Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cosmetics and Skin Care Products

  • Chapter
Book cover Contact Dermatitis

In this chapter, the nomenclature used is according to the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI), as required for ingredient labeling in Europe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. The European Commission’s Inventory of Ingredients http://pharmacos.eudra.org/F3/cosmetic/cosm_inci_index.htm

    Google Scholar 

  2. Consumers’ Association (1979) Reactions of the skin to cosmetics and toiletry products. Consumers’ Association, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. de Groot AC, Beverdam EG, Ayong CT, Coenraads PJ, Nater JP (1988) The role of contact allergy in the spectrum of adverse effects caused by cosmetics and toiletries. Contact Dermatitis 19: 195–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nielsen NH, Menné T (1992) Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 72: 456–460

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. de Groot AC (1990) Labelling cosmetics with their ingredients. Br Med J 300: 1636–1638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dillarstone A (1997) Letter to the editor. Contact Dermatitis 37: 190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Adams RM, Maibach HI (1985) A five-year study of cosmetic reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol 13: 1062–1069

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Meynadier J-M, Raison-Peyron N, Meunier L, Meynadier J (1997) Allergie aux parfums. Rev Fr Allergol 37: 641–650

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lidén C, Berg M, Färm G, Wrangsjö K (1993) Nail varnish allergy with far-reaching consequences. Br J Dermatol 128: 57–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ophaswongse S, Maibach HI (1995) Allergic contact cheilitis. Contact Dermatitis 33: 365–370

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sainio EL, Kanerva L (1995) Contact allergens in toothpastes and a review of their hypersensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 33: 100–105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Skrebova N, Brocks K, Karlsmark T (1998) Allergic contact cheilitis from spearmint oil. Contact Dermatitis 39: 35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. de Groot AC, Weyland JW, Nater JP (1994) Unwanted effects of cosmetics and drugs used in dermatology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  14. de Groot AC, Frosch PJ (1997) Adverse reactions to fragrances. A clinical review. Contact Dermatitis 36: 57–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de Groot AC, Bruynzeel DP, Bos JD, van der Meeren HLM, van Joost T, Jagtman BA, Weyland JW (1988) The allergens in cosmetics. Arch Dermatol 124: 1525–1529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. de Groot AC (1997) Cocamidopropyl betaine: a “new” important cosmetic allergen. Dermatosen 45: 60–63

    Google Scholar 

  17. de Groot AC, van der Walle HB, Weyland JW (1995) Contact allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine. Contact Dermatitis 33: 419–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. de Groot AC (1997) Contact allergens — what’s new? Cosmetic dermatitis. Clin Dermatol 15: 485–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. de Groot AC, van Ginkel CJW, Weyland JW (1996) Methyldibromo glutaronitrile (Euxyl K 400): an important “new” allergen in cosmetics. J Am Acad Dermatol 35: 743–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. de Groot AC, de Cock PAJJM, Coenraads PJ, van Ginkel CJW, Jagtman BA, van Joost T, van der Kley AMJ, Meinardi MMHM, Smeenk G, van der Valk PGM, van der Walle HB, Weyland JW (1996) Methyldibromo glutaronitrile is an important contact allergen in the Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 34: 118–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berne B, Boström Å, Grahnén AF, Tammela M (1996) Adverse effects of cosmetics and toiletries reported to the Swedish Medical Product Agency 1989–1994. Contact Dermatitis 34: 359–362

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. de Groot AC, Frosch PJ (1998) Fragrances as a cause of contact dermatitis in cosmetics: clinical aspects and epidemiological data. In: Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, White IR (eds) Fragrances. Beneficial and adverse effects. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 66–75

    Google Scholar 

  23. Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, White IR (eds) (1998) Fragrances. Beneficial and adverse effects. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Guin JD (1982) History, manufacture, and cutaneous reactions to perfumes. In: Frost P, Horwitz SW (eds) Principles of cosmetics for the dermatologist. Mosby, St. Louis, Calif., pp 111–129

    Google Scholar 

  25. Scheinman PL (1996) Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrance: a review. Am J Contact Dermatitis 7: 65–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Guin JD, Berry VK (1980) Perfume sensitivity in adult females. A study of contact sensitivity to a perfume mix in two groups of student nurses. J Am Acad Dermatol 3: 299–302

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, Mathias CGT, Nethercott JR, Rietschel RL, Sheretz EF, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS (1998) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol 38: 911–918

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Contact allergy to popular perfumes; assessed by patch test, use test and chemical analysis. Br J Dermatol 135: 419–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE, Menné T (1997) Content and reactivity to product perfumes in fragrance mix positive and negative eczema patients. A study of perfumes used in toiletries and skin-care products. Contact Dermatitis 36: 291–296

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dooms-Goossens A, Kerre S, Drieghe J, Bossuyt L, Degreef H (1992) Cosmetic products and their allergens. Eur J Dermatol 2: 465–468

    Google Scholar 

  31. Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Kjøller M, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen KE, Menné T (1998) Identification of risk products for fragrance contact allergy: a case-referent study based on patients’ histories. Am J Contact Dermatitis 9: 80–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menne T, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Lepoittevan JP, Gimenez Arnau E, Pirker C, Goossens A, White IR (1999) Lyral is an important sensitizer in patients sensitive to fragrances. Br J Dermatol 141: 1076–1083

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers (1999) Concerning Fragrance Allergy in Consumers. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/committees/sccp/documents/out98_en.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nethercott JR, Larsen WG (1997) Contact allergens — what’s new? Fragrances. Clin Dermatol 15: 499–504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Frosch PJ, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Svedman C, Goossens A, White IR, Uter W, Arnau EG, Lepoittevin JP, Menné T, Johansen JD (2005) Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 52: 207–215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen KE, Menné T (1997) Patch testing with markers of fragrance contact allergy. Do clinical tests correspond to patients’ self-reported problems? Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 77: 149–153

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Exposure to selected fragrance materials. A case study of fragrancemix-positive eczema patients. Contact Dermatitis 34: 106–110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rastogi SC, Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Menné T, Bruze M, Lepoittevin JP, Dreier B, Andersen KE, White IR (1998) Deodorants on the European market: quantitative chemical analysis of 21 fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 38: 29–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Rastogi S, Johansen JD, Menné T (1996) Natural ingredients based cosmetics. Content of selected fragrance sensitizers. Contact Dermatitis 34: 423–426

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Menné T (1996) Quantitative aspects of iso-eugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 34: 414–418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Threshold responses in cinnamic-aldehyde-sensitive subjects: results and methodological aspects. Contact Dermatitis 34: 165–171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Fransway AF (1991) The problem of preservation in the 1990 s. I. Statement of the problem, solution(s) of the industry, and the current use of formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing biocides. Am J Contact Dermat 2: 6–23

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fransway AF, Schmitz NA (1991) The problem of preservation in the 1990 s. II. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing biocides: incidences of cross-reactivity and the significance of the positive response to formaldehyde. Am J Contact Dermat 2: 78–88

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fransway AF (1991) The problem of preservation in the 1990 s. III. Agents with preservative function independent of formaldehyde release. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2: 145–174

    Google Scholar 

  45. Morren MA, Dooms-Goossens A, Delabie J, De Wolf-Peeters C, Marien K, Degreef H (1992) Contact allergy to isothiazolinone derivatives: unusual clinical presentations. Dermatology 184: 260–264

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Frosch PJ, Lahti A, Hannuksela M, Andersen KE, Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Lachapelle JM (1995) Chloromethylisothiazolone/methylisothiazolinone (CMI/MI) use test with a shampoo on patch-test-positive subjects. Results of a multicentre double-blind crossover trial. Contact Dermatitis 32: 210–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. de Groot AC, Weyland JW (1988) Kathon CG: a review. J Am Acad Dermatol 18: 350–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. de Groot AC (1990) Methylisothiazolinone/methylchloroisothiazolinone (Kathon CG) allergy: an updated review. Am J Contact Dermat 1: 151–156

    Google Scholar 

  49. Tosti A, Vincenzi C, Trevisi P, Guerra L (1995) Euxyl K 400: incidence of sensitization, patch test concentration and vehicle. Contact Dermatitis 33: 193–195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Schnuch A, Geier J (1994) Die häufigsten Kontaktallergene im zweiten Halbjahr 1993. Dermatosen 42: 210–211

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jackson JM, Fowler JF (1998) Methyldibromoglutaronitrile (Euxyl K400): a new and important sensitizer in the United States? J Am Acad Dermatol 38: 934–937

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. de Groot AC, van Ginkel CJW, Weyland JW (1996) How to detect sensitization to Euxyl K 400. Contact Dermatitis 34: 373–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bruze M, Goossens A, Gruvberger B; ESCD; EECDRG (2005) Recommendation to include methyldibromo glutaronitrile in the European standard patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 52: 24–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Banerjee P, McFadden JP, Ross JS, Rycroft RJG, White IR (2003) Increased positive patch test reactivity to methyldibromo glutaronitrile. Contact Dermatitis 49: 111–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Rosen M, McFarland AG (1984) Free formaldehyde in anionic shampoos. J Soc Cosmet Chem 35: 157–169

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Parker LU, Taylor JS (1991) A 5-year study of contact allergy to quaternium-15. Am J Contact Dermat 2: 231–234

    Google Scholar 

  57. Jacobs M-C, White IR, Rycroft RJG, Taub N (1995) Patch testing with preservatives at St John’s from 1982 to 1993. Contact Dermatitis 33: 247–254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Dooms-Goossens A, de Boulle K, Dooms M, Degreef H (1986) Imidazolidinyl urea dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 14: 322–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. de Groot AC, Bruynzeel DP, Jagtman BA, Weyland JW (1988) Contact allergy to diazolidinyl urea (Germall II). Contact Dermatitis 18: 202–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Perret CM, Happle R (1989) Contact sensitivity to diazolidinyl urea (Germall II). In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle J-M, Rycroft RJG, Scheper RJ (eds) Current topics in contact dermatitis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 92–94

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hectorne KJ, Fransway AF (1994) Diazolidinyl urea: incidence of sensitivity, patterns of cross-reactivity and clinical relevance. Contact Dermatitis 30: 16–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Frosch PJ, White IR, Rycroft RJG, Lahti A, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Ducombs G, Wilkinson JD (1990) Contact allergy to Bronopol. Contact Dermatitis 22: 24–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Storrs F, Bell DE (1983) Allergic contact dermatitis to 2-bromo-2-nitropane-1,3-diol in a hydrophilic ointment. J Am Acad Dermatol 8: 157–164

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. de Groot AC, Bos JD, Jagtman BA, Bruynzeel DP, van Joost T, Weyland JW (1986) Contact allergy to preservatives — II. Contact Dermatitis 15: 218–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. de Groot AC, van Joost T, Bos JD, van der Meeren HLM, Weyland JW (1988) Patch test reactivity to DMDM hydantoin. Relationship to formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis 18: 197–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Menné T, Hjorth N (1988) Routine patch testing with paraben esters. Contact Dermatitis 19: 189–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Fisher AA (1993) The parabens: paradoxical preservatives. Cutis 51: 405–406

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Brasch J, Schnuch A, Geier J, Aberer W, Uter W; German Contact Dermatitis Research Group; Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (2004) Iodopropynylbutyl carbamate 0.2% is suggested for patch testing of patients with eczema possibly related to preservatives. Br J Dermatol 151: 608–615

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Schollnast R, Kranke B, Aberer W (2003) Anal and palmar contact dermatitis caused by iodopropynyl butylcarbamate in moist sanitary wipes. Hautarzt 54: 970–110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Wakelin SH, White IR (1997) Contact dermatitis from chlorphenisin in a facial cosmetic. Contact Dermatitis 37: 138–139

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Tosti A, Guerra L, Vincenzi C, Piraccini BM, Peluso AM (1993) Contact sensitization caused by toluene sulfonamide-formaldehyde resin in women who use nail cosmetics. Am J Contact Dermat 4: 150–153

    Google Scholar 

  72. Hausen BM (1994) Nagellack-Allergie. HG Z Hautkr 69: 252–262

    Google Scholar 

  73. Hausen BM, Milbrodt M, Koenig WA (1995) The allergens of nail polish (I). Allergenic constituents of common nail polish and toluenesulfonamide-formaldehyde resin (TSF-R). Contact Dermatitis 33: 157–164

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Giorgini S, Brusi C, Francalanci S, Gola M, Sertoli A (1994) Prevention of allergic contact dermatitis from nail varnishes and hardeners. Contact Dermatitis 31: 325–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Kardorff B, Fuchs M, Kunze J (1995) Kontaktallergien auf Nagellack. Aktuel Dermatol 21: 349–352

    Google Scholar 

  76. Staines KS, Felix DH, Forsyth A (1998) Desquamative gingivitis, sole manifestation of tosylamide/formaldehyde resin allergy. Contact Dermatitis 39: 90

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Castelain M, Veyrat S, Laine G, Montastier C (1997) Contact dermatitis from nitrocellulose in a nail varnish. Contact Dermatitis 36: 266–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Hausen BM (1995) A simple method of determining TSF-R in nail polish. Contact Dermatitis 32: 188–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Kanerva L, Lauerma A, Jolanki R, Estlander T (1995) Methyl acrylate: a new sensitizer in nail lacquer. Contact Dermatitis 33: 203–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Rosenzweig R, Scher RK (1993) Nail cosmetics: adverse reactions. Am J Contact Dermat 4: 71–77

    Google Scholar 

  81. Barnett JM, Scher RK (1992) Nail cosmetics. Int J Dermatol 31: 675–681

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Kanerva L, Lauerma A, Estlander T, Alanko K, Henriks-Eckerman M-L, Jolanki R (1996) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by photobonded sculptured nails and a review of (meth) acrylates in nail cosmetics. Am J Contact Dermat 7: 109–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Conde-Salazar L, Baz M, Guimaraens D, Cannavo A (1995) Contact dermatitis in hairdressers: patch test results in 379 hairdressers. Am J Contact Dermat 6: 19–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Marcoux D, Riboulet-Delmas G (1994) Efficacy and safety of hair-coloring agents. Am J Contact Dermat 5: 123–129

    Google Scholar 

  85. Pigatto PD, Bigardi AS, Cusano F (1995) Contact dermatitis to cocamidopropylbetaine is caused by residual amines: relevance, clinical characteristics, and review of the literature. Am J Contact Dermat 6: 13–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Fowler JF, Fowler LM, Hunter JE (1997) Allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine may be due to amidoamine: a patch test and product use test study. Contact Dermatitis 37: 276–281

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Fowler JF Jr (1993) Cocamidopropyl betaine: the significance of positive patch test results in twelve patients. Cutis 52: 281–284

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Angelini G, Foti C, Rigano L, Vena G (1995) 3-Dimethylaminopropylamine: a key substance in contact allergy to cocamidopropylbetaine? Contact Dermatitis 32: 96–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Funk JO, Dromgoole SH, Maibach HI (1995) Sunscreen intolerance. Contact sensitization, photocontact sensitization, and irritancy of sunscreen agents. Dermatol Clin 13: 473–481

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Foley P, Nixon R, Marks R, Frowen K, Thompson S (1993) The frequency of reactions to sunscreens: results of a longitudinal population-based study on the regular use of sunscreens in Australia. Br J Dermatol 128: 512–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Bilsland D, Ferguson J (1993) Contact allergy to sunscreen chemicals in photosensitivity dermatitis/actinic reticuloid syndrome (PD/AR) and polymorphic light eruption. Contact Dermatitis 29: 70–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Darvay A, White IR, Rycroft RJG, Jones AB, Hawk JLM, McFadden JP (2001) Photoallergic contact dermatitis is uncommon. Br J Dermatol 145: 597–601

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Manciet JR, Lepoittevin JP, Jeanmougin M, Dubertret L (1994) Study of the cross-reactivity of seven benzophenones between themselves and with fenofibrate. Nouv Dermatol 13: 370–371

    Google Scholar 

  94. Pons-Guiraud A, Jeanmougin M (1993) Allergie et photoallergie de contact aux crèmes de photoprotection. Ann Derm Venereol (Stockh) 120: 727–731

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Gonçalo M, Ruas E, Figueiredo A, Gonçalo S (1995) Contact and photocontact sensitivity to sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis 33: 278–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Theeuwes M, Degreef H, Dooms-Goossens A (1992) Paraaminobenzoic acid (PABA) and sunscreen allergy. Am J Contact Dermat 3: 206–207

    Google Scholar 

  97. Wilson CI, Cameron J, Powell SM, Cherry G, Ryan TJ (1997) High incidence of contact dermatitis in leg-ulcer patients — implications for management. Clin Exp Dermatol 16: 250–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Nachbar F, Korting HC, Plewig G (1993) Zur Bedeutung des positiven Epicutantests auf Lanolin. Dermatosen 41: 227–236

    Google Scholar 

  99. Kligman AM (1998) The myth of lanolin allergy. Contact Dermatitis 39: 103–107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Matthieu L, Dockx P (1997) Discrepancy in patch test results with wool wax alcohols and Amerchol L-101. Contact Dermatitis 36: 150–151

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Wolf R (1996) The lanolin paradox. Dermatology 192: 198–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Guerra L, Bardazzi F, Tosti A (1992) Contact dermatitis in hairdressers’ clients. Contact Dermatitis 26: 108–111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Funk JO, Maibach HI (1994) Propylene glycol dermatitis: re-evaluation of an old problem. Contact Dermatitis 31: 236–241

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Aberer W, Fuchs T, Peters KP, Frosch PJ (1993) Propylenglykol: kutane Nebenwirkungen und Testmethodik. Dermatosen 41: 25–27

    Google Scholar 

  105. Wahlberg JE (1994) Propylene glycol: search for a proper and nonirritant patch test preparation. Am J Contact Dermat 5: 156–159

    Google Scholar 

  106. White IR, Lovell CR, Cronin E (1984) Antioxidants in cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 11: 265–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Le Coz CJ, Schneider G-A (1998) Contact dermatitis from tertiary-butylhydroquinone in a hair dye, with cross-sensitivity to BHA and BHT. Contact Dermatitis 39: 39–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Serra-Baldrich E, Puig LL, Gimenez Arnau A, Camarasa JG (1995) Lipstick allergic contact dermatitis from gallates. Contact Dermatitis 32: 359–360

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Parsad D, Saini R, Verma N (1997) Xanthomatous reaction following contact dermatitis from vitamin E. Contact Dermatitis 37: 294

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Wyss M, Elsner P, Homberger H-P, Greco P, Gloor M, Burg G (1997) Follikuläres Kontaktekzem auf eine Tocopherol-linoleat-haltige Körpermilch. Dermatosen 45: 25–28

    Google Scholar 

  111. Foti C, Rigano L, Vena GA, Grandolfo M, Liguori G, Angelini G (1995) Contact allergy to oleamidopropyl dimethylamine and related substances. Contact Dermatitis 33: 132–133

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Tosti A, Vincenzi C, Guerra L, Andrisano E (1996) Contact dermatitis from fatty alcohols. Contact Dermatitis 35: 287–289

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. le Coz CJ, Lefebvre C (2000) Contact dermatitis from maleated soybean oil: last gasps of an expiring cosmetic allergen. Contact Dermatitis 43: 118–119

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Laube S, Davies MG, Prais L, Foulds IS (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from medium-chain triglycerides in a moisturizing lotion. Contact Dermatitis 47: 171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Guin JD (2001) Allergic contact cheilitis from di-isostearyl malate in lipstick. Contact Dermatitis 44: 375

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. le Coz CJ, Ball C (2000) Recurrent allergic contact dermatitis and cheilitis due to castor oil. Contact Dermatitis 42: 114–115

    Google Scholar 

  117. Magerl A, Heiss R, Frosch PJ (2001) Allergic contact dermatitis from zinc ricinoleate in a deodorant and glyceryl ricinoleate in a lipstick. Contact Dermatitis 44: 119–121

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. le Coz CJ, Lefebvre C, Ludmann F, Grosshans E (2000) Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)/eicosene copolymer: an emerging cosmetic allergen. Contact Dermatitis 43: 61–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Stone N, Varma S, Hughes TM, Stone NM (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)/1-triacontene copolymer in a sunscreen. Contact Dermatitis 47: 49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Kimura M, Kawada A (2000) Follicular contact dermatitis due to polyoxyethylene laurylether. J Am Acad Dermatol 42: 879–880

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Diegenant C, Constandt L, Goossens A (2000) Allergic contact dermatitis due to 1,3-butylene glycol. Contact Dermatitis 43: 234–235

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Le Coz CJ, Leclere JM, Arnoult E, Raison-Peyron N, Pons-Guiraud A, Vigan M; Members of Revidal-Gerda (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from shellac in mascara. Contact Dermatitis 46: 149–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Moffitt DL, Sansom JE (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from phthalic anhydride/trimellitic anhydride/glycols copolymer in nail varnish. Contact Dermatitis 46: 236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Batta K, Bourke JF, Foulds IS (1997) Allergic contact dermatitis from colophony in lipsticks. Contact Dermatitis 36: 171–172

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Hausen BM, Wollenweber E, Senff H, Post B (1987) Propolis allergy (I). Origin, properties, usage and literature review. Contact Dermatitis 17: 163–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Guin JD (2003) Patch testing to FD&C and D&C dyes. Contact Dermatitis 49: 217–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Kiken DA, Cohen DE (2002) Contact Dermatitis to botanical extracts. Am J Contact Dermat 13: 148–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Nakagawa M, Kawai K, Kawai K (1995) Contact allergy to kojic acid in skin care products. Contact Dermatitis 32: 9–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. de Groot AC (1988) Adverse reactions to cosmetics. Thesis, State University of Groningen, the Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  130. De Groot AC (1998) Fatal attractiveness: the shady side of cosmetics. Clin Dermatol 16: 167–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. De Groot AC (1994) Patch testing. Test concentrations and vehicles for 3700 allergens, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  132. de Groot AC, Weijland JW (1997) Conversion of common names of cosmetic allergens to the INCI nomenclature. Contact Dermatitis 37: 145–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK

    Ian R. White

  2. Schipslootweg 5, 8351 HV, Wapserveen, The Netherlands

    Anton C. de Groot

Authors
  1. Ian R. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anton C. de Groot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH, Hautklinik Lehrstuhl Dermatologie der Universität Witten/Herdecke, Beurhausstr. 40, 44137, Dortmund, Germany

    Peter J. Frosch (Professor) (Professor)

  2. Dermatologisk afdeling K, Amtssygehuset Gentofte, 2900, Hellerup, Denmark

    Torkil Menné (Professor Dr.) (Professor Dr.)

  3. Laboratoire de Dermato-Chimie Clinique Dermatologique, CHU, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France

    Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin (Professor) (Professor)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

White, I.R., de Groot, A.C. (2006). Cosmetics and Skin Care Products. In: Frosch, P.J., Menné, T., Lepoittevin, JP. (eds) Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31301-X_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31301-X_30

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-24471-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31301-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation