Contact cheilitis due to beeswax

Lucente, P.; Cavalli, Maurizio; Vezzani, Claudia; Orlandi, Catuscia; Vincenzi, Colombina

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1996.tb02378.x

Cited by 25 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1,2 Beeswax can cause contact allergy, and some cases of contact cheilitis, as well as cosmetic and occupational contact dermatitis, caused by beeswax have been described. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It is not known whether there is any difference in allergenicity between white and yellow beeswax. Moreover, the relationship between beeswax and propolis from the perspective of allergenicity is not known, although many cases of reactions to beeswax appear to be attributable to contamination with propolis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contact allergy to beeswax and propolis among patients with cheilitis or facial dermatitis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Beeswax, both white and yellow, has many uses, such as in lip balm. This material can cause contact allergy, although not many cases have been described.Methods: Ninety-five patients with contact cheilitis, facial eczema or a suspicion of contact allergy to beeswax were patch tested with yellow and white beeswax and with propolis, in addition to the Swedish baseline series. Patients who reacted positively to beeswax were additionally tested with caffeic acid, and two derivatives thereof that are believed to be important haptens in propolis.Results: Seventeen patients had positive reactions to beeswax. Fourteen of these patients had been tested with both yellow and white beeswax. Among those 14, eight had positive reactions to both types of wax, five only to yellow wax, and one only to white wax. Of the 10 wax-positive patients tested with caffeic acid derivatives, three reacted positively.Fourteen beeswax-positive patients also had positive reactions to propolis.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13,[15][16][17] There are some case reports of cheilitis caused by beeswax, propolis, and honey. 4,7,9,15,18 Beeswax is a component in many lip balms and lipsticks, and is thus of interest for further investigation. 4 Contact allergy to beeswax has not been very well investigated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact allergy to beeswax and propolis among patients with cheilitis or facial dermatitis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It will therefore contain both IgE-eliciting allergens like pollen, and contact allergens like 3-methyl-2-butenyl caffeate and phenylethyl caffeate (Walgrave et al, 2005). Accordingly, there are reports of contact allergy to beeswax (Garcia et al, 1995;Lucente et al, 1996;Junghans et al, 2002). However, because of the high dilution factor from carryover of beeswax as a previous cargo, the CONTAM Panel considers that allergenicity does not pose any concern when beeswax is used as a previous cargo.…”

Section: Allergenicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of the substances currently on the list in the annex to Commission Directive 96/3/EC as acceptable previous cargoes for edible fats and oils - Part II of III

2012

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shipping of edible fats and oils into Europe is permitted in bulk tanks, in which substances, included in a positive list, had been previously transported. The European Commission requested EFSA to evaluate the list of substances in the Annex to Commission Directive 96/3/EC as acceptable previous cargoes for edible fats and oils, taking into account its review of the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) criteria for acceptable previous cargoes and criteria proposed by the Codex Committee for Fats and Oils. This is the second of three scientific opinions by the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel), in which thirty-five of these substances or groups of substances have been evaluated. The CONTAM Panel concluded that fatty acids, fatty alcohols, fatty alcohol blends, fatty acid methyl esters, fatty acid esters, and animal, marine and vegetable and hydrogenated oils and fats, all as specified, and acid oils and fatty acid distillates, acetic acid, sulphuric acid, formic acid, acetic anhydride, acetone, n-heptane, n-hexane, cyclohexane, pentane, iso-propanol, propyl alcohol, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl ethyl ketone, n-propyl acetate, ammonium hydroxide, limonene, methyl tertbutyl ether, urea ammonia nitrate solution, calcium chloride solution, magnesium chloride solution, potable water, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, silicon dioxide, sorbitol, molasses and beeswax would not be of health concern as previous cargoes. However, because of its insolubility in water and high melting point, silicon dioxide is not suitable for transport in tankers for edible fats and oils. There was insufficient information available on the composition of wine lees for the CONTAM Panel to conclude that it would not be of health concern when used as a previous cargo. The CONTAM Panel made several recommendations regarding the way in which the substances are described in the Annex to Commission Directive 96/3/EC, to correct inaccuracies and to better reflect current transport practices. for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion and the hearing expert John Hancock, and EFSA staff: Gina Cioacata and Luisa Ramos Bordajandi for the support provided to this scientific opinion. 4 Corrections have been made to Section 3.3.3 and to Section Conclusions (page 107, second bullet) for the entry on -Fatty alcohols (individually specified)‖ to list enanthyl alcohol (1-heptanol) and nonyl alcohol (1-nonanol) that due to an omission were not listed. The changes do not affect the overall conclusions of the opinion. To avoid confusion, the original version of the opinion has been removed from the website, but is available on request, as is a version showing all the changes made. Re-evaluation of acceptable previous cargoes for edible fats and oils -Part II of III EFSA Journal 2012;10(5):2703 2 © European Food Safety Authority, 2012 KEY WORDS Acceptable previous cargo, edible fats and oils, sea transport, criteria for acceptability of previous cargoes Re-evaluation of acceptable previous cargoes for edible fats and oils -Part I...

show abstract

“…nickel on a trumpet [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29], a reed used by a saxophonist [30][31][32]. Uncommon allergens include eosin reported in the early 60s but not seen since [33], azulene in lipsticks [34], guaiazulene in toothpastes [35], monotertiary butylhydroquinone, an antioxidant in lip gloss [36], propyl gallate and octyl gallate in lipsticks [37][38][39] and beeswax in lip cosmetics [40].…”

Section: Allergic Contact Cheilitismentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact Cheilitis – A Review

Goh¹

2003

Exog Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contact dermatitis is a common cause of eczematous cheilitis. In a Singapore series, allergic contact dermatitis is commoner than irritant contact dermatitis. More females are affected than males. Eczematous cheilitis usually presents in the 3rd and 4th decades of life. Eczematous cheilitis tends to occur among office workers and professionals (50.5%). This is probably due to the more frequent use of cosmetics and lip preparations among office workers compared to ‘blue collar’ workers. Irritant contact cheilitis is often seen in individuals with an underlying endogenous tendency to eczema, e.g. atopic dermatitis. Contact irritants include lip cosmetics, toothpastes and dentrifices. In the early 1990s, tartar control (pyrophosphates) toothpastes were reported to cause outbreaks of irritant contact dermatitis on the lips and peri-oral skin. Other irritants include traditional Chinese medicines. Allergic contact cheilitis occurs from lip cosmetics, toothpastes and medicaments. Allergic contact cheilitis accounted for 35% of eczematous cheilitis presenting at the Singapore clinic. The commonest cause of allergic contact cheilitis was lip cosmetics. They include lipsticks, lip balms and other cosmetic preparations. In Singapore, ricinoleic acid present in lipsticks accounted for about 10% of all cases of allergic contact dermatitis. Other allergens include other lipstick ingredients, sunscreen agents, toothpaste ingredients, colophony in dental floss and toothpicks, nail varnish, cosmetics and nickel in the mouthpiece of a flute. Recently sunscreens have become a common sensitizer in lip cosmetics. Other allergens include fragrance, balsam of Peru, lanolin and flavourings (strawberry and vanilla). Toothpastes are the next most common cause of allergic contact cheilitis. Dentrifices and dental prostheses have been reported to cause allergic contact dermatitis. Diagnostic clues have to be obtained from a careful history which includes a review of oral rinses, toothpastes, cleansers, mouthwashes, dentrifices, denture materials, chewing gum and lipsticks used by the patient. Patch testing with these products is essential for investigating the possible cause of allergic contact cheilitis. However, there is a group of patients with troublesome cheilitis, who are often severely affected, but in whom the cause of the cheilitis remains obscure. This group may represent patients with endogenous cheilitis or factitious cheilitis.

show abstract

Contact cheilitis due to beeswax

Cited by 25 publications

References 3 publications

Contact allergy to beeswax and propolis among patients with cheilitis or facial dermatitis

Contact allergy to beeswax and propolis among patients with cheilitis or facial dermatitis

Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of the substances currently on the list in the annex to Commission Directive 96/3/EC as acceptable previous cargoes for edible fats and oils - Part II of III

Contact Cheilitis – A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About