Contact allergens--what's new? Cosmetic dermatitis

Skin Toxicity of Selected Hair Cosmetic Ingredients: A Review Focusing on Hairdressers

The safety assessment of cosmetics considers the exposure of a 'common consumer', not the occupational exposure of hairdressers. This review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding the skin toxicity of cysteamine hydrochloride (cysteamine HCl; CAS no. 156-57-0), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP; CAS no. 9003-39-8), PVP copolymers (CAS no. 28211-18-9), sodium laureth sulfate (SLES; CAS no. 9004-82-4), cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA; CAS no. 68603-42-9), and cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB; CAS no. 61789-40-0). A total of 298 articles were identified, of which 70 were included. Meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers have a 1.7-fold increased risk of developing a contact allergy to CAPB compared to controls who are not hairdressers. Hairdressers might have a higher risk of acquiring quantum sensitization against cysteamine HCl compared to a consumer because of their job responsibilities. Regarding cocamide DEA, the irritant potential of this surfactant should not be overlooked. Original articles for PVP, PVP copolymers, and SLES are lacking. This systematic review indicates that the current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers' usage of hair cosmetics. The considerable irritant and/or allergenic potential of substances used in hair cosmetics should prompt a reassessment of current risk assessment practices.

Effect of Sodium Chloride on the Surface and Wetting Properties of Aqueous Solutions of Cocamidopropyl Betaine

Surfactants are important ingredients of personal care products and household products. The main characteristic of these compounds is to decrease the surface tension of solvent and resulting many properties such as contact angle, foam properties etc. The coexistence of other ingredients in the product may affect the properties of surfactants. One of the main components contained in almost every personal care and household product is sodium chloride. The main aim of this work was to determine the effect of this salt on some surface and usage properties of cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB). From our experiments it was shown that the effect of added sodium chloride in the aqueous solutions of CAPB on the properties is the opposite to the one described in the literature for cationic and anionic surfactants, i.e., CMC increases with increasing ionic strength, foam height decreases with increasing salt concentration. Our investigation showed that sodium chloride makes worse the properties of the CAPB solutions examined in this work.

Final Report of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel on the Safety Assessment of Cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB)

Cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB) and related amidopropyl betaines are zwitterions used mainly as surfactants in cosmetics. These cosmetic ingredients are similar in their chemistry, in particular with respect to the presence of 3,3-dimethylamino-propylamine (DMAPA) and fatty acid amidopropyl dimethylamine (amidoamine) impurities, which are known as sensitizers. The CIR Expert Panel concluded that because these ingredients present no other significant toxicity, when formulated to be nonsensitizing (which may be based on a quantitative risk assessment), these ingredients are safe for use as cosmetic ingredients in the practices of use and concentration of this safety assessment.

Cheilitis caused by contact allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine in '2-in-1 toothpaste and mouthwash'

A 10-year-old girl presented with a 2-year history of severe cheilitis. Despite cessation of any lip-licking behaviour her symptoms continued to worsen, with only minimum relief from therapeutic measures. Patch testing proved strongly positive to cocamidopropyl betaine, which was noted to be present in the patient's '2-in-1 toothpaste and mouthwash'. Her cheilitis settled after avoidance of this product. Cocamidopropyl betaine, a surfactant, is a common allergen in hairdressers; however, this case highlights the importance of excluding a contact allergy to this product in patients with intractable cheilitis.

In vitro testing of tensides employing monolayer cultures: a comparison with results of patch tests on human volunteers

Evaluation of the irritant potential of new products or ingredients prior to human testing is generally performed in vivo on animals. However, according to the 6th amendment and following updates of the European Community directive on cosmetic products (93/35/EEC), animal testing will be banned when suitable substitutes will be available. To know whether in vitro tests for assessment of skin irritancy provide results approaching human conditions, comparisons have to be made between data deriving from in vitro tests and skin response in humans. The aim of our study was to assess the validity of the monolayer culture system of normal human keratinocytes as a model for the evaluation of the irritant effects of detergents, by comparing in vitro cell culture data to in vivo acute skin irritancy effects of cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB), an amphoteric compound, Tween 20 (TW20) (polysorbate 20) and Tween 80 (TW80) (polysorbate 80), representing nonionic compounds, applied to the skin of 24 healthy volunteers at a concentration similar to that employed in commercial products. As parameters for cytotoxicity, cell proliferation, cell membrane integrity and cell metabolism were assessed by cell counts, thymidine incorporation, MTT conversion, and Neutral Red uptake. In order to increase the sensitivity of the in vivo evaluation, bioengineering methods for assessment of the effects of test products on the skin were employed. Whereas all 4 in vitro methods ranked the tensides according to their toxicity in the following order: CAPB>SLS>TW20>TW80, both in vivo methods agreed in identifying SLS as the most irritating substance. Moreover, as compared with the irritation potential on human skin, all 4 in vitro tests overestimated the toxicity of CAPB. This suggests that the keratinocyte monolayer cell culture technique cannot directly replace in vivo methods, and that data obtained by this method should be interpreted cautiously.