Cosmetics and Skin Care Products

  • Ian R. White
  • Anton C. de Groot


Contact Dermatitis Allergic Contact Dermatitis Contact Allergy Positive Patch Test Skin Care Product 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The European Commission’s Inventory of Ingredients Scholar
  2. 2.
    Consumers’ Association (1979) Reactions of the skin to cosmetics and toiletry products. Consumers’ Association, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Groot AC, Beverdam EG, Ayong CT, Coenraads PJ, Nater JP (1988) The role of contact allergy in the spectrum of adverse effects caused by cosmetics and toiletries. Contact Dermatitis 19: 195–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nielsen NH, Menné T (1992) Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 72: 456–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Groot AC (1990) Labelling cosmetics with their ingredients. Br Med J 300: 1636–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dillarstone A (1997) Letter to the editor. Contact Dermatitis 37: 190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adams RM, Maibach HI (1985) A five-year study of cosmetic reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol 13: 1062–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meynadier J-M, Raison-Peyron N, Meunier L, Meynadier J (1997) Allergie aux parfums. Rev Fr Allergol 37: 641–650Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lidén C, Berg M, Färm G, Wrangsjö K (1993) Nail varnish allergy with far-reaching consequences. Br J Dermatol 128: 57–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ophaswongse S, Maibach HI (1995) Allergic contact cheilitis. Contact Dermatitis 33: 365–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sainio EL, Kanerva L (1995) Contact allergens in toothpastes and a review of their hypersensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 33: 100–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skrebova N, Brocks K, Karlsmark T (1998) Allergic contact cheilitis from spearmint oil. Contact Dermatitis 39: 35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Groot AC, Weyland JW, Nater JP (1994) Unwanted effects of cosmetics and drugs used in dermatology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Groot AC, Frosch PJ (1997) Adverse reactions to fragrances. A clinical review. Contact Dermatitis 36: 57–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Groot AC, Bruynzeel DP, Bos JD, van der Meeren HLM, van Joost T, Jagtman BA, Weyland JW (1988) The allergens in cosmetics. Arch Dermatol 124: 1525–1529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Groot AC (1997) Cocamidopropyl betaine: a “new” important cosmetic allergen. Dermatosen 45: 60–63Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Groot AC, van der Walle HB, Weyland JW (1995) Contact allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine. Contact Dermatitis 33: 419–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Groot AC (1997) Contact allergens — what’s new? Cosmetic dermatitis. Clin Dermatol 15: 485–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Groot AC, van Ginkel CJW, Weyland JW (1996) Methyldibromo glutaronitrile (Euxyl K 400): an important “new” allergen in cosmetics. J Am Acad Dermatol 35: 743–747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Groot AC, de Cock PAJJM, Coenraads PJ, van Ginkel CJW, Jagtman BA, van Joost T, van der Kley AMJ, Meinardi MMHM, Smeenk G, van der Valk PGM, van der Walle HB, Weyland JW (1996) Methyldibromo glutaronitrile is an important contact allergen in the Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 34: 118–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berne B, Boström Å, Grahnén AF, Tammela M (1996) Adverse effects of cosmetics and toiletries reported to the Swedish Medical Product Agency 1989–1994. Contact Dermatitis 34: 359–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Groot AC, Frosch PJ (1998) Fragrances as a cause of contact dermatitis in cosmetics: clinical aspects and epidemiological data. In: Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, White IR (eds) Fragrances. Beneficial and adverse effects. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 66–75Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, White IR (eds) (1998) Fragrances. Beneficial and adverse effects. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guin JD (1982) History, manufacture, and cutaneous reactions to perfumes. In: Frost P, Horwitz SW (eds) Principles of cosmetics for the dermatologist. Mosby, St. Louis, Calif., pp 111–129Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scheinman PL (1996) Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrance: a review. Am J Contact Dermatitis 7: 65–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guin JD, Berry VK (1980) Perfume sensitivity in adult females. A study of contact sensitivity to a perfume mix in two groups of student nurses. J Am Acad Dermatol 3: 299–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, Mathias CGT, Nethercott JR, Rietschel RL, Sheretz EF, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS (1998) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol 38: 911–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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
  29. 29.
    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 Dermatitis 36: 291–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dooms-Goossens A, Kerre S, Drieghe J, Bossuyt L, Degreef H (1992) Cosmetic products and their allergens. Eur J Dermatol 2: 465–468Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    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 Dermatitis 9: 80–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menne T, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Lepoittevan JP, Gimenez Arnau E, Pirker C, Goossens A, White IR (1999) Lyral is an important sensitizer in patients sensitive to fragrances. Br J Dermatol 141: 1076–1083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers (1999) Concerning Fragrance Allergy in Consumers. Available at Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nethercott JR, Larsen WG (1997) Contact allergens — what’s new? Fragrances. Clin Dermatol 15: 499–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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 Dermatitis 52: 207–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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: 149–153PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Exposure to selected fragrance materials. A case study of fragrancemix-positive eczema patients. Contact Dermatitis 34: 106–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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 Dermatitis 38: 29–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rastogi S, Johansen JD, Menné T (1996) Natural ingredients based cosmetics. Content of selected fragrance sensitizers. Contact Dermatitis 34: 423–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Menné T (1996) Quantitative aspects of iso-eugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 34: 414–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Threshold responses in cinnamic-aldehyde-sensitive subjects: results and methodological aspects. Contact Dermatitis 34: 165–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fransway AF (1991) The problem of preservation in the 1990 s. I. Statement of the problem, solution(s) of the industry, and the current use of formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing biocides. Am J Contact Dermat 2: 6–23Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fransway AF, Schmitz NA (1991) The problem of preservation in the 1990 s. II. Formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing biocides: incidences of cross-reactivity and the significance of the positive response to formaldehyde. Am J Contact Dermat 2: 78–88Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fransway AF (1991) The problem of preservation in the 1990 s. III. Agents with preservative function independent of formaldehyde release. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2: 145–174Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morren MA, Dooms-Goossens A, Delabie J, De Wolf-Peeters C, Marien K, Degreef H (1992) Contact allergy to isothiazolinone derivatives: unusual clinical presentations. Dermatology 184: 260–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Frosch PJ, Lahti A, Hannuksela M, Andersen KE, Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Lachapelle JM (1995) Chloromethylisothiazolone/methylisothiazolinone (CMI/MI) use test with a shampoo on patch-test-positive subjects. Results of a multicentre double-blind crossover trial. Contact Dermatitis 32: 210–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    de Groot AC, Weyland JW (1988) Kathon CG: a review. J Am Acad Dermatol 18: 350–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    de Groot AC (1990) Methylisothiazolinone/methylchloroisothiazolinone (Kathon CG) allergy: an updated review. Am J Contact Dermat 1: 151–156Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tosti A, Vincenzi C, Trevisi P, Guerra L (1995) Euxyl K 400: incidence of sensitization, patch test concentration and vehicle. Contact Dermatitis 33: 193–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schnuch A, Geier J (1994) Die häufigsten Kontaktallergene im zweiten Halbjahr 1993. Dermatosen 42: 210–211Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jackson JM, Fowler JF (1998) Methyldibromoglutaronitrile (Euxyl K400): a new and important sensitizer in the United States? J Am Acad Dermatol 38: 934–937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    de Groot AC, van Ginkel CJW, Weyland JW (1996) How to detect sensitization to Euxyl K 400. Contact Dermatitis 34: 373–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bruze M, Goossens A, Gruvberger B; ESCD; EECDRG (2005) Recommendation to include methyldibromo glutaronitrile in the European standard patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 52: 24–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Banerjee P, McFadden JP, Ross JS, Rycroft RJG, White IR (2003) Increased positive patch test reactivity to methyldibromo glutaronitrile. Contact Dermatitis 49: 111–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rosen M, McFarland AG (1984) Free formaldehyde in anionic shampoos. J Soc Cosmet Chem 35: 157–169Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Parker LU, Taylor JS (1991) A 5-year study of contact allergy to quaternium-15. Am J Contact Dermat 2: 231–234Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jacobs M-C, White IR, Rycroft RJG, Taub N (1995) Patch testing with preservatives at St John’s from 1982 to 1993. Contact Dermatitis 33: 247–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dooms-Goossens A, de Boulle K, Dooms M, Degreef H (1986) Imidazolidinyl urea dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 14: 322–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    de Groot AC, Bruynzeel DP, Jagtman BA, Weyland JW (1988) Contact allergy to diazolidinyl urea (Germall II). Contact Dermatitis 18: 202–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Perret CM, Happle R (1989) Contact sensitivity to diazolidinyl urea (Germall II). In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle J-M, Rycroft RJG, Scheper RJ (eds) Current topics in contact dermatitis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 92–94Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hectorne KJ, Fransway AF (1994) Diazolidinyl urea: incidence of sensitivity, patterns of cross-reactivity and clinical relevance. Contact Dermatitis 30: 16–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Frosch PJ, White IR, Rycroft RJG, Lahti A, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Ducombs G, Wilkinson JD (1990) Contact allergy to Bronopol. Contact Dermatitis 22: 24–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Storrs F, Bell DE (1983) Allergic contact dermatitis to 2-bromo-2-nitropane-1,3-diol in a hydrophilic ointment. J Am Acad Dermatol 8: 157–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    de Groot AC, Bos JD, Jagtman BA, Bruynzeel DP, van Joost T, Weyland JW (1986) Contact allergy to preservatives — II. Contact Dermatitis 15: 218–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    de Groot AC, van Joost T, Bos JD, van der Meeren HLM, Weyland JW (1988) Patch test reactivity to DMDM hydantoin. Relationship to formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis 18: 197–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Menné T, Hjorth N (1988) Routine patch testing with paraben esters. Contact Dermatitis 19: 189–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Fisher AA (1993) The parabens: paradoxical preservatives. Cutis 51: 405–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Brasch J, Schnuch A, Geier J, Aberer W, Uter W; German Contact Dermatitis Research Group; Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (2004) Iodopropynylbutyl carbamate 0.2% is suggested for patch testing of patients with eczema possibly related to preservatives. Br J Dermatol 151: 608–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schollnast R, Kranke B, Aberer W (2003) Anal and palmar contact dermatitis caused by iodopropynyl butylcarbamate in moist sanitary wipes. Hautarzt 54: 970–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wakelin SH, White IR (1997) Contact dermatitis from chlorphenisin in a facial cosmetic. Contact Dermatitis 37: 138–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tosti A, Guerra L, Vincenzi C, Piraccini BM, Peluso AM (1993) Contact sensitization caused by toluene sulfonamide-formaldehyde resin in women who use nail cosmetics. Am J Contact Dermat 4: 150–153Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hausen BM (1994) Nagellack-Allergie. HG Z Hautkr 69: 252–262Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hausen BM, Milbrodt M, Koenig WA (1995) The allergens of nail polish (I). Allergenic constituents of common nail polish and toluenesulfonamide-formaldehyde resin (TSF-R). Contact Dermatitis 33: 157–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Giorgini S, Brusi C, Francalanci S, Gola M, Sertoli A (1994) Prevention of allergic contact dermatitis from nail varnishes and hardeners. Contact Dermatitis 31: 325–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kardorff B, Fuchs M, Kunze J (1995) Kontaktallergien auf Nagellack. Aktuel Dermatol 21: 349–352Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Staines KS, Felix DH, Forsyth A (1998) Desquamative gingivitis, sole manifestation of tosylamide/formaldehyde resin allergy. Contact Dermatitis 39: 90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Castelain M, Veyrat S, Laine G, Montastier C (1997) Contact dermatitis from nitrocellulose in a nail varnish. Contact Dermatitis 36: 266–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hausen BM (1995) A simple method of determining TSF-R in nail polish. Contact Dermatitis 32: 188–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kanerva L, Lauerma A, Jolanki R, Estlander T (1995) Methyl acrylate: a new sensitizer in nail lacquer. Contact Dermatitis 33: 203–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rosenzweig R, Scher RK (1993) Nail cosmetics: adverse reactions. Am J Contact Dermat 4: 71–77Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Barnett JM, Scher RK (1992) Nail cosmetics. Int J Dermatol 31: 675–681PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kanerva L, Lauerma A, Estlander T, Alanko K, Henriks-Eckerman M-L, Jolanki R (1996) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by photobonded sculptured nails and a review of (meth) acrylates in nail cosmetics. Am J Contact Dermat 7: 109–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Conde-Salazar L, Baz M, Guimaraens D, Cannavo A (1995) Contact dermatitis in hairdressers: patch test results in 379 hairdressers. Am J Contact Dermat 6: 19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Marcoux D, Riboulet-Delmas G (1994) Efficacy and safety of hair-coloring agents. Am J Contact Dermat 5: 123–129Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Pigatto PD, Bigardi AS, Cusano F (1995) Contact dermatitis to cocamidopropylbetaine is caused by residual amines: relevance, clinical characteristics, and review of the literature. Am J Contact Dermat 6: 13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Fowler JF, Fowler LM, Hunter JE (1997) Allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine may be due to amidoamine: a patch test and product use test study. Contact Dermatitis 37: 276–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Fowler JF Jr (1993) Cocamidopropyl betaine: the significance of positive patch test results in twelve patients. Cutis 52: 281–284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Angelini G, Foti C, Rigano L, Vena G (1995) 3-Dimethylaminopropylamine: a key substance in contact allergy to cocamidopropylbetaine? Contact Dermatitis 32: 96–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Funk JO, Dromgoole SH, Maibach HI (1995) Sunscreen intolerance. Contact sensitization, photocontact sensitization, and irritancy of sunscreen agents. Dermatol Clin 13: 473–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Foley P, Nixon R, Marks R, Frowen K, Thompson S (1993) The frequency of reactions to sunscreens: results of a longitudinal population-based study on the regular use of sunscreens in Australia. Br J Dermatol 128: 512–518PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Bilsland D, Ferguson J (1993) Contact allergy to sunscreen chemicals in photosensitivity dermatitis/actinic reticuloid syndrome (PD/AR) and polymorphic light eruption. Contact Dermatitis 29: 70–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Darvay A, White IR, Rycroft RJG, Jones AB, Hawk JLM, McFadden JP (2001) Photoallergic contact dermatitis is uncommon. Br J Dermatol 145: 597–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Manciet JR, Lepoittevin JP, Jeanmougin M, Dubertret L (1994) Study of the cross-reactivity of seven benzophenones between themselves and with fenofibrate. Nouv Dermatol 13: 370–371Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Pons-Guiraud A, Jeanmougin M (1993) Allergie et photoallergie de contact aux crèmes de photoprotection. Ann Derm Venereol (Stockh) 120: 727–731PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Gonçalo M, Ruas E, Figueiredo A, Gonçalo S (1995) Contact and photocontact sensitivity to sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis 33: 278–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Theeuwes M, Degreef H, Dooms-Goossens A (1992) Paraaminobenzoic acid (PABA) and sunscreen allergy. Am J Contact Dermat 3: 206–207Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Wilson CI, Cameron J, Powell SM, Cherry G, Ryan TJ (1997) High incidence of contact dermatitis in leg-ulcer patients — implications for management. Clin Exp Dermatol 16: 250–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Nachbar F, Korting HC, Plewig G (1993) Zur Bedeutung des positiven Epicutantests auf Lanolin. Dermatosen 41: 227–236Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Kligman AM (1998) The myth of lanolin allergy. Contact Dermatitis 39: 103–107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Matthieu L, Dockx P (1997) Discrepancy in patch test results with wool wax alcohols and Amerchol L-101. Contact Dermatitis 36: 150–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Wolf R (1996) The lanolin paradox. Dermatology 192: 198–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Guerra L, Bardazzi F, Tosti A (1992) Contact dermatitis in hairdressers’ clients. Contact Dermatitis 26: 108–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Funk JO, Maibach HI (1994) Propylene glycol dermatitis: re-evaluation of an old problem. Contact Dermatitis 31: 236–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Aberer W, Fuchs T, Peters KP, Frosch PJ (1993) Propylenglykol: kutane Nebenwirkungen und Testmethodik. Dermatosen 41: 25–27Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Wahlberg JE (1994) Propylene glycol: search for a proper and nonirritant patch test preparation. Am J Contact Dermat 5: 156–159Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    White IR, Lovell CR, Cronin E (1984) Antioxidants in cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 11: 265–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Le Coz CJ, Schneider G-A (1998) Contact dermatitis from tertiary-butylhydroquinone in a hair dye, with cross-sensitivity to BHA and BHT. Contact Dermatitis 39: 39–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Serra-Baldrich E, Puig LL, Gimenez Arnau A, Camarasa JG (1995) Lipstick allergic contact dermatitis from gallates. Contact Dermatitis 32: 359–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Parsad D, Saini R, Verma N (1997) Xanthomatous reaction following contact dermatitis from vitamin E. Contact Dermatitis 37: 294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Wyss M, Elsner P, Homberger H-P, Greco P, Gloor M, Burg G (1997) Follikuläres Kontaktekzem auf eine Tocopherol-linoleat-haltige Körpermilch. Dermatosen 45: 25–28Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Foti C, Rigano L, Vena GA, Grandolfo M, Liguori G, Angelini G (1995) Contact allergy to oleamidopropyl dimethylamine and related substances. Contact Dermatitis 33: 132–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Tosti A, Vincenzi C, Guerra L, Andrisano E (1996) Contact dermatitis from fatty alcohols. Contact Dermatitis 35: 287–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    le Coz CJ, Lefebvre C (2000) Contact dermatitis from maleated soybean oil: last gasps of an expiring cosmetic allergen. Contact Dermatitis 43: 118–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Laube S, Davies MG, Prais L, Foulds IS (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from medium-chain triglycerides in a moisturizing lotion. Contact Dermatitis 47: 171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Guin JD (2001) Allergic contact cheilitis from di-isostearyl malate in lipstick. Contact Dermatitis 44: 375PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    le Coz CJ, Ball C (2000) Recurrent allergic contact dermatitis and cheilitis due to castor oil. Contact Dermatitis 42: 114–115Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Magerl A, Heiss R, Frosch PJ (2001) Allergic contact dermatitis from zinc ricinoleate in a deodorant and glyceryl ricinoleate in a lipstick. Contact Dermatitis 44: 119–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    le Coz CJ, Lefebvre C, Ludmann F, Grosshans E (2000) Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)/eicosene copolymer: an emerging cosmetic allergen. Contact Dermatitis 43: 61–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Stone N, Varma S, Hughes TM, Stone NM (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)/1-triacontene copolymer in a sunscreen. Contact Dermatitis 47: 49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Kimura M, Kawada A (2000) Follicular contact dermatitis due to polyoxyethylene laurylether. J Am Acad Dermatol 42: 879–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Diegenant C, Constandt L, Goossens A (2000) Allergic contact dermatitis due to 1,3-butylene glycol. Contact Dermatitis 43: 234–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Le Coz CJ, Leclere JM, Arnoult E, Raison-Peyron N, Pons-Guiraud A, Vigan M; Members of Revidal-Gerda (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from shellac in mascara. Contact Dermatitis 46: 149–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Moffitt DL, Sansom JE (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from phthalic anhydride/trimellitic anhydride/glycols copolymer in nail varnish. Contact Dermatitis 46: 236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Batta K, Bourke JF, Foulds IS (1997) Allergic contact dermatitis from colophony in lipsticks. Contact Dermatitis 36: 171–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Hausen BM, Wollenweber E, Senff H, Post B (1987) Propolis allergy (I). Origin, properties, usage and literature review. Contact Dermatitis 17: 163–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Guin JD (2003) Patch testing to FD&C and D&C dyes. Contact Dermatitis 49: 217–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Kiken DA, Cohen DE (2002) Contact Dermatitis to botanical extracts. Am J Contact Dermat 13: 148–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Nakagawa M, Kawai K, Kawai K (1995) Contact allergy to kojic acid in skin care products. Contact Dermatitis 32: 9–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    de Groot AC (1988) Adverse reactions to cosmetics. Thesis, State University of Groningen, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    De Groot AC (1998) Fatal attractiveness: the shady side of cosmetics. Clin Dermatol 16: 167–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    De Groot AC (1994) Patch testing. Test concentrations and vehicles for 3700 allergens, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    de Groot AC, Weijland JW (1997) Conversion of common names of cosmetic allergens to the INCI nomenclature. Contact Dermatitis 37: 145–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian R. White
    • 1
  • Anton C. de Groot
    • 2
  1. 1.St. John’s Institute of DermatologySt. Thomas’ HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.WapserveenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations