Fragrance Allergens in Hair Removal Cosmetic Products

Hair Product Allergy: A Review of Epidemiology and Management

Allergy to hair products is an increasingly common issue among people given the exposure to these products on a daily basis. Allergic reactions could be in the form of delayed-type contact dermatitis or the form of immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions. Hair products contain many ingredients and chemicals that patients may have allergies to, but common allergens are hair dyes, fragrances, persulfate salts, ammonium thioglycolate, coconut fatty acid derivatives, and acrylates. Allergy to hair dye is the most common followed by other allergens such as fragrances and persulfate salts. We discussed testing for hair dye allergy along with suggestions for alternative hair dyes that patients may use. Allergy to topical scalp medications is also seen in patients using those products. Allergy to topical minoxidil is seen more often due to the increased use of minoxidil sprays and foams among patients to increase hair growth. We will discuss in this review the diagnosis and alternatives for patients with minoxidil allergy. Hairdressers are at higher risk of allergy to hair products compared to the general population due to prolonged exposure to allergens and specific measures should be implemented to minimize the hazards of exposure.

Limonene and linalool hydroperoxides review: pros and cons for routine patch testing

Limonene and linalool are among the most common fragrance terpenes used in products of everyday life. They are pre-haptens forming hydroperoxides (Lim-OOHs, Lin-OOHs) upon oxidation inducing frequent positive patch test reactions in patients with dermatitis. Still, they are not yet routinely tested in Europe. This review evaluates the patch testing experience with Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs by answering key questions such as whether hydroperoxide patch testing is warranted, understand difficulties or challenges related to the reading and interpretation of hydroperoxide patch test results with currently available material, assessing their relevance. Studies are increasingly pointing out to high percentages of positive reactions in patients consecutively patch tested with these oxidized products. An association between a positive clinical history and a strong patch test reaction has been described, but problems with doubtful/irritant reactions have also been reported. Considering the high frequencies of relevant positive reactions, the incorporation of Lim-OOHs 0.3% and Lin-OOHs 1% in the baseline series could be discussed and is maybe justified. Since exposure, sensitization and elicitation limits of Lim-OOHs and Lin-OOHs in the products still need to be better determined, an assessment of previous exposure, possible sensitizations and reactions may help to improve the clinical assessment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Differences between hairdressers and consumers in skin exposure to hair cosmetic products: a review

Hairdressers are at high risk of developing occupational hand eczema. Opinions on the health and safety concerns of non-food consumer products, such as cosmetics and their ingredients, consider the exposure of a 'common consumer', which may not account for occupational exposure of hairdressers. As result, there is a parlous scenario in which serious safety concerns about occupational exposures are present. The purpose of this review is to compare the frequency of exposure to various types of hair cosmetic products among hairdressers and consumers. Database searches for this review yielded a total of 229 articles. 7 publications were ultimately included. The analysis showed that - dependent on the task - hairdressers were exposed 4 to 78 times more than consumers regarding a wide spectrum of hair cosmetic products used in the daily working life ranging from shampoo, conditioner, oxidative and non-oxidative hair colours, and bleaching agents. The highest frequency was found for colouring hair with oxidative hair colour. Consumer usage frequency does not appear to be appropriate for representing hairdresser exposure. The current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers' use of cosmetics. The findings of this study should cause current risk assessment procedures to be reconsidered. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.