Contact allergy to preservatives. Analysis of IVDK data 1996-2009

Abstract

Preservatives are still important contact allergens. The introduction of new preservatives should consider the specific characteristics of occupational and of nonoccupational (cosmetic, household) exposure, and preventive measures should aim equally at both areas.

New insights into methylisothiazolinones and octocrylene contact allergy

“…With regard to the patch-test concentration for MI, its determination has not been easy and recent studies refer to the use of concentrations such as 300, 1000 [6], 2000 [7] and more recently 500 ppm [8], however, these have obtained almost identical figures in frequency of elicitation. Despite this, a conDespite this, a concentration of 2000 ppm is still currently being recommended [3].…”

Contact Allergy to Preservatives—Is the European Commission a Commendable Risk Manager?

“…Daily skin contact with preserved cosmetic products may, however, also cause preservative contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis; in particular, one of the currently allowed preservatives for use in cosmetic products in the EU has shown to be of concern, i.e., methylisothiazolinone (MI) [1,2]. Over recent decades several recurring epidemics of preservative contact allergy have unfortunately been observed in Europe: formaldehyde contact allergy in the 1960s, methylchloroisothiazolinone in combination with methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) contact allergy in the 1980s, methyldibromo glutaronitrile contact allergy in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and recently the unprecedented increase in cases of MI contact allergy in the early 2010s [3][4][5][6][7][8][9].…”

An economic approach to non-animal toxicity testing for skin sensitisation

“…Determining the societal gains and losses from releasing a hazardous or a non-hazardous substance requires estimating expected marketing benefits, and balancing them with expected direct and indirect health damage costs caused by ACD. The latter is assumed to be a function of the skin sensitisation prevalence of a substance (Schnuch et al, 2011;Peiser et al, 2012;Schnuch et al, 2012) within the EU. As a proof-of-concept case, the Bayesian VOI model is applied to the preservative Methylisothiazolinone which is used for the formation of Kathon CG, known which is an ingredient for cosmetic products with high skin sensitisation prevalence (Uter et al, 2013).…”

“…It is used for the formation of Kathon CG, which is a preservative that has been widely used in cosmetic products and is known to be a sensitiser (Uter et al, 2012). Values for the prevalence of sensitisation to MI and Kathon CG have been reported in the literature (Schnuch et al, 2011;Schnuch et al, 2012), and vary, depending on population sample size and composition, between 1.2% and 4.2%. To illustrate the impact of prevalence estimates on the , and on the ranking of testing methods and testing strategies included in our analysis, we calculated health damage costs for four different sensitisation prevalence estimates, therefore capturing a range between optimistic and conservative estimates (Table 3.5).…”

“…disinfectants, dyes, fragrances, preservatives), a mean prevalence for this group can be used (Schnuch et al, 2011;Leiva-Salinas et al, 2014). If no information is available, a mean prevalence value for contact allergens can be applied (Schnuch et al, 2011).…”