Skin Effects Associated with Wearing Fabrics Washed with Commercial Laundry Detergents

Rodríguez, Carlos; Calvin, G.; Lally, Christine; Lachapelle, Jean‐Marie

doi:10.3109/15569529409037508

Cited by 23 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In all the studies, no evidence that residues in the fabrics caused irritancy was obtained. Similar results were obtained by Rodriguez and colleagues who used a variety of European detergents under European washing conditions 21 …”

Section: Irritationsupporting

confidence: 88%

Enzymes, detergents and skin: facts and fantasies

Basketter

English²,

Wakelin

et al. 2008

Br J Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Irritationsupporting

confidence: 88%

Enzymes, detergents and skin: facts and fantasies

Basketter

English²,

Wakelin

et al. 2008

Br J Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Complementing this absence of evidence, there are a variety of types of testing which have been carried out in a number of geographic locations (North America, Europe, Asia, Africa) which ensured that a broad range of consumer habits had been taken into account. This work has shown that allergic reactions do not occur in groups with widely varying use habits and that there is no evidence of the production of enzyme specific IgE (US SDA, 2005;Bannan et al, 1992;Rodriguez et al, 1994;Sekkat et al, 1995;Sarlo et al, 1996;Cormier et al, 1997). This provides evidence of the absence of an adverse effect.…”

Section: Consumermentioning

confidence: 86%

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

Basketter

Broekhuizen²,

Fieldsend

et al. 2010

Toxicology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In practice, direct skin exposure to enzymes and indirect exposure via wearing of washed fabrics is not associated with adverse skin effects (e.g. Rodriguez et al, 1994;Basketter et al, 2008). Consequently, the sole focus for the more detailed discussion of risk assessment will be the key toxicology endpoint of respiratory sensitisation.…”

Section: Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 97%