The allergens of nail polish. (I). Allergenic constituents of common nail polish and toluenesulfonamide-formaldehyde resin (TS-F-R)

A novel mass spectrometric method for formaldehyde in children's personal-care products and water via derivatization with acetylacetone

RATIONALE

New legislation in the state of Minnesota prohibits the sale of children's personal-care products (PCPs) that contain more than 500 ng/mg formaldehyde. Previous attempts to quantify formaldehyde in PCPs use nonspecific derivatization procedures that employ harsh reagents and/or nonspecific detection. Derivatization of formaldehyde by acetylacetone occurs under mild conditions and is specific for formaldehyde but it has not been investigated using high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass-spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS).

METHODS

To determine formaldehyde, PCPs were dissolved and then interferences were minimized by graphitized-carbon solid-phase extraction. Formaldehyde was derivatized to 3,5-diacetyl-1,4-dihydrolutidine (DDL) using an acetylacetone solution. Post-derivatization, samples were diluted and analyzed by HPLC/MS/MS. Quantification was performed by isotopic dilution. Product-ion spectra were acquired for DDL and D₁₂ -DDL. The mass shifts between the two product-ion spectra were used to assign fragment structures. To confirm molecular formulas, high-resolution accurate-mass analysis of the DDL product ions was performed by quadrupole time-of-flight MS.

RESULTS

Structures were proposed for all product ions of DDL above 10% relative intensity. Method accuracy ranged between 96-104% for all matrices at all concentrations tested. Method precision was less than 4% relative standard deviation. The reporting limit was 10 ng/mg in PCPs and 100 μg/L in water. Twenty children's PCPs were tested to demonstrate the method and formaldehyde was reported in five from 23-1500 ng/mg. Of those five, two samples contained formaldehyde above the Minnesota regulatory limit.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed method allows for the accurate quantification of formaldehyde in PCPs at levels below those required by a new regulation on children's products in Minnesota. The method includes a derivatization procedure that is newly adapted to HPLC/MS/MS; therefore, structures were proposed for the product ions of the derivative (DDL). Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Nail cosmetics in nail disorders

The clinical features of nail dystrophies depend on the part of the nail that has been damaged. Due to the important functions of fingernails and toenails, any abnormality of the nail causes impaired function of the hand or foot. Moreover, the aesthetic aspect of the nail may affect employability, self-esteem, and interaction with other people. Because the nails are often difficult to treat, cosmetology may be an effective support to medical treatment. Nail cosmetics may help the patient to cope with his or her nail dystrophy while waiting for treatment to show its efficacy. It may also be the only choice to hide nail dystrophy where the nail is irreversibly damaged. Nail cosmetics may also function at treatment for onychtillomania, nail biting, and nail ingrowing.

Contact and primary irritant dermatitis of the nail unit diagnosis and treatment

Contact dermatitis of the nail unit is not rare. The most common allergens are found in nail cosmetics such as enamel, sculptured nails, and preformed plastic tips. Toluene sulfonamide formaldehyde resin, acrylates, and ethylcyanoacrylate are the most common allergens. Along with a proper clinical history focusing on nail practices, a thorough understanding of the common allergens and patch testing are necessary to diagnose contact dermatitis. A discussion of the common allergens and irritants relevant to the nail unit will be presented.

Allergic contact dermatitis to copolymers in cosmetics ? case report and review of the literature

Copolymers or heteropolymers are large molecules with high molecular weights (>1000 D). They have been underestimated for a long time as to their sensitizing capacities. Allergic contact dermatitis to 6 copolymers in cosmetics and 1 in a medical dressing has been described; however, the nature of the hapten is still unknown. We report a case of allergic contact dermatitis to polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)/hexadecene copolymer in a purple-colored lipstick and review the literature on allergic contact dermatitis to 7 copolymers: PVP/hexadecene, PVP/eicosene, PVP/1-triacontene, methoxy polyethyleneglycol (PEG)-22/dodecyl glycols, methoxy PEG-17/dodecyl glycols, phthalic anhydride/trimellitic anhydride/glycols, and polyvinyl methyl/maleic acid anhydride.

Cosmetic allergy: incidence, diagnosis, and management

A recent epidemiologic survey in the UK revealed that 23% of women and 13.8% of men experience some sort of adverse reaction to a personal care product over the course of a year. Although most of these reactions may be due to subjective sensory irritation, various studies reveal that up to 10% of dermatologic patients who are patch tested are allergic to cosmetic products or their constituent ingredients. Causative products include deodorants and perfumes, skin care products, hair care products, and nail cosmetics. Allergic contact dermatitis mainly results from fragrance chemicals and preservatives. Recent work has suggested that additional fragrance chemicals may need to be tested in order to identify those patients 'missed' by the current fragrance mix; in particular, hydroxy-isohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HMPPC Lyral) has been singled out as an important sensitizing agent. The increased usage of natural fragrances and botanic extracts can also cause problems in their own right or through co-reactivity. The preservative methyldibromo glutaronitrile has also been recognized as an increasingly important sensitizer in Europe, which has led to the recent recommendation that it should be prohibited from 'leave-on' products until information on 'safe' consumer levels becomes available. Other emerging allergens include UV filters, tosylamide/formaldehyde resin, and nail acrylates. The diagnosis of cosmetic allergy should be confirmed with patch testing, including testing of 'whole' products, when necessary, and repeat open application tests can be used to confirm the relevance of reactions in cases of doubt.

Cosmetic dermatitis - current perspectives

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of cosmetics by modern society has contributed alarming to an rise in the incidence of cosmetic dermatitis (CD). The causative agents are skin, hair, nail and eye cosmetics. Reported cases of cosmetic dermatitis represent only the tip of the iceberg, as most patients who experience an adverse reaction to cosmetics do not consult a physician but discontinue using the suspected items.

METHODS

A comprehensive history followed by adequate clinical examination and patch test is important to diagnose reaction to cosmetics. In addition other tests like Repeated Open Application Test (ROAT), usage test, elimination test and safety test are important, as many cosmetics and their ingredients are either weak allergens or irritants.

RESULTS

A wide variety of adverse reactions to cosmetics are seen which are of both irritant and allergic type. Pattern of CD varies in different parts of the world depending upon the type and frequency of different cosmetics used. Reactions are more commonly seen in females of younger age and the face is the most common site.

CONCLUSIONS

Though prevention is better than cure, but cosmetics have definitely infiltrated into our life style. We cannot prevent use of cosmetics but can only limit their use by educating their users and helping them in judicious selection of the required cosmetics.

Nail cosmetics: allergies and irritations

Recent precise figures are not available for the number of adverse reactions related to the use of nail care products. Reactions to nail cosmetic procedures may be divided into reactions at the site of application to the nail itself and ectopic reactions, when the hand transfers a small amount of nail cosmetic to other areas of the skin. Fingernail coatings encompass two types: coatings that harden upon evaporation (nail enamel, base coat, top coat); and coatings that polymerize (sculptured nails, light-curing gels, preformed artificial nails, nail mending and nail wrapping). The test battery enables us to distinguish allergic reactions from irritant reactions. Interestingly, some reactions, such as distant allergic contact dermatitis, are more frequent with nail enamel than with coatings that polymerize. On the other hand, the latter are greater offenders in the nail area. Nail hardeners may just be modified nail enamels containing nylon fibers, acrylate resin and hydrolyzed proteins. Others may contain up to 5% formaldehyde tissue fixative (which can have adverse effects on the nail), but are designed in the US to be applied only to the free edge of the nail while the skin is shielded. Caution is necessary in interpreting formaldehyde patch testing reactions.

North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens

BACKGROUND

Allergic contact dermatitis is a significant cause of cutaneous disease affecting many individuals. Patch testing, when used properly, often provides support for the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE

This article reports patch testing results from July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1996, by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG).

METHODS

Patients evaluated in our patch test clinics were tested with the same screening series of allergens by the use of a standardized patch testing technique. The data from these patients were recorded on a standard computer entry form and analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-nine allergens were tested on 3120 patients. Budesonide was added to the series in July 1995 and tested on 1678 patients. Of these patients, 66.5% had positive allergic patch test reactions, and 57% had at least one allergic reaction that was felt to be clinically relevant to the present or past dermatitis. The 20 screening allergens commercially available to United States dermatologists in the Allergen Patch Test Kit, accounted for only 54.1% of the patients with positive allergic reactions. The additional 30 allergens on the NACDG screening series accounted for 47% of patients with positive allergic reactions. Had the Allergen Patch Test Kit alone been used, 12.4% of all patients tested may have had their disease misclassified as a nonallergic disorder, and an additional 34.4% of all tested patients would not have had their allergies fully defined. Among those patients with positive responses to the supplemental allergens, 81% of the responses were of present or past relevance. The 12 most frequent contact allergens were nickel sulfate, fragrance mix, thimerosal, quaternium-15, neomycin sulfate, formaldehyde, bacitracin, thiuram mix, balsam of Peru, cobalt chloride, para-phenylenediamine, and carba mix. The present relevance varied with the specific allergen from 10.7% (thimerosal) to 85.7% (quaternium-15). Among newer allergens, methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol (cosmetic preservative) caused positive allergic reactions in 2% of the patients; tixocortol-21-pivalate and budesonide (corticosteroids), in 2.0% and 1.1% of the patients, respectively; and ethylene urea/melamine formaldehyde mix (textile resin), in 5% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

The usefulness of patch testing is enhanced with the number of allergens tested, because allergens not found on the commercially available screening series in the United States frequently give relevant allergic reactions.

Allergenic ingredients in nail polishes

It has been known since the 1940s that nail polishes contain allergenic ingredients. The aim of this study was to clarify whether the nail polishes on the market today contain significant amounts of allergens, and what the solvents are. The following ingredients were determined: toluene, toluene sulfonamide formaldehyde resins, free formaldehyde, acrylates, methacrylates and certain organic solvents. The study comprised 20 brands and 42 samples. All the nail polishes analysed contained allergenic toluene sulfonamide formaldehyde resins (TSFR), in concentrations from 0.08 to 11.0%. The concentration of total formaldehyde varied from 0.02% to 0.5%. The more TSFR a nail polish contained, the higher was its formaldehyde content. Probably not only TSFR-allergic but also formaldehyde-allergic persons may get dermatitis from many of the nail polishes studied. The concentrations of acrylates and methacrylates were so small that they are of practical significance only to those previously sensitized to acrylates. Of the organic solvents, toluene was still widely used, whereas xylene was found in only 1 product. The nail polishes on the market today are not safe for all consumers. However, according to the regulations of the European Union, the packaging labeling of all cosmetic products must be supplied with a list of ingredients from the beginning of 1998. This will help the consumer to avoid allergenic products. A better alternative could, however, be to substitute the most allergenic ingredients with substances possessing minor allergy potency.