This review summarizes published and unpublished data of our 15-year experience with sunscreen allergy and photoallergy. From 1981-1996, 402 patients with suspected clinical photosensitivity were patch and photopatch tested with the commercial sunscreens and facial cosmetics that they had used and with chemical UV absorbers, fragrance materials, preservatives, and emollients. 80 patients (20%) (28 men, 52 women) demonstrated allergic and/or photoallergic contact dermatitis to 1 or more UV absorber(s). In 47 patients with photodermatoses or photo-aggravated dermatoses and in 33 subjects with normal photosensitivity, 91 allergic and 84 photoallergic reactions to UV filters were observed. Over the years sunscreens were added to the test series, which since 1989 comprised the following 10 UV absorbers and which induced allergic (a) and photoallergic (pa) reactions (number, type of reaction): 4 UVA absorbers--isopropyldibenzoylmethane (30a/32pa); butyl methoxydibenzoyl-methane (15a/13pa); benzophenone-3 (3a/9pa); benzophenone-4 (0a/0pa); and 6 UVB absorbers--PABA (2a/2pa); octyl dimethyl PABA (1a/2pa); methylbenzylidene camphor (32a/5pa); octyl methoxycinnamate (3a/4pa); isoamyl p-methoxycinnamate (4a/10pa); and phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid (1a/7pa). The frequent (photo)sensitization to isopropyldibenzoylmethane was the reason that its production was discontinued in 1993. 47 patients reacted to fragrance materials, 11 to preservatives and 2 to lanolin alcohol. These constituents were contained in the commercial sunscreens and cosmetics that they had used. Continuous revision of the UV absorber photopatch test series was necessary to be closer to the real frequency of exposure and of reported (photo)allergy to newer sunscreens. Clinicians should consider contact and photocontact allergy, especially in patients with photodermatoses and photo-aggravated dermatoses, and they should perform photopatch testing. Once the culprit has been identified, its INCI (International Nomenclature Cosmetic Ingredients) designation should be given to the patient, who must be warned to avoid products containing the (photo)allergen.

Clinical experience suggests the existence of different degrees of sensitivity in nickel-allergic patients. For quantification of this phenomenon, 462 consecutive patients with previously diagnosed or strongly suspected nickel allergy were tested with serial dilution patch tests with 5 ppm to 5% nickel sulfate in pet. (Ni), and 5 ppm to 1% nickel sulfate in pet. with 1% detergent (Ni/D). Additionally, nickel and palladium metal plates were tested in 103, and cobalt salts, dichromate and palladium chloride (PdCl2) in most patients. 332 patients reacted positively to Ni or Ni/D. The influence of a concomitantly administered detergent was not significant. A significant correlation was found between positive reactions to low concentrations of Ni (or Ni/D), i.e., 0.1% or less (N = 166), and concomitant reactions to nickel metal plates, cobalt salts and PdCl2 and a history of ear piercing with metal intolerance. The clinical relevance of reactions to PdCl2 is at present not clear. A subgroup of nickel-allergic patients with "high sensitivity" can be defined. In future studies further addressing the clinical relevance of high versus low sensitivity, patch testing with 0.01, 0.1, 1.0 and 5% nickel sulfate in pet. is recommended instead of routine tests with 5% only.

No abstract

No abstract

The article contains sections titled: 1. Introduction 1.1. Cosmetics and the Skin 1.2. The Function of Skin Cosmetics 1.3. History 2. Product Development 2.1. Choice of Raw Materials 2.2. Tests for Stability and Effectiveness 3. Emulsions 3.1. Introduction and Definition 3.2. Composition and Classification 3.2.1. Emulsifiers 3.2.2. Lipophilic Constituents 3.2.3. Hydrophilic Constituents 3.2.4. Additives 3.2.5. Special Ingredients 3.3. PIT‐Emulsions 3.3.1. General Introduction and Definition 3.3.2. Phase Behavior of Oil ‐ Surfactant ‐ Water Systems 3.3.3. Influence of Temperature on the Phase Behavior of an Emulsion 3.3.4. Effects of Formulation Variables on Phase Inversion Temperature 3.3.5. Nature of the Phase Inversion Area 3.3.6. Physicochemical Characterization of the Phase Inversion Temperature 3.3.6.1. Electrical Conductivity Measurement 3.3.6.2. Interfacial Tension Measurement 3.3.7. Emulsification Production Process and Emulsification Routes 3.3.8. CAPICO Method (Calculation of Phase Inversion in Concentrates) 3.3.9. Applications 3.4. Stability and Product Safety 3.5. Cosmetic Properties 3.6. Production 4. Gels 4.1. Lipogels 4.2. Hydrogels 4.2.1. Polymer Gels 4.2.2. Hydrodispersion Gels 4.3. Lecithin Organogels 4.4. Gel‐Emulsions 4.5. Surfactant Gels/Detergent Gels 4.6. Microemulsion Gels 4.7. Water‐in‐Silicon Oil Gels 5. Oils 5.1. Ingredients 5.2. Production 6. Lipsticks 6.1. Lip Protection 6.2. Composition 6.3. Testing 6.4. Production 7. Shower and Bath Preparations 7.1. Composition 7.1.1. Surfactants 7.1.2. Auxiliaries 7.2. Product Forms and Types 7.3. Production 8. Deodorants and Antiperspirants 8.1. Composition 8.2. Application Forms 8.3. Testing 8.4. Production 9. Body Powders 10. Decorative Body Agents, Cosmetics, and Makeup 10.1. Types of Decorative Cosmetics 10.2. Colorants 10.3. Production 11. Sunscreens 11.1. Composition 11.2. Evaluation 11.3. Effectiveness and Production 11.4. Toxicology and Environmental Protection 12. Stability Testing 12.1. Storage Conditions 12.2. Test Methods 13. In Vitro Compatibility Testing 13.1. Introduction 13.2. Test Methods 14. Economic Aspects 15. Legal Aspects