### Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services 

### For Table of Contents, see home page: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc13


## Formaldehyde

CAS No. 50-00-0
Known to be a human carcinogen
First listed in the Second Annual Report on Carcinogens(1981)

H 2 C = O 

### Carcinogenicity Formaldehyde is known to be a human carcinogen based on suffi

cient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans and sup

porting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Formaldehyde was first listed in the Second Annual Report on Carcinogens in 1981 as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence from studies in experimental animals. Since that time, ad

ditional cancer studies in humans have been published, and the list

ing status was changed to known to be a human carcinogen in the Twelfth Report on Carcinogens(2011).

Cancer Studies in Humans Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a causal relationship be

tween exposure to formaldehyde and cancer in humans. Causality is indicated by consistent findings of increased risks of nasopharyngeal cancer, sinonasal cancer, and lymphohematopoietic cancer, specifi

cally myeloid leukemia among individuals with higher measures of ex

posure to formaldehyde (exposure level or duration), which cannot be explained by chance, bias, or confounding. The evidence for nasopha

ryngeal cancer is somewhat stronger than that for myeloid leukemia. Numerous epidemiological studies have evaluated the relationship between exposure to formaldehyde and cancer risk, including (1) co

hort and nested case-control studies of industrial workers, (2) cohort and nested case-control studies of professional groups such as pa

thologists, funeral directors, or embalmers, and (3) population-basedcohort and case-control studies. The most informative occupationbased studies are the National Cancer Institute (NCI) cohort of over 25,000 men and women who worked at companies that used or pro

duced formaldehyde (Hauptmann et al. 2003, 2004, Beane Freeman et al. 2009) and the NCI nested case-control study of lymphohema

topoietic cancer in embalmers (Hauptmann et al. 2009), because these are the only studies that evaluated quantitative exposure-response relationships. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde has also been evaluated in two other large cohort studies: (1) a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cohort study of over 11,000 male and female garment workers, which evaluated risks of cancer at a few selected tissue sites by time since first exposure (la

tency), exposure duration, and year of first exposure (Pinkerton et al. 2004), and (2) a British cohort study of over 14,000 male chemi

cal workers, which evaluated cancer risks by classification of workers as “ever exposed” or “highly exposed” (Coggon et al. 2003). In addi

tion, occupational exposure has been evaluated in numerous smaller cohort studies. Most of the studies, including all of the large cohort studies and the studies of professional groups, reported cancer mor

tality. For types of cancer with higher survival rates, such as lympho

hematopoietic cancer, studies reporting mortality are less informative than studies reporting incidence, because mortality studies will miss cases of cancer that do not result in death. For evaluating rare types of cancer, such as nasopharyngeal andsinonasal cancer, the collective body of population- and occupationbased case-control studies is more informative than the cohort stud

ies. Particularly useful are the pooled analyses of 12 case-control studies of sinonasal cancer by Luce et al. (2002) and the populationbased case-control study by Vaughan et al . (2000) evaluating differenthistological subtypes of nasopharyngeal cancer. In general, metaanalyses and smaller occupational cohort studies have limited utility for cancer assessment, because they only reported risks for workers “ever exposed” and could not evaluate exposure-response relation

ships. However, the meta-analysis for lymphohematopoietic cancers by Zhang et al . (2009) is more informative because it used data for individuals with the highest exposure to formaldehyde to calculate the summary relative risks.
Nasopharyngeal Cancer Nasopharyngeal cancer is a rare cancer, with an annual incidence ofless than 1 per 100,000 in most parts of the world. Therefore, casecontrol studies are most useful for evaluation of nasopharyngeal cancer risk. Histological subtypes of nasopharyngeal cancer include differentiated keratinizing squamous-cell carcinoma, differentiated non-keratinizing carcinoma, and undifferentiated non-keratinizing carcinoma. In southern China and some parts of Southeast Asia and Northern Africa, nasopharyngeal cancer is endemic, with a higher proportion of non-keratinizing and undifferentiated subtypes than in low-risk areas (Vaughan et al. 1996, Bray et al. 2008). Differenti

ated keratinizing squamous-cell carcinoma has been associated with chemical exposures, such as alcohol consumption and tobacco smok

ing, whereas non-keratinizing subtypes are more strongly associated with Epstein-Barr virus and familial history (which can be related to genetic susceptibility and/or common environmental factors). Stud

ies on nasopharyngeal cancer and formaldehyde exposure have been conducted in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Evidence that formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal cancer comes from (1)  consistent findings of increased risk among indi

viduals with the highest formaldehyde exposure in numerous casecontrol studies (Vaughan et al. 1986, 2000, Roush et al. 1987, West et al. 1993, Hildesheim et al . 2001), (2) excess cancer mortality asso

ciated with formaldehyde exposure in the NCI cohort of industrial workers (Hauptmann et al. 2004), and (3) findings of positive expo

sure-response relationships in a large multi-center case-control study (Vaughan et al . 2000) and in the NCI cohort (Hauptmann et al . 2004). The multi-center case-control study by Vaughan et al. (2000) is especially informative, because it had the largest number of cancer cases in formaldehyde-exposed individuals, and the analysis was strat

ified by histological subtype and used several different measures of exposure to evaluate risk. In this study, formaldehyde exposure was associated with differentiated squamous-cell carcinoma and unspec

ified subtypes of nasopharyngeal cancer, but not with non-keratiniz

ing and undifferentiated subtypes. The risk of nasopharyngeal cancer (differentiated squamous-cell carcinoma and unspecified subtypes) increased significantly with increasing cumulative exposure (P trend= 0.033), duration of exposure (P trend= 0.014), and probability of ex

posure (possible, probable, or definite). The odds ratio (OR) was 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0 to 2.8, 61 exposed cases) for pos

sible, probable, or definite exposure, increasing to 2.1 (95% CI = 1.1 to 4.2, 27 exposed cases) for probable or definite exposure, and 13.3 (95% CI = 2.5 to 70, 10 exposed cases) for definite exposure. Other studies also found the highest risks of nasopharyngeal can

cer for individuals with the highest formaldehyde exposure levels (as

sessed as cumulative exposure, exposure level, or exposure score) (Vaughan et al. 1986, Roush et al. 1987) and/or longest exposure durations (Vaughan et al. 1986, West et al . 1993 [after lagging ex

posures for 10 years]). Risks were also significantly elevated for in

dividuals with longer time since first exposure (West et al . 1993) or who died at an older age (Roush et al. 1987); risk was increased four

fold for individuals who died after the age of 68 and were probably

### Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services 2 e xposed to high levels of formaldehyde for at least 20 years before death. The associations between formaldehyde exposure and naso

pharyngeal cancer remained after adjustment for or consideration of potential confounding by tobacco smoking (Vaughan et al. 1986, 2000, West et al. 1993, Hildesheim et al. 2001) or by exposure to wood dust (West et al. 1993, Vaughan et al . 2000, Hildesheim et al. 2001). Not all of the estimates of increased risk were statistically signifi

cant, and some studies (Armstrong et al. 2000, Li et al . 2006, Haupt

mann et al. 2009) did not find an association between formaldehyde exposure and nasopharyngeal cancer. However, most of these stud

ies were limited by small numbers of individuals exposed to formal

dehyde. The overall consistency of the findings argues against their being attributable to chance. Excess mortality from nasopharyngeal cancer was found in the NCI cohort of industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde (stan

dardized mortality ratio [SMR] = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.05 to 4.21). Rela

tive risk increased with increasing cumulative exposure ( P trend= 0.025 across exposed subjects), peak exposure (P trend < 0.001), and average exposure (P trend = 0.066) (Hauptmann et al . 2004). Of the 7 exposed workers who died of nasopharyngeal cancer, all were in the highest peak-exposure category, and 6 were in the highest average-exposure category. Controlling for co-exposure to 11 potential occupational carcinogens and for plant did not alter the exposure-response rela

tionships for nasopharyngeal cancer. Although the cohort included workers in 10 plants, most of the cases of nasopharyngeal cancer oc

curred in workers in the plant with the largest numbers of workers in the highest formaldehyde exposure category; 46% of workers at Plant 1 were in the highest peak-exposure category, compared with 20.1% of workers in all other plants (Stewart et al. 1990, Marsh and Youk 2005). A nested case-control study of nasopharyngeal cancer among workers in Plant 1 found a significantly elevated risk for ever having worked in silversmithing jobs before or after employment at Plant 1; however, silversmithing was not correlated with formalde

hyde exposure levels at this plant and therefore was not a confound

ing factor for formaldehyde exposure (Marsh et al. 2007). No excesses of nasopharyngeal cancer mortality were found in the other large cohort studies (Coggon et al. 2003, Pinkerton et al. 2004); however, the statistical power of these studies was inadequate to evaluate the risks of rare types of cancer.

Sinonasal Cancer Sinonasal cancer is a rare cancer, with an annual incidence of about 1 per 100,000, and case-control studies therefore are most useful for evaluation of risk. Sinonasal cancer includes cancers of the parana

sal sinus and the nasal cavity; the two major histological types are adenocarcinoma and squamous-cell carcinoma. The evidence that formaldehyde exposure causes sinonasal cancer comes from consistent findings of increased risk in population-based case-control studies (Olsen et al. 1984, Olsen and Asnaes 1986, Hayes et al. 1986, Roush et al. 1987, Luce et al. 1993) and a pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies (Luce et al. 2002) that found an excess of sinonasal cancer. In most studies, estimates of increased risk were statistically significant for individuals ever exposed to formaldehyde, or with higher probabilities or levels of exposure (Olsen et al. 1984, Olsen and Asnaes 1986, Hayes et al. 1986, Luce et al. 1993, 2002). Elevated risks were observed for both adenocarcinoma and squamous-cell carcinoma; however, some studies suggested that ade

nocarcinoma was more strongly associated with formaldehyde expo

sure than was squamous-cell carcinoma (Luce et al . 1993, 2002). The pooled analysis (which included studies by Hayes et al. 1986, Vaughan et al . 1986, and Luce et al. 1993) was especially informative for eval

u ating sinonasal cancer, because it had greater statistical power for evaluating risks of rare cancers than did the individual studies, and it used an independent exposure analysis to assess cumulative expo

sure, rather than relying on the exposure estimates from the original studies. In the pooled analysis, the relative risk of adenocarcinoma increased with increasing cumulative exposure; the odds ratios for individuals with high cumulative exposure were 3.0 (95% CI = 1.5 to 5.7, 91 exposed cases) for men and 6.2 (95% CI = 2.0 to 19.7, 5 ex

posed cases) for women. Support for a positive exposure-response re

lationship also comes from a case-control study in France that found higher risks of sinonasal cancer (adenocarcinoma) among individuals with higher average exposure levels and earlier dates of first exposure (Luce et al . 1993) and from a case-control study in the Netherlands that found a significantly (P < 0.05) higher relative risk of all sino

nasal cancer or squamous-cell carcinoma among individuals with “high” exposure than those with “low” exposure (Hayes et al. 1986). Although co-exposure to wood dust is a potential confounding factor for sinonasal cancer, and specifically for adenocarcinoma, in

creased risk of sinonasal cancer associated with formaldehyde ex

posure has been found among individuals with little or no exposure to wood dust or after adjustment for wood-dust exposure (Olsen et al. 1984, Hayes et al. 1986, Olsen and Asnaes 1986). Some studies suggested that co-exposure to formaldehyde and wood dust had an interactive (synergistic) carcinogenic effect (Luce et al. 1993, 2002). Two case-control studies did not find an association between formal

dehyde exposure and sinonasal cancer; however, one study included only 12 cases of sinonasal cancer in exposed individuals (Vaughan et al . 1986), and the other had methodological limitations (Pesch et al. 2008). In the cohort studies of industrial workers (including stud

ies of the large NCI, NIOSH, and British cohorts) and professional groups, the statistical power to detect an association between form

aldehyde exposure and sinonasal cancer was limited. Nonetheless, a statistically significant excess of sinonasal cancer incidence was found among Danish male workers exposed to formaldehyde and who were unlikely to have been exposed to wood dust (Hansen and Olsen 1995, 1996), and a nonsignificant excess of mortality from si

nonasal cancer was found in the NCI cohort. No excess mortality from sinonasal cancer was found in the other cohort studies; how

ever, the statistical power of these studies was inadequate to evalu

ate the risks of types of cancer.
Lymphohematopoietic Cancer Evidence that demonstrates an association between formaldehyde exposure and combined lymphohematopoietic cancer is as follows: (1) in the NCI cohort of industrial workers, risk was significantly higher for the highest peak-exposure group than the lowest peak-ex

posure group, and a positive exposure-response relationship based on peak exposure was found (Beane Freeman et al . 2009), (2) in

creased risks were found in all of the cohort studies of professional groups (NTP 2010), and (3) a significant risk was reported (relative risk [RR] = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.39) in the meta-analysis by Zhang et al. (2009). In the NCI cohort study of industrial workers, the risks of Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma also were significantly higher among individuals with the highest peak exposure than those with the lowest peak exposure, and a positive exposure-response re

lationship was found for Hodgkin lymphoma (Beane Freeman et al

. 2009). The other studies gave conflicting results for these two types of cancer. In the meta-analyses by Zhang et al . (2009), a significant as

sociation was found for multiple myeloma, but not for Hodgkin lym

phoma. Because the evidence for these two types of cancer is mainly limited to the NCI cohort study, a causal association is not established. Increased risks for leukemia (all types combined) were found in all of the professional studies and some of the industrial cohort studies

### Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services 3 (NTP 2010). Among studies that evaluated subtypes of lymphohema

topoietic cancer or leukemia, the strongest associations were ob

served for myeloid leukemia. For example, in the nested case-control study of embalmers (Hauptman et al. 2009), the excess risk of nonlymphoid lymphohematopoietic cancer was explained by a strong as

sociation with myeloid cancer, and in other studies, the magnitudes of the effect estimates were higher for myeloid leukemia than for all leukemia or other subtypes of leukemia (Pinkerton et al. 2004, Beane Freeman et al. 2009, NTP 2010). The most informative studies for evaluation of the risk of my

eloid leukemia are the large cohort studies of industrial workers (the NCI, NIOSH, and British cohorts) and the NCI nested case-control study of lymphohematopoietic cancer in embalmers. Three of these four studies found elevated risks of myeloid leukemia among indi

viduals with high exposure to formaldehyde, as well as positive ex

posure-response relationships. Confounding is unlikely to explain these increased risks, because there was no evidence of potential confounding in the individual studies, and the increased risks were observed for workers in different industries and occupations (work

ers at formaldehyde-producing companies, garment workers, and embalmers). Both the NCI cohort study of industrial workers and the nested case-control study of myeloid leukemia in embalmers found positive exposure-response relationships between myeloid leukemia and peak formaldehyde exposure level. In the study of embalmers, relative risk also increased with increasing duration of employment in embalm

ing (P trend= 0.020) and with increasing average exposure level (P trend= 0.058), in addition to increasing peak exposure level (P trend= 0.036). In analyses using a comparison group of funeral directors with fewer than 500 lifetime embalmings, significantly elevated risks of myeloid leukemia (adjusted for smoking) were found among workers with lon

gest duration of employment in embalming (OR = 3.9, 95% CI = 1.2 to 12.5, P = 0.024) and the highest cumulative exposure to formaldehyde (OR = 3.1, 95% CI = 1.0 to 9.6, P = 0.047). In addition, elevated risk estimates of borderline statistical significance were found for those who had performed the largest numbers of embalmings (OR = 3.0, 95% CI = 1.0 to 9.2, P = 0.057). In a 1994 update of the NCI cohort study (based on reanalyses that included additional deaths and recod

ing of deaths), risk was significantly higher for the highest category of peak exposure (RR = 2.79, 95% CI = 1.08 to 7.21) than for the low

est exposure category, and risk increased with increasing peak expo

sure (P trend= 0.02) (Beane Freeman et al . 2009). In a 2004 follow-up study, elevated risk estimates were still observed, but the magnitude of the association between formaldehyde exposure and myeloid leu

kemia decreased as time since the last known exposure increased to at least 24 years. This pattern is consistent with a follow-up period longer than the optimal latency period for cancer, as has been seen with other leukemia-inducing agents (Silver et al. 2002). Controlling for co-exposure to 11 potential occupational carcinogens did not al

ter the findings for myeloid leukemia. In the NIOSH cohort study of garment workers, elevated risks of death from myeloid leukemia were found for all workers and for subgroups of workers with the highest exposure or longest latency. SMRs were highest among workers with longer exposure duration (≥ 10 years), longer time since first exposure (≥ 20 years), or earlier year of first exposure (before 1963, when exposure levels were higher). In an analysis that included all causes of death listed on the death certificate (rather than just the underlying cause), the risk of death from myeloid leukemia was significantly increased for workers who had been exposed for at least 10 years (SMR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.02 to 4.25, 9 deaths) and was concentrated among workers with time since first exposure of at least 20 years who had been exposed for at least 10 years (SMR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.10 to 5.03, 8 deaths) (Pinkerton et al

. 2004). In the large cohort of British chemical workers, no increased risk of leukemia was found for formaldehyde exposure. However, thisstudy did not evaluate myeloid leukemia specifically, and exposureresponse analyses were limited; exposure was assessed as “high” or “ever,” and the assessment was not calendar-year-specific (Coggon et al . 2003). Only one case-control study reported specific findings for myeloid leukemia; an excess risk was found for chronic (but notacute) myeloid leukemia, based on small numbers of formaldehydeexposed individuals with leukemia (Blair et al. 2001). Although several meta-analyses have been published, none has included the nested case-control study of myeloid leukemia among embalmers by Hauptmann et al. (2009). The most informative metaanalysis (Zhang et al. 2009) found a significantly elevated risk of my

eloid leukemia (summary RR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.31 to 2.76, P = 0.001) across studies using risk estimates, when available, for workers with the highest formaldehyde exposure. A meta-analysis by Bachand et al

. (2010) did not find a significantly elevated risk of myeloid leukemia (summary RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.40); however, this analysis did not include the proportionate-mortality cohort studies (studies that compared the proportions of deaths between the study popula

tion and a reference population), which reported increased risks of myeloid leukemia. Bosetti et al . (2008) found an elevated risk of leu

kemia across studies of professional groups but not across studies of industrial workers. This finding is consistent with observations that embalmers have longer duration of exposure and higher cumulative exposure and are more likely to be exposed to peak exposure levels greater than 4 ppm than are industrial workers, and that cancer risk is associated with peak levels of exposure to formaldehyde (Haupt

mann et al. 2009).

Cancer at Other Tissue Sites The association between formaldehyde exposure and cancer at other tissue sites is weaker than for nasal or lymphohematopoietic cancer (see NTP 2010 for a review of the studies). Increased risks of head and neck cancers (of the buccal cavity, pharynx, larynx, or combina

tions of these sites) were observed in many of the cohort and casecontrol studies, but most were not statistically significant, and there were no consistent findings of higher risk among the individuals with the highest exposure levels. An excess of brain cancer mortality was found in all studies of professional groups, but not in the cohort stud

ies of industrial workers, and no positive exposure-response relation

ship was found in the NCI nested case-control study of brain cancer among embalmers. Findings for lung cancer were inconsistent, and the data were inadequate to evaluate the association between form

aldehyde exposure and cancer at other tissue sites.
Cancer Studies in Experimental Animals There is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde from studies in experimental animals. Formaldehyde caused tumors in two rodent species, at several different tissue sites, and by two dif

ferent routes of exposure. Long-term inhalation exposure to formal

dehyde caused nasal tumors, both benign (polypoid adenoma) and malignant (predominantly squamous-cell carcinoma but also adeno

carcinoma and carcinoma) in male and female F344 rats (Kerns et al. 1983, Monticello et al. 1996, Kamata et al. 1997), male SpragueDawley rats (Sellakumar et al. 1985), and male B6C3F 1 mice (Kerns et al. 1983). Nasal tumors were also observed after short-term exposure (13 weeks) in male Wistar rats (Feron et al. 1988). Although the in

creased incidences of nasal tumors in mice and in the short-exposure study in rats were not statistically significant, they were considered to be biologically significant because of the rarity of this type of tumor.

### Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services 4 Long-term exposure of adult rats to formaldehyde in drinking water caused benign tumors of the forestomach (squamous-cell papilloma) in male Wistar rats (Takahashi et al. 1986) and testes (interstitial-cell adenoma) (Soffritti et al. 2002, statistics reported in IARC 2006) in male Sprague-Dawley rats. Increased incidences of intestinal tumors (primarily leiomyosarcoma, which are rare malig

nant tumors of the muscle of the intestine) were observed in female Sprague-Dawley rats exposed to formaldehyde in utero starting on gestational day 13 and throughout life via the drinking water (Sof

fritti et al. 1989, statistics reported in IARC 2006). Leiomyosarcomaof the stomach and intestines was also observed in the formaldehydeexposed groups, but not the concurrent control groups (untreated animals and control animals given methanol), in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed as adults. Although the findings were not statistically significant, they are of concern because of the rarity of these tumors. Hemolymphoreticular tumors (combined types) in rats of both sexes also were significantly increased after long-term exposure of adults; however, it is unclear whether these tumors were exposure-related, because of limitations in the reporting of these tumors (Soffritti et al. 2002, IARC 2006). In tumor promotion and co-carcinogenicity studies, formaldehyde was shown to promote tumors of the stom

ach and lung in rats (NTP 2010).

Other Relevant Data Formaldehyde exposure occurs from both endogenous and exoge

nous sources. It is rapidly absorbed after inhalation and oral exposure; however, it is poorly absorbed via the skin (NTP 2010). The half-life of formaldehyde in the plasma of rats and monkeys is about 1 to 1.5 minutes (McMartin et al . 1979, IARC 2006). Differences in breath

ing patterns across species may affect differences in absorption and distribution. In rats, almost all inhaled formaldehyde is absorbed in the nasal passage, whereas in primates, some absorption occurs in the trachea and proximal regions of the major bronchi (Chang et al. 1983, Heck et al. 1983, Monticello et al. 1989, Casanova et al. 1991). The metabolism of formaldehyde is similar in all mammalian species studied (IARC 2006). Although pure formaldehyde is a gas at room temperature, it hydrates rapidly and is in equilibrium with its hy

drated form, methanediol (Fox 1985); at room and body temperatures, the dominant form is methanediol. Formaldehyde is rapidly metab

olized by glutathione-dependent formaldehyde dehydrogenase (also known as alcohol dehydrogenase 5, ADH5) and S-formyl-glutathione hydrolase to formic acid, which enters the one-carbon pool and can be either excreted in the urine or oxidized to carbon dioxide and ex

haled. ADH5 has been detected in all human tissues at all stages of development, from embryo through adult (Thompson et al. 2009). Although formaldehyde is rapidly metabolized, it is an electrophile that reacts with a variety of endogenous molecules, including gluta

thione, proteins, nucleic acids, and folic acid (NTP 2010).
Studies on Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis The mechanisms by which formaldehyde causes cancer are not com

pletely understood and most likely involve several modes of action. Formaldehyde exposure is associated with key events related to car

cinogenicity, such as DNA reactivity, gene mutation, chromosomal breakage, aneuploidy, epigenetic effects (binding to lysine residuesof histones), glutathione depletion, oxidative stress, and cytotoxicityinduced cellular proliferation (Lu et al. 2008, Guyton et al. 2009, NTP 2010). Understanding of the mechanisms is more advanced for nasal tumors than for lymphohematopoietic cancer. There is evidence for a genotoxic mode of action for both types of cancer. Formaldehyde is a direct-acting genotoxic compound and has given positive results for almost all genetic end points evaluated in bacteria, yeast, fungi, plants, insects, nematodes, and cultured mammalian cells. It caused base-pair gene mutations in Salmonella typhimurium and DNA ad

ducts, DNA-protein crosslinks, DNA-DNA crosslinks, DNA singlestrand breaks, unscheduled DNA synthesis, inhibition of DNA repair, gene mutations, cell transformation, and cytogenetic effects (sister chromatid exchange, chromosomal aberrations, and micronucleus formation) in cultured mammalian cells (NTP 2010). It was also geno

toxic in experimental animals and humans exposed in vivo (discussed below). There is some evidence to suggest that the Fanconi anemia complementation group (BRCA/FANC) response pathway may be important in the prevention of DNA damage from formaldehyde exposure (Zhang et al . 2010a). Cells deficient in FANC genes were hypersensitive to formaldehyde exposure and had increased frequen

cies of micronuclei and cancer (Speit et al. 2000, Ridpath et al . 2007).

Nasal Cancer Mechanistic studies in humans and experimental animals support the findings that formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal and sinona

sal cancer in humans. Formaldehyde causes genetic damage to the nasal tissues of both experimental animals and humans exposed by inhalation. DNA-protein crosslinks were detected in the nasal mu

cosa of rats exposed to formaldehyde (Casnaova et al. 1989, 1994, NTP 2010) and in the nasal turbinates (Heck et al. 1989, Casanova et al. 1991) and the respiratory tract (larynx, trachea, carina, and bronchi) (Casanova et al. 1991) of rhesus monkeys exposed to form

aldehyde, which correspond to the observed tumor sites in humans (nasal and nasopharyngeal). In dose-response studies in rats, DNA crosslinks were correlated with tumor incidence (Liteplo and Meek 2003). DNA-protein crosslinks were also correlated with the sever

ity and anatomical location of proliferative nasal lesions in rhesus monkeys (Casanova et al. 1991). N 2 -hydroxmethyl-deoxyguanosine (dG) DNA monoadducts and dG-dG crosslinks were found in rat na

sal mucosa (Lu et al. 2010). Mutations in the p53 tumor-suppressor gene (at G:C base pairs) were found in formaldehyde-induced nasal squamous-cell carcinomas in rats, and all of the identified codon mu

tations have also been found in human cancers (Recio et al. 1992). In humans, formaldehyde exposure was associated with higher levels of serum p53 protein (wild-type and mutant p53 protein), and serum p53 protein levels were positively correlated with mutant p53 protein levels. Higher levels of DNA-protein crosslinks in lymphocytes were significantly associated with increased risk of higher serum p53 levels (Shaham et al. 2003). However, p53 mutations were not observed in rat nasal mucosa exposed to formaldehyde for 13 weeks, suggesting that they may be a later event in the progression of cancer (Meng et al. 2010). Numerous studies of industrial workers and professional groups exposed to formaldehyde found that formaldehyde exposure increased the frequency of micronuclei in the nasal epithelium and buccal epithelium (Ballarin et al. 1992, Suruda et al. 1993, TitenkoHolland et al. 1996, Kitaeva et al. 1996, Ying et al . 1997, Burgaz et al. 2001, 2002, Ye et al . 2005). Inhalation-exposure studies in experimental animals have shown that airway deposition and cytotoxicity-induced cellular prolifera

tion also are important factors in the carcinogenicity of formalde

hyde to nasal cells. In rats, regional formaldehyde flux (as estimated by computational fluid dynamic models) was correlated with the an

atomical distribution of formaldehyde-induced lesions (squamous metaplasia) (Kimbell et al. 1997) and DNA-protein crosslinks (Hu

bal et al . 1997). Inhalation of formaldehyde by rodents causes cyto

toxicity of the respiratory epithelium (rhinitis, epithelial dysplasia, and squamous metaplasia) (Chang et al. 1983, Monticello et al . 1991, 1996), which can result in cellular proliferation and the promotion of chemically induced or spontaneous mutations. Cellular proliferation

### Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services 5 has been shown to be correlated with local nasal tumor incidence (Monticello et al . 1989, 1996). Formaldehyde exposure also causes cytotoxicity and cellular proliferation at anatomical sites that are not thought to be the origin of the squamous-cell carcinoma, suggesting that factors other than cellular proliferation play a role in formalde

hyde-induced nasal cancers (Monticello et al. 1991).

Leukemia Lymphohematopoietic cancers are a heterogeneous group of cancers that arise from damage to stem cells during hematopoietic and lym

phoid development (Greaves 2004). Blood cells arise from a common stem cell, which forms two progenitor cells, the common myeloid stem cell and the common lymphoid stem cell. Most agents known to cause leukemia are thought to do so by directly damaging stem cells in the bone marrow. In order for a stem cell to become malignant, it must acquire genetic mutations and genomic instability (Zhang et al. 2010a). Because formaldehyde is highly reactive and rapidly metab

olized, a key question is how it can reach the bone marrow or cause toxicity or genotoxicity at distal sites. The endogenous concentra

tion in the blood of humans, monkeys, and rats is about 2 to 3 μg/g, and the concentration does not increase after inhalation of formalde

hyde from exogenous sources (Heck et al . 1985, Casanova et al . 1988, Heck and Casanova et al . 2004). Moreover, N 2 -hydroxymethyl-dG– DNA adducts have not been detected at distal sites in rats (such as the bone marrow, white blood cells, lung, spleen, liver, or thymus) (Lu et al . 2010). For these reasons, the plausibility of formaldehyde’s causing cancer at distal sites, such as myeloid leukemia, has been questioned (Golden et al . 2006, Pyatt et al . 2008). However, systemic effects have been observed after inhalation or oral exposure, and although the mechanisms by which formalde

hyde causes myeloid leukemia in humans are not known, a number of plausible mechanisms have been advanced. These include (1) the

oretical mechanisms for the distribution of formaldehyde to distal sites and (2) proposed mechanisms of leukemogenesis that do not require formaldehyde to reach the bone marrow. In addition, there is some evidence that formaldehyde causes adverse hematological effects in humans.
Systemic Effects Observed After Inhalation or Oral Exposure Serum levels of formaldehyde-albumin adducts were significantly higher in laboratory workers exposed to high levels of formaldehyde than in workers exposed at lower levels (Pala et al . 2008). In addi

tion, levels of formaldehyde-DNA adducts in leukocytes were sig

nificantly higher in smokers than in nonsmokers; however, it is not known whether the source of the adducts was formaldehyde in to

bacco smoke or from metabolism of a tobacco-specific compound (Wang et al. 2009). Numerous studies in humans and experimen

tal animals have demonstrated that inhaled formaldehyde can cause toxicity, genotoxicity, and cancer at distal sites. In humans, formal

dehyde exposure has been associated with (1) hematological toxicity(see below), (2) genotoxic damage in lymphocytes, including DNAprotein crosslinks, DNA strand breaks (Shaham et al. 2003, Costa et al . 2008), micronucleus formation (Suruda et al . 1993, He et al . 1998, Orsiére et al . 2006, Costa et al. 2008), and chromosomal aberrations (albeit not in all studies) (Jakab et al . 2010, NTP 2010), and (3) my

eloid leukemia (discussed above). In experimental animals, inhaled formaldehyde was associated with toxicity to the liver in several species (Beall and Ulsamer 1984, Cikmaz et al. 2010) and the nervous system (neurobehavioral changes and cellular and biochemical changes in the hippocampus) in mice and rats (Aslan et al . 2006, Sarsilmaz et al. 2007, Lu et al . 2008, Son

gur et al. 2010). In rats, it was also associated with toxicity to the tes

tes (morphometric changes in the seminiferous epithelium) (Özen et al. 2005, Golalipour et al. 2007), spleen (morphometric alterations in the white pulp) (Golalipour et al. 2008), and thyroid gland (lower weight and changes in levels of thyroid hormones) (Patel et al. 2003). The mechanisms for systemic toxicity in experimental animals are not known, but oxidative stress has been suggested to play a role in testicular toxicity and neurotoxicity. In general, most studies did not present information on whether respiratory injury was observed with formaldehyde exposure. Inhaled formaldehyde also caused DNA single-strand breaks in the liver and lymphocytes of male rats (Im et al. 2006), dominant le

thal mutations in rats (Kitaeva et al. 1990), and heritable mutations in mice (Liu et al. 2009); however, most studies found no cytogenetic effects (NTP 2010). Findings for chromosomal aberrations in bone marrow of rats exposed to inhaled formaldehyde are conflicting; ab

errations were found by Kitaeva et al . (1990), but not by Dallas et al. (1992). Prenatal exposure of rats to formaldehyde by intraperitoneal injection caused DNA-protein crosslinks and DNA strand breaks in the fetal liver (Wang and Liu 2006), and oral exposure to formalde

hyde caused testicular tumors (Soffritti et al. 2002).

Theoretical Mechanisms for the Distribution of Formaldehyde to Distal Sites The mechanisms by which formaldehyde causes toxicity at distal sites are unknown. The formation of methanediol (discussed above) from formaldehyde helps to explain how a reactive chemical could be dis

tributed and undergo metabolism throughout the body (Fox 1985, Matubayasi et al. 2007). The upper respiratory tissues are covered by an aqueous mucous membrane, through which formaldehyde could be transported as methanediol (Georgieva et al. 2003). In addition, formaldehyde reacts reversibly with a variety of endogenous mole

cules, including glutathione, amino acids, and folic acid (Heck et al. 1982). These reversible products may be transported from the por

tal of entry to reach remote sites where free formaldehyde can then be released. However, there is no experimental evidence to support these potential mechanisms.
Other Potential Mechanisms of Formaldehyde-Induced Leukemia Zhang et al. (2009) proposed that formaldehyde could also cause leu

kemia by other mechanisms that do not involve direct damage to the bone marrow: (1) formaldehyde could damage stem cells circulating in the blood, which travel to the bone and become initiated leukemia cells, or (2) it could damage stem cells that reside in the nasal turbi

nates or olfactory mucosa. Hematopoietic stem cells have been iden

tified in the peripheral circulation and can circulate back to the bone marrow (Fritsch et al. 1996). The findings of cytogenetic damage in circulating lymphocytes of formaldehyde-exposed workers (discussed above) support the first hypothesis, and the findings of cytogenetic damage (micronuclei) in nasal tissue support the second. High lev

els of chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei are associated with increased cancer risks in otherwise healthy individuals (Bonassi et al. 2008, Murgia et al. 2008). Moreover, Murrell et al. (2005) found that the olfactory epithelium of the nasal passages of rats contained multipotent stem/progenitor cells that were able to repopulate the hematopoietic tissues of irradiated rats and to form progenitor cells of multiple lineages.

Hematotoxicity Damage to hematopoietic stem or progenitor cells would result in ad

verse hematological effects, which have been reported in some, but not all, studies in humans. However, no adverse hematological effects have been reported in subchronic or chronic studies in experimental

### Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services 6 animals (Dean et al. 1984, Appelman et al. 1988, Kamata et al . 1997). Zhang et al. (2010b) found that formaldehyde-exposed workers had lower counts of white blood cells, granulocytes, platelets, red blood cells, and lymphocytes than did non-exposed workers. Furthermore, myeloid progenitor cells cultured from the blood of a subset of work

ers showed an increased frequency of aneuploidy of chromosomes 7 (monosomy) and 8 (trisomy). Monosomy 7 and trisomy 8 are associ

ated with myeloid leukemia (Johnson and Cotter 1997, Paulsson and Johansson 2007). In addition, formaldehyde exposure in vitro caused a decrease in colony-forming progenitor cells (erythroid burst-forming units, erythroid colony-forming units, and granulocyte, erythrocyte, monocyte, and megakaryocyte colony-forming units). A review of the Chinese literature reported that decreased white blood cell counts were observed in most studies of formaldehyde-exposed workers; in the largest study, exposed workers had higher percentages of blood abnormalities (decreased white blood cell and platelet counts and abnormal hemoglobin levels) (Tang et al. 2009). 

### Properties Formaldehyde is the simplest aldehyde. It exists at room temperature as a nearly colorless gas with a pungent, suffocating odor (ATSDR 1999, HSDB 2009). It is soluble in water, ether, acetone, and benzene. The primary form of formaldehyde in dilute aqueous solutions is its monomeric hydrate methylene glycol (methanediol), and the pri

mary forms in concentrated solutions are oligomers and polymers of polyoxymethylene glycols. Commercially, formaldehyde is most of

ten available as 30% to 50% (by weight) aqueous solutions of the hy

drated form, which is commonly referred to as formalin (IARC 2006). Formalin contains added stabilizers, generally up to 15% methanol or lower concentrations (usually several hundred milligrams per liter) of various amine derivatives. In the absence of stabilizers, formalde

hyde in solution oxidizes slowly to form formic acid and polymerizes to form oligomers, including paraformaldehyde, a polymer with 8 to 100 units of formaldehyde (HSDB 2009). Formaldehyde can also ex

ist in solid form as 1,3,5-trioxane, a cyclic trimer. Formaldehyde gas is generally stable in the absence of water, but it is flammable and can be ignited by heat, sparks, or flame. Vapors form explosive mix

tures with air. Formaldehyde gas reacts violently with strong oxidiz

ing agents and with bases and reacts explosively with nitrogen dioxide at around 180°C (356°F) (Akron 2009). Physical and chemical prop

erties of formaldehyde are listed in the following table.
Property Information Molecular weight 30.0 a Specific gravity 0.815 at –20°C/4°C b Melting point –92°C a Boiling point –19.5°C a Log K

ow 0.35 a Water solubility 400 g/L at 25°C a Vapor pressure 3,890 mm Hg at 25°C a Vapor density relative to air 1.067 a Dissociation constant (p K

a ) 13.27 at 25°C a

Sources: a HSDB 2009, b O’Neil et al. 2006.


### Use Formaldehyde has numerous industrial and commercial uses; it is used in industrial processes primarily as a solution (formalin) or solid (paraformaldehyde or trioxane). The predominant use (~55% of to

tal consumption) is in the production of industrial resins (mainlyurea-formaldehyde, phenol-formaldehyde, polyacetal, and melamineformaldehyde resins) (Bizzari 2007). These resins are used to man

ufacture numerous commercial products, including adhesives and binders for composite wood products, pulp and paper products, plas

tics, and synthetic fibers, and in textile finishing. Another major use (~29%) is as a chemical intermediate to produce other chemicals. Various agricultural uses (~5%), paraformaldehyde production (~3%), and production of chelating agents (~3%) account for most of the re

maining uses. The remaining 5% of formaldehyde goes toward other uses that may still be important for human exposure, including its use as a disinfectant or antimicrobial agent in various consumer products, as a medical treatment for some skin conditions, as a tissue preser

vative for pathologists and embalmers, and as a biocide and preser

vative in food and cosmetic products. Formaldehyde is registered as a materials preservative for use in consumer products such as laun

dry detergents, general-purpose cleaners, and wallpaper adhesives (ATSDR 1999, IARC 2006, EPA 2008). The main uses for paraformal

dehyde are as foundry resins and in applications where the presence of water could interfere with a production process. Paraformalde

hyde is also used as an antimicrobial agent for in-drawer fumigation of hair-cutting equipment and as a mildewcide in closets and unoc

cupied vacation homes (EPA 2008).


### Production Formaldehyde is produced by catalytic oxidation of methanol via a silver or metal-oxide catalyst process. Annual production of form

aldehyde in the United States increased from about 0.9 million met

ric tons (1 million tons) in 1960 to 4.5 million metric tons (5 million tons) in 2006 (Bizzari 2007). In 2009, formaldehyde was produced by 12 companies and their subsidiaries at 39 U.S. manufacturing plants (Bizzari 2007, SRI 2009), and paraformaldehyde and trioxane each were produced at one U.S. manufacturing plant (SRI 2009). Formal

dehyde was available from 36 U.S. suppliers, paraformaldehyde from 25, and trioxane from 11. Internationally, formaldehyde was available from 152 suppliers in 25 countries, paraformaldehyde from 59 in 15 countries, and trioxane from 21 in 9 countries (ChemSources 2009). Because of transportation and storage issues associated with form

aldehyde, it usually is produced close to the point of consumption; therefore, international trade in formaldehyde is minimal (less than 2% of worldwide production) (Bizzari 2007). In 2006, U.S. imports of formaldehyde were about 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons), and U.S. exports were about 14,000 metric tons (15,400 tons). 

### Exposure Humans are exposed to formaldehyde in the environment and in the workplace. Formaldehyde concentrations in the environment gener

ally are reported in parts per billion, but exposure levels are much higher in the workplace, occurring in the range of parts per million. Formaldehyde is also produced endogenously in humans and animals.
Environmental Exposure Formaldehyde is ubiquitous in the environment and has been detected in indoor and outdoor air, soil, food, treated and bottled drinking wa

ter, surface water, and groundwater (NTP 2010). The general popula

tion can be exposed to formaldehyde primarily from breathing indoor or outdoor air, from tobacco smoke, from use of cosmetic products containing formaldehyde, and, to a more limited extent, from inges

tion of food and water. For the general population, the major sources of airborne formaldehyde exposure include combustion sources, off

gassing from numerous construction and home-furnishing products, and offgassing from consumer goods. Formaldehyde gas is produced from the oxidation or incomplete combustion of organic material. Combustion sources include automobiles and other internal com

bustion engines, power plants, incinerators, refineries, forest fires, wood stoves, and cigarettes. Formaldehyde is also formed in the early stages of decomposition of plant residues in soil (IARC 2006). Form

-

### Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services 7 aldehyde can be produced secondarily in air via photochemical re

actions involving virtually all classes of hydrocarbon pollutants; in some instances, secondary production may exceed direct air emis

sions. Formaldehyde concentrations in outdoor air generally range from 0 to 100 ppb (0 to 0.1 ppm) and usually are less than 10 ppb (0.01 ppm); daily exposure from outdoor air has been estimated at 0.1 mg or less (HSDB 2009). Formaldehyde levels can be higher in indoor air than in outdoor air. Important determinants of indoor air levels include the sources of the formaldehyde, the age of the source materials, temperature, humidity, and ventilation rates (IARC 2006). Although daily formal

dehyde exposure from residential indoor air in conventional homes has been reported to range from 0.5 to 2.0 mg, daily exposure in a prefabricated home was as high as 10 mg (Fishbein 1992). Temporary housing provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as shelter for residents of Louisiana and Mississippi displaced by Hur

ricanes Katrina and Rita had formaldehyde concentrations ranging from 3 to 590 ppb (0.003 to 0.59 ppm) (CDC 2008, 2009). Most of the housing was at least two years old at the time of sampling, which oc

curred during the winter months. Formaldehyde levels were higher in travel trailers than park models or mobile homes. Higher concen

trations of formaldehyde than were found by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been reported by others (for example, see COGR 2007). There are no federal guidelines for formaldehyde levels in residential housing for indoor air quality (CDC 2008). Daily exposure to formaldehyde was estimated at up to 2 mg from smoking 20 cigarettes per day, up to 3.5 mg from environmental to

bacco smoke in the home, and 2.8 mg from environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace (WHO 2000). The general population could also be exposed to formaldehyde by handling consumer products that contain formaldehyde as an anti

microbial agent (such as laundry detergents, wallpaper adhesive, or sanitizers) or from its use as a mildewcide for clothing and linens or in vacation homes (EPA 2008). Although formaldehyde per senow is rarely used in cosmetics, the use of formaldehyde releasers is common. An analysis of data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program Database indicated that nearly 20% (6,463 of 33,212) of cosmetic products contained formal

dehyde (including formalin) or any of eight formaldehyde-releasing preservatives (benzylhemiformal, 5-bromo-5-nitro-1,3-dioxane, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, diazo lidinyl urea, 1,3-dimethylol5,5-dimethylhydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, quaternium-15, or so

dium hydroxymethylglycinate) (De Groot and Veenstra 2010, De Groot et al. 2010). Absorption of formaldehyde from hand cream or suntan lotion was estimated at up to 0.1 mg for a typical applica

tion, assuming 5% absorption through the skin (ATSDR 1999). Other products that often contain formaldehyde releasers are industrial and household cleaning agents, soaps, shampoos, paints, lacquers, and cutting fluids (WHO 2002). Food and water contain measureable concentrations of formalde

hyde (WHO 2002, Mutsuga et al. 2006), but the significance of inges

tion as a source of formaldehyde exposure for the general population is questionable. Formaldehyde in food exists mostly in a bound form (IPCS 1989, Fishbein 1992), and it is considered to be unstable in aqueous solution (ATSDR 1999). Formaldehyde present in food can occur naturally or through inadvertent contamination; it can also be added as a preservative, disinfectant, or bacteriostatic agent and can result from cooking or smoking of foods (Howard 1989, IPCS 1989, ATSDR 1999). Generally, higher levels were reported in fish, sea

food, and smoked ham than in other foods (Li et al. 2007, NTP 2010). Formaldehyde in treated drinking water occurs primarily through the oxidation of organic matter during ozonation or chlorination; con

centrations of up to 30 μg/L were reported (WHO 2005). Formalde

hyde can also be present in the water before treatment; it was found in 16 of 35 influent samples at concentrations ranging from 1.2 to 13 μg/L (Krasner et al. 1989). Formaldehyde is an essential metabolic intermediate in the bio

synthesis of purines, thymidine, and some amino acids. It is also produced via metabolism of some amino acids and a variety of xeno

biotics, such as drugs, food additives, and other environmental chem

icals (IARC 2006). The endogenous concentration of formaldehyde in the blood of humans, monkeys, and rats is approximately 2 to 3 μg/g (Heck et al. 1985, Casanova et al. 1988).
Occupational Exposure In occupational environments, formaldehyde occurs mainly as a gas; however, formaldehyde particulates can be inhaled when paraformal

dehyde or powdered resins are used or when formaldehyde adsorbs to other particles, such as wood dust (IARC 1995). Workers may also be exposed through contact of formalin solutions or liquid res

ins with the skin or eyes. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde is highly variable and can occur in numerous industries, including themanufacture of formaldehyde and formaldehyde-based resins, woodcomposite and furniture production, plastics production, embalming, foundry operations, fiberglass production, construction, agriculture, firefighting, and histology, pathology, and biology laboratories, among others. In the past, the highest continuous exposure levels were mea

sured during the varnishing of furniture and wooden floors, during the finishing of textiles, in the garment industry, during the treatment of furs, and in certain jobs in manufactured board mills and found

ries. Short-term exposure to high levels of formaldehyde has been reported for embalmers, pathologists, and paper workers. Lower lev

els of exposure have usually been reported for the manufacture of synthetic vitreous fibers, abrasives, and rubber, and in formaldehyde production (IARC 2006). It has been suggested that because formal

dehyde is ubiquitous, occupational exposure occurs in all workplaces (WHO 2002). Daily formaldehyde intake from occupational exposure has been estimated at up to 8 mg (WHO 2000). In the United States, high exposure levels were reported for formaldehyde-based resin production (mean concentrations of up to 14.2 ppm), plastic product production (up to 38.2 ppm) (Stewart et al. 1987), embalming (up to 2.6 ppm) (Stewart et al. 1992), biol

ogy teaching laboratories (up to 8.3 ppm) (EPA 1981), and pathology autopsy laboratories (up to 4.35 ppm) (Moseley et al. 1979). Using formaldehyde exposure data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) air sampling datab ase for various U.S. indus

tries from 1979 to 2001, Lavoué et al. (2008) found the highest esti

mated relative indices of exposure based on time-weighted-average exposure data for the reconstituted wood products and lumber and wood products industries. The highest estimated relative indices of exposure based on short-term exposure data (aggregated short-term, peak, and ceiling exposure levels) were for the reconstituted wood products industry and funeral services and crematories. In the late 1980s, OSHA estimated that over 2 million U.S. work

ers were exposed to formaldehyde, about 45% of whom worked in the garment industry (USDL 2009). OSHA estimated that about 1.9 million workers were exposed to formaldehyde at concentrations be

tween 0.1 and 0.5 ppm, 123,000 at 0.5 to 0.75 ppm, and 84,000 at 0.75 to 1 ppm (WHO 2002). No current data were found for occupational exposure to formaldehyde in the United States.

### Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services 8 

### Regulations
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security 46 CFR 150 and 151 detail procedures for shipping formaldehyde, formaldehyde solution, and 1,3,5-trioxane with incompatible chemicals. Minimum requirements have been established for safe transport of formaldehyde solutions on ships and barges. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Formaldehyde and products containing 1% or more formaldehyde are considered “strong sensitizers” and must display a warning label. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Limits have been established for the amount of residual formaldehyde in inactivated bacterial products and killed-virus vaccines. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) All plywood and particleboard materials bonded with a resin system or coated with a surface finish containing formaldehyde shall not exceed the following emission levels when installed in manufactured homes: 0.2 ppm for plywood and 0.3 ppm for particleboard. Manufactured homes must prominently display a notice which provides information on formaldehyde sources, levels, health effects, and remedial actions to reduce indoor levels. Department of Transportation (DOT) Formaldehyde, formalin, and paraformaldehyde are considered hazardous materials, and special requirements have been set for marking, labeling, and transporting these materials, as prescribed in 49 CFR 172. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Clean Air Act Clean-Fuel Vehicles:Formaldehyde emissions limits have been established for various classes of cleanfuel vehicles. Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Highway Vehicles and Engines:Formaldehyde emissions limits have been established for various classes of vehicles. Mobile Source Air Toxics:Listed as a mobile source air toxic for which regulations are to be developed. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:Listed as a hazardous air pollutant. New Source Performance Standards:Manufacture of formaldehyde is subject to certain provisions for the control of volatile organic compound emissions. Prevention of Accidental Release:Threshold quantity (TQ) = 15,000 lb. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Under reformulated gasoline certification requirements, formaldehyde emissions levels must not be exceeded. Urban Air Toxics Strategy: Identified as one of 33 hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest threat to public health in urban areas.
Clean Water Act Formaldehyde and paraformaldehyde are listed as hazardous substances. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Formaldehyde reportable quantity (RQ) = 100 lb. Paraformaldehyde reportable quantity (RQ) = 1,000 lb. Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act Toxics Release Inventory:Listed substance subject to reporting requirements. Reportable quantity (RQ) = 100 lb. Threshold planning quantity (TPQ) = 500 lb. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Listed Hazardous Waste:Waste codes for which the listing is based wholly or partly on the presence of formaldehyde = U122, K009, K010, K038, K040, K156, K157. Listed as a hazardous constituent of waste. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Numerous formaldehyde-based chemicals may be used as components of adhesives and coatings in packaging, transporting, or holding food provided that conditions prescribed in 21 CFR 175 are met. Numerous formaldehyde-based chemicals may be safely used as articles intended for use in contact with food provided that conditions prescribed in 21 CFR 177 are met. Numerous formaldehyde-based chemicals may be used in the production of paper products intended for use in producing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food provided that conditions prescribed in 21 CFR 176 are met. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-based chemicals may be used as adjuvants, production aids, and sanitizers that come in contact with foods provided that conditions prescribed in 21 CFR 178 are met. Formaldehyde-based ion-exchange resins may be used in the treatment of food provided that conditions prescribed in 21 CFR 173 are met. Formaldehyde may be safely used in the manufacture of animal feeds in accordance with conditions prescribed in 21 CFR 573.460. Formalin, containing approximately 37% formaldehyde gas by weight, can be used in environmental waters for the control of fungi and parasites for certain finfish and shellfish as prescribed in 21 CFR 529. Mine Safety and Health Administration Engine exhaust from mobile diesel-powered transportation equipment must be diluted with air so that the mixture contains no more than 0.001% by volume of aldehydes, calculated as equivalent formaldehyde. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) While this section accurately identifies OSHA’s legally enforceable PELs for this substance in 2010, specific PELs may not reflect the more current studies and may not adequately protect workers. Permissible exposure limit (PEL) = 0.75 ppm (0.92 mg/m 3 ) (8

- h TWA). Short-term exposure limit(STEL) = 2 ppm ( 2.46 mg/m 3 ) (15

- min exposure). Action level = 0.5 ppm ( 0.61 mg/m 3 ) (8

- h TWA ). Comprehensive standards have been developed for occupational exposure to formaldehyde gas, its solutions, and materials that release formaldehyde. These standards identify the permissible exposure limits and prescribe requirements for monitoring exposures, using respiratory protection, conducting medical evaluations, housekeeping, and other activities at 29 CFR 1910.1048 (General Industry), 29 CFR 1926.1148 (Construction Industry), and 29 CFR 1915.1048 (Shipyards). Requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals are prescribed in 29 CFR 1910.119; the threshold quantity (TQ) for formaldehyde is 1,000 lb.


### Guidelines
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold limit value – ceiling (TLV

- C) = 0.3 ppm ( 0.37 mg/m 3 ). Listed as a suspected human carcinogen. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended exposure limit (REL) = 0.016 ppm ( 0.02 mg/m 3 ) (10

- h TWA). Immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) limit = 20 ppm ( 24.56 mg/m 3 ). Ceiling recommended exposure limit = 0.1 ppm ( 0.12 mg/m 3 ) (15

- min exposure). Listed as a potential occupational carcinogen.


### References

Akron. 2009. The Chemical Database . The Department of Chemistry at the University of Akron. http://ull. chemistry.uakron.edu/erd and search on CAS number. Last accessed: 5/19/09. Appelman LM, Woutersen RA, Zwart A, Falke HE, Feron VJ. 1988. One-year inhalation toxicity study of formaldehyde in male rats with a damaged or undamaged nasal mucosa. J Appl Toxicol 8(2): 85-90. Armstrong RW, Imrey PB, Lye MS, Armstrong MJ, Yu MC, Sani S. 2000. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Malaysian Chinese: occupational exposures to particles, formaldehyde and heat. Int J Epidemiol 29(6): 991-998. Aslan H, Songur A, Tunc AT, Ozen OA, Bas O, Yagmurca M, Turgut M, Sarsilmaz M, Kaplan S. 2006. Effects of formaldehyde exposure on granule cell number and volume of dentate gyrus: a histopathological and stereological study. Brain Res1122(1): 191-200. ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.pdf. Bachand A, Mundt KA, Mundt DJ, Montgomery RR. 2010. Epidemiological studies of formaldehyde exposure and risk of leukemia and nasopharyngeal cancer: A meta-analysis. Crit Rev Toxicol 40(2): 85-100. . Ballarin C, Sarto F, Giacomelli L, Bartolucci GB, Clonfero E. 1992. Micronucleated cells in nasal mucosa of formaldehyde-exposed workers. Mutat Res280(1): 1-7. Beall JR, Ulsamer AG. 1984. Formaldehyde and hepatotoxicity: a review. J Toxicol Environ Health 14(1): 1-21. Beane Freeman LE, Blair A, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Hoover RN, Hauptmann M. 2009. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries: the National Cancer Institute Cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(10): 751-761. Bizzari SN. 2007. Formaldehyde. In Chemical Economics Handbook. Menlo Park, CA: SRI Consulting. Online edition. 106 pp.Blair A, Zheng T, Linos A, Stewart PA, Zhang YW, Cantor KP. 2001. Occupation and leukemia: a populationbased case-control study in Iowa and Minnesota. Am J Ind Med 40(1): 3-14. Bonassi S, Norppa H, Ceppi M, Stromberg U, Vermeulen R, Znaor A, et al. 2008. Chromosomal aberration frequency in lymphocytes predicts the risk of cancer: results from a pooled cohort study of 22 358 subjects in 11 countries. Carcinogenesis29(6): 1178-1183. Bosetti C, McLaughlin JK, Tarone RE, Pira E, La Vecchia C. 2008. Formaldehyde and cancer risk: a quantitative review of cohort studies through 2006. Ann Oncol 19(1): 29-43. Bray F, Haugen M, Moger TA, Tretli S, Aalen OO, Grotmol T. 2008. Age-incidence curves of nasopharyngeal carcinoma worldwide: bimodality in low-risk populations and aetiologic implications. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17(9): 2356-2365. Burgaz S, Cakmak G, Erdem O, Yilmaz M, Karakaya AE. 2001. Micronuclei frequencies in exfoliated nasal mucosa cells from pathology and anatomy laboratory workers exposed to formaldehyde. Neoplasma 48(2): 144-147. Burgaz S, Erdem O, Cakmak G, Erdem N, Karakaya A, Karakaya AE. 2002. Cytogenetic analysis of buccal cells from shoe-workers and pathology and anatomy laboratory workers exposed to n -hexane, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone and formaldehyde. Biomarkers7(2): 151-161. Casanova M, Heck HD, Everitt JI, Harrington WW Jr, Popp JA. 1988. Formaldehyde concentrations in the blood of rhesus monkeys after inhalation exposure. Food Chem Toxicol 26(8): 715-716.

### Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services 9 Casanova M, Deyo DF, Heck HD. 1989. Covalent binding of inhaled formaldehyde to DNA in the nasal mucosa of Fischer 344 rats: analysis of formaldehyde and DNA by high-performance liquid chromatography and provisional pharmacokinetic interpretation. Fundam Appl Toxicol 12(3): 397-417. Casanova M, Morgan KT, Steinhagen WH, Everitt JI, Popp JA, Heck HD. 1991. Covalent binding of inhaled formaldehyde to DNA in the respiratory tract of rhesus monkeys: pharmacokinetics, rat-to-monkey interspecies scaling, and extrapolation to man. Fundam Appl Toxicol 17(2): 409-428. Casanova M, Morgan KT, Gross EA, Moss OR, Heck HA. 1994. DNA-protein cross-links and cell replication at specific sites in the nose of F344 rats exposed subchronically to formaldehyde. Fundam Appl Toxicol 23(4): 525-536. CDC. 2008. Final Report on Formaldehyde Levels in FEMA-Supplied Travel Trailers, Park Models and Mobile Homes . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/trailerstudy/pdfs/ FEMAFinalReport.pdf.
CDC. 2009. Evaluation of Mitigation Strategies for Reducing Formaldehyde Concentrations in Unoccupied Federal Emergency Management Agency-Owned Travel Trailers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/trailerstudy/pdfs/Evaluation_of_Mitigation_Strategies_FEMA_Trailers. pdf. Chang JC, Gross EA, Swenberg JA, Barrow CS. 1983. Nasal cavity deposition, histopathology, and cell proliferation after single or repeated formaldehyde exposures in B6C3F1 mice and F-344 rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 68(2): 161-176. ChemSources. 2009. Chemical Sources - Chemical Search . Chemical Sources International. http://www. chemsources.com/chemonline.html and search on formaldehyde, paraformaldehyde, and trioxane. Last accessed: 4/30/09. Cikmaz S, Kutoglu T, Kanter M, Mesut R. 2010. Effect of formaldehyde inhalation on rat livers: a light and electron microscopic study. Toxicol Ind Health 26(2): 113-119. Coggon D, Harris EC, Poole J, Palmer KT. 2003. Extended follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to formaldehyde. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(21): 1608-1615. COGR. 2007. FEMA’s Toxic Trailers. Hearing Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Congress of the United States. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc. cgi?dbname=110_house_hearings&docid=f:40851.pdf. Costa S, Coelho P, Costa C, Silva S, Mayan O, Santos LS, Gaspar J, Teixeira JP. 2008. Genotoxic damage in pathology anatomy laboratory workers exposed to formaldehyde. Toxicology 252(1-3): 40-48. Dallas CE, Scott MJ, Ward JB Jr, Theiss JC. 1992. Cytogenetic analysis of pulmonary lavage and bone marrow cells of rats after repeated formaldehyde inhalation. J Appl Toxicol 12(3): 199-203. Dean JH, Lauer LD, House RV, Murray MJ, Stillman WS, Irons RD, Steinhagen WH, Phelps MC, Adams DO. 1984. Studies of immune function and host resistance in B6C3F 1 mice exposed to formaldehyde. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 72(3): 519-529. As cited in IARC 2006. De Groot AC, Veenstra M. 2010. Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics in the USA and in Europe. Contact Dermatitis62(4): 221-224. De Groot AC, White IR, Flyvholm MA, Lensen G, Coenraads PJ. Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Part 1. Characterization, frequency and relevance of sensitization, and frequency of use in cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis62(1): 2-17.
EPA. 1981. Technical Document: Formaldehyde . Office of Toxic Substances. Washington, DC: U.S. Environ

mental Protection Agency.
EPA. 2008. Registration Eligibility Decision for Formaldehyde and Paraformaldehyde. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/formaldehyde-red.pdf.Feron VJ, Bruyntjes JP, Woutersen RA, Immel HR, Appelman LM. 1988. Nasal tumours in rats after shortterm exposure to a cytotoxic concentration of formaldehyde. Cancer Lett 39(1): 101-111. Fishbein L. 1992. Exposure from occupational versus other sources. Scan J Work Environ Health 18: 5-16. Fox EM. 1985. Urea formaldehyde foam insulation: defusing a timebomb. Am J Law Med 11(1): 81-104. Fritsch G, Stimpfl M, Kurz M, Printz D, Buchinger P, Fischmeister G, Hoecker P, Gadner H. 1996. The composition of CD34 subpopulations differs between bone marrow, blood and cord blood. Bone Marrow Transplant 17(2): 169-178. Georgieva AV, Kimbell JS, Schlosser PM. 2003. A distributed-parameter model for formaldehyde uptake and disposition in the rat nasal lining. Inhal Toxicol 15(14): 1435-1463. Golalipour MJ, Azarhoush R, Ghafari S, Gharravi AM, Fazeli SA, Davarian A. 2007. Formaldehyde exposure induces histopathological and morphometric changes in the rat testis. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 66(3): 167- 171. Golalipour MJ, Kord H, Ghafari S, Gharravi AM, Davarian A, Fazeli SA, Azarhoush R. 2008. Morphometric alterations of the rat spleen following formaldehyde exposure. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 67(1): 19-23. Golden R, Pyatt D, Shields PG. 2006. Formaldehyde as a potential human leukemogen: an assessment of biological plausibility. Crit Rev Toxicol 36(2): 135-153. Greaves MF. 2004. Biological models for leukaemia and lymphoma. In Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis: Contributions of Molecular Epidemiology. Buffler P, Rice J, Baan R, Bird M, Boffetta P, eds. IARC Scientific Publication 157. Lyon, France: IARC Press. pp. 351-372. Guyton KZ, Kyle AD, Aubrecht J, Cogliano VJ, Eastmond DA, Jackson M, et al. 2009. Improving prediction of chemical carcinogenicity by considering multiple mechanisms and applying toxicogenomic approaches. Mutat Res681(2-3): 230-240. Hansen J, Olsen JH. 1995. Formaldehyde and cancer morbidity among male employees in Denmark. Cancer Causes Control 6(4): 354-360. Hansen J, Olsen JH. 1996. [Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and risk of cancer] [in Danish; English translation]. Ugeskr Laeger 158(29): 4191-4194. Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Blair A. 2003. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(21): 1615-1623. Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Blair A. 2004. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. Am J Epidemiol 159(12): 1117-1130. Hauptmann M, Stewart PA, Lubin JH, Beane Freeman LE, Hornung RW, Herrick RF, et al. 2009. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies and brain cancer among embalmers exposed to formaldehyde. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(24): 1696-1708. Hayes RB, Raatgever JW, de Bruyn A, Gerin M. 1986. Cancer of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, and formaldehyde exposure. Int J Cancer 37(4): 487-492. He JL, Jin LF, Jin HY. 1998. Detection of cytogenetic effects in peripheral lymphocytes of students exposed to formaldehyde with cytokinesis-blocked micronucleus assay. Biomed Environ Sci 11(1): 87-92. Heck H, Casanova M. 2004. The implausibility of leukemia induction by formaldehyde: a critical review of the biological evidence on distant-site toxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 40(2): 92-106. Heck HD, White EL, Casanova-Schmitz M. 1982. Determination of formaldehyde in biological tissues by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Biomed Mass Spectrom 9(8): 347-353. Heck HD, Chin TY, Schmitz MC. 1983. Distribution of [ 14 C] formaldehyde in rats after inhalation exposure. In Formaldehyde Toxicity. Gibson JE, ed. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing. pp. 26-36. Heck HD, Casanova-Schmitz M, Dodd PB, Schachter EN, Witek TJ, Tosun T. 1985. Formaldehyde (CH 2 O) concentrations in the blood of humans and Fischer-344 rats exposed to CH 2 O under controlled conditions. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 46(1): 1-3.Heck HD, Casanova M, Steinhagen WH, Everitt JI, Morgan KT, Popp JA. 1989. Formaldehyde toxicity: DNAprotein cross-linking studies in rats and nonhuman primates. In Nasal Carcinogenesis in Rodents: Relevance to Human Risk. Feron VJ, Bosland MC, eds. Wageningen, Netherlands: Pudoc. pp. 159-164. Hildesheim A, Dosemeci M, Chan CC, Chen CJ, Cheng YJ, Hsu MM, et al. 2001. Occupational exposure to wood, formaldehyde, and solvents and risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 10(11): 1145-1153. Howard PH. 1989. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc. pp. 342-350. HSDB. 2009. Hazardous Substances Data Bank. National Library of Medicine. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB and search on CAS number. Last accessed: 5/18/09. Hubal EA, Schlosser PM, Conolly RB, Kimbell JS. 1997. Comparison of inhaled formaldehyde dosimetry predictions with DNA-protein cross-link measurements in the rat nasal passages. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 143(1): 47-55. IARC. 1995. Formaldehyde. In IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Wood Dust and Formaldehyde, vol. 62, Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. pp. 217-362. IARC. 2006. Formaldehyde. In IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert -Butoxypropan-2-ol , vol. 88, Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. pp. 39-325. Im H, Oh E, Mun J, Khim JY, Lee E, Kang HS, et al. 2006. Evaluation of toxicological monitoring markers using proteomic analysis in rats exposed to formaldehyde. J Proteome Res5(6): 1354-1366. IPCS. 1989. Environmental Health Criteria No. 89: Formaldehyde. International Programme on Chemical Safety. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc89.htm. Jakab MG, Klupp T, Besenyei K, Biro A, Major J, Tompa A. 2010. Formaldehyde-induced chromosomal aberrations and apoptosis in peripheral blood lymphocytes of personnel working in pathology departments. Mutat Res 698(1-2):11-17. Johnson E, Cotter FE. 1997. Monosomy 7 and 7q—associated with myeloid malignancy. Blood Rev 11(1): 46-55. Kamata E, Nakadate M, Uchida O, Ogawa Y, Suzuki S, Kaneko T, Saito M, Kurokawa Y. 1997. Results of a 28-month chronic inhalation toxicity study of formaldehyde in male Fisher-344 rats. J Toxicol Sci 22(3): 239-254. Kerns WD, Pavkov KL, Donofrio DJ, Gralla EJ, Swenberg JA. 1983. Carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in rats and mice after long-term inhalation exposure. Cancer Res43(9): 4382-4392. Kimbell JS, Gross EA, Richardson RB, Conolly RB, Morgan KT. 1997. Correlation of regional formaldehyde flux predictions with the distribution of formaldehyde-induced squamous metaplasia in F344 rat nasal passages. Mutat Res380(1-2): 143-154. Kitaeva LV, Kitaev EM, Pimenova MN. 1990. [The cytopathic and cytogenetic sequelae of chronic inhalational exposure to formaldehyde on female germ cells and bone marrow cells in rats] [in Russian; English translation]. Tsitologiia32(12): 1212-1216. Kitaeva LV, Mikheeva EA, Shelomova LF, Shvartsman PY. 1996. Genotoxic effects of formaldehyde in somatic human cells in vivo

. Genetika32: 1287-1290. Krasner SW, McGuire MJ, Jacangelo JG, Patania NL, Reagan KM, Aieta EM. 1989. The occurrence of disinfection by-products in United States drinking water. J Amer Water Works Assoc 81(8): 41-53. Lavoué J, Vincent R, Gerin M. 2008. Formaldehyde exposure in U.S. industries from OSHA air sampling data. J Occup Environ Hyg5(9): 575-587. Li JR, Zhu JL, Ye LF. 2007. Determination of formaldehyde in squid by high-performance liquid chromatography. Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr 16(Suppl 1): 127-130.

### Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services 10 Li W, Ray RM, Gao DL, Fitzgibbons ED, Seixas NS, Camp JE, et al. 2006. Occupational risk factors for nasopharyngeal cancer among female textile workers in Shanghai, China. Occup Environ Med 63(1): 39-44. Liteplo RG, Meek ME. 2003. Inhaled formaldehyde: exposure estimation, hazard characterization, and exposure-response analysis. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 6(1): 85-114. Liu YR, Zhou Y, Qiu W, Zeng JY, Shen LL, Li AP, Zhou JW. 2009. Exposure to formaldehyde induces heritable DNA mutations in mice. J Toxicol Environ Health A 72(11): 767-773. Lu K, Boysen G, Gao L, Collins LB, Swenberg JA. 2008. Formaldehyde-induced histone modifications in vitro. Chem Res Toxicol 21(8): 1586-1593. Lu K, Collins LB, Ru H, Bermudez E, Swenberg JA. 2010. Distribution of DNA adducts caused by inhaled formaldehyde is consistent with induction of nasal carcinoma but not leukemia. Toxicol Sci. 116(2): 441-451. Lu Z, Li CM, Qiao Y, Yan Y, Yang X. 2008. Effect of inhaled formaldehyde on learning and memory of mice. Indoor Air 18(2): 77-83. Luce D, Gérin M, Leclerc A, Morcet JF, Brugère J, Goldberg M. 1993. Sinonasal cancer and occupational exposure to formaldehyde and other substances. Int J Cancer 53(2): 224-231. Luce D, Leclerc A, Bégin D, Demers PA, Gérin M, Orlowski E, et al. 2002. Sinonasal cancer and occupational exposures: a pooled analysis of 12 case-control studies. Cancer Causes Control 13(2): 147-157. Marsh GM, Youk AO. 2005. Reevaluation of mortality risks from nasopharyngeal cancer in the formaldehyde cohort study of the National Cancer Institute. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 42(3): 275-283. Marsh GM, Youk AO, Buchanich JM, Erdal S, Esmen NA. 2007. Work in the metal industry and nasopharyngeal cancer mortality among formaldehyde-exposed workers. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 48(3): 308-319. Matubayasi N, Morooka S., Nakahara M., Takahaski H. 2007. Chemical equilibrium of formadehyde and methanediol in hot water: free-energy analysis of the solvent effect. J Molec Liq134: 58-63. McMartin KE, Martin-Amat G, Noker PE, Tephly TR. 1979. Lack of a role for formaldehyde in methanol poisoning in the monkey. Biochem Pharmacol 28(5): 645-649.Meng F, Bermudez E, McKinzie PB, Andersen ME, Clewell HJ 3rd, Parsons BL. 2010. Measurement of tumorassociated mutations in the nasal mucosa of rats exposed to varying doses of formaldehyde. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 57(2-3); 274-283. Monticello TM, Morgan KT, Everitt JI, Popp JA. 1989. Effects of formaldehyde gas on the respiratory tract of rhesus monkeys. Pathology and cell proliferation. Am J Pathol 134(3): 515-527. Monticello TM, Miller FJ, Morgan KT. 1991. Regional increases in rat nasal epithelial cell proliferation following acute and subchronic inhalation of formaldehyde. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 111(3): 409-421. Monticello TM, Swenberg JA, Gross EA, Leininger JR, Kimbell JS, Seilkop S, Starr TB, Gibson JE, Morgan KT. 1996. Correlation of regional and nonlinear formaldehyde-induced nasal cancer with proliferating populations of cells. Cancer Res56(5): 1012-1022. Moseley CL, Singal M, Murphy L. 1979. HHE Determination, Report No. HHE-78-116-557, Commonwealth Trading Company, Stoughton, Massachusetts. Washington, DC: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Murgia E, Ballardin M, Bonassi S, Rossi AM, Barale R. 2008. Validation of micronuclei frequency in peripheral blood lymphocytes as early cancer risk biomarker in a nested case-control study. Mutat Res639(1-2): 27-34. Murrell W, Feron F, Wetzig A, Cameron N, Splatt K, Bellette B, et al. 2005. Multipotent stem cells from adult olfactory mucosa. Dev Dyn 233(2): 496-515. Mutsuga M, Kawamura Y, Sugita-Konishi Y, Hara-Kudo Y, Takatori K, Tanamoto K. 2006. Migration of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde into mineral water in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. Food Addit Contam 23(2): 212-218.
NTP. 2010. Report on Carcinogens Background Document for Formaldehyde. National Toxicology Program. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/2009/November/Formaldehyde_BD_Final.pdf. O’Neil MJ, Heckelman PE, Koch CB, Roman KJ, Kenny CM, D’Arecca MR, eds. 2006. The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs and Biologicals, 14th ed. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck. pp. 726, 1211, 1672. Olsen JH, Jensen SP, Hink M, Faurbo K, Breum NO, Jensen OM. 1984. Occupational formaldehyde exposure and increased nasal cancer risk in man. Int J Cancer 34(5): 639-644. Olsen JH, Asnaes S. 1986. Formaldehyde and the risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the sinonasal cavities. Br J Ind Med 43(11): 769-774. Orsiere T, Sari-Minodier I, Iarmarcovai G, Botta A. 2006. Genotoxic risk assessment of pathology and anatomy laboratory workers exposed to formaldehyde by use of personal air sampling and analysis of DNA damage in peripheral lymphocytes. Mutat Res605(1-2): 30-41. Ozen OA, Akpolat N, Songur A, Kus I, Zararsiz I, Ozacmak VH, Sarsilmaz M. 2005. Effect of formaldehyde inhalation on Hsp70 in seminiferous tubules of rat testes: an immunohistochemical study. Toxicol Ind Health 21(10): 249-254. Pala M, Ugolini D, Ceppi M, Rizzo F, Maiorana L, Bolognesi C, et al. 2008. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and biological monitoring of Research Institute workers. Cancer Detect Prev 32(2): 121-126. Patel KG, Bhatt HV, Choudhury AR. 2003. Alteration in thyroid after formaldehyde (HCHO) treatment in rats. Ind Health 41(3): 295-297. Paulsson K, Johansson B. 2007. Trisomy 8 as the sole chromosomal aberration in acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes. Pathol Biol (Paris) 55(1): 37-48. Pesch B, Pierl CB, Gebel M, Gross I, Becker D, Johnen G, et al. 2008. Occupational risks for adenocarcinoma of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses in the German wood industry. Occup Environ Med 65(3): 191-196. Pinkerton LE, Hein MJ, Stayner LT. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup Environ Med 61(3): 193-200. Pyatt D, Natelson E, Golden R. 2008. Is inhalation exposure to formaldehyde a biologically plausible cause of lymphohematopoietic malignancies? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 51(1): 119-133. Recio L, Sisk S, Pluta L, Bermudez E, Gross EA, Chen Z, Morgan K, Walker C. 1992. p53 mutations in formaldehyde-induced nasal squamous cell carcinomas in rats. Cancer Res52(21): 6113-6116. Ridpath JR, Nakamura A, Tano K, Luke AM, Sonoda E, Arakawa H, et al. 2007. Cells deficient in the FANC/ BRCA pathway are hypersensitive to plasma levels of formaldehyde. Cancer Res67(23): 11117-11122. Roush GC, Walrath J, Stayner LT, Kaplan SA, Flannery JT, Blair A. 1987. Nasopharyngeal cancer, sinonasal cancer, and occupations related to formaldehyde: a case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 79(6): 1221-1224. Sarsilmaz M, Kaplan S, Songur A, Colakoglu S, Aslan H, Tunc AT, Ozen OA, Turgut M, Bas O. 2007. Effects of postnatal formaldehyde exposure on pyramidal cell number, volume of cell layer in hippocampus and hemisphere in the rat: a stereological study. Brain Res1145: 157-167. Sellakumar AR, Snyder CA, Solomon JJ, Albert RE. 1985. Carcinogenicity of formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride in rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 81(3 Pt 1): 401-406. Shaham J, Bomstein Y, Gurvich R, Rashkovsky M, Kaufman Z. 2003. DNA-protein crosslinks and p53 protein expression in relation to occupational exposure to formaldehyde. Occup Environ Med 60(6): 403-409. Silver SR, Rinsky RA, Cooper SP, Hornung RW, Lai D. 2002. Effect of follow-up time on risk estimates: a longitudinal examination of the relative risks of leukemia and multiple myeloma in a rubber hydrochloride cohort. Am J Ind Med 42(6): 481-489. Soffritti M, Maltoni C, Maffei F, Biagi R. 1989. Formaldehyde: an experimental multipotential carcinogen. Toxicol Ind Health 5(5): 699-730. Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Lambertin L, Lauriola M, Padovani M, Maltoni C. 2002. Results of long-term experimental studies on the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in rats. Ann N Y Acad Sci

982: 87-105. Songur A, Ozen OA, Sarsilmaz M. 2010. The toxic effects of formaldehyde on the nervous system. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 203: 105-118. Speit G, Schütz P, Merk O. 2000. Induction and repair of formaldehyde-induced DNA-protein crosslinks in repair-deficient human cell lines. Mutagenesis15(1): 85-90. SRI. 2009. Directory of Chemical Producers . Menlo Park, CA: SRI Consulting. Database edition. Last accessed: 4/30/09. Stewart P, Cubit D, Blair A. 1987. Formaldehyde levels in seven industries. Appl Ind Hyg2(6): 213-236. Stewart PA, Schairer C, Blair A. 1990. Comparison of jobs, exposures, and mortality risks for short-term and long-term workers. J Occup Med 32(8): 703-708. Stewart PA, Herrick RF, Feigley CE, Utterback DF, Hornung R, Mahar H, Hayes R, Douthit DE, Blair A. 1992. Study design for assessing exposures of embalmers for a case-control study. Part I. Monitoring results. Appl Occup Environ Hyg7: 532-540. Suruda A, Schulte P, Boeniger M, Hayes RB, Livingston GK, Steenland K, et al. 1993. Cytogenetic effects of formaldehyde exposure in students of mortuary science. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2(5): 453-460. Takahashi M, Hasegawa R, Furukawa F, Toyoda K, Sato H, Hayashi Y. 1986. Effects of ethanol, potassium metabisulfite, formaldehyde and hydrogen peroxide on gastric carcinogenesis in rats after initiation with N-methyl- N ′ -nitro- N-nitrosoguanidine. Jpn J Cancer Res77(2): 118-124. Tang X, Bai Y, Duong A, Smith MT, Li L, Zhang L. 2009. Formaldehyde in China: Production, consumption, exposure levels, and health effects. Environ Int 35(8): 1210-1224. Thompson CM, Sonawane B, Grafstrom RC. 2009. The ontogeny, distribution, and regulation of alcohol dehydrogenase 3: implications for pulmonary physiology. Drug Metab Dispos37(8): 1565-1571. Titenko-Holland N, Levine AJ, Smith MT, Quintana PJ, Boeniger M, Hayes R, Suruda A, Schulte P. 1996. Quantification of epithelial cell micronuclei by fluorescence in situhybridization (FISH) in mortuary science students exposed to formaldehyde. Mutat Res371(3-4): 237-248. USDL. 2009. Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde . OSHA Fact Sheet no. 92-27. U.S. Department of Labor. http://ehs.okstate.edu/training/OSHAFHYD.HTM. Last accessed: 12/18/09. Vaughan TL, Strader C, Davis S, Daling JR. 1986. Formaldehyde and cancers of the pharynx, sinus and nasal cavity: I. Occupational exposures. Int J Cancer 38(5): 677-683. Vaughan TL, Shapiro JA, Burt RD, Swanson GM, Berwick M, Lynch CF, Lyon JL. 1996. Nasopharyngeal cancer in a low-risk population: defining risk factors by histological type. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 5(8): 587-593. Vaughan TL, Stewart PA, Teschke K, Lynch CF, Swanson GM, Lyon JL, Berwick M. 2000. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood dust and nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Occup Environ Med 57(6): 376-384. Wang B, Liu DD. 2006. [Detection of formaldehyde induced developmental toxicity assessed with single cell gel electrophoresis] [in Chinese; English translation]. Fen Zi Xi Bao Sheng Wu Xue Bao 39(5): 462-466. Wang M, Cheng G, Balbo S, Carmella SG, Villalta PW, Hecht SS. 2009. Clear differences in levels of a formaldehyde-DNA adduct in leukocytes of smokers and nonsmokers. Cancer Res69(18): 7170-7174. West S, Hildesheim A, Dosemeci M. 1993. Non-viral risk factors for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the Philippines: results from a case-control study. Int J Cancer 55(5): 722-727. WHO. 2000. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, 2nd ed. World Health Organization. http://www.euro.who. int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf. WHO. 2002. Formaldehyde: Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 40 . World Health Organization. http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad40.htm.

### Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services 11 WHO. 2005. Formaldehyde in Drinking-water. Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/ dwq/chemicals/formaldehyde130605.pdf. Ye X, Yan W, Xie H, Zhao M, Ying C. 2005. Cytogenetic analysis of nasal mucosa cells and lymphocytes from high-level long-term formaldehyde exposed workers and low-level short-term exposed waiters. Mutat Res588(1): 22-27. Ying CJ, Yan WS, Zhao MY, Ye XL, Xie H, Yin SY, Zhu XS. 1997. Micronuclei in nasal mucosa, oral mucosa and lymphocytes in students exposed to formaldehyde vapor in anatomy class. Biomed Environ Sci 10(4): 451-455. Zhang L, Steinmaus C, Eastmond DA, Xin XK, Smith MT. 2009a. Formaldehyde exposure and leukemia: a new meta-analysis and potential mechanisms. Mutat Res681(2-3): 150-168. Zhang L, Freeman LE, Nakamura J, Hecht SS, Vandenberg JJ, Smith MT, Sonawane BR. 2010a. Formaldehyde and leukemia: Epidemiology, potential mechanisms, and implications for risk assessment. Environ Mol Mutagen 51(3):181-191. Zhang L, Tang X, Rothman N, Vermeulen R, Ji Z, Shen M, et al. 2010b. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde, hematoxicity and leukemia-specific chromosome changes in cultured myeloid progenitor cells. Cancer Epidem Bio Prev 9(1):80-88.