Allergologische Bewertung von Syndets zur Hautreinigung

  • J. Ring
  • R. Gollhausen
Conference paper
Part of the Griesbach Konferenz book series (GRIESBACH)

Zusammenfassung

Detergentien sind in zahlreichen Stoffen enthalten, mit denen der moderne Mensch im Alltag in Berührung kommt (Tabelle 1). Die zur Hautreinigung eingesetzten Präparationen werden in internationalen Studien meist zu den „Kosmetika“ gezählt [1, 9, 16, 17, 22, 28, 34]. In dem Risiko-Index von Kosmetika, wie er aus einer großen Studie der FDA sich ableitete, findet man Detergentien in allen Risikogruppen von „hoch“ (Badezusätze) über „mittel“ (Seife) bis zu „niedrig“ (Shampoos) (Tabelle 2). Bereits hieraus läßt sich ableiten, daß allgemeine Schlußfolgerungen mit Vorsicht zu ziehen sind.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Adam WE, Neumann K (1980) Konstitution und Eigenschaften von Tensiden. Fette, Seifen, Anstrichmittel 82:367–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alchangyan LV, (1976) Selisskii. Khim Promst (Moscow) 8:635.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alomar A, Camarasa IG, Barnadas M (1983) Addison’s disease and contact dermatitis from mercury in a soap. Contact Dermatitis 9:76–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anonymous. Tabulation of Cosmetic Product Experience Report. (Jan. 1974-June 1975). Food & Drug Administration, Division of Cosmetic Technology, Washington DC, USA, 200 C’street SW.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    —. Cosmetic-related injuries: A MODS study of NEISS. July 1st 1977 to June 30th 1978. National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce, Springfield, 22161, USA.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    —. An investigation of Consumers perception of adverse reactions to cosmetics products. (PB-242 480) Westat Inc. Prepared for Food and Drug Administration. June 1975. National Technical Information US Department of Commerce, Springfield, 22161, USA.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    —. Reactions of the skin to cosmetic and toiletry products (1979). Consumers’ Association, 14 Buckingham Street. London WC2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baer RL, Rosenthal SA (1954) The germicidal action in human skin of soap containing tetramethylthiuram disulfide. J Invest Dermatol 23:193–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bartnik F, Künstler K (1986) Biological effects, toxicology and human safety. In: Falbe J (Hrsg) Surfactants in consumer products. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 475–503.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blank IH (1956) Allergic hypersensitivity to an antiseptic soap. J Amer Med Ass 160:1225–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borelli S, Manok M (1961) Ergebnisse von Untersuchungen bei Berufsanfängern im Friseurgewerbe. Dermatosen Beruf Umw 9:271–274.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calnan CD (1964) The climate of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol (Strockh) 44:33–43.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conner DS (1977) Identification of certain sultones as the sensitizers in an alkyl ethoxy sulfate. Fette, Seifen, Anstrichmittel 77:25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooke MA, Kurwa AR (1975) Colophony sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 1:192–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dick DC, Adams RH (1979) Allergic contact dermatitis from monosulfiram (Tetmosol) soap. Contact Dermatitis 5:199–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Estrin NF (ed) (1984) The cosmetic industry. Scientific and regulatory foundations. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fiedler HP, Umbach W (1986) Cosmetics and toiletries. In: Falbe J (Hrsg) Surfactants in consumer products. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 352–397.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frosch PJ, Kligman AM (1979) The soap chamber test. A new method for assessing the irritancy of soaps. J Amer Acad Dermatol 1:35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gollhausen R, Kligman AM (1985) Human assay for identifying substances which induce non-allergic contact urticaria: the NICU-test. Contact Dermatitis 13:98–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jensen ME (1970) Severe dermatitis and „biological“ detergents. Brit Med J 1:299–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jordan WP Jr (1981) Contact dermatitis from D & C yellow 11 dye in a toilet bar soap. J Amer Acad Derm 4:613–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kligman AM, Epstein W (1975) Updating the maximization test for identifying contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1:231–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Magnusson B, Gilie O (1973) Allergie contact dermatitis from a dishwashing liquid containing lauryl ether sulphate. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 53:136–149.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maibach HI, Akerson JM, Marzulli FN, Wenninger J, Greif M, Hjorth N, Andersen KE, Wilkinson DS (1980) Test concentrations and vehicles for dermatological testing of cosmetic ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 6:369–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malten KE, Schutter K, von Senden KG, Spruit D (1969) Nickel sensitization and detergents. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 49:10–13.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mathias CGT (1982) Pigmented cosmetic dermatitis from contact allergy to a toilet soap containing chromium. Contact Dermatitis 8:29–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Muston HL, Boss JM, Summerly R (1977) Dermatitis from Ammonyx LO, constituent of surgical scrub. Contact Dermatitis 3:347–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nater JP, de Groot AC, Liem DH (eds) (1985) Unwanted effects of cosmetics and drugs used in dermatology. 2nd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ngangu Z, Samsoen M, Foussereau J (1983) Einige Aspekte zur Kosmetika-Allergie in Straßburg. Dermatosen Beruf Umw 31:126–130.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ring J, Fröhlich HH (1985) Wirkstoffe in der Dermatologie. 2. Aufl Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ring J (1988) Angewandte Allergologie, 2. Aufl. MMV-Vieweg, München.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Romaguera C, Camarasa JMG, Alomar A, Grimait F (1983) Patch tests with aller-gens related to cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 9:167–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rothenburg HW, Hjorth N (1968) Allergy to perfumes from toilet soaps and detergents in patients with dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 97:417–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schwarz E (1962) Symp Dermatol 1:250.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sylvest B, Hjorth N, Magnusson B (1975) Lauryl ether sulphate dermatitis in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 1:359–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thyresson N, Lodin A, Nilzen A (1956) Eczema of the hands due to triethanolamine in cosmetic hand lotions for housewives. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 36:355–359.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Van Haute N, Dooms-Goossens A (1983) Shampoo dermatitis due to cocobetaine and sodium lauryl ether sulphate. Contact Dermatitis 9:169–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Verbov JL (1969) Contact dermatitis from Miranols. Trans St John’s Hosp Derm Soc (Lond) 55:192–197.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vinson LJ, Choman BR (1960) J Soc Cosmet Chem 11:127.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Walker AP, Ashforth GK, Davies RE, Newman EA, Ritz HL (1973) Some characteristics of the sensitizer in alkyl ethoxy sulphate. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 43:141–144.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weaver JE (1983) Dose response relationships in delaved hypersensitivity to quino-line dyes. Contact Dermatitis 9:309–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    White IR, Lewis J, Alami AE (1985) Possible adverse reactions to an enzyme containing washing powder. Contact Dermatitis 13:175–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Ring
  • R. Gollhausen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations