Advanced

Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances - II. Reactivity to essential oils

Frosch, PJ; Johansen, JD; Menne, T; Pirker, C; Rastogi, SC; Andersen, KE; Bruze, Magnus LU ; Goossens, A; Lepoittevin, JP and White, IR (2002) In Contact Dermatitis 47(5). p.279-287
Abstract
In order to find sensitizers additional to the current fragrance mix (FM) a series of fragrance materials (series II) was evaluated in 6 dermatological centres in Europe. 11 of the test materials were essential oils, the remaining 7 being either mixtures of isomers or simple chemicals of frequent usage in the perfume industry. 1606 patients were consecutively tested with series II and 8% FM. Each patient was classified regarding a history of adverse reactions to scented products: certain, probable, questionable, none. Reactions to FM occurred most frequently in 11.4% of the subjects. The 6 materials with the highest reactivity after the FM were ylang-ylang oil (YY) I (2.6%), YY II (2.5%), lemongrass oil (1.6%), narcissus absolute (1.3%),... (More)
In order to find sensitizers additional to the current fragrance mix (FM) a series of fragrance materials (series II) was evaluated in 6 dermatological centres in Europe. 11 of the test materials were essential oils, the remaining 7 being either mixtures of isomers or simple chemicals of frequent usage in the perfume industry. 1606 patients were consecutively tested with series II and 8% FM. Each patient was classified regarding a history of adverse reactions to scented products: certain, probable, questionable, none. Reactions to FM occurred most frequently in 11.4% of the subjects. The 6 materials with the highest reactivity after the FM were ylang-ylang oil (YY) I (2.6%), YY II (2.5%), lemongrass oil (1.6%), narcissus absolute (1.3%), jasmine absolute (1.2%) and sandalwood oil (0.9%). 48 (3.0%) of the patients reacted only to materials of series II and not to FM. 6.0% of 1606 patients gave a history of adverse reactions to fragrances which was classified as certain. This group reacted to FM only in 22.9%, to series II and FM in 15.6% and to series II only in 5.2%. 63.5% of the patients reacting to both FM and 1 of the materials of series II had some type of positive fragrance history, which was higher in comparison to those with isolated reactions to FM (46.2% of 121) or to series II, respectively, (45.8% of 48). However, this difference was not statistically significant. In conclusion, the materials of series II identified a further subset of patients with a fragrance problem, which would have been missed by the current FM as the single screening tool for patch testing. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
contact allergy, essential oils, fragrance mix, fragrances, history of, patch testing, fragrance sensitivity
in
Contact Dermatitis
volume
47
issue
5
pages
279 - 287
publisher
Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and Blackwell Publishing Ltd
external identifiers
  • pmid:12534532
  • wos:000180324800005
  • scopus:0036877371
ISSN
0105-1873
DOI
10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470204.x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
1e226302-986a-4112-b548-49c67a3399f1 (old id 891424)
date added to LUP
2008-01-18 16:36:50
date last changed
2017-12-10 03:55:41
@article{1e226302-986a-4112-b548-49c67a3399f1,
  abstract     = {In order to find sensitizers additional to the current fragrance mix (FM) a series of fragrance materials (series II) was evaluated in 6 dermatological centres in Europe. 11 of the test materials were essential oils, the remaining 7 being either mixtures of isomers or simple chemicals of frequent usage in the perfume industry. 1606 patients were consecutively tested with series II and 8% FM. Each patient was classified regarding a history of adverse reactions to scented products: certain, probable, questionable, none. Reactions to FM occurred most frequently in 11.4% of the subjects. The 6 materials with the highest reactivity after the FM were ylang-ylang oil (YY) I (2.6%), YY II (2.5%), lemongrass oil (1.6%), narcissus absolute (1.3%), jasmine absolute (1.2%) and sandalwood oil (0.9%). 48 (3.0%) of the patients reacted only to materials of series II and not to FM. 6.0% of 1606 patients gave a history of adverse reactions to fragrances which was classified as certain. This group reacted to FM only in 22.9%, to series II and FM in 15.6% and to series II only in 5.2%. 63.5% of the patients reacting to both FM and 1 of the materials of series II had some type of positive fragrance history, which was higher in comparison to those with isolated reactions to FM (46.2% of 121) or to series II, respectively, (45.8% of 48). However, this difference was not statistically significant. In conclusion, the materials of series II identified a further subset of patients with a fragrance problem, which would have been missed by the current FM as the single screening tool for patch testing.},
  author       = {Frosch, PJ and Johansen, JD and Menne, T and Pirker, C and Rastogi, SC and Andersen, KE and Bruze, Magnus and Goossens, A and Lepoittevin, JP and White, IR},
  issn         = {0105-1873},
  keyword      = {contact allergy,essential oils,fragrance mix,fragrances,history of,patch testing,fragrance sensitivity},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {279--287},
  publisher    = {Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and Blackwell Publishing Ltd},
  series       = {Contact Dermatitis},
  title        = {Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances - II. Reactivity to essential oils},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0536.2002.470204.x},
  volume       = {47},
  year         = {2002},
}