TABLE 1 continued
Reported Ingredients of Tattoo Inks According to Manufacturer’s Label and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
Tattoo Ink
INTENZE: Golden Rod
INTENZE: Bright Orange
MSDS**
Confirmed in Study
Declaration of Ingredients *
MSDS
Confirmed in Study
Declaration of Ingredients *
2018 2022 2023
TiO 2
– – – – x x x x
– – – – x x x x
– – – –
x
x x
x x
x x
BaSO 4 PB15 PY65 PY14 PO13
– – – x x x x
– – x x x x x
– – x x x x x
– – x x x x x
– –
x
Aqua
– – –
– – –
Glycerine
Hamamelis virginiana (witch-hazel) extract
x
x
x
Isopropyl alcohol
–
x
–
–
x
x
x
–
*Declaration of ingredients according to the label on the bottles of ink that were purchased in 2019. **Golden Rod ink has the same composition according to the three MSDS from 2018, 2022, and 2023. Note. BaSO 4 = barium sulfate; PB = pigment blue; PO = pigment orange; PY = pigment yellow; TiO 2 = titanium dioxide. Source: INTENZE Advanced Tattoo Ink, 2025.
decoupling during acquisition (Spinal 64). Sideband suppression was achieved using the standard total suppression of sideband (TOSSa) sequence. XRD was recorded for pigment samples and dried tattoo inks. Data were collected using a Bruker Advanced D8 di ractometer with Co K α ( λ = 1.7889 Å, 2 θ = 10°–90°, time per step = 0.5 s). All samples were ground to a fine powder with a mortar and pestle before being loaded onto an XRD sample stage. Raman spectra were collected using a Horiba Scientific Xplora Plus Raman spec- trometer at both 786 nm and 532 nm. The analysis was performed at 200 cm -1 to 3,000 cm -1 wavenumbers, with the laser inten- sity reduced using 10% and 25% filters. For each sample, 12 scans of 20-s pulses were recorded. In all instances, dried pigment/ink powder was placed onto a glass slide, which was mounted on the Raman spectrometer’s sample holder for analysis. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was undertaken with an FEI F50 inspect system equipped with an Octane Pro EDX detec- tion system. Pigment samples were prepared by directly spreading pigment powder onto sticky carbon tabs. The working distance was
10 mm, and the acceleration voltage was 10 kV. The PY14, GR, and GY inks were coated with platinum with a thickness of about 2 nm to increase their electrical conductivity. ICP-OES was conducted using a Perkin Elmer Optima 8000 ICP-OES. Prior to analy- sis, approximately 100 mg of the dried ink samples were digested in 5 ml of nitric acid (HNO 3 ) using a microwave digestor. After digestion, the samples were diluted to 50 ml in Milli-Q water, giving an HNO 3 concentration of 10%, and an aliquot was diluted twice in ultrapure water (18 MΩ), giving a 5% HNO 3 concentration. Finally, the samples were fil- tered using a 0.45-µm nylon filter prior to analysis. Calibration standards (5 ppb to 1 ppm) were prepared in 5% aqueous HNO 3 .
the reported ingredients listed on the manu- facturer’s label and in the provided material safety data sheet (MSDS) of the four inks we examined. Table 1 shows the MSDS ingredient lists for the inks as of 2018, 2022, and 2023, and the declared ingredients on the label. It is evident there are some di erences in reported ingredients on the MSDS over this time. Inks used in our study were purchased in 2019, so it could be expected that the reported ingredients on the label would match those of the MSDS from 2018. Despite this expecta- tion, there are some discrepancies between each label and the corresponding 2018 MSDS. For example, the label for LY ink indicates that it contains PY65 (Figure 1), but PY65 is not listed in the 2018 MSDS. Similarly, PY14 (Figure 1) is not listed as an ingredient on the label of the LY ink, but PY14 is listed in the 2018 MSDS. The labels for GR and GY inks list that they contain PO13 (Figure 1); how- ever, PO13 is not listed in the 2018 MSDS. And lastly, PB15 (Figure 1) is listed on the label and in the MSDS for LY in 2018 and 2022, but it is no longer listed on the 2023 MSDS. Similarly, there were discrepancies on other ingredients such as BaSO 4 , which is not listed on the label of GY and BO inks.
Results and Discussion
Ink Characterization
Reported Ingredients As prior research has shown that tattoo inks ingredients are sometimes misidentified on the label (Bauer et al., 2019, 2020; Moseman et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2021), our study examined
11
September 2025 • Journal of Environmental Health
Powered by FlippingBook