Cosmetics and Skin Care Products

  • Anton C. de Groot
  • Ian R. White


In current usage, a cosmetic (or toiletry) is any preparation which is applied to the skin, eyes, mouth, hair or nails for the purpose of cleansing, enhancing appearance, giving a pleasant smell or giving protection. Within the definition of a cosmetic may be included:
  • Soaps, shampoos, toothpastes, and cleansing and moisturizing creams for regular care

  • Colour cosmetics such s eyeshadows, lipsticks and nail varnishes

  • Hair colorants and styling agents

  • Fragrance products such as deodorants, aftershaves and perfumes

  • Ultraviolet light (UV light) screening preparations


Contact Dermatitis Allergic Contact Dermatitis Contact Allergy Skin Care Product Cosmetic Ingredient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Consumers Association (1979) Reactions of the skin to cosmetics and toiletry products. Consumers’ Association, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Groot AC, Beverdam E, Tjong Ayong C, Coenraads PJ, Nater JP (1988) The role of contact allergy in the spectrum of adverse effects caused by cosmetics and toiletries. Contact Dermatitis 19: 195–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) and the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG) (1988) Notice. Contact Dermatitis 19: 391Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Groot AC (1990) Labelling cosmetics with their ingredients. Br Med J 300: 1636–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adams RM, Maibach HI (1985) A five-year study of cosmetic reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol 13: 1062–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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: 1525–1529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Larsen WG, Maibach HI (1982) Fragrance contact allergy. Semin Dermatol l: 85–90Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wojnarowska F, Calnan CD (1986) Contact and photocontact allergy to musk ambrette. Br J Dermatol 114: 667–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Groot AC, Herxheimer A (1989) Isothiazolinone preservative: cause of a continuing epidemic of cosmetic dermatitis. Lancet is 314–316Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Groot AC (1988) Adverse reactions to cosmetics. Thesis, State University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frosch PJ, Schulze-Dirks A (1987) Kontaktallergic auf Kathon CG. Hautarzt 38: 422–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Enders F, Przybilla B, Ring J, Burg G, Braun-Falco 0 (1988) Epicutantestung mit einer Standardreihe. Hautarzt 39: 779–786Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cosmetic Ingredient Review (1984) Final report on the safety assessment of formaldehyde. J Am Coll Toxicol 3: 157–184Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruynzeel DP, van Ketel WG, de Haan P (1984) Formaldehyde contact sensitivity and the use of shampoos. Contact Dermatitis 10: 179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Council on Scientific Affairs (1989) Formaldehyde. JAMA 261: 1 183–1 187Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosen M, McFarland AG (1984) Free formaldehyde in anionic shampoos. J Soc Cosmet Chem 35: 157–169Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Storrs FJ, Rosenthal LE, Adam RM, Clendenning W, Emmett EA, Fisher AA, Larsen WG, Maibach HI, Rietschel RL, Schorr WF, Taylor JS (1989) Prevalence and relevance of allergic reactions in patients patch tested in North America–1984 to 1985. J Am Acad Dermatol 20: 1038–1045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jordan WP, Sherman WT, King SE (1979) Threshold response in formaldehyde-sensitive subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol 1: 44–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dooms-Goossens A, de Boulle K, Dooms M, Degreef H (1986) Imidazolidinyl urea dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 14: 322–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ford GP, Beck MH (1986) Reactions to quaternium 15, bronopol and Germall 115 in a standard series. Contact Dermatitis 14: 271–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    White IR (1986) Prevalence of sensitivity to Dowicil 200 (quaternium-15). Data presented at the 8th International Symposium on Contact Dermatitis, Cambridge, 20–22 March 1986Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Groot AC, Bruynzeel DP, Jagtman BA, Weyland JW (1988) Contact allergy to diazolidinyl urea ( Germall II ). Contact Dermatitis 18: 202–205Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kantor GR, Taylor JS, Ratz JL, Evey PL (1985) Acute allergic contact dermatitis from diazolidinyl urea ( Germall II) in a hair gel. J Am Acad Dermatol 13: 116–119Google Scholar
  24. Perret CM, Happle R (1989) Contact sensitivity to diazolidinylurea (Germall II). In: Frosch PI, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle J-M, Rycroft RJG. Scheper RJ (eds) Current topics in contact dermatitis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 92–94Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jordan WP (1984) Human studies that determine the sensitizing potential of haptens. Experimental allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatol Clin 2: 533–538Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frosch PJ, White IR, Rycroft RJG, Lahti A, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Ducombs G, Wilkinson JD (1990) Contact allergy to Bronopol. Contact Dermatitis 22: 24–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Storrs F, Bell DE (1983) Allergic contact dermatitis to 2-bromo-2-nitroprane-1,3-diol in a hydrophilic ointment. J Am Acad Dermatol 8: 157–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peters MS, Connolly SM, Schroeter AL (1983) Bronopol allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 9: 397–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    De Groot AC, Bos JD, Jagtman BA, Bruynzeel DP, van Joost T, Weyland JW (1986) Contact allergy to preservatives ( II ). Contact Dermatitis 15: 218–222Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    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: 197–201Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilkinson JD, Hambly EM, Wilkinson DS (1980) Comparison of patch test results in two adjacent areas of England. II. Medicaments. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 60: 245–249Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Menné T, Hjorth N (1988) Routine testing with paraben esters. Contact Dermatitis 19: 189–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kligman AM (1983) Lanolin allergy: crisis or comedy. Contact Dermatitis 9: 99–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Edman B, Möller H (1989) Testing a purified lanolin preparation by a randomized procedure. Contact Dermatitis 20: 287–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Wit FS, De Groot AC, Weyland JW, Bos JD (1988) An outbreak of contact dermatitis from toluenesulfonamide formaldehyde resin in a nail hardener. Contact Dermatitis 18: 280–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fisher AA (1980) Cross reactions between methyl methacrylate monomer and acrylic monomers presently used in acrylic nail preparations. Contact Dermatitis 2: 345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Burrows D, Rycroft RJG (1981) Contact dermatitis from PTBP resin and tricresyl ethyl phthalate in a plastic nail adhesive. Contact Dermatitis 7: 336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, p 121Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Matsunaga K, Hosokawa K, Suzuki M, Arima Y, Hayakawa R (1988) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in beauticians. Contact Dermatitis 18: 94–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zviak C (ed) (1986) The science of hair care. Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tosti A, Melino M, Bardazzi F (1988) Contact dermatitis due to glyceryl monothioglycolate. Contact Dermatitis 19: 71–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Storrs F (1984) Permanent wave contact dermatitis: Contact allergy to glyceryl monothioglycolate. J Am Acad Dermatol 11: 74–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    English JSC, White IR, Cronin E (1987) Sensitivity to sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis 17: 159–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    De Groot AC, van der Walle HB, Jagtman BA, Weyland JW (1987) Contact allergy to 4-isopropyldibenzoylmethane and 3-(4’-methylbenzylidene)-camphor in the sunscreen Eusolex 8021. Contact Dermatitis 16: 249–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schauder S, Ippen H (1988) Photoallergisches and allergisches Kontaktekzem durch Dibenzoylmethan-Verbindungen and andere Lichtschutzfilter. Hautarzt 39: 435–440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    White IR, Lovell CR, Cronin E (1984) Antioxidants in cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 11: 265–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wilson AGMcT, White IR, Kirby JDT (1989) Allergic contact dermatitis from propyl gallate in a lip balm. Contact Dermatitis 20: 145–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    De Groot AC (1989) Oleamidopropyl dimethylamine. Dermatosen 37: 101–105Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hausen BM, Kulenkamp D (1985) Kontaktallergie auf Fludroxycortid and Cetylalkohol. Dermatosen 33: 27–28Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fisher AA (1988) Allergic contact dermatitis due to rosin (colophony) in eyeshadow and mascara. Cutis 42: 507–508PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hausen BM, Mohnert J (1989) Contact allergy due to colophony. Contact Dermatitis 20: 295–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Calnan CD, Cronin E, Rycroft RJG (1981) Allergy to phenyl salicylate. Contact Dermatitis 7: 208–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schuler TM, Frosch RI (1988) Kontaktallergic auf propolis ( Bienen-Kittharz ). Hautarzt 39: 139–142Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hausen BM, Wollenweber E, Senff H, Post B (1987) Propolis allergy (I). Origin, properties, usage and literature review. Contact Dermatitis 17: 163–170Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    English JSC, White IR (1985) Dermatitis from Damp;C red no 36. Contact Dermatitis 13: 335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nater JP, De Groot AC (1985) Unwanted effects of cosmetics and drugs used in dermatology, 2nd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Larsen WG (1989) Why is the USA the only country with compulsary cosmetic labeling? Contact Dermatitis 20: 1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Decker RL Jr, Wenninger JA (1987) Frequency of preservative use in cosmetic formulas as disclosed to FDA-1987. Cosmet Toilet 102: 21–40Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Libow LF, Ruszkowski AM, DeLeo VA (1989) Allergic contact dermatitis from parachloro-meta-xylenol in Lurosep soap. Contact Dermatitis 20: 67–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Senff H, Exner M, Gortz J, Goos M (1989) Allergic contact dermatitis from Euxyl K 400. Contact Dermatitis 20: 38–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lovell CR, White IR, Boyle J (1984) Contact dermatitis from phenoxyethanol in aqueous cream BP. Contact Dermatitis 11: 187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Knobler E, Almeida L, Ruszkowski AM, Held J, Harber L, DeLeo V (1989) Photoallergy to benzophenone. Arch Dermatol 125: 801–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Alomar A, Cerda MT (1989) Contact allergy to Eusolex 8021. Contact Dermatitis 20: 74–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    De Groot AC, van der Meeren HLM, Weyland JW (1988) Cosmetic allergy from stearic acid and glyceryl stearate. Contact Dermatitis 19: 77–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    De Groot AC, Bruynzeel DP, van Joost T, Weyland JW (1988) Cosmetic allergy from myristyl alcohol. Contact Dermatitis 1: 76–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dooms-Goossens A, Debusschere K, Dupre K, DeGreef H (1988) Can eardrops induce a shampoo dermatitis? A case study. Contact Dermatitis 19: 143–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jones SK, Kennedy CTC (1988) Contact dermatitis from triethanolamine in E45 cream. Contact Dermatitis 19: 230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anton C. de Groot
  • Ian R. White

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations