Enzymes, detergents and skin: facts and fantasies

Abstract

In their raw state, enzymes of bacterial/fungal origin cause allergic reactions in the lung. Proteolytic enzymes also cause irritation to skin, eyes and the respiratory tract. For 40 years, encapsulated enzymes have been used worldwide in detergent products, especially laundry formulations, and have increasing importance due to biodegradability and functionality at low temperatures, offering environmental benefits. Uniquely to the U.K., for years it has been suggested that the inclusion of enzymes in such products leads to adverse skin reactions, including erythema, pruritus and exacerbation of eczema. In this review, we look at the facts, asking whether there is evidence that the hazards identified for enzymes translate into any risk for consumer health. By considering the actual exposures in consumer use and exaggerated product usage, it is concluded that the irritating and allergenic hazards of enzyme raw materials do not translate into a risk of skin reactions, either irritant or allergic. Investigations of numerous individuals with skin complaints attributed to laundry products demonstrate convincingly that enzymes were not responsible. Indeed, enzyme-containing laundry products have an extensive history of safe use. Thus, the supposed adverse effects of enzymes on skin seem to be a consequence of a mythology. The important practical lesson is that when primary or secondary care practitioners are presented with a skin complaint, it should not be dismissed as a result of using an enzyme-containing laundry product as the diagnosis will certainly lie elsewhere. Education for healthcare professionals could usefully be enhanced to take this on board.

Enzymes in cleaning products: An overview of toxicological properties and risk assessment/management

“…Indeed, the historical experience of industrial use of these enzymes several decades ago demonstrated that this was indeed the case in practice (reviewed in Sarlo, 2003). In contrast, the limited capacity of the proteolytic subset of these enzymes to cause irritant effects has, despite popular mythology, failed to translate into demonstrable effects in consumers (Basketter et al, 2008). However, exposure has since then been controlled by industry by the use of formulation technology so that respiratory sensitisation does not occur in consumers and only at very low rates occupationally, such that workers remain asymptomatic (e.g.…”

Defining occupational and consumer exposure limits for enzyme protein respiratory allergens under REACH

“…The efforts to limit occupational exposure were also relevant to consumer exposure insofar as they involved encapsulation of the enzyme which dramatically limited the level of dustiness of the raw material. Consequently, since that time, as far as we are aware, there have been no further reports of adverse effects in consumers, whereas there has been some clear demonstration of the absence of adverse effects (US SDA, 2005;Basketter et al, 2008).…”

A preliminary study on the toxic effects of an emerging detergent (Prinso) on rat skin

“…Previous studies have shown the potential ability of different detergents to cause skin lesions (Griffith et al, 1969;Smeenk, 1969;Loden et al, 2003;Basketter, 2008).…”

“…Several researchers have examined the irritancy potential of 17 detergents used in Indian household (Andersen et al, 1998: Austoria et al, 2010. There are reports of eczema, predominantly localized to the hands following irritation caused by detergents (Loden et al, 2003;Basketter, 2008).…”