Categorization of fragrance contact allergens for prioritization of preventive measures: Clinical and experimental data and consideration of structure-activity relationships

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 69, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 196-230

  Uter, Wolfgang ^a   Johansen, Jeanne D ^b   Börje, Anna ^c   Karlberg, Ann Therese ^c   Lidén, Carola ^d   Rastogi, Suresh ^e   Roberts, David ^f   White, Ian R ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^d KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^e Department of the SCCS ^*  (Denmark)

^f LIVERPOOL JOHN MOORES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^g ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Directive 76 768 ECC; fragrance allergens; labelling; SCCS; scientific opinion

Indexed keywords

ALDEHYDE; BENZALDEHYDE; CINNAMALDEHYDE; CINNAMYL ALCOHOL; CONTACT ALLERGEN; DEODORANT AGENT; ESSENTIAL OIL; EUGENOL; EVERNIA PRUNASTRI EXTRACT; FARNESOL; FRAGRANCE; GERANIOL; HAIR DYE; HYDROXYCITRONELLAL; HYDROXYISOHEXYL 3 CYCLOHEXENE CARBOXALDEHYDE; ISOEUGENOL; LIMONENE; MENTHOL; NATURAL PRODUCT; PERFUME; TURPENTINE OIL; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VANILLIN; YLANG YLANG OIL;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL COMPOSITION; CLINICAL STUDY; CONTACT ALLERGY; CONTACT DERMATITIS; CONTACT SENSITIZATION; CONTACT URTICARIA; ECZEMA; EVERNIA PRUNASTRI; HAND ECZEMA; HUMAN; JASMINE; MORBIDITY; NICKEL HYPERSENSITIVITY; NONHUMAN; PATCH TEST; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREVALENCE; PRIMARY PREVENTION; PROGNOSIS; PRURITUS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RASH; RISK FACTOR; SKIN SENSITIZATION; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

DIRECTIVE 76/768/ECC; FRAGRANCE ALLERGENS; LABELLING; SCCS; SCIENTIFIC OPINION;

ALLERGENS; CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; EUROPE; HUMANS; PATCH TESTS; PERFUME; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 84884288795     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cod.12117     Document Type: Article

References (170)

1. SCCNFP. The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers: Opinion concerning Fragrance allergy in consumers. A review of the problem. Analysis of the need for appropriate consumer information and identification of consumer allergens, adopted 8 December 1999. SCCNFP/0017/98 Final 1999.
2. Johansen J D, Andersen T F, Kjoller M, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen K E, Menné T,. Identification of risk products for fragrance contact allergy: a case-referent study based on patients histories. Am J Contact Dermat 1998: 9: 80-86.
3. Heydorn S, Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Svedman C, White I R, Basketter D A, Menné T,. Fragrance allergy in patients with hand eczema-a clinical study. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 317-323.
4. Buckley D A, Rycroft R J, White I R, McFadden J P,. Contact allergy to individual fragrance mix constituents in relation to primary site of dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 304-305.
5. Heydorn S, Menné T, Johansen J D,. Fragrance allergy and hand eczema-a review. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 59-66.
6. Meding B,. Epidemiology of hand eczema in an industrial city. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) Suppl 1990: 153: 2-43.
7. Cronin E,. Cosmetics. In: Contact Dermatitis: Edinburgh, Churchill-Livingstone, 1980: pp. 158-170.
8. Johansen J D, Andersen T F, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen K E, Menné T,. Patch testing with markers of fragrance contact allergy. Do clinical tests correspond to patients' self-reported problems? Acta Derm Venereol 1997: 77: 149-153.
9. Wöhrl S, Hemmer W, Focke M, Götz M, Jarisch R,. The significance of fragrance mix, balsam of Peru, colophony and propolis as screening tools in the detection of fragrance allergy. Br J Dermatol 2001: 145: 268-273.
10. Edman B,. The influence of shaving method on perfume allergy. Contact Dermatitis 1994: 31: 291-292.
11. Tanaka S, Matsumoto Y, Dlova N, et al. Immediate contact reactions to fragrance mix constituents and Myroxylon pereirae resin. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 51: 20-21.
12. Hausen B M,. Contact allergy to balsam of Peru. II. Patch test results in 102 patients with selected balsam of Peru constituents. Am J Contact Dermat 2001: 12: 93-102.
13. Katsarou A, Armenaka M, Ale I, Koufou V, Kalogeromitros D,. Frequency of immediate reactions to the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 276-279.
14. Larsen W G,. Perfume dermatitis. A study of 20 patients. Arch Dermatol 1977: 113: 623-626.
15. Frosch P J, Pirker C, Rastogi S C, et al. Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 207-215.
16. Frosch P J, Rastogi S C, Pirker C, et al. Patch testing with a new fragrance mix-reactivity to the individual constituents and chemical detection in relevant cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 216-225.
17. Bruze M, Andersen K E, Goossens A,. Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) in the European baseline patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 129-133.
18. Uter W, Schnuch A, Gefeller O,. Guidelines for the descriptive presentation and statistical analysis of contact allergy data. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 51: 47-56.
19. Lindberg M, Edman B, Fischer T, Stenberg B,. Time trends in Swedish patch test data from 1992 to 2000. A multi-centre study based on age- and sex-adjusted results of the Swedish standard series. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 205-210.
20. Temesvari E, Nemeth I, Balo-Banga M J, et al. Multicentre study of fragrance allergy in Hungary. Immediate and late type reactions. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 325-330.
21. Machovcova A, Dastychova E, Kostalova D, Vojtechovska A, Reslova J, Smejkalova D, Vaneckova J, Vocilkova A,. Common contact sensitizers in the Czech Republic. Patch test results in 12,058 patients with suspected contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 162-166.
22. Lunder T, Kansky A,. Increase in contact allergy to fragrances: patch-test results 1989-1998. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 107-109.
23. Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, Frosch P J, Uter W,. Contact allergy to fragrances: frequencies of sensitization from 1996 to 2002. Results of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 65-76.
24. Uter W, Geier J, Frosch P J, Schnuch A,. Contact allergy to fragrances: current patch test results (2005 to 2008) from the IVDK network. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 63: 254-261.
25. van Oosten E J, Schuttelaar M L, Coenraads P J,. Clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to the 26 EU-labelled fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 217-223.
26. deGroot A C, Coenraads P J, Bruynzeel D P, et al. Routine patch testing with fragrance chemicals in The Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 184-185.
27. Hendriks S A, van Ginkel C J,. Evaluation of the fragrance mix in the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 161-162.
28. Nardelli A, Carbonez A, Ottoy W, Drieghe J, Goossens A,. Frequency of and trends in fragrance allergy over a 15-year period. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 134-141.
29. Brites M M, Goncalo M, Figueiredo A,. Contact allergy to fragrance mix-a 10-year study. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 181-182.
30. Cuesta L, Silvestre J F, Toledo F, Lucas A, Perez-Crespo M, Ballester I,. Fragrance contact allergy: a 4-year retrospective study. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 63: 77-84.
31. Katsarma G, Gawkrodger D J,. Suspected fragrance allergy requires extended patch testing to individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 193-197.
32. Buckley D A, Basketter D A, Kan-King-Yu D, White I R, White J L, McFadden J P,. Atopy and contact allergy to fragrance: allergic reactions to the fragrance mix I (the Larsen mix). Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 220-225.
33. Thyssen J P, Carlsen B C, Menné T, Johansen J D,. Trends of contact allergy to fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae among Danish eczema patients tested between 1985 and 2007. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 238-244.
34. Bruynzeel D P, Diepgen T L, Andersen K E, et al. Monitoring the European standard series in 10 centres 1996-2000. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 146-149.
35. Frosch P J, Johansen J D, Menné T, et al. Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances. I. Reactivity to 14 frequently used chemicals. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 78-85.
36. Uter W, Hegewald J, Aberer W, et al. The European standard series in 9 European countries, 2002/2003-first results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 136-145.
37. Hegewald J, Uter W, Aberer W, et al. The European Surveillance System of Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results of patch testing the standard series, 2004. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2008: 22: 174-181.
38. Uter W, Rämsch C, Aberer W, et al. The European baseline series in 10 European Countries, 2005/2006-results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA). Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 31-38.
39. Krautheim A, Uter W, Frosch P, Schnuch A, Geier J,. Patch testing with fragrance mix II: results of the IVDK 2005-2008. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 63: 262-269.
40. Heisterberg M V, Andersen K E, Avnstorp C, et al. Fragrance mix II in the baseline series contributes significantly to detection of fragrance allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 63: 270-276.
41. Handley J, Burrows D,. Allergic contact dermatitis from the synthetic fragrances Lyral and acetyl cedrene in separate underarm deodorant preparations. Contact Dermatitis 1994: 31: 288-290.
42. Frosch P J, Pilz B, Andersen K E, 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: 333-342.
43. Frosch P J, Johansen J D, Menné T, et al. Lyral is an important sensitizer in patients sensitive to fragrances. Br J Dermatol 1999: 141: 1076-1083.
44. Beliauskiene A, Valiukeviciene S, Uter W, Schnuch A,. The European baseline series in Lithuania: results of patch testing in consecutive adult patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2011: 25: 59-63.
45. Geier J, Brasch J, Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Pirker C, Frosch P J,. Lyral has been included in the patch test standard series in Germany. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 295-297.
46. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Frosch P J,. Sensitization to 26 fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation. Results of the IVDK and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 1-10.
47. Api A M,. Only Peru Balsam extracts or distillates are used in perfumery. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 179.
48. Avalos-Peralta P, Garcia-Bravo B, Camacho F M,. Sensitivity to Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru). A study of 50 cases. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 304-306.
49. Akyol A, Boyvat A, Peksari Y, Gurgey E,. Contact sensitivity to standard series allergens in 1038 patients with contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 333-337.
50. Cachao P, Menezes Brandao F, Carmo M, Frazao S, Silva M,. Allergy to oil of turpentine in Portugal. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 14: 205-208.
51. Lear J T, Heagerty A H M, Tan B B, et al. Transient re-emergence of oil of turpentine allergy in the pottery industry. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 169-172.
52. Treudler R, Richter G, Geier J, Schnuch A, Orfanos C E, Tebbe B,. Increase in sensitization to oil of turpentine: recent data from a multicenter study on 45,005 patients from the German-Austrian Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 68-73.
53. Schäfer T, Böhler E, Ruhdorfer S, Weigl L, Wessner D, Filipiak B, Wichmann H E, Ring J,. Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy 2001: 56: 1192-1196.
54. Meneghini C L, Sertoli A, Nava C, Angelini G, Francalani S, Foti C, Moroni P,. Irritant contact dermatitis of the hands in housewives. In: Irritant Dermatitis New Clinical and Experimental Aspects. Current Problems in Dermatology, Elsner P, Maibach H I, (eds): Basel, Karger, 1995: pp. 41-48.
55. Seidenari S, Manzini B M, Danese P, Motolese A,. Patch and prick test study of 593 healthy subjects. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 23: 162-167.
56. Nielsen N H, Menné T,. Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population-the Glostrup allergy study, Denmark. Acta Dermatol Venerol (Stockh) 1992: 72: 456-460.
57. Mørtz C G, Bindslev-Jensen C, Lauritsen J, Andersen K E,. Allergic contact sensitization in 8th grade school children in Odense, Denmark. Abstract Presented at the Jadassohn Centenary Congress, London, 9-12 October 1996, 1996.
58. Nielsen N H, Linneberg A, Menné T, Madsen F, Frolund L, Dirksen A, Jorgensen T,. Allergic contact sensitization in an adult Danish population: two cross-sectional surveys eight years apart (the Copenhagen Allergy Study). Acta Derm Venereol 2001: 81: 31-34.
59. Thyssen J P, Linneberg A, Menné T, Nielsen N H, Johansen J D,. The prevalence and morbidity of sensitization to fragrance mix I in the general population. Br J Dermatol 2009: 161: 95-101.
60. Dotterud L K, Smith-Sivertsen T,. Allergic contact sensitization in the general adult population: a population-based study from Northern Norway. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 10-15.
61. Smith-Sivertsen T, Dotterud L K, Lund E,. Nickel allergy and its relationship with local nickel pollution, ear piercing, and atopic dermatitis: a population-based study from Norway. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999: 40: 726-735.
62. Meding B, Swanbeck G,. Occupational hand eczema in an industrial city. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 22: 13-23.
63. Buckley D A, Rycroft R J, White I R, McFadden J P,. The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol 2003: 149: 986-989.
64. Uter W, Schnuch A, Geier J, Pfahlberg A, Gefeller O,. Association between occupation and contact allergy to the fragrance mix: a multifactorial analysis of national surveillance data. Occup Environ Med 2001: 58: 392-398.
65. Bruze M,. What is a relevant contact allergy? Contact Dermatitis 1990: 23: 224-225.
66. Ale I, Maibach H I,. Clinical relevance in allergic contact dermatitis. An algorithmic approach. Derm Beruf Umwelt 1995: 43: 119-121.
67. Wahlberg J E, Lindberg M,. Patch testing. In: Contact Dermatitis, Frosch P J, Menné T, Lepoittevin J P, (eds): Berlin, Springer, 2006: pp. 365-390.
68. Lindberg M, Matura M,. Patch testing. In: Contact Dermatitis, Johansen J D, Frosch P, Lepoittevin J P, (eds): Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 2011: pp. 439-464.
69. Zug K A, Warshaw E M, Fowler J F Jr, et al. Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 2009: 20: 149-160.
70. Frosch P J, Johansen J D, Menné T, et al. Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances. II. Reactivity to essential oils. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 279-287.
71. Johansen J D, Rastogi S C, Menné T,. Contact allergy to popular perfumes: assessed by patch test, use test and chemical analysis. Br J Dermatol 1996: 135: 419-422.
72. Rothenborg H W, Hjorth N,. Allergy to perfumes from toilet soaps and detergents in patients with dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 1968: 97: 417-421.
73. Hannuksela M, Kousa M, Pirila V,. Allergy to ingredients of vehicles. Contact Dermatitis 1976: 2: 105-110.
74. Johansen J D, Rastogi S C, Andersen K E, Menné T,. Content and reactivity to product perfumes in fragrance mix positive and negative eczema patients. A study of perfumes used in toiletries and skin-care products. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 291-296.
75. Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Menné T,. Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 414-418.
76. Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Rastogi S C, Menné T,. Threshold responses in cinnamic-aldehyde-sensitive subjects: results and methodological aspects. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 165-171.
77. Johansen J D, Rastogi S C, Bruze M, et al. Deodorants: a clinical provocation study in fragrance-sensitive individuals. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 39: 161-165.
78. Jorgensen P H, Jensen C D, Rastogi S, Andersen K E, Johansen J D,. Experimental elicitation with hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde- containing deodorants. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 146-150.
79. Bruze M, Johansen J D, Andersen K E, et al. Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with cinnamic aldehyde. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003: 48: 194-200.
80. Svedman C, Bruze M, Johansen J D, et al. Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with hydroxycitronellal. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 217-223.
81. Schnuch A, Uter W, Dickel H, et al. Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing in hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde sensitive-patients. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 152-162.
82. Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A, Frosch P J,. Patch test results with patients' own perfumes, deodorants and shaving lotions: results of the IVDK 1998-2002. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2007: 21: 374-379.
83. Basra M K, Fenech R, Gatt R M, Salek M S, Finlay A Y,. The Dermatology Life Quality Index 1994-2007: a comprehensive review of validation data and clinical results. Br J Dermatol 2008: 159: 997-1035.
84. Skoet R, Zachariae R, Agner T,. Contact dermatitis and quality of life: a structured review of the literature. Br J Dermatol 2003: 149: 452-456.
85. Moberg C, Alderling M, Meding B,. Hand eczema and quality of life: a population-based study. Br J Dermatol 2009: 161: 397-403.
86. Meding B, Swanbeck G,. Consequences of having hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 23: 6-14.
87. Agner T, Andersen K E, Brandão F M, et al. Contact sensitisation in hand eczema patients-relation to subdiagnosis, severity and quality of life: a multi-centre study. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 291-296.
88. Lysdal S H, Johansen J D,. Fragrance contact allergic patients: strategies for use of cosmetic products and perceived impact on life situation. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 320-324.
89. Meding B, Wrangsjö K, Jarvholm B,. Fifteen-year follow-up of hand eczema: predictive factors. J Invest Dermatol 2005: 124: 893-897.
90. Hald M, Agner T, Blands J, Ravn H, Johansen J D,. Allergens associated with severe symptoms of hand eczema and a poor prognosis. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 101-108.
91. Wijnhoven S W P, Ezendam J, Schuur A G, van Loveren H, van Engelen J G M,. Allergens in Consumer Products. RIVM Reprot 320025001: Bilthoven, Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2008.
92. Basketter D,. Diagnostic patch testing-does it have a wider relevance? Contact Dermatitis 2012: 67: 1-2.
93. Schnuch A, Aberer W, Agathos M, et al. Durchführung des Epikutantests mit Kontaktallergenen. Leitlinien der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft; Deutschen Gesellschaft für allergie und klinische Immunologie. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2008: 6: 770-775.
94. de Groot A C, Frosch P J,. Adverse reactions to fragrances. A clinical review. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 57-86.
95. Scheinmann P L,. The foul side of fragrance-free products: what every clinician should know about managing patients with fragrance allergy. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999: 41: 1020-1024.
96. Flyvholm M A, Andersen K E, Baranski B, Sarlo K,. Criteria for Classification of Skin- and Airway-sensitizing Substances in the Work and General Environments: Regional Office for Europe, WHO, 1996.
97. Basketter D A, Flyvholm M A, Menné T,. Classification criteria for skin-sensitizing chemicals: a commentary. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 40: 175-182.
98. Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Schulz K H, et al. When should a substance be designated as sensitizing for the skin ('Sh') or for the airways ('Sa')? Hum Exp Toxicol 2002: 21: 439-444.
99. Basketter D A, Andersen K E, Lidén C, Van Loveren H, Boman A, Kimber I, Alanko K, Berggren E,. Evaluation of the skin sensitizing potency of chemicals by using the existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 39-43.
100. Anonymous. Guidance to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) of substances and mixtures, http://echa.europa.eu/ regulations/clp (last accessed 21 June 2013).
101. SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety). Opinion on Fragrance Allergens in Cosmetic Products: Brussels, European Commission, DG SANCO 26-27 June 2012, 2012.
102. RIFM. Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) Protocol Summaries: Data Presented at the 46th Congress of the European Societies of Toxicology. Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA. 2009.
103. Lalko J, Api A M, Politano V T, Letizia C,. Quantitative risk assessment for dermal sensitization to fragrance ingredients: the utility of LLNA data in the weight of evidence approach to identifying thresholds. In: 46th Congress of the European Societies of Toxicology, Dresden, 13-16 September 2009, 2009.
104. Gerberick G F, Kern P S, Schlatter H, Dearman R J, Kimber I, Patlewicz G Y, Basketter D A,. Compilation of historical local lymph node data for evaluation of skin sensitization alternative methods. Dermatitis 2005: 16: 157-202.
105. Kern P S, Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, Kimber I, Aptula A, Basketter D A,. Local lymph node data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives: a second compilation. Dermatitis 2010: 21: 8-32.
106. Arnau E G, Andersen K E, Bruze M, et al. Identification of Lilial as a fragrance sensitizer in a perfume by bioassay-guided chemical fractionation and structure-activity relationships. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 351-358.
107. Karlberg A T, Bergstrom M A, Börje A, Luthman K, Nilsson J L,. Allergic contact dermatitis-formation, structural requirements, and reactivity of skin sensitizers. Chem Res Toxicol 2008: 21: 53-69.
108. Lepoittevin J P,. Metabolism versus chemical transformation or pro- versus prehaptens? Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 73-74.
109. SCCP. Opinion concerning the predictive testing of potentially cutaneous sensiting cosmetic ingredients or mixtures of ingredients adopted by the SCCNFP during the 11th plenary session of 17 February 2000, 2000.
110. Heisterberg M V, Menné T, Johansen J D,. Contact allergy to the 26 specific fragrance ingredients to be declared on cosmetic products in accordance with the EU cosmetics directive. Contact Dermatitis 2011: 65: 266-275.
111. Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, et al. Fragrance contact dermatitis: a worldwide multicenter investigation (Part II). Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 344-346.
112. Andersen A,. Final report on the safety assessment of sodium p-chloro-m-cresol, p-chloro-m-cresol, chlorothymol, mixed cresols, m-cresol, o-cresol, p-cresol, isopropyl cresols, thymol, o-cymen-5-ol, and carvacrol. Int J Toxicol 2006: 25 (Suppl. 1): 29-127.
113. de Groot A C, Liem D H, Nater J P, van Ketel W G,. Patch tests with fragrance materials and preservatives. Contact Dermatitis 1985: 12: 87-92.
114. Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, et al. Fragrance contact dermatitis-a worldwide multicenter investigation (Part III). Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 141-144.
115. Lapczynski A, Lalko J, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M,. Fragrance material review on trans,trans-delta-damascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 (Suppl. 1): S211-S215.
116. Letizia C S, Cocchiara J, Wellington G A, Funk C, Api A M,. Food and chemical toxicology. Food Chem Toxicol 2000: 38 (Suppl. 3): S1-S236.
117. Mitchell D M, Beck M H,. Contact allergy to benzyl alcohol in a cutting oil reodorant. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 301-302.
118. Mitchell J C,. Contact hypersensitivity to some perfume materials. Contact Dermatitis 1975: 1: 196-199.
119. Malten K E, van Ketel W G, Nater J P, Liem D H,. Reactions in selected patients to 22 fragrance materials. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 11: 1-10.
120. Mitchell J C, Calnan C D, Clendenning W E, et al. Patch testing with some components of balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 1976: 2: 57-58.
121. Bernaola G, Escayol P, Fernandez E, de Corres L F,. Contact dermatitis from methylionone fragrance. Contact Dermatitis 1989: 20: 71-72.
122. English J S, Rycroft R J,. Allergic contact dermatitis from methyl heptine and methyl octine carbonates. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 174-175.
123. Matura M, Skold M, Börje A, et al. Selected oxidized fragrance terpenes are common contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 320-328.
124. Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M,. Fragrance material review on myrtenol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 (Suppl. 11): S237-S240.
125. Lapczynski A, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M,. Fragrance material review on nerolidol (isomer unspecified). Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 (Suppl. 11): S247-S250.
126. Sanchez-Politta S, Campanelli A, Pashe-Koo F, Saurat J H, Piletta P,. Allergic contact dermatitis to phenylacetaldehyde: a forgotten allergen? Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 171-172.
127. McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M,. Fragrance material review on phytol. Food Chem Toxicol 2010: 48 (Suppl. 3): S59-S63.
128. Lapczynski A, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M,. Fragrance material review on rhodinol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 (Suppl. 11): S259-S262.
129. Lapczynski A, Lalko J, McGinty D, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M,. Fragrance material review on alpha-isodamascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 (Suppl. 1): S267-S271.
130. Trattner A, David M,. Patch testing with fine fragrances: comparison with fragrance mix, balsam of Peru and a fragrance series. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 287-289.
131. Surburg H, Panten J,. Common Fragrance and Flavor Materials: Preparation, Properties and Uses. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2006.
132. Schmidt E,. Production of essential oils. In: Handbook of Essential Oils Science, Technology, and Applications, Husnu Can Baser K, Buchbauer G, (eds): Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, 2010: pp. 88-95.
133. Trattner A, David M, Lazarov A,. Occupational contact dermatitis due to essential oils. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 282-284.
134. Jung P, Sesztak-Greinecker G, Wantke F, Gotz M, Jarisch R, Hemmer W,. Mechanical irritation triggering allergic contact dermatitis from essential oils in a masseur. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 297-299.
135. Bilsland D, Strong A,. Allergic contact dermatitis from the essential oil of French marigold (Tagetes patula) in an aromatherapist. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 23: 55-56.
136. Cockayne S E, Gawkrodger D J,. Occupational contact dermatitis in an aromatherapist. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 306-307.
137. Boonchai W, Iamtharachai P, Sunthonpalin P,. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from essential oils in aromatherapists. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 181-182.
138. Keane F M, Smith H R, White I R, Rycroft R J,. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis in two aromatherapists. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 49-51.
139. Selvaag E, Holm J O, Thune P,. Allergic contact dermatitis in an aroma therapist with multiple sensitizations to essential oils. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 33: 354-355.
140. Romaguera C, Vilaplana J,. Occupational contact dermatitis from ylang-ylang oil. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 251.
141. Rudzki E, Grzywa Z,. Allergy to perfume mixture. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 15: 115-116.
142. Rudzki E, Grzywa Z, Bruo W S,. Sensitivity to 35 essential oils. Contact Dermatitis 1976: 2: 196-200.
143. Vilaplana J, Romaguera C,. Contact dermatitis from the essential oil of tangerine in fragrance. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 108.
144. Rudzki E, Grzywa Z,. Sensitizing and irritating properties of star anise oil. Contact Dermatitis 1976: 2: 305-308.
145. Sugiura M, Hayakawa R, Kato Y, Sugiura K, Hashimoto R,. Results of patch testing with lavender oil in Japan. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 157-160.
146. Lalko J, Api A M,. Investigation of the dermal sensitization potential of various essential oils in the local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2006: 44: 739-746.
147. Anonymous. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals. Guideline 406: Skin Sensitisation. OECD, Adopted 12 May 1981, Updated 17th July 1992: Paris, OECD, 1992.
148. Anonymous. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals/Section 4: Health Effects. Test No. 429: Skin Sensitisation (Local Lymph Node Assay): Paris, OECD, 2002.
149. Anonymous. Council Regulation (EC) No. 440/2008 of 30 May 2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), 2008.
150. SCCP. Memorandum classification and categorization of skin sensitisers and grading of test reactions (SCCP/0919/05), Scientific Committee for on Consumer Protection, adopted 20 September 2005, 2005.
151. SCCP. Memorandum on hair dye substances and their skin sensitising properties, Scientific Committee on Consumer Protection, adopted 19 December 2006, 2006.
152. Christensson J B, Johansson S, Hagvall L, Jonsson C, Borje A, Karlberg A T,. Limonene hydroperoxide analogues differ in allergenic activity. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 344-352.
153. Sköld M, Börje A, Harambasic E, Karlberg A T,. Contact allergens formed on air exposure of linalool. Identification and quantification of primary and secondary oxidation products and the effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 2004: 17: 1697-1705.
154. Sköld M, Hagvall L, Karlberg A T,. Autoxidation of linalyl acetate, the main component of lavender oil, creates potent contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 9-14.
155. Hagvall L, Backtorp C, Svensson S, Nyman G, Borje A, Karlberg A T,. Fragrance compound geraniol forms contact allergens on air exposure. Identification and quantification of oxidation products and effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 2007: 20: 807-814.
156. Hagvall L, Skold M, Brared-Christensson J, Börje A, Karlberg A T,. Lavender oil lacks natural protection against autoxidation, forming strong contact allergens on air exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 143-150.
157. Landsteiner K, Jacobs J,. Studies on the sensitization of animals with simple chemical compounds. J Exp Med 1936: 64: 625-629.
158. Ridriguez E, Towers G H N, Mitchell J C,. Biological aspects of sequiterpene lactones. Phytochemistry 1976: 15: 1573-1580.
159. Roberts D W, Goodwin B F J, Williams D L, Jones K, Johnson A W, Alderson J C E,. Correlation between skin sensitization potential and chemical reactivity for nitrobenzyl compounds. Food Chem Toxicol 1984: 21: 811-813.
160. Dupuis G, Benezra C,. Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Simple Chemicals: A Molecular Approach. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1982.
161. Smith C K, Hotchkiss S A,. Allergic Contact Dermatitis, Chemical and Metabolic Mechanisms. London: Taylor and Francis, 2001.
162. Roberts D W, Lepoittevin J P,. Hapten-protein interactions. In: Allergic Contact Dermatitis: the Molecular Basis, Lepoittevin J P, Basketter D, Goossens A, Karlberg A T, (eds): Heidelberg, Springer, 1998: pp. 81-111.
163. Sykes P,. A Guidebook to Mechanism in Organic Chemistry: Edinburgh, Pearson, 1961.
164. Aptula A O, Roberts D W,. Mechanistic applicability domains for nonanimal-based prediction of toxicological end points: general principles and application to reactive toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol 2006: 19: 1097-1105.
165. Gerberick G F, Vassallo J D, Bailey R E, Chaney J G, Morrall S W, Lepoittevin J P,. Development of a peptide reactivity assay for screening contact allergens. Toxicol Sci Off J Soc Toxicol 2004: 81: 332-343.
166. Natsch A, Gfeller H, Rothaupt M, Ellis G,. Utility and limitations of a peptide reactivity assay to predict fragrance allergens in vitro. Toxicol In Vitro 2007: 21: 1220-1226.
167. Gerberick G F, Troutman J A, Foertsch L M, Vassallo J D, Quijano M, Dobson R L, Goebel C, Lepoittevin J P,. Investigation of peptide reactivity of pro-hapten skin sensitizers using a peroxidase-peroxide oxidation system. Toxicol Sci Off J Soc Toxicol 2009: 112: 164-174.
168. Troutman J A, Foertsch L M, Kern P S, et al. The incorporation of lysine into the peroxidase peptide reactivity assay for skin sensitization assessments. Toxicol Sci 2011: 122: 422-436.
169. Roberts D W, Aptula A O, Patlewicz G,. Mechanistic applicability domains for non-animal based prediction of toxicological endpoints. QSAR analysis of the Schiff base applicability domain for skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 2006: 19: 1228-1233.
170. Roberts D W, Aptula A O, Patlewicz G Y,. Chemistry-based risk assessment for skin sensitization: quantitative mechanistic modeling for the S(N)Ar domain. Chem Res Toxicol 2011: 24: 1003-1011.