Patch testing with fragrance mix and its constituents in a Hungarian population

Becker, Krisztina; Temesvári, Erzsébet; Németh, Ilona

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1994.tb00713.x

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cinnamic alcohol was most common in the USA [5]. α-Amyl cinnamaldehyde was the least prevalent constituent in the above studies [5, 24, 32, 33], with the exception of data from Buckley et al [21]where cinnamic alcohol and cinnamic aldehyde were least common. Geraniol was the second least common allergen in Hungary [24]and in the Netherlands [33]and was also the least common allergen together with α-amyl cinnamaldehyde in the study of Katsarma and Gawkrodger [32]from the UK.…”

Section: Prevalence Of Individual Fragrance Allergensmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Oak moss absolute was the most common in the UK [21, 32], whereas cinnamic aldehyde was most common in Hungary [24]. In the Netherlands [33], oak moss absolute and cinnamic aldehyde were both the top constituents at a prevalence of 34% of FM-positive patients.…”

Section: Prevalence Of Individual Fragrance Allergensmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In dermatitis patients evaluated by patch testing, reactions to FM have ranged from 5.9% in Slovenia to 19.5% in Hong Kong [19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29](table 1). The average frequency of these worldwide FM reactions is 11.2%.…”

Section: Worldwide Prevalence Of Reactions To Fmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prevalence of Fragrance Allergy

Scheinman¹

2002

Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the exception of the UK, where fragrance allergy remained fairly constant from the early 1980s until the mid-late 1990s, other centers worldwide (Denmark, Singapore, Slovenia and the USA) reported an increase in fragrance allergy during this period. The ubiquitous nature of fragrance in modern society, coupled with new and growing markets of fragrance products for children and men, likely contribute to this increase. Strict adherence to voluntary guidelines on concentration limits of known fragrance sensitizers in consumer products is necessary. Also, special attention by manufacturers to safety assessments for fragranced products to be used on ‘high-risk’ areas such as traumatized/dermatitic skin, occluded sites and areas of high absorption is needed.

show abstract

Section: Prevalence Of Individual Fragrance Allergensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prevalence Of Individual Fragrance Allergensmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevalence of Fragrance Allergy

Scheinman¹

2002

Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beekeepers are more affected by propolis allergy than the healthy population (0.64-1.3%) [14,25,26], but are not more affected by propolis allergy than dermatological patients cured earlier because of allergic dermatoses (1.2-6.7%) [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allergy to propolis in Polish beekeepers

Basista¹,

Filipek²

2012

pdia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Ad dd dr re es ss s f fo or r c co or rr re es sp po on nd de en nc ce e: : Katarzyna M. Basista, Department of Pharmacodynamics, Faculty of Farmacy, Medical College, Jagiellonian University, 9 Medyczna St, Poland, phone: +48 508 932 783, Original paper A b s t r a c t I In nt tr ro od du uc ct ti io on n: : According to the literature propolis is a non-toxic and safe substance. However, propolis can induce allergy. Beekeepers may be the group most affected by contact allergy and propolis is an occupational contact allergen for them. A Ai im m: : To determine the prevalence of propolis contact allergy in beekeepers and theirs families and its possible association with other coexistent conditions. M Ma at te er ri ia al l a an nd d m me et th ho od ds s: : The questionnaire 'Allergy to propolis among beekeepers' was distributed to beekeepers by hand through the Beekeepers Associations, especially the Provincial Association of Apiarists in Krakow. The study was conducted on adults of both genders who had given informed consent to participate in the study. The program Statistica was used for data management and statistical analysis. R Re es su ul lt ts s: : A total of 2540 questionnaires were distributed, including 1360 questionnaires from Malopolska region. Five hundred and fifty-eight questionnaires were returned, including 345 from Malopolska region. The response rate was 21.97% (25.4% Malopolska region). Among 558 beekeepers propolis contact allergy occurred in 17 cases (3.05%). Four hundred anf four of 558 beekeepers used propolis as a therapeutic agent. Eleven of 404 (2.72%) beekeepers reported propolis allergy. Only 5 beekeepers reported concomitant propolis allergy after contact with this substance during beekeeping and using propolis as a therapeutic agent. Among 2205 members of families who were using propolis only 14 patients (0.63%) reported propolis allergy. C Co on nc cl lu us si io on ns s: : Allergy to propolis in Polish beekeepers does not seem to be a common phenomenon. K Ke ey y w wo or rd ds s: : propolis allergy, propolis, beekeepers, contact allergy, occupational allergy.

show abstract

“…In another study of reactions to the individual components of the FM in 50 FM-positive patients, 2 delayedtype reactions were seen to an unknown concentration of geraniol [46] . 31 reactions were experienced by the 20 patients who reacted to any of the components.…”

Section: (I) Tests Producing Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There Evidence that Geraniol Causes Allergic Contact Dermatitis?

Hostýnek¹,

Maibach²

2004

Exog Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fragrance material geraniol has been cited as a frequent cause of allergic contact dermatitis. A review of the literature shows that when the underlying clinical and experimental data are analyzed, a clear cause-effect relationship has infrequently or rarely been established. On the basis of the generally weak sensitizing potential of this substance coupled with its generally low exposure conditions, the prevalence of clinical cases would not be expected to be particularly high. This is not to say that geraniol is a frequent inducer of type IV allergy in members of the public. It remains to be seen, however, how often such allergy, once established, is responsible for any of the cases of allergic contact dermatitis commonly ascribed in the literature. Indeed, in some cases, patch-test conditions may not be optimal for differentiating between clinically relevant and irrelevant allergy to geraniol. Because of the numerous publications on geraniol-positive patch-test publications, a future effort to ascertain how many of these represent clinical intolerance is indicated. This will also permit determination of the NOEL (no observed effect level) in patch and use testing.

show abstract

Patch testing with fragrance mix and its constituents in a Hungarian population

Cited by 27 publications

References 17 publications

Prevalence of Fragrance Allergy

Prevalence of Fragrance Allergy

Allergy to propolis in Polish beekeepers

Is There Evidence that Geraniol Causes Allergic Contact Dermatitis?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About