Fragrances are the most common cause of contact allergy in cosmetics.
Objective
The aim of this study was to identify fragrance allergens in hair removal products based on the list of ingredients.
Methods
Hair removal products found in the French market were checked for the 26 allergens classified in accordance with Directive 2003/15/EC through information on the packages using the Web site of the manufacturer, vendor, or supermarket.
Conclusions
A total of 662 hair removal products were checked. Fragrance allergens were present in 318 (48%) of the products, with an average of 4 allergens per product. Linalool and limonene were the most common fragrances present in 67% and 50.3%, respectively. Strip and spray formulations contained significantly more allergens than cream/lotion or wax products. To prevent allergic contact dermatitis, the formulation of hair removal products should be considered, because fragrance allergens are more often present in strip and spray formulations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlinaghiF, BennikeNH, EgebergA, et al.Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 80:77–85.
2.
BennikeNH, OturaiNB, MüllerS, et al.Fragrance contact allergens in 5588 cosmetic products identified through a novel smartphone application. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2018; 32:79–85.
3.
MowitzM, SvedmanC, ZimersonE, et al.Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II and their ingredients in southern Sweden between 2009 and 2015. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 77:280–287.
4.
BonchakJG, ProutyME, de la FeldSF. Prevalence of contact allergens in personal care products for babies and children. Dermatitis, 2018; 29:81–84.
5.
LazzariniR, HafnerMFS, RangelMG. Evaluation of the presence of allergens in children's products available for sale in a big city. An Bras Dermatol, 2018; 93:457–459.
6.
BennikeNH, ZachariaeC, JohansenJD. Non-mix fragrances are top sensitizers in consecutive dermatitis patients—a cross-sectional study of the 26 EU-labelled fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis, 2017; 77:270–279.
UterW, YazarK, KratzEM, et al.Coupled exposure to ingredients of cosmetic products: I. Fragrances. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 69:335–341.
9.
HeisterbergMV, MennéT, JohansenJD. Fragrance allergy and quality of life—a case-control study. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70:81–89.
10.
LysdalSH, JohansenJD. Fragrance contact allergic patients: strategies for use of cosmetic products and perceived impact on life situation. Contact Dermatitis, 2009; 61:320–324.
11.
ChouM, MikhaylovD, Lazic StrugarT. Moisturizers: a comparison based on allergens and economic value. Dermatitis, 2018; 29:339–344.
12.
XuS, KwaM, LohmanME, et al.Consumer preferences, product characteristics, and potentially allergenic ingredients in best-selling moisturizers. JAMA Dermatol, 2017; 153:1099–1105.
13.
KlaschkaU. Natural personal care products—analysis of ingredient lists and legal situation. Environ Sci Eur, 2016; 28:8.
14.
The Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Survey of allergenic substances in products targeted children—toys and cosmetic products. Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products No. 148, 2016. Available at: https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2016/08/978-87-93529-00-7.pdf. Accessed March20, 2018.
15.
KlaschkaU. Contact allergens for armpits—allergenic fragrances specified on deodorants. Int J Hyg Environ Health, 2012; 215:584–591.
16.
PanyA, KlangV, BrunnerM, et al.Effect of physical and chemical hair removal methods on skin barrier function in vitro: consequences for a hydrophilic model Permeant. Skin Pharmacol Physiol, 2019; 32:8–21.
17.
AmbergN, HolcmannM, StulnigG, et al.Effects of depilation methods on Imiquimod-induced skin inflammation in mice. J Invest Dermatol, 2017; 137:528–531.
18.
LeeJN, JeeSH, ChanCC, et al.The effects of depilatory agents as penetration enhancers on human stratum corneum structures. J Invest Dermatol, 2008; 128:2240–2247.
19.
RouziAA, BergRC, TurkistaniJ, et al.Practices and complications of pubic hair removal among Saudi women. BMC Womens Health, 2018; 18:172.
20.
GaitherTW, AwadMA, OsterbergEC, et al.Prevalence and motivation: pubic hair grooming among men in the United States. Am J Mens Health, 2017; 11:620–640.
21.
RowenTS, GaitherTW, AwadMA, et al.Pubic hair grooming prevalence and motivation among women in the United States. JAMA Dermatol, 2016; 152:1106–1113.
22.
BuckleyDA.Fragrance ingredient labelling in products on sale in the U.K.Br J Dermatol 2007;157:295–300.
23.
BonefeldCM, NielsenMM, RubinIM, et al.Enhanced sensitization and elicitation responses caused by mixtures of common fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 65:336–342.
24.
LowKY, WallaceM. Prevalence of potential contact allergens in baby cosmetic products. Clin Exp Dermatol, 2018; doi: 10.1111/ced.13767.
YazarK, JohnssonS, LindML, et al.Preservatives and fragrances in selected consumer-available cosmetics and detergents. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 64:265–272.
27.
NardelliA, DriegheJ, ClaesL, et al.Fragrance allergens in ‘specific’ cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 64:212–219.
28.
Bråred ChristenssonJ, ForsströmP, WennbergAM, et al.Air oxidation increases skin irritation from fragrance terpenes. Contact Dermatitis, 2009; 60:32–40.
29.
BäcktorpC, WassJR, PanasI, et al.Theoretical investigation of linalool oxidation. J Phys Chem A, 2006; 110:12204–12212.
30.
WattsTJ, WattsS, ThursfieldD, et al.A patch testing initiative for the investigation of allergic contact dermatitis in a UK allergy practice: a retrospective study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract, 2019; 7:89–95.
31.
RudbäckJ, HagvallL, BörjeA, et al.Characterization of skin sensitizers from autoxidized citronellol—impact of the terpene structure on the autoxidation process. Contact Dermatitis, 2014; 70:329–339.
