Allergic contact dermatitis caused by farnesol: clinical relevance

References

• Doan K, Bronaugh RL, Youric JJ. In vivo and in vitro skin absorption of lipophilic compounds, dibutyl phthalate, farnesol and geraniol in the hairless guinea pig. Food Chem Toxicol 2010; 48(1):18–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Frosch PJ. Contact allergy to farnesol in 2021 consecutively patch tested patients. Results of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis 2004; 50:117–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goossens A, Claes L, Drieghe J, Put E. Antimicrobials: preservatives, antiseptics and disinfectants. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 39:133–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruze M, Andersen KE, Goosens 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products Intended for Consumers (SCCNFP). 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 by the SCCNFP during the plenary session of 8 December 1999 (SCCNFP/0017/98 Final, Dec 1999). http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/sccp/documents/out98_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Operational definition of a causative contact allergen—a study with six fragrance allergens. Exog Dermatol 2003; 2:279–285.
   Google Scholar
• Benezra C, Sigman CC, Perry LR, Helmes CT, Maibach HI. A systemic search for structure–activity relationships of skin contact sensitizers: methodology. J Invest Dermatol 1985; 85:351–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Is there evidence that α-iso-methylionone causes allergic dermatitis? Exog Dermatol 2004; 3:121–125.
   Google Scholar
• Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Is there evidence that anisyl alcohol causes allergic dermatitis? Exog Dermatol 2003; 2:230–233.
   Google Scholar
• Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Is there evidence that linalool causes allergic dermatitis? Exog Dermatol 2003; 2:223–229.
   Google Scholar
• Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Is there evidence that amylcinnamic aldehyde causes allergic dermatitis? Exog Dermatol 2004; 3:35–46.
   Google Scholar
• Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Is there evidence that geraniol causes allergic dermatitis? Exog Dermatol 2004; 3:318–331.
   Google Scholar
• Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Sensitization potential of citronellol. Exog Dermatol 2004; 3:307–312.
   Google Scholar
• Hausen BM, Evers P, Stuwe HT, Konig WA, Wollenweber E. Propolis allergy (IV). Studies with further sensitizers from propolis and constituents common to propolis, poplar buds and balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 1992; 26:34–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausen BM, Simatupang T, Bruhn G, Evers P, Koenig WA. Identification of new allergenic constituents and proof of evidence for coniferyl benzoate in balsam of Peru. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1995; 6:199–208.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on local lymph node assay (LLNA) in mice. 2004. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 47136 from Symrise.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc.. Report on local lymph node assay (LLNA) in mice. 2004. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 47137 from Symrise.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc.. Report on guinea pig maximization test of skin sensitization with farnesol. 1995. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 37818 from Dragoco Gerberding and Co. GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on delayed contact hypersensitivity in guinea pigs modified by Magnusson and Kligmann. 1983. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 37812 from Dragoco Gerberding and Co. GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on guinea pig sensitization test with farnesyl acetate. Report to RIFM. 1977. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 46005 from Quest International.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on maximization studies. 1978. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 1698 from Epstein WL.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on maximization studies. 1975. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 1799 (01/15A) from Kligman AM.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on maximization studies. Report to RIFM. 1975. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 1799 (04/09B) from Kligman AM.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on maximization studies. Report to RIFM. 1976. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 1796 from Epstein WL.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc.. Report on maximization studies. Report to RIFM. 1977. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 1691 from Epstein WL.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc.. Report on maximization studies. Report to RIFM. 1975. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 1799 (12/10) from Kligman AM.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on maximization studies. Report to RIFM. 1975. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 1799 (12/12) from Kligman AM.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on maximization studies. Report to RIFM. 1977. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 1691 from Epstein WL.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on maximization studies. Report to RIFM. 1976. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 1797 from Kligman AM.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on maximization studies. Report to RIFM. 1976. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 1797 from Kligman AM.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Report on maximization studies. Report to RIFM. 1977. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 1702 from Kligman AM.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc.. Human repeat insult patch test. Report to RIFM. 2004. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 47190 from Symrise.
   Google Scholar
• Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Human repeat insult patch test. Report to RIFM. 2004. Unpublished report submitted to RIFM. Report 35518 from Dragoco, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Devos SA, Constandt L. Contact dermatitis from a dry stick deodorant. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47:170–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanko Z, Shab A, Diepgen T, Weisshaar E. Polyvalent type IV sensitizations to multiple fragrances and a skin protection cream in a metalworker. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2009; 6:541–543.
   Google Scholar
• Frosch PJ, Rastogi SC, Pirker C, Brinkmeier T, Andersen KE, Bruze M, 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goossens A, Merckx L. Short communications—allergic contact dermatitis from farnesol in a deodorant. Contact Dermatitis 1997; 37:179–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malten KE, Van Ketel WG, Nater JP, Liem DH. Reactions in selected patients to 22 fragrance materials. Contact Dermatitis 1984; 11:1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruynzeel DP., Maibach HI. Excited skin syndrome (angry back) [review]. Arch Dermatol 1986; 122:323–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Frosch PJ. Sensitization to 26 fragrances to be labeled according to current European regulation. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 57:1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frosch PJ. Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances. Reactivity to 14 frequently used chemicals. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 47:78–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suguira K, Hayakawa R, Kato Y, Suguira K, Hashimoto R. Results of patch testing with lavender oil in Japan. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 43:157–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausen BM. Contact allergy to balsam of Peru. II. Patch test results in 102 patients with selected balsam of Peru constituents. Am J Contact Dermatol 2001; 12:93–102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sugai T. Group study IV—farnesol and lily aldehyde. Environ Dermatol 1994; 1:213–214.
   Google Scholar
• Hemmer W, Focke M, Leitner B, Gotz M, Jarish R. Axillary dermatitis from farnesol in a deodorant. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42:168–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayakawa R, Matsunaga K, Arima Y. Airborne pigmented contact dermatitis due to musk ambrette in incense. Contact Dermatitis 1987; 16:96–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klecak G. The Freund’s complete adjuvant test and the open epicutaneous test. Curr Probl Dermatol 1985; 14:152–171.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yamamoto A, Morita A, Tsuji T, Suzuki K, Matsunaga K. Contact urticaria from geraniol. Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46:52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson SM, Hausen BM, Buck MH. Allergic contact dermatitis from plant extracts in a cosmetic. Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33:58–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamoto S, Japan Patch Test Research Group. An approach to determine the optimal concentration of farnesol in patch-testing and the incidence of positive reactions of benzyl salicylate in new patients with facial melanosis in 1984. Skin Res 1985; 28(suppl 2):135–141.
   Google Scholar
• Frosch PJ. Which allergens are important for patch testing? Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46 (suppl 4): Abstract 21:9.
   Google Scholar
• Goosens A. Recently identified allergens in cosmetics. Australas J Dermatol 2007; 48(suppl 2):A95.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kato Y, Sugiura M, Hayakawa R, Sakaida T, Hirose O. Two cases of contact dermatitis to propolis—patch testing with fragrances detected in propolis by GC-MS. Environ Dermatol 1999; 6:531–236.
   Google Scholar
• Hayakawa R, Japan Patch Test Research Group. Patch test positive rates of cosmetic ingredients in 1984. Hifu 1986; 28:93–100.
   Google Scholar
• Hirose O, Arima Y, Hosokawa K, Suzuki M, Matsunaga K, Hayakawa R. Patch test results of cosmetic allergens during recent 30 months. Hifu 1987; 29:95–100.
   Google Scholar
• Lapczynski A, Bhatia SP, Letizia CS, Api AM. Fragrance material review on farnesol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008; 46(suppl 11):S149–S156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA, Lea LJ, Cooper K, Stocks J, Dickens A, Pate I, et al. Threshold for classification as a skin sensitizer in the local lymph node assay: a statistical evaluation. Food Chem Toxicol 1999; 37:1167–1174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGarry HF. The murine local lymph node assay: regulatory and potency considerations under REACH. Toxicology 2007; 238:71–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals. Guideline No. 429: Skin Sensitization: Local Lymph Node Assay. Paris, France: OECD. Adopted 24 April.2002.
   Google Scholar
• Magnusson B, Kligman AM. The identification of contact allergens by animal assay. The guinea pig maximization test. J Invest Dermatol 1969; 52:268–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maurer T, Arthur A, Bentley P. Contact hypersensitivity: Animal tests. Toxicol In Vitro 1994; 8:971–974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maurer T. Guinea pigs in hypersensitivity testing. Methods 2007; 41:48–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreling R, Hollnagel HM, Hareng L, Eigler D, Lee MS, Griem P, et al. Comparison of the skin sensitizing potential of unsaturated compounds assessed by the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and the guinea pig maximization test (GPMT). Food Chem Toxicol 2008; 46:1896–1904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaghi D, Maibach HI. The local lymph node assay compared with the human maximization test as an indicator of allergic potency in humans using patch test clinical populations. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 2009; 28:61–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Politano VT, Api AM. The Research Institute for Fragrance Materials’ human repeated insult patch test protocol. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008; 52:35–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamee PM, Api AM, Basketter DA, Frank Gerberick G, Gilpin DA, Hall BM, et al. A review of critical factors in the conduct and interpretation of the human repeat insult patch test. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008; 52:24–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basketter DA. The human repeated insult patch test in the 21st century: a commentary. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 2009; 28:49–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, Robinson MK. A skin sensitization risk assessment approach for evaluation of new ingredients and products. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2000; 11:65–73.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maibach H, Bandmann HJ, Calnan C, Cronin E, Fregert S, Njorth N, et al. Triclocarban: evaluation of contact dermatitis potential in man. Contact Dermatitis 1978; 4:283–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadby PA, Troy WR, Vey MGH. Consumer exposure to fragrance ingredients: providing estimates for safety evaluations. Regul Pharmacol Toxicol 2002; 36:246–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakada T, Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI. Use tests: ROAT (repeated open application test)/PUT (provocative use test): an overview. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 43:1–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannuskela M, Salo H. The repeated open application test (ROAT). Contact Dermatitis 1986; 14:221–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaghi D, Maibach HI. Quantitative relationships between patch test reactivity and use test reactivity: an overview. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 2008; 27:241–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vey MGH. The IFRA: working towards the continually-improved safety of fragrance ingredients and the importance of a partnership with the dermatological community. J Drugs Dermatol 2004; 1 May 2004 online access.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar