Ultraviolet filter, fragrance and preservative allergens in New Zealand sunscreens

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Allergic contact dermatitis, photoallergic contact dermatitis and irritant reactions to sunscreens are common reasons for dermatology consultation. Patch testing for contact allergy relies on up-to-date knowledge of allergen exposures. The aim of this study was to investigate contact allergens and photoallergens in sunscreens commercially sold on the shelves of supermarkets and pharmacies in New Zealand.Methods: A comprehensive market data review of suppliers' websites was performed from March to August 2019 to obtain a list of the commonly sold sunscreens in our region. Ingredients were collated and analysed according to International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) names. Ultraviolet (UV) filters, preservatives and fragrances were included for analysis. Place of sale and cost of sunscreens were also recorded.Results: Ninety-five sunscreens were analysed: 36% sold in supermarkets, 43% in pharmacies and the remainder available in both. The most frequent UV filters were butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (contained in 70% of products) followed by octocrylene (63%) and homosalate (50%). The common photoallergen benzophenone 3 was found in 19% of products. Phenoxyethanol was the most common preservative (68%) followed by disodium EDTA (30%) and propylparaben (26%). Two sunscreens contained methylisothiazolinone. Sixty-one per cent contained at least one fragrance, the most frequent being limonene (17%) and linalool (13%). There was an average of 1.1 New Zealand baseline series allergens per product (range 0 to 6, standard deviation 1.27). Conclusion: Common allergens including thosewith high sensitising potential were frequently found in New Zealand sunscreen. Knowledge of ingredients used by manufacturers is useful in dermatological assessment of skin contact reactions.

Innovative Strategies for Photoallergy Assessment: Breaking Free from Animal Models in Cosmetic Ingredient Development

“…UV filters and fragrances are the cosmetic ingredients considered to be the main culprits of photoallergic reactions [83][84][85][86][87][88]. In the case of sunscreens, allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis were first reported over thirty years ago [89], and these adverse reactions were mainly attributed to organic filters, with oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) being the most frequently reported contact and photocontact allergen [88].…”

A baseline patch test series for New Zealand

“…Sunscreens are widely promoted in New Zealand; suspicion of sunscreen allergy is common among patients referred for patch testing. A recent review of sunscreen ingredients in NZ found benzophenone 3 was still present in 19% of products despite decreasing use worldwide 25 …”

“…A recent review of sunscreen ingredients in NZ found benzophenone 3 was still present in 19% of products despite decreasing use worldwide. 25 While benzophenones are the most common UV filters implicated in contact allergy, ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate is widely used in sunscreens and as a preservative in personal care products. 26 Ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate is well tolerated and unlikely to cause ACD.…”

Toxicokinetics of homosalate in humans after dermal application: applicability of oral-route data for exposure assessment by human biomonitoring

“…A recent market study on internationally available sunscreen products reported HMS in about 15% of investigated products, with similar usage frequencies in sunscreens meant for adults and for children ( n = 444) (Jesus et al 2022 ), while another study focusing on New Zealand reported HMS in 50% of products ( n = 95) (Roh and Cheng 2022 ). Considering the widespread use of HMS, a release of HMS into the environment – e.g., via recreational activities such as swimming – appears likely, and indeed, HMS has been detected in a variety of environmental matrices, such as freshwater, seawater and wastewater, sediments, and aquatic organisms (Del Rosario et al 2014 ; Bargar et al 2015 ; Cuderman and Heath 2007 ; Cunha et al 2018 ; He et al 2019 ; Kameda et al 2011 ; Mitchelmore et al 2019 ; Nagtegaal et al 1997 ; Sánchez Rodríguez et al 2015 ).…”