ABSTRACT
From 15 May to 15 December 1994, 2943 patients suspected of having contact dermatitis (1955 women, 988 men) were patch tested with methyldibromoglutaronitrile 0.3%, 0.1% and 0.05% pet. 119 patients (4.0%; women 4.1%, men 3.8%) proved to be allergic. 71% of the reactions were considered to be relevant. In 2/3 of the patients, causative products were cosmetics, in 1/3 moistened toilet tissues. Testing with methyldibromoglutaronitrile at lower concentrations (0.05% and 0.1%) and with commercial allergens (Euxyl K 400 and methyldibromoglutaronitrile, both containing methyldibromoglutaronitrile 0.1%), resulted in a number of false-negative reactions. All preservatives in the European standard series had lower scores than the 4% positive reactions to methyldibromoglutaronitrile (formaldehyde 2.0%, MCI/MI (Kathon CG) 3.2%, parabens 1.0%, quaternium-15 1.3%). It is concluded that methyldibromoglutaronitrile (present in the commercial preservative Euxyl K 400) is an important contact allergen in the Netherlands in cosmetics and moistened toilet tissues. It should be added to cosmetics series and to proctological series. The optimal test concentration is unknow, but may be 0.3% pet. The concentration of 0.1% methyldibromoglutaronitrile in the currently available commercial allergens appears to be too low, resulting in a number of false-negative reactions.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Nitriles/adverse effects , Preservatives, Pharmaceutical/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Allergens , Child , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Evaluation Studies as Topic , False Negative Reactions , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Nitriles/administration & dosage , Patch Tests , Preservatives, Pharmaceutical/administration & dosageABSTRACT
Cocamidopropyl betaine is an amphoteric surfactant used increasingly in cosmetic products. We describe 20 cases of cosmetic allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine; all were caused by shampoo or shower gel. 8 patients were hairdressers, who had occupational allergic contact dermatitis from shampoos. We recommend patch testing cocamidopropyl betaine 1% aq. routinely in hairdressers with dermatitis of the hands, and in all patients suspected of suffering from cosmetic allergy.
Subject(s)
Betaine/analogs & derivatives , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Detergents/adverse effects , Hair Preparations/adverse effects , Surface-Active Agents/adverse effects , Beauty Culture , Betaine/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Hair , Hand Dermatoses/chemically induced , HumansABSTRACT
Synopsis A method for the determination of methyldibromoglutaronitrile in cosmetic products is described. Reversed phase high performance liquid chromatography and reductive electrochemical detection is employed to provide for improved selectivity and detectability compared to alternative methods. The method detects 0.002% methyldibromoglutaronitrile in cosmetic products and has a linear range from 0.006 up to 0.06%, which can easily be extended to the legally allowed limit of 0.1% by means of a simple dilution step. At a level of 0.03% the coefficient of variation was estimated to be 1.7%. Recoveries measured were between 98 and 100%. The method has been subjected to a ruggedness test, which indicated that it was stable, but slightly sensitive for a decrease in the detection potential. More than 130 cosmetic products have been analysed using the method. In 19 samples methyldibromoglutaronitrile was detected in concentrations varying between 0.002% and 0.030%. Résumé Une méthode a été mise au point pour la détermination du methyldibromoglutaronitrile, un conservateur cosmétique dont l'utilisation est croissante. La méthode utilise la chromatographie liquide à haute performance avec détection électrochimique pour permettre une amélioration de la détection et de la spécificité. Selon une procédure simple, le methyldibromoglutaronitrile est séparé sur une colonne 100 RP8 (lichosphere MERCK) avec une phase mobile constituee d'eau et d'acétone (60/40 v/v) avec un ajout de sulfate de sodium et du chlorure de sodium pour obtenir des concentrations de 0.02 M et 0.002 M respectivement. Une électrode en or a été utilisée pour la détection avec un potentiel de fonctionnement de -0.6 V réductif. Une détection par pulsation a été nécessaire pour obtenir une réponse stable. Le détecteur a été programmé pourgarder l'électrode pour 10 ms à 1 V, 10 ms à-1 V (réductif) et à-0.6 V pour 100 ms, ce potentiel a été utilisé comme mesure. Des courbes de calibration linéaire ont été obtenues sur une gamme de 0.006%à 0.06% methyldibromoglutaronitrile. Une concentration de 0.002% de methyldibromoglutaronitrile a pu être détectée par un rapport signal/bruit supérieur à 2,5. La reconstitution d'un échantillon, doséà 0.03% de methyldibromoglutaronitrile a atteint 98% d'après les mesures sur la surface des pics et 100% en calculant la hauteur des pics. La déviation relative calculée sur des éxpériences d'extraction indépendantes à partir du même échantillon dosé a été estimée à 1.7%. La méthode a été soumise à un test de robustesse. Les divers paramétres étaient les suivants: la quantité d'échantillons soumis à l'analyse; le temps d'extraction et le temps durant lequel la solution extraite a été mélangée; la composition du solvant d'extraction; la température de la colonne; le temps de pulsation du détecteur et le potentiel de fonctionnement.
ABSTRACT
The recent negative publicity on the cosmetics preservative Kathon CG has made many cosmetic manufacturers look for safer alternatives. The most popular substitute appears to be Euxyl K 400, containing phenoxyethanol and methyldibromoglutaronitrile. Unfortunately, this preservative also induces allergic reactions to cosmetics and (at least in the Netherlands) to 'moist toilet paper'. Therefore, in cases of apparent reactions to cosmetics and of eczema ani, allergy to methyldibromoglutaronitrile should be suspected. Testing the finished products often results in false-negative reactions, and consequently the allergen (suggested concentration 0.05% in petrolatum) should preferably be tested separately.
Subject(s)
Cosmetics , Dermatitis, Contact/etiology , Ethylene Glycols/adverse effects , Nitriles/adverse effects , Preservatives, Pharmaceutical/adverse effects , Thiazoles/adverse effects , Humans , MutagensABSTRACT
4 cases of cosmetic allergy to tocopheryl acetate are reported. The literature on contact allergy to vitamin E and its derivatives is reviewed.
Subject(s)
Cosmetics/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Contact/etiology , Vitamin E/analogs & derivatives , alpha-Tocopherol/analogs & derivatives , Adult , Cosmetics/chemistry , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Tocopherols , Vitamin E/adverse effects , Vitamin E/analysisABSTRACT
Two cases of dyshidrotic eczema of the hands caused by perianal allergic contact dermatitis due to Kathon CG in moist toilet paper are described.
Subject(s)
Anus Diseases/chemically induced , Dermatitis, Contact/etiology , Household Products/adverse effects , Preservatives, Pharmaceutical/adverse effects , Thiazoles/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Contact/diagnosis , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patch TestsABSTRACT
Two cases of contact allergy to the UV-absorber bornelone in cosmetic products are presented. The literature on (photo)contact allergy to sunscreens is reviewed.
Subject(s)
Camphanes/adverse effects , Cosmetics/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Contact/etiology , Sunscreening Agents/adverse effects , Blepharitis/chemically induced , Facial Dermatoses/chemically induced , Female , Humans , In Vitro Techniques , Middle Aged , Patch TestsABSTRACT
13 patients allergic to the cationic emulsifier oleamidopropyl dimethylamine were tested with a series of related amide-amine type surfactants in order to investigate its cross-reaction pattern. With 1 exception, all patients reacted to at least 4 of the test materials. Most reactions were observed to ricinoleamidopropyl dimethylamine lactate and tallowamidopropyl dimethylamine (11 patients, 85%); 9 patients (of 12 tested, 75%) reacted to lauramidopropyl dimethylamine and 6 (46%) to myristamidopropyl dimethylamine. A certain pattern of cross-reactivity was recognised.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Contact/immunology , Propylamines/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Cations , Cosmetics/adverse effects , Cross Reactions , Dermatitis, Contact/etiology , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Propylamines/adverse effects , Surface-Active Agents/adverse effectsABSTRACT
The ingredients responsible for allergy to cosmetics were determined in 119 patients suffering from cosmetic-related contact dermatitis. Most reactions (56.3%) were caused by skin care products, followed by nail cosmetics (13.4%), perfumes (8.4%), and hair cosmetics (5.9%). Preservatives were most frequently implicated (32.0%), followed by fragrances (26.5%) and emulsifiers (14.3%). By far the most important cosmetic allergen was Kathon CG, (a preservative system containing, as active ingredients, a mixture of methylisothiazolinone and methyl chloroisothiazolinone) reacting in 33 patients (27.7%). Other frequent causes of cosmetic-related contact allergic reactions were toluenesulfonamide/formaldehyde resin in nail hardener and/or nail lacquer (15 patients [12.6%]), and oleamidopropyl dimethylamine, an emulsifier in baby body lotion (13 patients [10.9%]).