Contact allergy to essential oils cannot always be predicted from allergy to fragrance markers in the baseline series
Summary Background Essential oils are fragrance substances that are labelled on cosmetic products by their INCI names, potentially confusing consumers. Objectives To establish whether contact allergy to essential oils might be missed if not specifically tested for. Methods We tested 471 patients wit...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Contact dermatitis 2016-04, Vol.74 (4), p.236-241 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 241 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 236 |
| container_title | Contact dermatitis |
| container_volume | 74 |
| creator | Sabroe, Ruth A. Holden, Catherine R. Gawkrodger, David J. |
| description | Summary
Background
Essential oils are fragrance substances that are labelled on cosmetic products by their INCI names, potentially confusing consumers.
Objectives
To establish whether contact allergy to essential oils might be missed if not specifically tested for.
Methods
We tested 471 patients with 14 essential oils and 2104 patients with Melaleuca alternifolia oil between January 2008 and June 2014. All patients were tested with fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II, hydroxyisohexyl 3‐cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, and Myroxylon pereirae. Three hundred and twenty‐six patients were tested with hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool.
Results
Thirty‐four patients had a +/++/+++ reaction to at least one essential oil. Eleven had no reaction to any of the six marker fragrance substances. Thus, 4 of 11 positive reactions to M. alternifolia oil, 2 of 7 reactions to Cymbopogon flexuosus oil, 1 of 5 reactions to Cananga odorata oil, 3 of 4 reactions to Santalum album oil and 2 of 3 reactions to Mentha piperita oil would have been missed without individual testing.
Conclusion
A small number of patients who are allergic to essential oils could be missed if these are not specifically tested. Labelling by INCI names means that exposure may not be obvious. Careful inspection of so‐called ‘natural’ products and targeted testing is recommended. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/cod.12528 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1919975616</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1919975616</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4948-3dd19ffb8ca5be56dffe22d6d6141e4176e48b45b003db7a4989344f329db7a93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0V1rFDEUBuAgil2rF_4BCXijF9Pm--PSrtoKrRVUvAyZ5ExNnZ1skxnq_ntnu22RgpibEHjOCzkvQi8pOaDzOQw5HlAmmXmEFlQR0hDJ1WO0IJTIhhrN99CzWi8JoUow8xTtMWWIktos0LTMw-jDiH3fQ7nY4DFjqBWGMfke59RXHPww5C249puKW8DrAjGFESLuSl79PdkVf1H8EACvfPkFpeI04PEn4NZX6NMAuEJJUJ-jJ53vK7y4vffR948fvi1PmtPz40_Ld6dNEFaYhsdIbde1JnjZglSx64CxqKKigoKgWoEwrZAtITy22gtrLBei48xun5bvoze73HXJVxPU0a1SDdD3foA8VUcttVZLRdX_qdZUSEaNmOnrB_QyT2WYP7JVxFCrhJzV250KJddaoHPrkua1bBwlblubm2tzN7XN9tVt4tSuIN7Lu55mcLgD16mHzb-T3PL8_V1ks5tIdYTf9xNzLU5prqX78fnYHZ3JI_HlK3OW_wGNOLCZ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1770819645</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Contact allergy to essential oils cannot always be predicted from allergy to fragrance markers in the baseline series</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Sabroe, Ruth A. ; Holden, Catherine R. ; Gawkrodger, David J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sabroe, Ruth A. ; Holden, Catherine R. ; Gawkrodger, David J.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary
Background
Essential oils are fragrance substances that are labelled on cosmetic products by their INCI names, potentially confusing consumers.
Objectives
To establish whether contact allergy to essential oils might be missed if not specifically tested for.
Methods
We tested 471 patients with 14 essential oils and 2104 patients with Melaleuca alternifolia oil between January 2008 and June 2014. All patients were tested with fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II, hydroxyisohexyl 3‐cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, and Myroxylon pereirae. Three hundred and twenty‐six patients were tested with hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool.
Results
Thirty‐four patients had a +/++/+++ reaction to at least one essential oil. Eleven had no reaction to any of the six marker fragrance substances. Thus, 4 of 11 positive reactions to M. alternifolia oil, 2 of 7 reactions to Cymbopogon flexuosus oil, 1 of 5 reactions to Cananga odorata oil, 3 of 4 reactions to Santalum album oil and 2 of 3 reactions to Mentha piperita oil would have been missed without individual testing.
Conclusion
A small number of patients who are allergic to essential oils could be missed if these are not specifically tested. Labelling by INCI names means that exposure may not be obvious. Careful inspection of so‐called ‘natural’ products and targeted testing is recommended.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0105-1873</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0536</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/cod.12528</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26806578</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Aldehydes - adverse effects ; Allergens - adverse effects ; allergic contact dermatitis ; Cananga - adverse effects ; Cananga odorata ; cosmetic reactions ; Cosmetics - adverse effects ; Cosmetics - chemistry ; Cosmetics industry ; Cyclohexenes - adverse effects ; Cymbopogon - adverse effects ; Cymbopogon flexuosus ; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology ; essential oils ; fragrances ; Humans ; Melaleuca alternifolia ; Mentha piperita ; Monoterpenes - adverse effects ; Myroxylon - adverse effects ; Oils & fats ; Oils, Volatile - adverse effects ; Patch Tests ; Perfume - adverse effects ; Plant Oils - adverse effects ; Pneumoviridae ; Product Labeling ; Retrospective Studies ; Santalum - adverse effects ; Santalum album ; Tea Tree Oil - adverse effects ; Terpenes - adverse effects</subject><ispartof>Contact dermatitis, 2016-04, Vol.74 (4), p.236-241</ispartof><rights>2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4948-3dd19ffb8ca5be56dffe22d6d6141e4176e48b45b003db7a4989344f329db7a93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4948-3dd19ffb8ca5be56dffe22d6d6141e4176e48b45b003db7a4989344f329db7a93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fcod.12528$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fcod.12528$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26806578$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sabroe, Ruth A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holden, Catherine R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gawkrodger, David J.</creatorcontrib><title>Contact allergy to essential oils cannot always be predicted from allergy to fragrance markers in the baseline series</title><title>Contact dermatitis</title><addtitle>Contact Dermatitis</addtitle><description>Summary
Background
Essential oils are fragrance substances that are labelled on cosmetic products by their INCI names, potentially confusing consumers.
Objectives
To establish whether contact allergy to essential oils might be missed if not specifically tested for.
Methods
We tested 471 patients with 14 essential oils and 2104 patients with Melaleuca alternifolia oil between January 2008 and June 2014. All patients were tested with fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II, hydroxyisohexyl 3‐cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, and Myroxylon pereirae. Three hundred and twenty‐six patients were tested with hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool.
Results
Thirty‐four patients had a +/++/+++ reaction to at least one essential oil. Eleven had no reaction to any of the six marker fragrance substances. Thus, 4 of 11 positive reactions to M. alternifolia oil, 2 of 7 reactions to Cymbopogon flexuosus oil, 1 of 5 reactions to Cananga odorata oil, 3 of 4 reactions to Santalum album oil and 2 of 3 reactions to Mentha piperita oil would have been missed without individual testing.
Conclusion
A small number of patients who are allergic to essential oils could be missed if these are not specifically tested. Labelling by INCI names means that exposure may not be obvious. Careful inspection of so‐called ‘natural’ products and targeted testing is recommended.</description><subject>Aldehydes - adverse effects</subject><subject>Allergens - adverse effects</subject><subject>allergic contact dermatitis</subject><subject>Cananga - adverse effects</subject><subject>Cananga odorata</subject><subject>cosmetic reactions</subject><subject>Cosmetics - adverse effects</subject><subject>Cosmetics - chemistry</subject><subject>Cosmetics industry</subject><subject>Cyclohexenes - adverse effects</subject><subject>Cymbopogon - adverse effects</subject><subject>Cymbopogon flexuosus</subject><subject>Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology</subject><subject>essential oils</subject><subject>fragrances</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Melaleuca alternifolia</subject><subject>Mentha piperita</subject><subject>Monoterpenes - adverse effects</subject><subject>Myroxylon - adverse effects</subject><subject>Oils & fats</subject><subject>Oils, Volatile - adverse effects</subject><subject>Patch Tests</subject><subject>Perfume - adverse effects</subject><subject>Plant Oils - adverse effects</subject><subject>Pneumoviridae</subject><subject>Product Labeling</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Santalum - adverse effects</subject><subject>Santalum album</subject><subject>Tea Tree Oil - adverse effects</subject><subject>Terpenes - adverse effects</subject><issn>0105-1873</issn><issn>1600-0536</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0V1rFDEUBuAgil2rF_4BCXijF9Pm--PSrtoKrRVUvAyZ5ExNnZ1skxnq_ntnu22RgpibEHjOCzkvQi8pOaDzOQw5HlAmmXmEFlQR0hDJ1WO0IJTIhhrN99CzWi8JoUow8xTtMWWIktos0LTMw-jDiH3fQ7nY4DFjqBWGMfke59RXHPww5C249puKW8DrAjGFESLuSl79PdkVf1H8EACvfPkFpeI04PEn4NZX6NMAuEJJUJ-jJ53vK7y4vffR948fvi1PmtPz40_Ld6dNEFaYhsdIbde1JnjZglSx64CxqKKigoKgWoEwrZAtITy22gtrLBei48xun5bvoze73HXJVxPU0a1SDdD3foA8VUcttVZLRdX_qdZUSEaNmOnrB_QyT2WYP7JVxFCrhJzV250KJddaoHPrkua1bBwlblubm2tzN7XN9tVt4tSuIN7Lu55mcLgD16mHzb-T3PL8_V1ks5tIdYTf9xNzLU5prqX78fnYHZ3JI_HlK3OW_wGNOLCZ</recordid><startdate>201604</startdate><enddate>201604</enddate><creator>Sabroe, Ruth A.</creator><creator>Holden, Catherine R.</creator><creator>Gawkrodger, David J.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201604</creationdate><title>Contact allergy to essential oils cannot always be predicted from allergy to fragrance markers in the baseline series</title><author>Sabroe, Ruth A. ; Holden, Catherine R. ; Gawkrodger, David J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4948-3dd19ffb8ca5be56dffe22d6d6141e4176e48b45b003db7a4989344f329db7a93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Aldehydes - adverse effects</topic><topic>Allergens - adverse effects</topic><topic>allergic contact dermatitis</topic><topic>Cananga - adverse effects</topic><topic>Cananga odorata</topic><topic>cosmetic reactions</topic><topic>Cosmetics - adverse effects</topic><topic>Cosmetics - chemistry</topic><topic>Cosmetics industry</topic><topic>Cyclohexenes - adverse effects</topic><topic>Cymbopogon - adverse effects</topic><topic>Cymbopogon flexuosus</topic><topic>Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology</topic><topic>essential oils</topic><topic>fragrances</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Melaleuca alternifolia</topic><topic>Mentha piperita</topic><topic>Monoterpenes - adverse effects</topic><topic>Myroxylon - adverse effects</topic><topic>Oils & fats</topic><topic>Oils, Volatile - adverse effects</topic><topic>Patch Tests</topic><topic>Perfume - adverse effects</topic><topic>Plant Oils - adverse effects</topic><topic>Pneumoviridae</topic><topic>Product Labeling</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Santalum - adverse effects</topic><topic>Santalum album</topic><topic>Tea Tree Oil - adverse effects</topic><topic>Terpenes - adverse effects</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sabroe, Ruth A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holden, Catherine R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gawkrodger, David J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Contact dermatitis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sabroe, Ruth A.</au><au>Holden, Catherine R.</au><au>Gawkrodger, David J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Contact allergy to essential oils cannot always be predicted from allergy to fragrance markers in the baseline series</atitle><jtitle>Contact dermatitis</jtitle><addtitle>Contact Dermatitis</addtitle><date>2016-04</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>74</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>236</spage><epage>241</epage><pages>236-241</pages><issn>0105-1873</issn><eissn>1600-0536</eissn><abstract>Summary
Background
Essential oils are fragrance substances that are labelled on cosmetic products by their INCI names, potentially confusing consumers.
Objectives
To establish whether contact allergy to essential oils might be missed if not specifically tested for.
Methods
We tested 471 patients with 14 essential oils and 2104 patients with Melaleuca alternifolia oil between January 2008 and June 2014. All patients were tested with fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II, hydroxyisohexyl 3‐cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, and Myroxylon pereirae. Three hundred and twenty‐six patients were tested with hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool.
Results
Thirty‐four patients had a +/++/+++ reaction to at least one essential oil. Eleven had no reaction to any of the six marker fragrance substances. Thus, 4 of 11 positive reactions to M. alternifolia oil, 2 of 7 reactions to Cymbopogon flexuosus oil, 1 of 5 reactions to Cananga odorata oil, 3 of 4 reactions to Santalum album oil and 2 of 3 reactions to Mentha piperita oil would have been missed without individual testing.
Conclusion
A small number of patients who are allergic to essential oils could be missed if these are not specifically tested. Labelling by INCI names means that exposure may not be obvious. Careful inspection of so‐called ‘natural’ products and targeted testing is recommended.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>26806578</pmid><doi>10.1111/cod.12528</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0105-1873 |
| ispartof | Contact dermatitis, 2016-04, Vol.74 (4), p.236-241 |
| issn | 0105-1873 1600-0536 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1919975616 |
| source | Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; MEDLINE |
| subjects | Aldehydes - adverse effects Allergens - adverse effects allergic contact dermatitis Cananga - adverse effects Cananga odorata cosmetic reactions Cosmetics - adverse effects Cosmetics - chemistry Cosmetics industry Cyclohexenes - adverse effects Cymbopogon - adverse effects Cymbopogon flexuosus Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology essential oils fragrances Humans Melaleuca alternifolia Mentha piperita Monoterpenes - adverse effects Myroxylon - adverse effects Oils & fats Oils, Volatile - adverse effects Patch Tests Perfume - adverse effects Plant Oils - adverse effects Pneumoviridae Product Labeling Retrospective Studies Santalum - adverse effects Santalum album Tea Tree Oil - adverse effects Terpenes - adverse effects |
| title | Contact allergy to essential oils cannot always be predicted from allergy to fragrance markers in the baseline series |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T15%3A33%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Contact%20allergy%20to%20essential%20oils%20cannot%20always%20be%20predicted%20from%20allergy%20to%20fragrance%20markers%20in%20the%20baseline%20series&rft.jtitle=Contact%20dermatitis&rft.au=Sabroe,%20Ruth%20A.&rft.date=2016-04&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=236&rft.epage=241&rft.pages=236-241&rft.issn=0105-1873&rft.eissn=1600-0536&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/cod.12528&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1919975616%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1770819645&rft_id=info:pmid/26806578&rfr_iscdi=true |