• Jeanne Duus Johansen
  • Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin


Fragrances are used in many types of products and are complied of 10–300 indvidual fragrance ingredients, many of which may be allergens. Fragrance allergy is frequent, also in adolescents. In this chapter an overview of the epidemiology of fragrance allergy, the causative allergens, chemicals and naturals, and the exposure in consumer products to these is given. The diagnosis of fragrance allergy can be difficult but the three current diagnostic preparations, fragrance mix I and II (FM I and FM II) and Balsam of Peru are helful. Further individual substances of relevance for testing will be commented upon as also advice given to the patient will be reviewed.


Cosmetic Product Contact Allergy Hand Eczema Positive Patch Test Fragrance Ingredient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Müller J (1992) The H&R book of perfume. Understanding fragrance. Origin, history, development. Guide to fragrance ingredients. Glöss, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Poucher WA (1993) Poucher’s perfumes, cosmetics and soaps. The production, manufacture and application of perfumes, vol 2, 9th edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernard G, Giménez-Arnau E, Rastogi SC, Heydorn S, Johansen JD, Menné T, Goossens A, Andersen K, Lepoittevin JP (2003) Contact allergy to oak moss: search for sensitizing molecules using combined bioassay-guided chemical fractionation, GC-MS, and structure-activity relationship analysis. Arch Dermatol Res 295:229–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauer K, Garbe D, Surburg H (1990) Common fragrance and flavor materials, 2nd edn. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johansen JD (2002) Contact allergy to fragrances: clinical and experimental investigations of the fragrance mix and its ingredients. Contact Dermat 46(Suppl 3):4–31Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harder U (1998) The art of creating a perfume. In: Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, White IR (eds) Fragrances – beneficial and adverse effects. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 3–5Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christensson JB, Johansson S, Hagvall L, Jonsson C, Börje A, Karlberg AT (2008) Limonene hydroperoxide analogues differ in allergenic activity. Contact Dermat 59(6):344–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lepoittevin JP, Mutterer V (1998) Molecular aspects of fragrance sensitisation. In: Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, White IR (eds) Fragrances – beneficial and adverse effects. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 49–56Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christensson JB, Matura M, Gruvberger B, Bruze M, Karlberg AT (2010) Linalool–a significant contact sensitizer after air exposure. Contact Dermat 62(1):32–41Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hagvall L, Bäcktorp C, Svensson S, Nyman G, Börje A, Karlberg AT (2007) Fragrance compound geraniol forms contact allergens on air exposure. identification and quantification of oxidation products and effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 20:807–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Basketter DA (1992) Skin sensitization to cinnamic alcohol: the role of skin metabolism. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 72:264–265Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nilsson AM, Jonsson C, Luthman K, Nilsson JL, Karlberg AT (2004) Inhibition of the sensitizing effect of carvone by the addition of non-allergenic compounds. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 84:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karlberg AT, Nilsson AM, Luthman K, Nilsson JL (2001) Structural analogues inhibit the sensitizing capacity of carvone. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 81:398–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johansen JD, Skov L, Volund A, Andersen K, Menné T (1998) Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: a study of fragrance-sensitized individuals. Br J Dermatol 139:264–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marzulli FN, Maibach HI (1980) Contact allergy: predictive testing of fragrance ingredients in humans by Draize and maximization methods. J Environ Pathol Toxicol 3: 235–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patlewicz GY, Wright ZM, Basketter DA, Pease CK, Lepoittevin JP, Arnau EG (2002) Structure-activity relationships for selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermat 47:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rastogi SC, Lepoittevin JP, Johansen JD, Frosch P, Menné T, Bruze M, Dreier B, Andersen KE, White I (1998) Fragrances and other materials in deodorants – search for potentially sensitizing molecules using combined GC–MS and structure activity relationship (SAR) analysis. Contact Dermat 39:293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patlewicz GY, Basketter DA, Pease CK, Wilson K, Roberts DW, Bernard G, Arnau EG, Lepoittevin JP (2004) Further evaluation of quantitative structure activity relationship models for the prediction of the skin sensitization potency of selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermat 50:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larsen WG (1977) Perfume dermatitis. A study of 20 patients. Arch Dermatol 113:623–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Malten KE, van Ketel WG, Nater JP, Liem DH (1984) Reactions in selected patients to 22 fragrance materials. Contact Dermat 11:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Groot AC, Liem DH, Nater JP, van Ketel WG (1985) Patch tests with fragrance materials and preservatives. Contact Dermat 12:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frosch PJ, Pilz B, Andersen KE, Burrows D, Camasara JG, Dooms-Goossens A, Ducombs G, Fuchs T, Hannuksela M, Lachapelle JM, Lahti A, Maibach HI, Menne T, Rycroft RJG, Shaw S, Wahlberg JE, White IR, Wilkinson JD (1995) Patch testing with fragrances: results of a multicenter study of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group with 48 frequently used constituents of perfumes. Contact Dermat 33:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menné T, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Goossens A, Lepoittevin JP, White IR (2000) Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances. I. Reactivity to 14 frequently used chemicals. Contact Dermat 47:78–85Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menné T, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Goossens A, Lepoittevin JP, White IR (2002) Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances. II. Reactivity to essential oils. Contact Dermat 47:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frosch PJ, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Svedman C, Goossens A, White IR, Uter W, Arnau EG, Lepoittevin JP, Menné T, Johansen JD (2005) Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermat 52:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frosch PJ, Rastogi SC, Pirker C, Brinkmeier T, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Svedman C, Goossens A, White IR, Uter W, Arnau EG, Lepoittevin JP, Johansen JD, Menné T (2005) Patch testing with a new fragrance mix – reactivity to the single constituents and chemical detection in relevant cosmetic products. Contact Dermat 52:216–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Larsen W, Nakayama H, Lindberg M, Fischer T, Elsner P, Burrows D, Jordan W, Shaw S, Wilkinson J, Marks J Jr, Sugawara M, Nethercott J (1996) Fragrance contact dermatitis: a worldwide multicenter investigation, part I. Am J Contact Dermat 7:77–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch P, Burrows D, Jordan W, Shaw S, Wilkinson J, Marks J Jr, Sugawara M, Nethercott M, Nethercott J (2001) Fragrance contact dermatitis: a worldwide multicenter investigation, part II. Contact Dermat 44:344–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch P, Burrows D, Jordan W, Shaw S, Wilkinson J, Marks J Jr, Sugawara M, Nethercott M, Nethercott J (2002) Fragrance contact dermatitis: a worldwide multicenter investigation, part III. Contact Dermat 46:141–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch P, Burrows D, Jordan W, Shaw S, Wilkinson J, Marks J Jr, Sugawara M, Nethercott M, Nethercott J (1998) A study of new fragrance mixtures. Am J Contact Dermat 9:202–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menné T, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Lepoittevin JP, Arnau EG, Pirker C, Goossens A, White IR (1999) Lyral is an important sensitizer in patients sensitive to fragrances. Br J Dermatol 141:1076–1083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Enders F, Przybilla B, Ring J (1989) Patch testing with fragrance mix 16% and 8%, and its individual constituents. Contact Dermat 20:237–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Frosch PJ (2007) Sensitization to 26 fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation. Results of the IVDK and review of the literature. Contact Dermat 57(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Buckley DA, Wakelin SH, Holloway D, Rycroft RJG, White IR, McFadden JP (2000) The frequency of fragrance allergy in a patch test population over a 17-year period. Br J Dermatol 142:279–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meding B, Wrangsjo K, Brisman J, Jarvholm B (2003) Hand eczema in 45 bakers – a clinical study. Contact Dermat 48:7–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bauer A, Geier J, Elsner P (2002) Type IV allergy in the food processing industry: sensitization profiles in bakers, cooks and butchers. Contact Dermat 46:228–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Buckley DA (2007) Fragrance ingredient labelling in products on sale in the UK. Br J Dermatol 157(2):295–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Elahi EN, Wright Z, Hinselwood D, Hotchkiss SA, Basketter DA, Pease CK (2004) Protein binding and metabolism influence the relative skin sensitization potential of cinnamic compounds. Chem Res Toxicol 17:301–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tananka S, Royds C, Buckley D, Basketter DA, Goossens A, Bruze M, Svedman C, Menné T, Johansen JD, White IR, McFadden JP (2004) Contact allergy to isoeugenol and its derivatives: problems with allergen substitution. Contact Dermat 51:288–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Contact allergy to popular perfumes; assessed by patch test, use test and chemical analysis. Br J Dermatol 135:419–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Barratt MD, Basketter DA (1992) Possible origin of the skin sensitization potential of isoeugenol and related compounds, (I). Preliminary studies of potential reactions mechanisms. Contact Dermat 27:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bertrand F, Basketter DA, Roberts DW, Lepoittevin JP (1997) Skin sensitization to eugenol and isoeugenol in mice: possible metabolic pathways involving ortho-quinone and quinone methide intermediates. Chem Res Toxicol 10:335–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    White JM, White IR, Glendinning A, Fleming J, Jefferies D, Basketter DA, McFadden JP, Buckley DA (2007) Frequency of allergic contact dermatitis to isoeugenol is increasing: a review of 3636 patients tested from 2001 to 2005. Br J Dermatol 157(3):580–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rastogi SC, Johansen JD (2008) Significant exposures to isoeugenol derivatives in perfumes. Contact Dermat 58(5):278–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Basketter DA, Wright ZM, Warbrick EV, Dearman RJ, Kimber I, Ryan CA, Gerberick GF, White IR (2001) Human potency predictions for aldehydes using the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermat 45:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fenn RS (1989) Aroma chemical usage trends in modern perfumery. Perfumer Flavorist 14:1–10Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A, Frosch PJ (2007) Patch test results with patients’ own perfumes, deodorants and shaving lotions: results of the IVDK 1998-2002. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 21(3):374–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nardelli A, Carbonez A, Ottoy W, Drieghe J, Goossens A (2008) Frequency of and trends in fragrance allergy over a 15-year period. Contact Dermat 58(3):134–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jørgensen PH, Jensen CD, Rastogi S, Andersen KE, Johansen JD (2007) Experimental elicitation with hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde-containing deodorants. Contact Dermat 56(3):146–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Braendstrup P, Johansen JD, Danish Contact Dermatitis Group (2008) Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) is still a frequent allergen. Contact Dermat 59(3):187–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Goossens A, Merckx L (1997) Allergic contact dermatitis from farnesol in a deodorant. Contact Dermat 37:179–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Frosch PJ (2004) Contact allergy to farnesol in 2021 c onsecutively patch tested patients. Results of the IVDK. Contact Dermat 50:117–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Heydorn S, Menné T, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Svedman C, White IR, Basketter DA (2003) Citral a fragrance allergen and irritant. Contact Dermat 49:32–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Heydorn S, Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Svedman C, White IR, Basketter DA, Menné T (2003) Fragrance allergy in patients with hand eczema – clinical study. Contact Dermat 48:317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rothenborg HW, Menné T, Sjolin KE (1977) Temperature dependent primary irritant dermatitis from lemon perfume. Contact Dermat 3:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mutterer V, Gimenez Arnau E, Lepoittevin JP, Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Menné T, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Rastogi SC, White IR (1999) Identification of coumarin as the sensitizer in a patient sensitive to her own perfume but negative to the fragrance mix. Contact Dermat 40:196–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kunkeler AC, Weijland JW, Bruynzeel DP (1998) The role of coumarin in patch testing. Contact Dermat 39:327–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Svedman C, Bruze M, Bernard G, Gimenez-Arnau E, Rastogi SC, Lepoittevin JP, Menné T (2003) Chloroatranol, an extremely potent allergen hidden in perfumes: a dose-response elicitation study. Contact Dermat 49:180–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vocanson M, Valeyrie M, Rozières A, Hennino A, Floc’h F, Gard A, Nicolas JF (2007) Lack of evidence for allergenic properties of coumarin in a fragrance allergy mouse model. Contact Dermat 57(6):361–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Matura M, Goossens A, Bordalo O, Garcia-Bravo B, Magnusson K, Wrangsjo K, Karlberg AT (2003) Patch testing with oxidized R-(+)-limonene and its hydroperoxide fraction. Contact Dermat 49:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Matura M, Goossens A, Bordalo O, Garcia-Bravo B, Magnusson K, Wrangsjo K, Karlberg AT (2002) Oxidized citrus oil (R-limonene): a frequent skin sensitizer in Europe. J Am Acad Dermatol 47:709–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Skold M, Borje A, Matura M, Karlberg AT (2002) Studies on the autoxidation and sensitizing capacity of the fragrance chemical linalool, identifying a linalool hydroperoxide. Contact Dermat 46:267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Skold M, Borje A, Harambasic E, Karlberg AT (2004) Contact allergens formed on air exposure of linalool. Identification and quantification of primary and secondary oxidization products and effects on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 17:1697–1705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, Frosch PJ, Uter W, IDVK (2004) Contact allergy to fragrances: frequencies of sensitization from 1996 to 2002. Results of the IVDK. Contact Dermat 50:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rastogi SC, Bossi R, Johansen JD, Menné T, Bernard G, Giménez-Arnau E, Lepoittevin JP (2004) Content of oak moss allergens atranol and chloroatranol in perfumes and similar products. Contact Dermat 50:367–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Nardelli A, Giménez-Arnau E, Bernard G, Lepoittevin JP, Goossens A (2009) Is a low content in atranol/chloroatranol safe in oak moss-sensitized individuals? Contact Dermat 60(2):91–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Nakayama H (1998) Fragrance hypersensitivity and its control. In: Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, White IR (eds) Fragrances – beneficial and adverse effects. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 83–91Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hagvall L, Sköld M, Bråred-Christensson J, Börje A, Karlberg AT (2008) Lavender oil lacks natural protection against autoxidation, forming strong contact allergens on air exposure. Contact Dermat 59(3):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hausen BM, Simatupang T, Bruhn G, Evers P, Koenig WA (1995) Identification of new allergens constituents and proof of evidence for coniferyl benzoate in balsam of Peru. Am J Contact Dermat 6:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hjorth N (1961) Eczematous allergy to balsams. Allied perfumes and flavoring agents – with special reference to balsam of Peru. Thesis, University of Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    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 Dermat 12:93–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Api AM (2006) Only Peru Balsam extracts or distillates are used in perfumery. Contact Dermat 54(3):179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menné T, Nielsen NH, Johansen JD (2009) The prevalence and morbidity of sensitization to fragrance mix I in the general population. Br J Dermatol 161:95–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Karlberg AT (2000) Colophony. In: Kanerva L, Elsner P, Wahlberg J, Maibach H (eds) Handbook of occupational dermatology, vol 64. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 509–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    de Groot AC, Frosch PJ (1997) Adverse reactions to fragrances. A clinical review. Contact Dermat 36:57–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Cronin E (1980) Perfumes: contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 158–170Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bruze M, Andersen KE, Goossens A (2008) Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral®) in the European Baseline patch test series. Contact Dermat 58:129–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Maouad M, Fleischer AB, Sherertz EF, Feldman SR (1999) Significance-prevalence index number: a reinterpretation and enhancement of data from the North American Contact Dermatitis group. J Am Acad Dermatol 41:573–576PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Li LF, Guo J, Wang J (2004) Environmental contact factors in eczema and the results of patch testing Chinese patients with a modified European standard series of allergens. Contact Dermat 51:22–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Greig JE, Carson CF, Stuckey MS, Riley TV (2000) Prevalence of delayed hypersensitivity to the European standard series in a self-selected population. Australas J Dermatol 41:86–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE (2002) Contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis in adolescents: prevalence measures and associations. The Odense Adolescence Cohort Study on Atopic Diseases and Dermatitis (TOACS). Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 82:352–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Nielsen NH, Menné T (1992) Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 72:456–460Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Nielsen NH, Linneberg A, Menné T, Madsen F, Frolund L, Dirksen A, Jorgensen T (2001) Allergic contact sensitization in an adult Danish population: two cross-sectional surveys eight years apart (the Copenhagen Allergy Study). Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 81:31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Dotterud LK (2007) The prevalence of allergic contact sensitization in a general population in Tromsø, Norway. Int J Circumpolar Health 66(4):328–334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Gefeller O, IDVK study group (2002) Epidemiology of contact allergy: an estimation of morbidity employing the clinical epidemiology and drug-utilization research (CE-DUR) approach. Contact Dermat 47:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Thyssen JP, Carlsen BC, Menné T, Johansen JD (2008) Trends of contact allergy to fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae among Danish eczema patients tested between 1985 and 2007. Contact Dermat 59(4):238–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Bruynzeel DP, Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lahti A, Mahler V, Maibach HI, Menné T, Wilkinson JD, European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (2005) Monitoring the European standard series in 10 centres 1996-2000. Contact Dermat 53(3):146–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Uter W, Hegewald J, Aberer W, Ayala F, Bircher AJ, Brasch J, Coenraads PJ, Schuttelaar ML, Elsner P, Fartasch M, Mahler V, Belloni Fortina A, Frosch PJ, Fuchs T, Johansen JD, Menné T, Jolanki R, Krêcisz B, Kiec-Swierczynska M, Larese F, Orton D, Peserico A, Rantanen T, Schnuch A (2005) The European standard series in 9 European countries, 2002/2003 – first results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies. Contact Dermat 53(3):136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF Jr, Maibach HI, Belsito DL, Pratt MD, Sasseville D, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS, Mathias CG, Deleo VA, Rietschel RL (2009) Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 20:149–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Boonchai W, Lamtharachai P, Sunthonpalin P (2008) Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis in Thailand. Dermatitis 19:142–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Geier J, Lessmann H, Uter W, Schnuch A (2006) experiences with fragrance mix II – the German perspective. Contact Dermat 55:12Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Buckley DA, Rycroft RJG, White IR, McFadden JP (2003) The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol 149:986–989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Uter W, Schnuch A (2004) Fragrance allergy increases with age. Br J Dermatol 150:1212–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Mortz C, Andersen KE (1999) Allergic contact dermatitis in children and adolescents. Contact Dermat 41:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Heine G, Schnuch A, Uter W, Worm M (2004) Frequency of contact allergy in German children and adolescents patch tested between 1995 and 2002: results from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology and the German Contact Dermatitis Group. Contact Dermat 51:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Johansen JD, Menné T, Christophersen J, Kaaber K, Veien N (2000) Changes in the sensitization pattern to common allergens in Denmark between 1985–1986 and 1997–1998, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies. Br J Dermatol 142:490–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    White JML, White IR, Kimber I, Basketter DA, Buckley DA, McFadden JP (2009) Atopic dermatitis and allergic reactions to individual fragrance chemicals. Allergy 64:312–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Rastogi SC, Menné T, Johansen JD (2003) The composition of fine fragrances is changing. Contact Dermat 48:130–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ (2007) Majantol® a new inportant fragrance allergen. Contact Dermat 57:48–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen KE, Menné T (1997) Patch testing with markers of fragrance contact allergy. Do clinical tests correspond to patients’ self-reported problems? Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 77:149–153Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Katz AS, Sheretz F (1999) Facial dermatitis: patch test results and final diagnosis. Am J Contact Dermat 10:153–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Wöhrl S, Hemmer W, Focke M, Görtz M, Jarisch R (2001) The significance of fragrance mix, balsam of Peru, colophony and propolis as screening tools in the detection of fragrance allergy. Br J Dermatol 145:268–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Edman B (1994) The influence of shaving method on perfume allergy. Contact Dermat 31:291–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Kjøller M, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen KE, Menné T (1998) Identification of risk products for fragrance contact allergy: a case-referent study based on patients’ histories. Am J Contact Dermat 2:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Frosch PJ, Dreier B, Lepoittevin JP, White IR, Menné T (1998) Deodorants: a clinical provocation study in fragrance-sensitive individuals. Contact Dermat 39:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Svedman C, Bruze M, Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Goossens A, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin JP, Rastogi S, White IR, Menne T (2003) Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with hydroxycitronellal. Contact Dermat 48:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Bruze M, Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Frosch P, Lepoittevin JP, Rastogi S, Wakelin S, White I, Menne T (2003) Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with cinnamic aldehyde. J Am Acad Dermatol 48:194–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    von Peter C, Hoting E (1993) Anwendungstest mit parfümierten Kosmetika bei Patienten mit positivem Epikutantest auf Duftsstoff-Mischung. Dermatosen 41:237–241Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Heydorn S, Menné T, Johansen JD (2003) Fragrance allergy and hand eczema – a review. Contact Dermat 48:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Buckley DA, Rycroft RJG, White IR, McFadden JP (2000) Contact allergy to individual fragrance mix constituents in relation to primary site of dermatitis. Contact Dermat 43:304–305Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Christophersen J, Menne T, Tanghoj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Thestrup-Pedersen K, Veien NK (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Danish Contact Dermatitis Group. Contact Dermat 21:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Katsarma G, Gawkrodger DJ (1999) Suspected fragrance contact allergy requires extended patch testing to individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermat 41:193–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Veien NK (1989) Systemically induced eczema in adults. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 147:1–58Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Niinimaki A (1995) Double-blind placebo-controlled peroral challenges in patients with delayed-type allergy to balsam of Peru. Contact Dermat 33:78–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Veien NK, Hattel T, Laurberg G (1996) Can oral challenge with balsam of Peru predict possible benefit from a low-balsam diet? Am J Contact Dermat 7:84–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Svedman C, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Pirker C, Menné T (2003) Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde – known as Lyral: quantitative aspects and risk assessment of an important fragrance allergen. Contact Dermat 48:310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Rastogi SC, Johansen JD, Menné T (1996) Natural ingredient based cosmetics. Content of selected fragrance sensitizers. Contact Dermat 34:423–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Rastogi SC, Johansen JD, Menné T, Frosch PJ, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Lepoittevin JP, Wakelin S, White IR (1999) Contents of fragrance allergens in children’s cosmetics and cosmetic-toys. Contact Dermat 41:84–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Rastogi SC, Heydorn S, Johansen JD, Basketter D (2001) Fragrance chemicals in domestic and occupational products. Contact Dermat 45:221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Nardelli A, D’Hooghe E, Drieghe J, Dooms M, Goossens A (2009) Allergic contact dermatitis from fragrance components in specific topical pharmaceutical products in Belgium. Contact Dermat 60(6):303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Wallenhammar LM, Ortengren U, Andreasson H, Barregard L, Bjorkner B, Karlsson S, Wrangsjo K, Meding B (2000) Contact allergy and hand eczema in Swedish dentists. Contact Dermat 43:192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Uter W, Schnuch A, Geier J, Pfahlberg A, Gefeller O, IVDK study group. Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (2001) Association between occupation and contact allergy to the fragrance mix: a multifactorial analysis of national surveillance data. Occup Environ Med 58:392–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Geier J, Lessmann SA, Uter W (2004) Contact sensitization in metalworkers with occupational dermatitis exposed to water-based metalworking fluids: results of the research project “FaSt”. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 77:543–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Owen CM, August PJ, Beck MH (2000) Contact allergy to oak moss resin in a soluble oil. Contact Dermat 43:112Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Pontén A, Björk J, Carstensen O, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Rasmussen K, Bruze M (2004) Associations between contact allergy to epoxy resin and fragrance mix. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 84:151–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Larsen WG (1987) Detection of allergic dermatitis to fragrances. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 134:83–86Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    de Groot AC, van der Kley AM, Bruynzeel DP, Meinardi MM, Smeenk G, van Joost T, Pavel S (1993) Frequency of false-negative reactions to the fragrance mix. Contact Dermat 28:139–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Frosch PJ, Pilz B, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Lachapelle J-M, Lahti A, Menné T, Wilkinson JD (1995) Testing with fragrance mix. Is the addition of sorbitan sesquioleate to the constituents useful? Contact Dermat 32:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Exposure to selected fragrance materials. A case study of fragrance-mix-positive eczema patients. Contact Dermat 34:106–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Trattner A, David M (2003) Patch testing with fine fragrances: comparison with fragrance mix, balsam of Peru and a fragrance series. Contact Dermat 49:287–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE, Menné T (1997) Content and reactivity to product perfumes in fragrance mix positive and negative eczema patients. A study of perfumes used in toiletries and skin-care products. Contact Dermat 36:291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    de Groot AC, Coenraads PJ, Bruynzeel DP, Jagtman BA, van Ginkel CJ, Noz K, van der Valk PG, Pavel S, Vink J, Weyland JW (2000) Routine patch testing with fragrance chemicals in the Netherlands. Contact Dermat 42:184–185Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Geier J, Brasch J, Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Pirker C, Frosch PJ, For the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) and the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG) (2002) Lyral has been included in the patch test standard series in Germany. Contact Dermat 46:295–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Bruze M, Svedman C, Andersen KE, Bruynzeel D, Goossens A, Duus Johansen J, Matura M, Orton D, Vigan M, On Behalf Of The ESCD (2009) Patch test concentrations for the 12 non-mix fragrance substances regulated by European legislation. Contact Dermatitis under submissionGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Heisterberg MV, Vigan M, Johansen JD (2010) Active sensitization and allergic contact dermatitis caused by methyl heptine carbonate. Contact Dermat 62(2):97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Roberts G (2002) Procedures for supplying fragrance information to dermatologists. Letter to the editor. Am J Contact Dermat 13:206–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Threshold responses in cinnamic-aldehyde-sensitive subjects: results and methodological aspects. Contact Dermat 34:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Menné T (1996) Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermat 34:414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Scheinman PL (2001) Exposing covert fragrance chemicals. Am J Contact Dermat 12:225–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Scheinman PL (1999) The foul side of fragrance-free products: what every clinician should know about managing patients with fragrance allergy. J Am Acad Dermatol 41:1020–1024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Lysdal SH, Johansen JD (2009) Fragrance allergic patients-strategies for use of cosmetic products and perceived impact on life situation. Contact Dermat 61(6):320–324Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Safford RJ, Basketter DA, Allenby CF, Goodwin BF (1990) Immediate contact reactions to chemicals in the fragrance mix and a study of the quenching action of eugenol. Br J Dermatol 123:595–606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Temesvari E, Nemeth I, Balo-Banga MJ, Husz S, Kohanka V, Somos Z, Judak R, Remenyik EVA, Szegedi A, Nebenführer L, Meszaros C, Horvath A (2002) Multicentre study of fragrance allergy in Hungary. Immediate and late type reactions. Contact Dermat 46:325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Tanaka S, Matsumoto Y, Dlova N, Ostlere LS, Goldsmith PC, Rycroft RJG, Basketter DA, White IR, Banerjee P, McFadden JP (2004) Immediate contact reactions to fragrance mix constituents and Myroxylon pereirae resin. Contact Dermat 51:20–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Katsarou A, Armenaka M, Ale I, Koufou V, Kalogeromitros D (1999) Frequency of immediate reactions to the European standard series. Contact Dermat 41:276–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Diba VC, Statham BN (2003) Contact urticaria from cinnamal leading to anafylaxis. Contact Dermat 48:119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Kroon S (1979) Musk Ambrette, a new cosmetic sensitizer and photo sensitizer. Contact Dermat 5:337–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Cronin E (1984) Photosensitivity to musk ambrette. Contact Dermat 11:88–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Darvay A, White IR, Rycroft RJ, Jones AB, Hawk JL, McFadden JP (2001) Photoallergic contact dermatitis is uncommon. Br J Dermatol 145:597–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Cronin E (1980) Phototoxic reactions. Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 417–432Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Wang L, Sterling B, Don P (2002) Berloque dermatitis induced by “Florida water”. Cutis 70:29–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Bråred Christensson J, Forsström P, Wennberg AM, Karlberg AT, Matura M (2009) Air oxidation increases skin irritation from fragrance terpenes. Contact Dermat 60:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Hemmer W, Focke M, Leitner B, Görtz M, Jarisch R (2000) Axillary dermatitis from farnesol in a deodorant. Contact Dermat 42:168Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Gimenez-Arnau A, Giminez-Arnau E, Serra-Bladrich E, Lepoittevin JP, Camarasa JG (2002) Principels and methodology for identification of fragrance allergens in consumer products. Contact Dermat 47:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Rastogi SC, Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Menné T, Bruze M, Lepoittevin JP, Dreier B, Andersen KE, White IR (1998) Deodorants on the European market: quantitative chemical analysis of 21 fragrances. Contact Dermat 38:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Czarnobilska E, Obtulowicz K, Dyga W, Wsolek-Wnek K, Spiewak R (2009) Contact hypersensitivity and allergic contact dermatitis among school children and teenagers with eczema. Contact Dermat 60:264–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeanne Duus Johansen
    • 1
  • Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin
    • 2
  1. 1.National Allergy Research Centre, Department of Dermato-allergologyCopenhagen University Hospital GentofteHellerupDenmark
  2. 2.Institut le BelLabo. DermatochimieStrasbourg CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations