Limited data exist on fragrance contact allergy among Turkish population.
Objective
The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency and characteristics of fragrance contact allergy in Turkey.
Methods
A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 2566 patients consecutively patch tested with the European baseline series and additionally with a fragrance series (n = 358) at a tertiary referral center between 1996 and 2019.
Results
One hundred sixty-three patients (6.4%) (male/female, 1.5:1) were sensitized with at least 1 fragrance allergen. Fragrance mix (FM) I was most frequently positive (3.9%), followed by Myroxylon pereirae (3.1%), FM II (2%), and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (0.5%), the latter exclusively positive in FM II–positive patients. Among 358 patients patch tested with a fragrance series, positive patch test reactions were observed in 38 patients, including 8 who did not react to baseline fragrance markers. Clinically relevant fragrance allergy was established in 128 patients (78.5%) from nonoccupational (72.4%) and occupational (6.1%) sources.
Conclusions
The low prevalence, the middle-aged male preponderance, and the predominant involvement of hands were unusual findings. Rose/citrus-flavored perfumes and eau de cologne, which are traditionally preferred in our country, were important elicitors of fragrance contact allergy, especially among middle-aged and older men.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DiepgenTL, OfenlochRF, BruzeM, et al.Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in different European regions. Br J Dermatol, 2016; 174(2):319–329.
2.
UterW, BauerA, Belloni FortinaA, et alESSCA WorkingGroup. Patch test results with the European baseline series and additions thereof in the ESSCA network, 2015–2018. Contact Dermatitis, 2021; 84(2):109–120.
3.
BruzeM, AndersenKE, Goossens AESCD;EECDRG. Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) in the European baseline patch test series. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 58(3):129–133.
4.
Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to cosmetic products. Off J Eur Union, 2003; L66:26–35.
5.
JohansenJD, Aalto-KorteK, AgnerT, et al.European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing—recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis, 2015; 73(4):195–221.
6.
HanifinJM, RajkaG. Diagnostic features of atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh), 1980; 92:44–47.
7.
DiepgenTL, FartaschM, HornsteinOP. Kriterien zur Beurteilung der atopischen Hautdiathese. Dermatosen, 1991; 39:79–83.
8.
UterW, SchwitullaJ, ThyssenJP, et al.The ‘overall yield’ with the baseline series—a useful addition to the array of MOAHLFA factors describing departmental characteristics of patch tested patients. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 65(6):322–328.
9.
MathiasCGT. Contact dermatitis and workers' compensation: criteria for establishing occupational causation and aggravation. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1989; 20(5 Pt 1):842–848.
10.
ÖzkayaE. Cinnamon-induced airborne occupational allergic contact dermatitis in a baker: severe flare-up during patch testing. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 80(6):405–407.
11.
ArribasMP, SoroP, SilvestreJF. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances: part 2. Actas Dermosifiliogr, 2013; 104(1):29–37.
12.
RastogiSC, HeydornS, JohansenJD, et al.Fragrance chemicals in domestic and occupational products. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 45(4):221–225.
13.
de GrootAC. Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru)—a critical review of the literature and assessment of the significance of positive patch test reactions and the usefulness of restrictive diets. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 80(6):335–353.
14.
The Turkish cosmetics and cleaning products industry council of the union of chambers and commodity exchanges of Turkey (TOBB). Turkish cosmetic and cleaning industrial products sector report [Türkiye Odalar ve Borsalar Birliği Türkiye Kozmetik ve Temizlik Ürünleri Sanayii Meclisi. Türkiye Kozmetik ve Temizlik Sanayii Ürünleri Sektör Raporu]. Ankara: 2008/70. Available at: https://www.tobb.org.tr/Documents/yayinlar/kozmetik.pdf. Accessed July9, 2021.
15.
FroschPJ, Duus JohansenJ, SchuttelaarML, et al.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, 2015; 73(3):163–171.
16.
UngCY, WhiteJML, WhiteIR, et al.Patch testing with the European baseline series fragrance markers: a 2016 update. Br J Dermatol, 2018; 178(3):776–780.
17.
AtwaterAR, WardJM, LiuB, et al.Fragrance- and botanical-related allergy and associated concomitant reactions: a retrospective analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2007–2016. Dermatitis, 2021; 32(1):42–52.
18.
Bråred ChristenssonJ, AndersenKE, BruzeM, et al.Air-oxidized linalool: a frequent cause of fragrance contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 67(5):247–259.
19.
Bråred ChristenssonJ, AndersenKE, BruzeM, et al.An international multicentre study on the allergenic activity of air-oxidized R-limonene. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68(4):214–223.
20.
WilkinsonM, GonçaloM, AertsO, et al.The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2019. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 80(1):1–4.
21.
SchnuchA, LessmannH, GeierJ, et alIVDK. Contact allergy to fragrances: frequencies of sensitization from 1996 to 2002. Results of the IVDK*. Contact Dermatitis, 2004; 50(2):65–76.
22.
UterW, Amario-HitaJC, BalatoA, et al.European surveillance system on contact allergies (ESSCA): results with the European baseline series, 2013/14. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2017; 31(9):1516–1525.
SukakulT, CharoenpipatsinN, SvedmanC, et al.Prevalence, concomitant reactions, and factors associated with fragrance allergy in Thailand. Contact Dermatitis, 2021; 84(3):175–182.
25.
BuckleyDA, RycroftRJ, WhiteIR, et al.The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol, 2003; 149(5):986–989.
26.
BuckleyDA, RycroftRJ, WhiteIR, et al.Contact allergy to individual fragrance mix constituents in relation to primary site of dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2000; 43(5):304–305.
27.
BoyvatA, Kalay YildizhanI. Patch test results of the European baseline series among 1309 patients in Turkey between 2013 and 2019. Contact Dermatitis, 2021; 84(1):15–23.
28.
StingeniL, TramontanaM, BianchiL, et al.Patch test with sorbitan sesquioleate in Italian consecutive patients: a 1-year multicenter SIDAPA study. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(6):454–456.
29.
de GrootA, GilissenL, GeierJ, et al.Adding sorbitan sesquioleate to the European baseline series: necessary, reasonable, or unavoidable?. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(3):221–225.
30.
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(5):280–287.
31.
WohrlS, HemmerW, FockeM, et al.The significance of fragrance mix, balsam of Peru, colophony and propolis as screening tools in the detection of fragrance allergy. Br J Dermatol, 2001; 145(2):268–273.
32.
GeierJ, SchubertS, SchnuchA, et al.A negative breakdown test in a fragrance mix I-positive patient does not rule out contact allergy to its fragrance constituents. Contact Dermatitis, 2021; 84(6):407–418.
33.
SilvestreJF, MercaderP, González-PérezR, et al.Sensitization to fragrances in Spain: a 5-year multicentre study (2011–2015). Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 80(2):94–100.
34.
TrattnerA, DavidM. Patch testing with fine fragrances: comparison with fragrance mix, balsam of Peru and a fragrance series. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49(6):287–289.
35.
VejanurugP, TresukosolP, SajjachareonpongP, et al.Fragrance allergy could be missed without patch testing with 26 individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 74(4):230–235.
36.
CorazzaM, AmendolagineG, BorghiA, et al.Aromatherapy and occupational allergic contact dermatitis: two further cases caused by lavender oil and other essential oils. Contact Dermatitis, 2019; 81(5):378–379.
37.
WarshawEM, ZugKA, BelsitoDV, et al.Positive patch-test reactions to essential oils in consecutive patients from North America and Central Europe. Dermatitis, 2017; 28(4):246–252.
38.
SabroeRA, HoldenCR, GawkrodgerDJ. Contact allergy to essential oils cannot always be predicted from allergy to fragrance markers in the baseline series. Contact Dermatitis, 2016; 74(4):236–241.
39.
MontgomeryRL, AgiusR, WilkinsonSM, et al.UK trends of allergic occupational skin disease attributed to fragrances 1996–2015. Contact Dermatitis, 2018; 78(1):33–40.
