Allergic contact dermatitis in preservatives: current standing and future options

Deza, Gustavo; Giménez‐Arnau, Ana

doi:10.1097/aci.0000000000000373

Cited by 65 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Parabens are preservatives that may be a cause of contact hypersensitivity, although this is still controversial. [1][2][3][4] In addition to a direct role as allergens, it should be noted that some forms of paraben could act as adjuvants during sensitization to other allergens. Parabens commonly used as preservatives have a short side chain such as methyl, ethyl, propyl, and BP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1) Retrospective studies involving skin patch test in Europe revealed that the proportion of adults sensitized to paraben mixtures exceeded 1% of subjects, 2) however, a more recent similar study suggested that sensitization to parabens is rare. 3) To summarize the current situation, the skin sensitization potency of preservatives is gaining increasing attention while the prevalence of contact allergies to parabens has remained unchanged over the last decade. 4) Besides direct sensitization to parabens, parabens may enhance the sensitization to other allergens.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Skin Sensitization to Fluorescein Isothiocyanate Is Enhanced by Butyl Paraben in a Mouse Model

Matsuoka

Endo

Kurohane

et al. 2018

Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact hypersensitivity (CHS) to preservatives is receiving increased attention. Parabens are widely used in foods, pharmaceutics and cosmetics as preservatives. The skin sensitizing activity of parabens remains controversial but a few investigations have been made as to whether parabens could facilitate sensitization to other chemicals. We have shown that di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), a phthalate ester, has an adjuvant effect in a fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-induced CHS mouse model. We have also demonstrated that DBP activates transient receptor potential ankyrin 1 (TRPA1) cation channels expressed on sensory neurons. Comparative studies of phthalate esters revealed that TRPA1 agonistic activity and the adjuvant effect on FITC-CHS coincide. Here we focused on two commonly used parabens, butyl paraben (BP) and ethyl paraben (EP), as to their adjuvant effects. BALB/c mice were epicutneously sensitized with FITC in acetone in the presence or absence of a paraben. Sensitization to FITC was evaluated as the ear-swelling response after FITC challenge. BP but not EP enhanced skin sensitization to FITC, but the effect of BP was much weaker than that of DBP. Mechanistically, BP enhanced the trafficking of FITC-presenting CD11c dendritic cells (DCs) from the skin to draining lymph nodes as well as cytokine production by draining lymph nodes. When the TRPA1 agonistic activity was measured with a cell line expressing TRPA1, BP exhibited higher activity than EP. The present study provides direct in vivo evidence that BP causes sensitization to other chemicals by means of a mouse FITC-CHS model.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Skin Sensitization to Fluorescein Isothiocyanate Is Enhanced by Butyl Paraben in a Mouse Model

Matsuoka

Endo

Kurohane

et al. 2018

Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 The maximum authorized concentrations are 0.02% and 0.01% in rinse-off and leave-on cosmetic products, respectively, and there is an even lower limit of 0.0075% in deodorants and antiperspirants. 5 This difference in sensitization rates between Europe and the United States can be attributed to differences in cosmetic regulations, but also to the use of different patch test concentrations 6 : whereas the recommended test concentration of IPBC in Europe has been 0.2% pet. 2 IPBC is a small, water-soluble molecule that readily penetrates the skin, shows marginal irritant properties, and is considered to have a low sensitizing potential.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the positive patch test reactions to IPBC in iodine-allergic subjects were potentially caused by free iodine released from this preservative agent. However, in contrast to what is seen with iodine and PVP-I, irritant reactions are less likely with IPBC 0.2% pet., certainly compared to the 0.5% preparation 6. IPBC use concentrations have consequently been limited, and it cannot be used in oral and lip products, body lotions, and creams, or in products for children aged <3 years, except in bath products, shower gels, and shampoos.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Concomitant contact‐allergic reactions to iodopropynyl butylcarbamate and iodine

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC) is a broad-spectrum preservative for use in several product types, including cosmetics, in which its concentrations have been limited by EU legislation because of concerns related to its iodine content and release, and the risk of subsequent iodine overdose.Objectives: To report on concomitant patch test reactions observed with iodine and IPBC in patients sensitized to iodine-containing antiseptics.Patients: Between 2012 and 2018, seven patients, six from Belgium and one from France, two suffering from acute dermatitis during surgical interventions, four from dermatitis caused by wound treatment, and one from occupational dermatitis, were shown to be sensitized to iodine and/or povidone-iodine (PVP-I), which was considered to be relevant for their dermatitis. All patients were coincidentally also patch tested with IPBC.Results: All patients showed positive patch test reactions to several other allergens, including IPBC. No relevance could be detected for IPBC. Conclusions:We suspect that, notwithstanding the absence of firm evidence for IPBC being dehalogenated to produce free iodine in animals or in humans, the patch test reactions to IPBC in iodine-allergic subjects were possibly caused by free iodine released from this preservative agent, thus underlining the EU restrictions regarding the use of this preservative in cosmetics.

show abstract

“…Contact sensitization rates for iodopropynyl butylcarbamate have been reported to range from 1.2% to 4.2%. 6,12 The natural skin care movement's intolerance of parabens and other safer preservatives has unintended consequences, such as the use of more allergenic preservatives such a methylisothiazolinone. This unwarranted avoidance of low-allergen and safe preservatives and increased use of botanicals has been associated with a new epidemic of contact dermatitis, which is responsible for high medical bills, time away from work and family, and a diminished quality of life.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural Does Not Mean Safe—The Dirt on Clean Beauty Products

Rubin

Brod

2019

JAMA Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clean beauty, also known as natural skin care, is having a moment. From 2017 to 2018, the natural skin care market grew by 23% to 1.6 billion dollars, accounting for over 25% of the 5.6 billion dollars of annual skin care sales in 2018. 1 Staunch warnings from influencers such as Gwyneth Paltrow, whose blog Goop warns readers "Do you want antifreeze (propylene glycol) in your moisturizer? We're going to guess no," 2 have ignited fear in consumers who are now hungry for skincare that is safe and nontoxic. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to define clean and natural, leaving these labels open to interpretation by nondermatologist retailers, bloggers, and celebrities who have set out to define clean beauty for themselves. While the clean beauty movement has demonized hundreds of compounds, in this Viewpoint, we argue that an arbitrary designation of clean or natural does not necessarily make products safer for consumers. Many of the ingredients that have been denounced by clean beauty evangelists seem to be selected haphazardly as companies attempt to "greenwash" their products to make them more attractive to conscientious shoppers. In July 2018, for example, Whole Foods released its updated list of unacceptable ingredients, which lists over 400 compounds they feel are unfit for their line of premium body care. 3 Their list of banned ingredients includes petrolatum, which dermatologists have consistently recommended to patients with skin barrier disruption owing to its nonallergenicity, superior qualities as a humectant, and economical cost that makes it accessible to patients of all backgrounds. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics advocates for consumers to avoid a multitude of ingredients including parabens, 4 which the American Contact Dermatitis Society named 2019 nonallergen of the year. 5 Parabens are some of the least allergenic preservatives available, with rates of contact sensitization between 0.5% to 1.4%-rates that have been stable since the 1990s. 6 The Environmental Working Group's (EWG) safe skin database warns consumers against exposure to chemical sunscreen ingredients, 7 though a recent editorial in JAMA 8 explains that although there is evidence of systemic absorption of sunscreen ingredients, we do not yet have data to link this systemic absorption with toxic or adverse effects, and that sunscreens remain critical in our defense against keratinocytic skin cancers. Additionally, many so-called natural products contain high concentrations of botanical extracts that are a leading cause of both irritant and allergic contact dermatitis and photosensitization. 9 In a study done by the University of

show abstract

Allergic contact dermatitis in preservatives: current standing and future options

Abstract: Given the high rates of sensitization reported over the last years, timely regulatory actions are urgently required for some preservatives that currently represent a concern for public health.

Cited by 65 publications

References 44 publications

Skin Sensitization to Fluorescein Isothiocyanate Is Enhanced by Butyl Paraben in a Mouse Model

Skin Sensitization to Fluorescein Isothiocyanate Is Enhanced by Butyl Paraben in a Mouse Model

Concomitant contact‐allergic reactions to iodopropynyl butylcarbamate and iodine

Natural Does Not Mean Safe—The Dirt on Clean Beauty Products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About