Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contact Allergy to Fragrances

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Contact Dermatitis

Abstract

Fragrances are used in many types of products. They are composed of 10–300 individual fragrance ingredients, many of which may be allergens. Fragrance allergy is frequent, also in adolescents. In this chapter, an overview is given of the epidemiology of fragrance allergy, the causative allergens, the chemicals and naturals, and the exposures. The diagnosis of fragrance allergy can be difficult, but the three current diagnostic preparations, fragrance mix I and II (FM I and FM II) and Myroxylon pereirae (balsam of Peru) are helpful. Further individual substances of relevance for testing will be commented upon, and advice on how to inform the patient will be given.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Muller J (1992) The H&R book of perfume. Understanding fragrance, origin, history, development. Guide to fragrance ingredients. Glöss, Hamburg. 214 p

    Google Scholar 

  2. Poucher WA (1993) The production of natural perfumes. In: Poucher WA (ed) Perfumes, cosmetics and soaps: volume II the production, manufacture and application of perfumes [Internet]. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht; [cited 2019 Jul 25]. pp 16–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1484-4_2

  3. Bernard G, Giménez-Arnau E, Rastogi SC, Heydorn S, Johansen JD, Menné T et al (2003) Contact allergy to oak moss: search for sensitizing molecules using combined bioassay-guided chemical fractionation, GC-MS, and structure-activity relationship analysis. Arch Dermatol Res 295(6):229–235

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bauer K, Garbe D, Surburg H (1990) Common fragrance and flavor materials: preparation, properties, and uses. Vch Verlagsgesellschaft Weinheim, Germany. 240 p

    Google Scholar 

  5. Johansen JD (2002) Contact allergy to fragrances: clinical and experimental investigations of the fragrance mix and its ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 46(Suppl 3):4–31

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harder U (1998) The art of creating a perfume. In: Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, White IR (eds) Fragrances. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 3–5

    Google Scholar 

  7. Christensson JB, Johansson S, Hagvall L, Jonsson C, Börje A, Karlberg A-T (2008) Limonene hydroperoxide analogues differ in allergenic activity. Contact Dermatitis 59(6):344–352

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lepoittevin JP, Mutterer V (1998) Molecular aspects of fragrance sensitisation. In: Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, White IR (eds) Fragrances. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 49–56

    Google Scholar 

  9. Christensson JB, Matura M, Gruvberger B, Bruze M, Karlberg A-T (2010) Linalool – a significant contact sensitizer after air exposure. Contact Dermatitis 62(1):32–41

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hagvall L, Bäcktorp C, Svensson S, Nyman G, Börje A, Karlberg A-T (2007) Fragrance compound geraniol forms contact allergens on air exposure. Identification and quantification of oxidation products and effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 20(5):807–814

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Basketter DA (1992) Skin sensitization to cinnamic alcohol: the role of skin metabolism. Acta Derm Venereol 72(4):264–265

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nilsson A-M, Jonsson C, Luthman K, Nilsson JLG, Karlberg A-T (2004) Inhibition of the sensitizing effect of carvone by the addition of non-allergenic compounds. Acta Derm Venereol 84(2):99–105

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Johansen JD, Skov L, Volund A, Andersen K, Menné T (1998) Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: a study of fragrance-sensitized individuals. Br J Dermatol 139(2):264–270

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Karlberg AT, Nilsson AM, Luthman K, Nilsson JL (2001) Structural analogues inhibit the sensitizing capacity of carvone. Acta Derm Venereol 81(6):398–402

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de Groot AC (2019) Fragrances and essential oils. Monographs in contact allergy, vol 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 946 p

    Google Scholar 

  16. Surburg H, Panten J (2006) Common fragrance and flavor materials: preparation, properties and uses. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  17. Schmidt E (2010) Production of essential oils. In: Husnu Can Baser K, Buchbauer G (eds) Handbook of essential oils – science, technology, and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 88–95

    Google Scholar 

  18. Uter W, Johansen JD, Börje A, Karlberg A-T, Lidén C, Rastogi S et al (2013) Categorization of fragrance contact allergens for prioritization of preventive measures: clinical and experimental data and consideration of structure-activity relationships. Contact Dermatitis 69(4):196–230

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Trattner A, David M, Lazarov A (2008) Occupational contact dermatitis due to essential oils. Contact Dermatitis 58(5):282–284

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jung P, Sesztak-Greinecker G, Wantke F, Götz M, Jarisch R, Hemmer W (2006) Mechanical irritation triggering allergic contact dermatitis from essential oils in a masseur. Contact Dermatitis 54(5):297–299

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Boonchai W, Iamtharachai P, Sunthonpalin P (2007) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from essential oils in aromatherapists. Contact Dermatitis 56(3):181–182

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Romaguera C, Vilaplana J (2000) Occupational contact dermatitis from ylang-ylang oil. Contact Dermatitis 43(4):251

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Uter W, Johansen JD, Lidén C, Lepoittevin J-P, White IR (2017) Criteria for the evidence-based categorisation of skin sensitisers. Food Chem Toxicol 105:14–21

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Svedman C, Bruze M, Bernard G, Giménez-Arnau E et al (2003) Chloroatranol, an extremely potent allergen hidden in perfumes: a dose-response elicitation study. Contact Dermatitis 49(4):180–184

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rastogi SC, Bossi R, Johansen JD, Menné T, Bernard G, Giménez-Arnau E et al (2004) Content of oak moss allergens atranol and chloroatranol in perfumes and similar products. Contact Dermatitis 50(6):367–370

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nardelli A, Giménez-Arnau E, Bernard G, Lepoittevin J-P, Goossens A (2009) Is a low content in atranol/chloroatranol safe in oak moss-sensitized individuals? Contact Dermatitis 60(2):91–95

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Andersen F, Andersen KH, Bernois A, Brault C, Bruze M, Eudes H et al (2015) Reduced content of chloroatranol and atranol in oak moss absolute significantly reduces the elicitation potential of this fragrance material. Contact Dermatitis 72(2):75–83

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bennike NH, Zachariae C, Johansen JD (2017) Non-mix fragrances are top sensitizers in consecutive dermatitis patients – a cross-sectional study of the 26 EU-labelled fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis 77(5):270–279

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Uter W, Schmidt E, Lessmann H, Schnuch A (2012) Contact sensitization to tree moss (Evernia furfuracea extract, INCI) is heterogeneous. Contact Dermatitis 67(1):36–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Warshaw EM, Zug KA, Belsito DV, Fowler JF, DeKoven JG, Sasseville D et al (2017) Positive patch-test reactions to essential oils in consecutive patients from North America and Central Europe. Dermatitis 28(4):246–252

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. de Groot AC, Schmidt E (2016) Tea tree oil: contact allergy and chemical composition. Contact Dermatitis 75(3):129–143

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menné T, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE et al (2002) Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 47(2):78–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Uter W, Schmidt E, Geier J, Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Frosch P (2010) Contact allergy to essential oils: current patch test results (2000–2008) from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 63(5):277–283

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sugiura M, Hayakawa R, Kato Y, Sugiura K, Hashimoto R (2000) Results of patch testing with lavender oil in Japan. Contact Dermatitis 43(3):157–160

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Uter W, Gefeller O, Mahler V, Geier J (2020) Trends and current spectrum of contact allergy in Central Europe: results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2007–2018. Br J Dermatol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18946 [Online ahead of print]

  36. Karlberg A-T, Börje A, Duus Johansen J, Lidén C, Rastogi S, Roberts D et al (2013) Activation of non-sensitizing or low-sensitizing fragrance substances into potent sensitizers – prehaptens and prohaptens. Contact Dermatitis 69(6):323–334

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hagvall L, Baron JM, Börje A, Weidolf L, Merk H, Karlberg A-T (2008) Cytochrome P450-mediated activation of the fragrance compound geraniol forms potent contact allergens. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 233(2):308–313

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Elahi EN, Wright Z, Hinselwood D, Hotchkiss SAM, Basketter DA, Pease CKS (2004) Protein binding and metabolism influence the relative skin sensitization potential of cinnamic compounds. Chem Res Toxicol 17(3):301–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Niklasson IB, Delaine T, Islam MN, Karlsson R, Luthman K, Karlberg A-T (2013) Cinnamyl alcohol oxidizes rapidly upon air exposure. Contact Dermatitis 68(3):129–138

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bergström MA, Luthman K, Nilsson JLG, Karlberg A-T (2006) Conjugated dienes as prohaptens in contact allergy: in vivo and in vitro studies of structure-activity relationships, sensitizing capacity, and metabolic activation. Chem Res Toxicol 19(6):760–769

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rudbäck J, Bergström MA, Börje A, Nilsson U, Karlberg A-T (2012) α-Terpinene, an antioxidant in tea tree oil, autoxidizes rapidly to skin allergens on air exposure. Chem Res Toxicol 25(3):713–721

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hagvall L, Bäcktorp C, Norrby P-O, Karlberg A-T, Börje A (2011) Experimental and theoretical investigations of the autoxidation of geranial: a dioxolane hydroperoxide identified as a skin sensitizer. Chem Res Toxicol 24(9):1507–1515

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dittmar D, Schuttelaar MLA (2019) Contact sensitization to hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool: results of consecutive patch testing and clinical relevance. Contact Dermatitis 80(2):101–109

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nath NS, Liu B, Green C, Atwater AR (2017) Contact allergy to hydroperoxides of linalool and D-Limonene in a US Population. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug 28(5):313–316

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Deza G, García-Bravo B, Silvestre JF, Pastor-Nieto MA, González-Pérez R, Heras-Mendaza F et al (2017) Contact sensitization to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides in Spain: a GEIDAC∗ prospective study. Contact Dermatitis 76(2):74–80

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bråred Christensson J, Karlberg A-T, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Johansen JD, Garcia-Bravo B et al (2016) Oxidized limonene and oxidized linalool – concomitant contact allergy to common fragrance terpenes. Contact Dermatitis 74(5):273–280

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Frosch PJ, Pilz B, Andersen KE, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Dooms-Goossens A et al (1995) Patch testing with fragrances: results of a multicenter study of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group with 48 frequently used constituents of perfumes. Contact Dermatitis 33(5):333–342

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Uter W, Geier J, Frosch P, Schnuch A (2010) Contact allergy to fragrances: current patch test results (2005–2008) from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Contact Dermatitis 63(5):254–261

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menné T, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE et al (2002) Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 47(2):78–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Frosch PJ (2007) Sensitization to 26 fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation. Results of the IVDK and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis 57(1):1–10

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. van Oosten EJ, Schuttelaar M-LA, Coenraads PJ (2009) Clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to the 26 EU-labelled fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 61(4):217–223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Smith CK, Moore CA, Elahi EN, Smart AT, Hotchkiss SA (2000) Human skin absorption and metabolism of the contact allergens, cinnamic aldehyde, and cinnamic alcohol. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 168(3):189–199

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Cheung C, Hotchkiss SAM, Pease CKS (2003) Cinnamic compound metabolism in human skin and the role metabolism may play in determining relative sensitisation potency. J Dermatol Sci 31(1):9–19

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Moss E, Debeuckelaere C, Berl V, Elbayed K, Moussallieh F-M, Namer I-J et al (2016) In situ metabolism of cinnamyl alcohol in reconstructed human epidermis: new insights into the activation of this fragrance skin sensitizer. Chem Res Toxicol 29(7):1172–1178

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. White IR, Johansen JD, Arnau EG, Lepoittevin JP, Rastogi S, Bruze M et al (1999) Isoeugenol is an important contact allergen: can it be safely replaced with isoeugenyl acetate? Contact Dermatitis 41(5):272–275

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tanaka S, Royds C, Buckley D, Basketter DA, Goossens A, Bruze M et al (2004) Contact allergy to isoeugenol and its derivatives: problems with allergen substitution. Contact Dermatitis 51(5–6):288–291

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. de Groot AC (2019) Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru) – a critical review of the literature and assessment of the significance of positive patch tests and the usefulness of restrictive diets. Contact Dermatitis 80:335–353. (accepted)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Larsen WG (1977) Perfume dermatitis. a study of 20 patients. Arch Dermatol 113(5):623–626

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Uter W (2015) Fragrance mix I: TRUE Test(®) versus pet.-based patch test. Contact Dermatitis 72(4):256–258

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Frosch PJ, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Svedman C et al (2005) Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 52(4):207–215

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Meneghini CL, Sertoli A, Nava C, Angelini G, Francalani S, Foti C et al (1995) Irritant contact dermatitis of the hands in housewives. In: Elsner P, Maibach HI (eds) Irritant dermatitis new clinical and experimental aspects curr probl dermatol. Karger, Basel, pp 41–48

    Google Scholar 

  62. Seidenari S, Manzini BM, Danese P, Motolese A (1990) Patch and prick test study of 593 healthy subjects. Contact Dermatitis 23(3):162–167

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Nielsen NH, Menné T (1992) Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark. Acta Derm Venereol 72(6):456–460

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE (2002) Contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis in adolescents: prevalence measures and associations. The Odense Adolescence Cohort Study on Atopic Diseases and Dermatitis (TOACS). Acta Derm Venereol 82(5):352–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Nielsen NH, Linneberg A, Menné T, Madsen F, Frølund L, Dirksen A et al (2001) Allergic contact sensitization in an adult Danish population: two cross-sectional surveys eight years apart (the Copenhagen Allergy Study). Acta Derm Venereol 81(1):31–34

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T, Nielsen NH, Johansen JD (2009) The prevalence and morbidity of sensitization to fragrance mix I in the general population. Br J Dermatol 161(1):95–101

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Dotterud LK, Smith-Sivertsen T (2007) Allergic contact sensitization in the general adult population: a population-based study from Northern Norway. Contact Dermatitis 56(1):10–15

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Schäfer T, Böhler E, Ruhdorfer S, Weigl L, Wessner D, Filipiak B et al (2001) Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy 56(12):1192–1196

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Meding B, Swanbeck G (1990) Occupational hand eczema in an industrial city. Contact Dermatitis 22(1):13–23

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Lagrelius M, Wahlgren C-F, Matura M, Kull I, Lidén C (2016) High prevalence of contact allergy in adolescence: results from the population-based BAMSE birth cohort. Contact Dermatitis 74(1):44–51

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Diepgen TL, Ofenloch RF, Bruze M, Bertuccio P, Cazzaniga S, Coenraads P-J et al (2016) Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in different European regions. Br J Dermatol 174(2):319–329

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Buckley DA, Rycroft RJG, White IR, McFadden JP (2003) The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol 149(5):986–989

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Uter W, Schnuch A, Geier J, Pfahlberg A, Gefeller O, IVDK Study Group, Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (2001) Association between occupation and contact allergy to the fragrance mix: a multifactorial analysis of national surveillance data. Occup Environ Med 58(6):392–398

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Lindberg M, Edman B, Fischer T, Stenberg B (2007) Time trends in Swedish patch test data from 1992 to 2000. A multi-centre study based on age- and sex-adjusted results of the Swedish standard series. Contact Dermatitis 56(4):205–210

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Temesvári E, Németh I, Baló-Banga MJ, Husz S, Kohánka V, Somos Z et al (2002) Multicentre study of fragrance allergy in Hungary. Immediate and late type reactions. Contact Dermatitis 46(6):325–330

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Machovcova A, Dastychova E, Kostalova D, Vojtechovska A, Reslova J, Smejkalova D et al (2005) Common contact sensitizers in the Czech Republic. Patch test results in 12,058 patients with suspected contact dermatitis∗. Contact Dermatitis 53(3):162–166

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, Frosch PJ, Uter W, IVDK (2004) Contact allergy to fragrances: frequencies of sensitization from 1996 to 2002. Results of the IVDK∗. Contact Dermatitis 50(2):65–76

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Wöhrl S, Hemmer W, Focke M, Götz M, Jarisch R (2001) The significance of fragrance mix, balsam of Peru, colophony and propolis as screening tools in the detection of fragrance allergy. Br J Dermatol 145(2):268–273

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. de Groot AC, Coenraads PJ, Bruynzeel DP, Jagtman BA, van Ginkel CJ, Noz K et al (2000) Routine patch testing with fragrance chemicals in The Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 42(3):184–185

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Nardelli A, Carbonez A, Ottoy W, Drieghe J, Goossens A (2008) Frequency of and trends in fragrance allergy over a 15-year period. Contact Dermatitis 58(3):134–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Brites MM, Gonçalo M, Figueiredo A (2000) Contact allergy to fragrance mix – a 10-year study. Contact Dermatitis 43(3):181–182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Cuesta L, Silvestre JF, Toledo F, Lucas A, Pérez-Crespo M, Ballester I (2010) Fragrance contact allergy: a 4-year retrospective study. Contact Dermatitis 63(2):77–84

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Buckley DA, Basketter DA, Kan-King-Yu D, White IR, White JLM, McFadden JP (2008) Atopy and contact allergy to fragrance: allergic reactions to the fragrance mix I (the Larsen mix). Contact Dermatitis 59(4):220–225

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Thyssen JP, Carlsen BC, Menné T, Johansen JD (2008) Trends of contact allergy to fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae among Danish eczema patients tested between 1985 and 2007. Contact Dermatitis 59(4):238–244

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Frosch PJ, Duus Johansen J, Schuttelaar M-LA, Silvestre JF, Sánchez-Pérez J, Weisshaar E et al (2015) Patch test results with fragrance markers of the baseline series – analysis of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) network 2009–2012. Contact Dermatitis 73(3):163–171

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Liu J, Li L-F (2015) Contact sensitization to fragrances other than fragrance mix I in China. Contact Dermatitis 73(4):252–253

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Uter W, Amario-Hita JC, Balato A, Ballmer-Weber B, Bauer A, Belloni Fortina A et al (2017) European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results with the European baseline series, 2013/14. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol JEADV 31(9):1516–1525

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Hafner M d FS, Munhoz SDG, Jeldes AG, Lazzarini R (2018) Positive results of patch tests with fragrance markers: analysis of a 15-year period at a Brazilian dermatology center. An Bras Dermatol 93(6):910–912

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Silvestre JF, Mercader P, González-Pérez R, Hervella-Garcés M, Sanz-Sánchez T, Córdoba S et al (2019) Sensitization to fragrances in Spain: a 5-year multicentre study (2011–2015). Contact Dermatitis 80(2):94–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Bennike NH, Zachariae C, Johansen JD (2017) Trends in contact allergy to fragrance mix I in consecutive Danish patients with eczema from 1986 to 2015: a cross-sectional study. Br J Dermatol 176(4):1035–1041

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Geier J, Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Uter W (2015) Reactivity to sorbitan sesquioleate affects reactivity to fragrance mix I. Contact Dermatitis 73(5):296–304

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Bennike NH, Johansen JD (2016) Sorbitan sesquioleate; a rare cause of contact allergy in consecutively patch tested dermatitis patients. Contact Dermatitis 74(4):242–245

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Frosch PJ, Rastogi SC, Pirker C, Brinkmeier T, Andersen KE, Bruze M et al (2005) Patch testing with a new fragrance mix – reactivity to the individual constituents and chemical detection in relevant cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis 52(4):216–225

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Krautheim A, Uter W, Frosch P, Schnuch A, Geier J (2010) Patch testing with fragrance mix II: results of the IVDK 2005–2008. Contact Dermatitis 63(5):262–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Heisterberg MV, Andersen KE, Avnstorp C, Kristensen B, Kristensen O, Kaaber K et al (2010) Fragrance mix II in the baseline series contributes significantly to detection of fragrance allergy. Contact Dermatitis 63(5):270–276

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Pónyai G, Németh I, Altmayer A, Nagy G, Irinyi B, Battyáni Z et al (2012) Patch tests with fragrance mix II and its components. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug. 23(2):71–74

    Google Scholar 

  97. Bruze M, Andersen KE, Goossens A, ESCD, EECDRG (2008) Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) in the European baseline patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 58(3):129–133

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Uter W, Rämsch C, Aberer W, Ayala F, Balato A, Beliauskiene A et al (2009) The European baseline series in 10 European Countries, 2005/2006 – results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA). Contact Dermatitis 61(1):31–38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Engfeldt M, Hagvall L, Isaksson M, Matura M, Mowitz M, Ryberg K et al (2017) Patch testing with hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) – a multicentre study of the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis 76(1):34–39

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Beliauskiene A, Valiukeviciene S, Uter W, Schnuch A (2011) The European baseline series in Lithuania: results of patch testing in consecutive adult patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol JEADV. 25(1):59–63

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Geier J, Brasch J, Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Pirker C, Frosch PJ et al (2002) Lyral has been included in the patch test standard series in Germany. Contact Dermatitis 46(5):295–297

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Hausen BM, Simatupang T, Bruhn G, Evers P, Koenig WA (1995) Identification of new allergenic constituents and proof of evidence for coniferyl benzoate in Balsam of Peru. Am J Contact Dermat 6(4):199–208

    Google Scholar 

  103. Hausen BM (2001) Contact allergy to balsam of Peru. II. Patch test results in 102 patients with selected balsam of Peru constituents. Am J Contact Dermat 12(2):93–102

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Api AM (2006) Only Peru Balsam extracts or distillates are used in perfumery. Contact Dermatitis 54(3):179

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Avalos-Peralta P, García-Bravo B, Camacho FM (2005) Sensitivity to Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru). A study of 50 cases. Contact Dermatitis 52(6):304–306

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Akyol A, Boyvat A, Peksari Y, Gürgey E (2005) Contact sensitivity to standard series allergens in 1038 patients with contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis 52(6):333–337

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Uter W, Hegewald J, Aberer W, Ayala F, Bircher AJ, Brasch J et al (2005) The European standard series in 9 European countries, 2002/2003 – first results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies. Contact Dermatitis 53(3):136–145

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Bruynzeel DP, Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruze M, Frosch PJ et al (2005) Monitoring the European standard series in 10 centres 1996–2000. Contact Dermatitis 53(3):146–149

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Bråred Christensson J, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Johansen JD, Garcia-Bravo B, Gimenez Arnau A et al (2012) Air-oxidized linalool: a frequent cause of fragrance contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 67(5):247–259

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Bråred Christensson J, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Johansen JD, Garcia-Bravo B, Giménez-Arnau A et al (2013) An international multicentre study on the allergenic activity of air-oxidized R-limonene. Contact Dermatitis 68(4):214–223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Audrain H, Kenward C, Lovell CR, Green C, Ormerod AD, Sansom J et al (2014) Allergy to oxidized limonene and linalool is frequent in the U.K. Br J Dermatol 171(2):292–297

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Wlodek C, Penfold CM, Bourke JF, Chowdhury MMU, Cooper SM, Ghaffar S et al (2017) Recommendation to test limonene hydroperoxides 0.3% and linalool hydroperoxides 1.0% in the British baseline patch test series. Br J Dermatol 177(6):1708–1715

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Wilkinson M, Gonçalo M, Aerts O, Badulici S, Bennike NH, Bruynzeel D et al (2019) The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2019. Contact Dermatitis 80(1):1–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Bennike NH, Palangi L, Christensson JB, Nilsson U, Zachariae C, Johansen JD et al (2019) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by hydroperoxides of limonene and dose-response relationship-A repeated open application test (ROAT) study. Contact Dermatitis 80(4):208–216

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis, 1st edn. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh/New York. 915 p

    Google Scholar 

  116. 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 77(2):149–153

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch P, Burrows D et al (1998) A study of new fragrance mixtures. Am J Contact Dermat 9(4):202–206

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Katz AS, Sherertz EF (1999) Facial dermatitis: patch test results and final diagnoses. Am J Contact Dermat 10(3):153–156

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Edman B (1994) The influence of shaving method on perfume allergy. Contact Dermatitis 31(5):291–292

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. 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(3):419–422

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A, Frosch PJ (2007) Patch test results with patients’ own perfumes, deodorants and shaving lotions: results of the IVDK 1998–2002. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol JEADV 21(3):374–379

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Frosch P, Dreier B et al (1998) Deodorants: a clinical provocation study in fragrance-sensitive individuals. Contact Dermatitis 39(4):161–165

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Svedman C, Bruze M, Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Goossens A, Frosch PJ et al (2003) Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with hydroxycitronellal. Contact Dermatitis 48(4):217–223

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. von Peter C, Hoting E (1993) Anwendungstest mit parfümierten Kosmetika bei Patienten mit positivem Epikutantest auf Duftstoff-Mischung. Dermatosen Beruf Umw 41:237–241

    Google Scholar 

  125. Heisterberg MV, Menné T, Andersen KE, Avnstorp C, Kristensen B, Kristensen O et al (2011) Deodorants are the leading cause of allergic contact dermatitis to fragrance ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 64(5):258–264

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Heydorn S, Menné T, Johansen JD (2003) Fragrance allergy and hand eczema – a review. Contact Dermatitis 48(2):59–66

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Buckley DA, Rycroft RJ, White IR, McFadden JP (2000) Contact allergy to individual fragrance mix constituents in relation to primary site of dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 43(5):304–305

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Christophersen J, Menné T, Tanghøj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K et al (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21(5):291–299

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Katsarma G, Gawkrodger DJ (1999) Suspected fragrance allergy requires extended patch testing to individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis 41(4):193–197

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Toledo F, García-Bravo B, Fernández-Redondo V, De la Cuadra J, Giménez-Arnau AM, Borrego L et al (2011) Patch testing in children with hand eczema. A 5-year multicentre study in Spain. Contact Dermatitis 65(4):213–219

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Nakayama H (1998) Fragrance hypersensitivity and its control. In: Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, White IR (eds) Fragrances. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 83–91

    Google Scholar 

  132. Veien NK (1989) Systemically induced eczema in adults. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 147:1–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Niinimäki A (1995) Double-blind placebo-controlled peroral challenges in patients with delayed-type allergy to balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 33(2):78–83

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Veien NK, Hattel T, Laurberg G (1996) Can oral challenge with balsam of Peru predict possible benefit from a low-balsam diet? Am J Contact Dermat 7(2):84–87

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. 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(6):291–296

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Menné T (1996) Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 34(6):414–418

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Rastogi SC, Menne T (1996) Threshold responses in cinnamic-aldehyde-sensitive subjects: results and methodological aspects. Contact Dermatitis 34(3):165–171

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Jørgensen PH, Jensen CD, Rastogi S, Andersen KE, Johansen JD (2007) Experimental elicitation with hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde-containing deodorants. Contact Dermatitis 56(3):146–150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Bruze M, Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Frosch P, Lepoittevin J-P, Rastogi S et al (2003) Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with cinnamic aldehyde. J Am Acad Dermatol 48(2):194–200

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Schnuch A, Uter W, Dickel H, Szliska C, Schliemann S, Eben R et al (2009) Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing in hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde sensitive-patients. Contact Dermatitis 61(3):152–162

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Bruze M, Engfeldt M, Ofenloch R, Elsner P, Goncalo M, Isaksson M et al (2019) Validation of a questionnaire algorithm based on repeated open application testing with the constituents of fragrance mix I. Br J Dermatol 182(4):955–964

    Google Scholar 

  142. Rastogi SC, Heydorn S, Johansen JD, Basketter DA (2001) Fragrance chemicals in domestic and occupational products. Contact Dermatitis 45(4):221–225

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Nardelli A, D’Hooghe E, Drieghe J, Dooms M, Goossens A (2009) Allergic contact dermatitis from fragrance components in specific topical pharmaceutical products in Belgium. Contact Dermatitis 60(6):303–313

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Rocha VB, Machado CJ, Bittencourt FV (2017) Presence of allergens in the vehicles of Brazilian dermatological products. Contact Dermatitis 76(2):126–128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Schnuch A, Uter W, Lessmann H, Geier J (2015) Risk of sensitization to fragrances estimated on the basis of patch test data and exposure, according to volume used, and a sample of 5451 cosmetic products. Flavour Fragr J 30:208–217

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Buckley DA (2007) Fragrance ingredient labelling in products on sale in the U.K. Br J Dermatol 157(2):295–300

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Uter W, Yazar K, Kratz E-M, Mildau G, Lidén C (2013) Coupled exposure to ingredients of cosmetic products: I. Fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 69(6):335–341

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Bennike NH, Oturai NB, Müller S, Kirkeby CS, Jørgensen C, Christensen AB et al (2018) Fragrance contact allergens in 5588 cosmetic products identified through a novel smartphone application. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol JEADV. 32(1):79–85

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Goodier MC, Zhang AJ, Nikle AB, Hylwa SA, Goldfarb NI, Warshaw EM (2019) Use of essential oils: a general population survey. Contact Dermatitis 80(6):391–393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Rastogi SC, Lepoittevin JP, Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Menné T, Bruze M et al (1998) Fragrances and other materials in deodorants: search for potentially sensitizing molecules using combined GC-MS and structure activity relationship (SAR) analysis. Contact Dermatitis 39(6):293–303

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Elliott JF, Ramzy A, Nilsson U, Moffat W, Suzuki K (2017) Severe intractable eyelid dermatitis probably caused by exposure to hydroperoxides of linalool in a heavily fragranced shampoo. Contact Dermatitis 76(2):114–115

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. Isaksson M, Karlberg A-T, Nilsson U (2019) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by oxidized linalool in a deodorant. Contact Dermatitis 81(3):213–214

    Google Scholar 

  153. Natsch A, Nägelin M, Leijs H, van Strien M, Giménez-Arnau E, Vey M et al (2019) Exposure source for skin sensitizing hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool remains elusive: an analytical market surveillance. Food Chem Toxicol 127:156–162

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Ramzi A, Ahmadi H, Sadiktsis I, Nilsson U (2018) A two-dimensional non-comprehensive reversed/normal phase high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry system for determination of limonene and linalool hydroperoxides. J Chromatogr A 1566:102–110

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Wallenhammar LM, Ortengren U, Andreasson H, Barregård L, Björkner B, Karlsson S et al (2000) Contact allergy and hand eczema in Swedish dentists. Contact Dermatitis 43(4):192–199

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Montgomery RL, Agius R, Wilkinson SM, Carder M (2018) UK trends of allergic occupational skin disease attributed to fragrances 1996–2015. Contact Dermatitis 78(1):33–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Bensefa-Colas L, Telle-Lamberton M, Paris C, Faye S, Stocks SJ, Luc A et al (2014) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis and major allergens in France: temporal trends for the period 2001–2010. Br J Dermatol 171(6):1375–1385

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Geier J, Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Uter W (2004) Contact sensitizations in metalworkers with occupational dermatitis exposed to water-based metalworking fluids: results of the research project ‘FaSt’. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 77(8):543–551

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Pontén A, Björk J, Carstensen O, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Rasmussen K et al (2004) Associations between contact allergy to epoxy resin and fragrance mix. Acta Derm Venereol 84(2):151–152

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Perper M, Cervantes J, Eber AE, Tosti A (2017) Airborne contact dermatitis caused by fragrance diffusers in Uber cars. Contact Dermatitis 77(2):116–117

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Basketter D, Safford B (2016) Skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment: a review of underlying assumptions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 74:105–116

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Api AM, Basketter DA, Cadby PA, Cano M-F, Ellis G, Gerberick GF et al (2008) Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol RTP 52(1):3–23

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Mann J, McFadden JP, White JML, White IR, Banerjee P (2014) Baseline series fragrance markers fail to predict contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 70(5):276–281

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bircher A, Bruze M et al (2015) European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing – recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis 73(4):195–221

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF, Maibach HI, Belsito DL, Pratt MD et al (2009) Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005–2006. Dermat Contact Atopic Occup Drug 20(3):149–160

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  166. de Groot AC, Frosch PJ (1997) Adverse reactions to fragrances. A clinical review. Contact Dermatitis 36(2):57–86

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Scheinman PL (1999) The foul side of fragrance-free products: what every clinician should know about managing patients with fragrance allergy. J Am Acad Dermatol 41(6):1020–1024

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Frosch PJ, Pilz B, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Lachapelle J-M, Lahti A et al (1995) Testing with fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 32(5):266–272

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Exposure to selected fragrance materials. Contact Dermatitis 34(2):106–110

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menné T, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, Andersen KE et al (1999) Lyral is an important sensitizer in patients sensitive to fragrances. Br J Dermatol 141(6):1076–1083

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch P, Burrows D et al (2002) Fragrance contact dermatitis– a worldwide multicenter investigation (Part III). Contact Dermatitis 46(3):141–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Roberts G, Vey M (2002) International Fragrance Association. Procedures for supplying fragrance information to dermatologists. Am J Contact Dermat 13(4):206–207

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Svedman C, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Pirker C et al (2003) Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde- known as Lyral®: quantitative aspects and risk assessment of an important fragrance allergen. Contact Dermatitis 48(6):310–316

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Schmidt JD, Ahlström MG, Johansen JD, Dyring-Andersen B, Agerbeck C, Nielsen MM et al (2017) Rapid allergen-induced interleukin-17 and interferon-γ secretion by skin-resident memory CD8+ T cells. Contact Dermatitis 76(4):218–227

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Fischer LA, Voelund A, Andersen KE, Menné T, Johansen JD (2009) The dose-response relationship between the patch test and ROAT and the potential use for regulatory purposes. Contact Dermatitis 61(4):201–208

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Scheinman PL (2001) Exposing covert fragrance chemicals. Am J Contact Dermat 12(4):225–228

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Lysdal SH, Johansen JD (2009) Fragrance contact allergic patients: strategies for use of cosmetic products and perceived impact on life situation. Contact Dermatitis 61(6):320–324

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Safford RJ, Basketter DA, Allenby CF, Goodwin BFJ (1990) Immediate contact reactions to chemicals in the fragrance mix and a study of the quenching action of eugenol. Br J Dermatol 123(5):595–606

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Tanaka S, Matsumoto Y, Dlova N, Ostlere LS, Goldsmith PC, Rycroft RJG et al (2004) Immediate contact reactions to fragrance mix constituents and Myroxylon pereirae resin. Contact Dermatitis 51(1):20–21

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Katsarou A, Armenaka M, Ale I, Koufou V, Kalogeromitros D (1999) Frequency of immediate reactions to the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 41(5):276–279

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. Diba VC, Statham BN (2003) Contact urticaria from cinnamal leading to anaphylaxis. Contact Dermatitis 48(2):119–119

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Verhulst L, Goossens A (2016) Cosmetic components causing contact urticaria: a review and update. Contact Dermatitis 75(6):333–344

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Kroon S (1979) Musk Ambrette, a new cosmetic sensitizer and photo sensitizer. Contact Dermatitis 5(5):337–338

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  184. Cronin E (1984) Photosensitivity to musk ambrette. Contact Dermatitis 11(2):88–92

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Darvay A, White IR, Rycroft RJG, Jones AB, Hawk JLM, Mcfadden JP (2001) Photoallergic contact dermatitis is uncommon. Br J Dermatol 145(4):597–601

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Rato M, Gil F, Monteiro AF, Parente J (2018) Fenofibrate photoallergy – relevance of patch and photopatch testing. Contact Dermatitis 78(6):413–414

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Foti C, Bonamonte D, Conserva A, Stingeni L, Lisi P, Lionetti N et al (2008) Allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis from ketoprofen: evaluation of cross-reactivities by a combination of photopatch testing and computerized conformational analysis. Curr Pharm Des 14(27):2833–2839

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Wang L, Sterling B, Don P (2002) Berloque dermatitis induced by ‘Florida water’. Cutis 70(1):29–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Heydorn S, Menné T, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Svedman C, White IR et al (2003) Citral a fragrance allergen and irritant. Contact Dermatitis 49(1):32–36

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Rothenborg HW, Menné T, Sjolin KE (1977) Temperature dependent primary irritant dermatitis from lemon perfume. Contact Dermatitis 3(1):37–48

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Christensson JB, Forsström P, Wennberg A-M, Karlberg A-T, Matura M (2009) Air oxidation increases skin irritation from fragrance terpenes. Contact Dermatitis 60(1):32–40

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Skin and Allergy, National Allergy Research Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Hellerup, Denmark

    Jeanne Duus Johansen

  2. Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen/Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Wolfgang Uter

  3. Department of Dermatology, Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH, Formerly University of Witten/Herdecke, Dortmund, Germany

    Peter Frosch

  4. Laboratoire de Dermatochimie, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin

Authors
  1. Jeanne Duus Johansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wolfgang Uter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Frosch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeanne Duus Johansen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Amtssygehuset Gentofte Dept. Dermatology, Hellerup, Denmark

    Jeanne Duus Johansen

  2. Federal Institute for Vaccines & Biomed, Paul Ehrlich Institut Federal Institute for Vaccines & Biomed, Langen, Bayern, Germany

    Vera Mahler

  3. Institut le Bel Labo. Dermatochimie, Strasbourg CX, France

    Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin

  4. Hautklinik, Städtische Kliniken Dortmund Klinikzentrum Mitte, Dortmund, Germany

    Peter J. Frosch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Johansen, J.D., Uter, W., Frosch, P., Lepoittevin, JP. (2020). Contact Allergy to Fragrances. In: Johansen, J., Mahler, V., Lepoittevin, JP., Frosch, P. (eds) Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72451-5_86-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72451-5_86-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72451-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72451-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation