Lyral® is an important sensitizer in patients sensitive to fragrances

British Journal of Dermatology

Volumn 141, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 1076-1083

  Frosch, P J ^a   Johansen, J D ^g   Menne T ^g   Rastogi, S C ^b   Bruze, M ^c   Andersen, K E ^g   Lepoittevin, J P ^d   Gimenez Arnau E ^d   Pirker, C ^a   Goossens, A ^e   White, I R ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

^b NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Denmark)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE STRASBOURG   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^f ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^g NONE

Author keywords

Chemical analysis; Fragrance allergy; Fragrance mix; Kovanol ; Lyral ; Patch test materials

Indexed keywords

4 (4 HYDROXY 4 METHYLPENTYL) 3 CYCLOHEXENE CARBOXALDEHYDE; FRAGRANCE; KOVANOL; LYRAL; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; ALDEHYDE; ALLERGEN; CYCLOHEXENE DERIVATIVE; PERFUME;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTACT ALLERGY; CONTACT SENSITIZATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG STRUCTURE; FEMALE; GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MASS SPECTROMETRY; PATCH TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL TRIAL; IMMUNOLOGY; MASS FRAGMENTOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; SKIN ALLERGY;

ADULT; ALDEHYDES; ALLERGENS; CYCLOHEXENES; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; FEMALE; GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY-MASS SPECTROMETRY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATCH TESTS; PERFUME;

EID: 0033255222     PISSN: 00070963     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.1999.03208.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. 1 de Groot AC, Frosch PJ. Adverse reactions to fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 36: 57-86.
2. 2 Nielsen NH, Menné T. Allergic contact sensitization in an unselecled Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark, Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1992; 72: 456-60.
3. 3 Rastogi SC, Johansen JD, Frosch PJ et al. Deodorants on the European market: quantitative chemical analysis of 21 fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 1998; 38: 29-35.
4. 4 Rastogi SC. Analysis of fragrances in cosmetics by gas chromatography: mass spectrometry. J High Resolut Chromatogr 1995; 18: 653-8.
5. 5 Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menné T. Contact allergy to popular perfumes; assessed by patch test, use test and chemical analysis. Br J Dermatol 1996; 135: 419-22.
6. 6 Larsen WG. Perfume dermatitis. A study of 20 patients. Arch Dermatol 1977; 113: 623-6.
7. 7 de Groot AC, van der Kley AMJ, Bruynzeel DP et al. Frequency of false-negative reactions to the fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 1993; 28: 139-40.
8. 8 Bauer K, Garbe D, Surburg H. Flavors and Fragrances. In: Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Weinheim: VCH Verlags-Gesellschaft, 1988: 180.
9. 9 Wahlberg J. Patch testing. In: Textbook of Contact Dermatitis (Rycroft RJB, Menné T, Frosch PJ, Benezra C, eds). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1992: 241-68.
10. 10 Fenn RS. Aroma chemical usage trends in modern perfumery. Perfumer Flavorist 1989; 14: 1-10.
11. 11 de Groot AC, Weyland JW, Nater JP. Unwanted Effects of Cosmetics and Drugs Used in Dermatology. 3rd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1994.
12. 12 de Groot AC. Adverse Reactions to Cosmetics. Thesis, State University of Groningen 1988.
13. 13 de Groot AC. Contact allergy to cosmetics: causative ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 17: 26-34.
14. 14 Frosch PJ, Pilz B, Andersen KE et al. Patch testing with fragrances: results of a multicenter study of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group with 48 frequently used constituents of perfumes. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33: 333-42.
15. 15 Handley J. Burrows D. Allergic contact dermatitis from the synthetic fragrances Lyral® and acetyl cedrene in separate underarm deodorant preparations. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 31: 288-90.
16. 16 Benke GM, Larsen WG. Safety evaluation of perfumed shampoos: dose/response relationships for product use testing by presensitized subjects. J Toxicol Cutan Ocular Toxicol 1984; 3: 65-7.
17. 17 Mutterer V, Giménez Arnau E, Lepoittevin JP et al. Identification of coumarin as a sensitizer in a patient sensitive to her own perfume but negative to the fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 40: 196-9.
18. 18 Somogyi L. The flavour and fragrance industry serving a global market. Chem Ind 1996; 170-3.
19. 19 Ford RA, Api AM, Letizia CS. Lyral®. Monographs Fragrance Raw Materials. Food Chem Toxicol 1992; 30 (Suppl.): 1-138S.
20. 20 Rastogi SC, Lepoittevin JP, Johansen JD et al. Fragrances and other materials in deodorants: search for potentially sensitizing molecules using combined GC-MS and structure activity relationship (SAR) analysis. Contact Dermatitis 1998; 39: 293-303.
21. 21 Johansen JD, Skov L, Volund A et al. Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: a study of fragrance-sensitized individuals. Br J Dermatol 1998; 139: 264-70.
22. 22 Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T et al. A study of new fragrance mixtures. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1998; 9: 202-6.