortified with various levels of selected Primary Aromatic Amines. Results quantified against mixed calibration standards.
*Blank corrected recovery data.
720005355, March 2015