Skip to main content

Cosmetic Allergy

Incidence, Diagnosis, and Management

American Journal of Clinical Dermatology volume 5, pages 327–337 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

A recent epidemiologic survey in the UK revealed that 23% of women and 13.8% of men experience some sort of adverse reaction to a personal care product over the course of a year. Although most of these reactions may be due to subjective sensory irritation, various studies reveal that up to 10% of dermatologic patients who are patch tested are allergic to cosmetic products or their constituent ingredients. Causative products include deodorants and perfumes, skin care products, hair care products, and nail cosmetics.

Allergic contact dermatitis mainly results from fragrance chemicals and preservatives. Recent work has suggested that additional fragrance chemicals may need to be tested in order to identify those patients ‘missed’ by the current fragrance mix; in particular, hydroxy-isohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HMPPC Lyral®) has been singled out as an important sensitizing agent. The increased usage of natural fragrances and botanic extracts can also cause problems in their own right or through co-reactivity. The preservative methyldibromo glutaronitrile has also been recognized as an increasingly important sensitizer in Europe, which has led to the recent recommendation that it should be prohibited from ‘leave-on’ products until information on ‘safe’ consumer levels becomes available. Other emerging allergens include UV filters, tosylamide/formaldehyde resin, and nail acrylates.

The diagnosis of cosmetic allergy should be confirmed with patch testing, including testing of ‘whole’ products, when necessary, and repeat open application tests can be used to confirm the relevance of reactions in cases of doubt.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 49.95

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

Table I

Notes

  1. The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. De Groot AC, Beverdam E, Ayong C, et al. The role of contact allergy in the spectrum of adverse effects caused by cosmetics and toiletries. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 19: 195–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De Groot AC, De Nater J, Van der Lende T, et al. Adverse effects of cosmetics and toiletries: a retrospective study in the general population. Int J Cosmet Sci 1987; 9: 255–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Consumer Association Report on reactions on the skin to cosmetics and toiletries. London: Consumer Association 1979

  4. Willis CM, Shaw S, De Lacharrière O, et al. Sensitive skin: an epidemiological study. Br J Dermatol 2001; 145: 258–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. De Groot AC. Labelling cosmetics with their ingredients. BMJ 1990; 300: 1636–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. De Groot AC. Contact allergy to cosmetics: causative ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17: 26–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Romaguera C, Carmarasa JMG, Alomar A, et al. Patch tests with allergens related to cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 1983; 6: 167–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ngangu Z, Samsoen M, Foussereau J. Einige Aspekte Zur Kosmetika-Allergie in Strassburg. Derm Beruf Umwelt 1983; 31: 126–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Adams R, Maibach H. A five year study of cosmetic reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol 1985; 13: 1062–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Skog E. Incidence of cosmetic dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1980; 6: 449–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Eiermann H, Larsen W, Maibach H, et al. Prospective study of cosmetic reactions: 1977–1980. North American Contact Dermatitis Group. J Am Acad Dermatol 1982; 6: 909–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nielsen NH, Linnberg A, Menne T, et al. Allergic contact sensitization in an adult Danish population: two cross-sectional surveys eight years apart (The Copenhagen Allergy Study). Acta Derm Venereol 2001; 81: 31–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Grief M, Maibach H. United States cosmetic ingredient labelling. Contact Dermatitis 1977; 3: 1994–8

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vigan M. Les Nourveaux allergens des cosmetiques: la cosmeto-vigilance. Ann Dermatol Venereol 1997; 124: 571–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, et al. Unvertäglichkeiten gegen Körperpflegeund Waschmittel: Was istzu tun?. Die Informations-und Dokumentationsstelle für kontaktallergien (IDOK) des Informationsverbundes Dermatologischer Kliniken (IVDK). Dt. Dermatol 1999; 47: 211–4

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kligman AM. Lanolin allergy: crisis or comedy. Contact Dermatitis 1983 Mar; 9 (2): 99–107

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. European Surveillance System of Contact Allergies - Data Centre [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ivdk.gwdg.de/essca/ [Accessed 2004 Aug 31].

  18. Wilkinson DS, Fregert S, Magnusson B, et al. Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1970; 50: 287–92

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Andersen KE, Johansen JD, Bruze M, et al. The time dose-response relationship for elicitation of contact dermatitis in Isoeugenol allergic individuals. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2001; 170: 166–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dooms-Goossens A. Cosmetics as causes of allergic contact dermatitis. Cutis 1993; 52: 316–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rastogi SC. Analytical control of preservative labelling on skin creams. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 43: 339–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Orton DI, Shaw S. Allergic contact dermatitis from pharmaceutical grade BHA in Timodine®, with negative results to analytical grade BHA. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 44: 191–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. De Groot AC. Patch testing: test concentrations and vehicles for 3700 chemicals. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin JP, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis. 3rd ed. Heidelberg: Springer, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF, editors. Fisher’s contact dermatitis. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  26. De Groot AC, Bruynzeel DP, Bos JD, et al. The allergens in cosmetics. Arch Dermatol 1988; 124: 1525–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Morren MA, Rodrigues R, Dooms-Goossens A, et al. Connubial contact dermatitis: a review. Eur J Dermatol 1992; 2: 219–23

    Google Scholar 

  28. Larsen WG. Perfume dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 1977; 113: 623–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Larsen WG, Maibach HI. Fragrance contact allergy. Semin Dermatol 1982; 1: 85–90

    Google Scholar 

  30. de Groot AC, van der Kley AMJ, Bruynzeel DP, et al. Frequency of false-negative reactions to the fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 1993; 28: 139–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Orton DI, Shaw S. Sorbitan sesquioleate as an allergen. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 44: 190–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Rastogi SC, Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, et al. Deodorants on the European market: quantitative chemical analysis of 21 fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 1998; 39: 29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rastogi SC. Analysis of fragrances in cosmetics by gas chromatography: mass spectrometry. J High Resolut Chromatogr 1995; 18: 653–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Larsen WG, Nakayama H, Lindberg M, et al. Fragrance contact dermatitis: a world wide multicenter investigation. Am J Contact Dermat 1996; 7: 77–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menne T, et al. Lyral® is an important sensitizer in patients sensitive to fragrances. Br J Dermatol 1999; 141: 1076–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Volume 1 Cosmetics Legislation Products 1999 edition. European Commission Enterprise Directorate - General Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics [online]. Available from URL: http://www.leffingwell.com/cosmetics/vol_1en.pdf [Accessed 2004 August 31]

  37. Johansen JD. Fragrance contact allergy: a clinical review. Am J Clin Dermatol 2003; 4 (11): 789–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Scheinman PL. The foul side of fragrance-free products: what every clinician should know about managing patients with fragrance allergy. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999; 41: 1020–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Suskind RR. Hydroxycitronellal: the whole and final story. RIFM proceedings from the 6th International Information Exchange; 1992 Nov 19–20; Princetown. 75–83

    Google Scholar 

  40. Goossens A, Beck MH, Haneke E, et al. Adverse cutaneous reactions to cosmetic allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 40: 112–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Decker Jr R. Frequency of preservative use in cosmetic formulas disclosed to the FDA-1984. Cosmetics Toiletries 1985; 100: 65–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Gruvberger B, Bruze M, Tammela M. Preservatives in moisturizers on the Swedish market. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1998; 78: 52–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. De Groot AC, Van Ginkel CJW, Weyland JW. Methyldibromo glutaronitrile (Euxyl K400): an important “new” allergen in cosmetics. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996; 35: 743–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Andersen KE, et al. Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe: a 10-year overview (1991–2000). Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46: 207–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Rastogi S, Schouten A, De Kruijf N, et al. Contents of methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, and benzylparaben in cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 32: 28–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Fisher A. The paraben paradoxes. Cutis 1973; 12: 177–81

    Google Scholar 

  47. Cosmetic Ingredient Review. Final report on the safety assessment of formaldehyde [college report]. J Am Coll Toxicol 1984; 3: 157–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Jordan WP, Sherman WT, King SE. Threshold responses in formaldehyde-sensitive subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol 1979; 1 (1): 44–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Flyvholm MA, Hall BM, Agner T, et al. Threshold for occluded formaldehyde patch test in formaldehyde-sensitive patients. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 36: 26–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Flyvholm MA, Tiedemann E, Menné T. Comparison of 2 tests for clinical assessment of formaldehyde exposure. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34: 35–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Agner T, Flyvholm MA, Menné T. Formaldehyde allergy: a follow-up study. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1999; 10: 12–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Dooms-Goossens A, de Boulle K, Dooms S, et al. Imidazolidinyl urea dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1986; 14: 322–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Marks Jr JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998; 38: 911–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Ziegler V, Ziegler B, Kipping D. Dose-response sensitization experiments with imidazolidinyl urea. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 19: 236–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Jacobs MC, White IR, Rycroft RJG, et al. Patch testing with preservatives at St John’s from 1982 to 1993. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33: 247–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Kantor GR, Taylor JS, Ratz JL, et al. Acute allergic contact dermatitis from diazolidinyl urea (Germal II) in a hair gel. J Am Acad Dermatol 1985; 13: 116–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Hectorne KJ, Fransway AF. Diazolidinyl urea: incidence of sensitivity, patterns of cross-reactivity and clinical relevance. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30: 16–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Ford GP, Beck MH. Reactions to quaternium-15, bronopol and Germal 115 in a standard series. Contact Dermatitis 1986; 14: 271–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Frosch PJ, White IR, Rycroft RJG, et al. Contact allergy to Bronopol. Contact Dermatitis 1990; 22: 24–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Menné T, Frosch PJ, Veien NK, et al. Contact sensitisation on 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (MI/MCI): a European multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 24: 334–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Marks JG, Moss JN, Parno JR, et al. Methylchlorisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (Kathon CG) Biocide: second United States multicenter study of human skin sensitization. Am J Contact Dermat 1993; 4: 87–9

    Google Scholar 

  62. Cardin CW, Weaver JE, Bailey PT. Dose response assessment of Kathon® biocide. Contact Dermatitis 1986; 15: 10–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Fewings J, Menen T. An update of the risk assessment for methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MI/MCI) with focus on rinse-off products. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 41: 1–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Van Ginkel C, Rundervoort G. Increasing incidence of contact allergy to the new preservative 1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane (methyldibromoglutaronitrile). Br J Dermatol 1995; 132: 918–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. McFadden JP, Ross JS, Jones AB, et al. Increased rate of patch test reactivity to methyldibromo glutaronitrile. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42: 54–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Geir J, Schnuch A, Brasch J, et al. Patch testing with methyldibromoglutaronitrile. Am J Contact Dermat 2000; 11: 207–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Bryld LE, Agner T, Menné T. Allergic contact dermatitis from 3-iodo-2-propynylbutylcarbamate (IPBC): an update. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 44: 276–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. De Groot AC, van der Walle HB, Weijland JW. Contact allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33: 419–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Armstrong DK, Smith HR, Ross JS, et al. Sensitisation to coamidopropylbetaine: an 8-year review. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 40: 335–6

    Google Scholar 

  70. McFadden JP, Ross JS, White IR, et al. Clinical allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine: reactivity to cocamidopropylamine and lack of reactivity to 3-dimethylaminopropylamine. Contact Dermatitis 2001; 45: 72–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Krasteva M, Cristaudo A, Hall B, et al. Contact sensitivity to hair dyes can be detected by the consumer open test. Eur J Dermatol 2002 Jul-Aug; 12 (4): 322–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Wahlberg JE, Tammela M, Anderson C, et al. Contact allergy to p-Phenylenediamine in Sweden. Derm Beruf Umwelt 2002; 50 (2): 51–4

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Nikkels AF, Henry F, Pierard GE. Allergic reactions to decorative skin paintings. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2000; 15: 140–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Le Coz CJ, Lefebvre C, Keller F, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by skin painting (pseudotattooing) with black henna, a mixture of hemp-paraphenylenediamine and its derivatives. Arch Dermatol 2000; 136: 1515–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Fisher AA. The persulfates: a triple threat. Cutis 1985; 35: 520–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Tosti A, Melino M, Bardazzi F. Contact dermatitis due to glyceryl monothioglycolate. Contact Dermatitis 1988; 19: 71–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Liden C, Berg M, Farm G, et al. Nail varnish allergy with far-reaching consequences. Br J Dermatol 1993; 128: 57–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Hausen BM, Milbrodt M, Koenig WA. The allergens of nail polish: allergenic constituents of common nail polish and toluene sulfonamide-formaldehyde resin (TS-F-R). Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33: 157–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Sainio EL, Engstrom K, Henriks-Eckerman ML, et al. Allergenic ingredients in nail polishes. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 37: 155–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Guin JD, Baas K, Nelson-Adesokan P. Contact sensitisation to cyanoacrylate adhesive as a cause of severe onychodystrophy. Int J Dermatol 1998; 37: 21–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Freeman S, Lee MS, Gudmundsen K. Adverse contact reactions to sculptured acrylic nails: 4 case reports and a literature review. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33: 381–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Matthieu L, Dockx P. Discrepancy in patch test results with wool wax alcohols and Amerchol L101. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 36: 150–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Kligman AM. The myth of lanolin allergy. Contact Dermatitis 1998; 39: 103–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Wolf R. The Lanolin paradox. Dermatology 1996; 192: 198–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Sulzberger MB, Warshaw T, Herrmann F. Studies of skin-hypersensitivity to lanolin. J Invest Dermatol 1953 Jan; 20 (1): 33–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Wahlberg JE. Propylene Glycol: search for a proper and nonirritant patch test preparation. Am J Contact Dermat 1994; 5: 156–9

    Google Scholar 

  87. White IR, Lovell CR, Cronin E. Antioxidants in cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 1984; 11: 265–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Serra-Baldrich E, Puig LL, Gimenez Arnau A, et al. Lipstick allergic contact dermatitis from gallates. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 32: 359–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Perrenaud D, Homberger HP, Anderset PC, et al. An epidemic outbreak of papular and follicular contact dermatitis to tocopheryl linoleate in cosmetics. Dermatology 1994; 189: 225–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Freeman S, Stephens R. Cheilitis: analysis of 75 cases referred to a contact dermatitis clinic. Am J Contact Dermat 1999; 10: 198–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Ophaswongse S, Maibach HI. Allergic contact cheilitis. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33: 365–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Strauss RM, Orton DI. Allergic contact cheilitis in the UK: a retrospective analysis. Am J Contact Derm 2003; 14: 75–7

    Google Scholar 

  93. Valsecchi R, Imberti G, Martino D, et al. Eyelid dermatitis: an evaluation of 150 patients. Contact Dermatitis 1992; 27: 143–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Cooper SM, Shaw S. Eyelid dermatitis: an evaluation of 232 patch test patients over 5 years. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42: 291–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Yan Ketel WG. Patch testing with eye cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 1979; 5: 402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Ross JS, White H. Eyelid dermatitis due to cocamidopropyl betaine in an eye make-up remover. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 25: 64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Fisher AA. Allergic contact dermatitis due to rosin (colophony) in eyeshadow and mascara. Cutis 1988; 42: 507–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Rapaport MJ. Sensitization to abitol. Contact Dermatitis 1980; 6: 137–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Wilkinson D. Photodermatitis due to tetrachlorsalicylanilide. Br J Dermatol 1961; 73: 213–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Raugi G, Storrs F, Larsen W. Photoallergic contact dermatitis to men’s perfumes. Contact Dermatitis 1979; 5: 251–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Schauder S, Ippen H. Contact and photocontact sensitivity to sunscreens: review of a 15-year experience and of the literature. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 37: 221–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Szczurko C, Dompmartin A, Michel M, et al. Photocontact allergy to benzophenone: ten years of experience. Photodermatol 1994; 10: 144–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. English J, White I. Allergic contact dermatitis from isopropyl dibenzoylmethane. Contact Dermatitis 1986; 15: 94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Fisher A. Sunscreen dermatitis: Part II. The cinnamates. Cutis 1992; 50: 253–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Draelos ZD. Botanical as topical agents. Clin Dermatol 2001; 19: 474–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Thomson KF, Wilkinson SM. Allergic contact dermatitis to plant extracts in patients with cosmetic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 2000; 142: 84–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Coutts I, Shaw S, Orton DI. Patch testing with pure tea tree oil- 12 months experience [abstract]. Br J Dermatol 2002; 147 Suppl. 62: 70

    Google Scholar 

  108. Fisher AA, Dooms-Goossens A. Persulfate hair bleach reactions. Arch Dermatol 1976; 112: 1407–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Pasche-Koo F, French L, Pilett-Zanin PA. Contact urticaria and shock to hair dye. Allergy 1998; 53: 904–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Schalock PC, Storrs FJ, Morrison L. Contact urticaria from Panthenol in a hair conditioner. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 43 (4): 223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Jagtman B. Urticaria and contact urticaria due to Basic Blue 99 in a hair dye. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 35: 52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Freeman S, Lee MS. Contact urticaria to hair conditioner. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 35: 195–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Niinimaki A, Niinimaki M, Makinen-Kiljunen S, et al. Contact Urticaria from protein hydrolysates in hair conditioners. Allergy 1998; 53: 1078–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Laube S, Davies MG, Prais L, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from medium-chain triglycerides in a moisturizing lotion. Contact Dermatitis 2002 Sep; 47 (3): 171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review. This article was submitted for publication by the author in November 2002.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Unit, Department of Dermatology, Amersham Hospital, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, UK

    David I. Orton & John D. Wilkinson

Authors
  1. David I. Orton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John D. Wilkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Orton, D.I., Wilkinson, J.D. Cosmetic Allergy. Am J Clin Dermatol 5, 327–337 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00128071-200405050-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00128071-200405050-00006

Keywords

  • Patch Test
  • Allergic Contact Dermatitis
  • Lanolin
  • Skin Care Product
  • Contact Urticaria