Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of Cosmetic Type and Distribution Channel on the Presence of Regulated Fragrance Allergens: Study of 2044 Commercial Products

  • Published:
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Contact dermatitis linked to cosmetic products is a very common reason for visits to the dermatologist, and in more than half the cases, it is due to an allergic reaction. Fragrances are most often the culprit. The aim of the study was to describe the common fragrance allergens in different categories of cosmetic products available on the European market. We wanted to assess the influence of cosmetic type and distribution channel on the presence of fragrance allergens. There are the allergens whose concentration exceeds 0.001% in leave-on products and 0.01% in rinse-off products. A total of 2044 commercial hygiene, care, and makeup cosmetic products were analyzed to specifically study regulated fragrance allergens. The influence that the product category and its distribution channel (retail stores and specialized stores such as beauty institutes or hairdressers and pharmacy) have on the prevalence of these allergens was evaluated. The Kruskal-Wallis test has been used for statistical data analysis. There is a wide range of fragrance allergens, the most common being limonene (found in about 30% of products tested), linalool (just over a quarter of the products tested), and benzyl alcohol (approximately 16% of the products tested). The average number of allergens found and their nature varies depending on the type of product in question (maximum number for shampoos and oral care with about 70 allergens and minimum number for nail polish and makeup for eyes with fewer than 10 allergens). In the area of hygiene, deodorants and oral hygiene products are particularly noteworthy, the former for their significantly high number of allergens and the latter for their low number. There is also a significant difference between the number of allergens found in eye makeup and foundations. Our results indicate that the number of regulated fragrance allergens is particularly influenced by the type of products.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nanyan P (2019) Fragrance allergens in hair removal cosmetic products in French market. Dermatitis 30(4):268–271

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zirwas MJ (2019) Contact dermatitis to cosmetics. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 56(1):119–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

  5. Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47(260):583–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ravichandran C, Badgujar PC, Gundev P, Upadhyay A (2018) Review of toxicological assessment of d-limonene, a food and cosmetics additive. Food Chem Toxicol 120:668–680

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bourgou S, Rahali FZ, Ourghemmi I, Saïdani TM (2012) Changes of peel essential oil composition of four Tunisian citrus during fruit maturation. Sci World J 2012:528593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pereira I, Severino P, Santos AC, Silva AM, Souto EB (2018) Linalool bioactive properties and potential applicability in drug delivery systems. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 1(171):566–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Scognamiglio J, Jones L, Vitale D, Letizia CS, Api AM (2012) Fragrance material review on benzyl alcohol. Food Chem Toxicol 50(Suppl 2):S140–S160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang N, Zhang L, Feng L, Yao L (2016) The anxiolytic effect of essential oil of Cananga odorata exposure on mice and determination of its major active constituents. Phytomedicine 15(23):1727–1734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yap PS, Krishnan T, Chan KG (2015) Lim SH antibacterial mode of action of Cinnamomum verum bark essential oil, alone and in combination with Piperacillin, against a multi-drug-resistant Escherichia coli strain. J Microbiol Biotechnol 25(8):1299–1306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hieu le D, Thang TD, Hoi TM, Ogunwande IA. Chemical composition of essential oils from four Vietnamese species of piper (piperaceae). J Oleo Sci 2014; 63 (3): 211–217

  14. 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 Dermatitis 12(2):93–102

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jacob SE, Barron GS (2007) Benzyl alcohol: a covert fragrance. Dermatitis 18:232–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products

  17. Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menné T, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Lepoittevin JP, Giménez Arnau E, Pirker C, Goossens A, White IR (1999) Lyral is an important sensitizer in patients sensitive to fragrances. Br J Dermatol 141(6):1076–1083

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Regulation (EC) No 2017/1410 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 August 2017 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products

  19. Darlenski R, Fluhr JW. Antiperspi deodor. Practical aspects of cosmetic testing: how to set up a scientific study in skin physiology part 3 (2011) 217–226

  20. Couteau C, Diarra H, Schmitt Z, Coiffard L (2019) Study of the composition of 140 shampoos: similarities and differences depending on the sales channel used. Eur J Dermatol 29(2):141–159

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Garg T, Agarwal S, Chander R, Singh A, Yadav P (2018) Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: a retrospective study. J Cosmet Dermatol 17(1):95–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Alani JI, Davis MD, Yiannias JA (2013) Allergy to cosmetics: a literature review. Dermatitis. 24(6):283–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Collet E, Jeudy G, Dalac S (2013) Cheilitis, perioral dermatitis and contact allergy. Eur J Dermatol 23(3):303–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Drechsel DA, Towle KM, Fung ES, Novick RM, Paustenbach DJ, Monnot AD (2018) Skin sensitization induction potential from daily exposure to fragrances in personal care products. Dermatitis 29(6):324–331

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Magerl A, Pirker C, Frosch PJ (2003) Allergic contact eczema from shellac and 1,3-butylene glycol in an eyeliner. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 1(4):300–302

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yu J, Treat J, Chaney K, Brod B. Potential allergens in disposable diaper wipes, topical diaper preparations, and disposable diapers: under-recognized etiology of pediatric perineal dermatitis. Dermatitis 2016 ; 27 (3) 110–118

  27. Froissard D, Fons F, Bessière JM, Buatois B, Rapior S (2011) Volatiles of French ferns and “fougère” scent in perfumery. Nat Prod Commun 6(11):1723–1726

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Nantes, Nantes Atlantique Universités, LPiC, MMS, EA2160, 9 rue Bias, F-44000, Nantes, France

    C. Couteau, T. Morin & L. Coiffard

  2. Université Paris Sud, 5 rue Jean-Baptiste Clément, 92296, Paris, France

    H. Diarra

Authors
  1. C. Couteau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Morin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Diarra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Coiffard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Coiffard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Couteau, C., Morin, T., Diarra, H. et al. Influence of Cosmetic Type and Distribution Channel on the Presence of Regulated Fragrance Allergens: Study of 2044 Commercial Products. Clinic Rev Allerg Immunol 59, 101–108 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-020-08790-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-020-08790-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation