Allergic lipstick cheilitis due to ester gum and ricinoleic acid

Allergic contact dermatitis to lip care cosmetic products - a systematic review

Aim: Lip care cosmetics products are any external preparation used by people to prevent drying, chapping, dullness, and beautification of lips. This study aimed to review the literature on allergic reactions induced by different types of lip care cosmetic products. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed from inception to June 2022. The study included articles published in English and available in full text. References of illegible articles were searched. Studies describing any patient who developed allergic contact dermatitis after the application of lip care cosmetic products were included. Results: A total of 47 reports consisting of 58 individuals experienced allergic reactions to lip care products. Several lip care cosmetics products, such as lipsticks, lip balms, lip salve, lip gloss, lip liner, and lip plumper, were found to be associated with allergic reactions. The most common ingredients that caused the allergic contact dermatitis were castor oil, benzophenone-3, gallate, wax, and colophony. Conclusions: Lip care cosmetics products contain several components that have been associated with allergic reactions. Awareness needs to be created among the general public and dermatologists regarding the presence of possible allergens in lip care cosmetic products.

Re-evaluation of glycerol esters of wood rosin (E 445) as a food additive

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of glycerol esters of wood rosin (GEWR, E 445) when used as a food additive. Regarding GEWR originating from Pinus palustris (longleaf pine) and Pinus elliottii (slash pine), based on the overall toxicity database, and given the absence of reproductive and developmental toxicity data, the Panel concluded that the current acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 12.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for GEWR (E 445) as established by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1994 should be temporary pending the provision of such data. This assessment is restricted to GEWR derived from P. palustris (longleaf pine) and P. elliottii (slash pine) and with a chemical composition in compliance with GEWR used in the toxicological testing. The Panel concluded that the mean and the high exposure levels (P95) of the brand-loyal refined exposure scenario did not exceed the temporary ADI in any of the population groups from the use of GEWR (E 445) as a food additive at the reported use levels. For GEWR originating from Pinus halepensis and Pinus brutia, the Panel noted that concentrations of the fractions of 'glycerol monoesters', 'free resin acids' and 'neutrals', which are considered to be of particular toxicological relevance, are not known; therefore, the evaluation of chemical equivalence with GEWR originating from P. palustris (longleaf pine) and P. elliottii (slash pine) is not possible; no data on stability were available; no toxicological data were available. Therefore, the Panel concluded that a safety assessment of GEWR originating from P. halepensis and P. brutia could not be performed. The Panel recommended the European Commission to consider an update of the definition of GEWR (E 445) in the EU specifications. It should be indicated that GEWR (E 445) (i) contain, besides the mentioned glycerol di- and triesters, a residual fraction of glycerol monoesters, and (ii) contain residual free resin acids and neutrals (non-acidic other saponifiable and unsaponifiable substances).

An epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis due to epilating products

Over a period of 19 months, 33 cases of acute allergic contact dermatitis from Veet epilating waxes and/or the accompanying tissue (Reckitt Benckiser, Massy, France) were observed in France and Belgium. The lesions started on the legs and spread to other parts of the body, especially the face, and were sometimes so severe that hospitalization and/or systemic corticosteroids were required. Primary sensitization occurred as early as after the first application in several patients. Patch tests were performed in 26 of the patients and produced strong positive reactions to the tissue (25 times) and/or the wax (13 times). The allergenic culprits in the wax were modified-colophonium derivatives (colophonium in the standard series testing negatively in all except 4 patients), while methoxy PEG-22/dodecyl glycol copolymer and to a lesser degree lauryl alcohol turned out to be the main causal allergens in the tissue.

Actions of ricinoleic acid and structurally related fatty acids on the gastrointestinal tract. II. Effects on water and electrolyte absorption in vitro

Ricinoleic acid, the active component of castor oil, and related fatty acids were studied to determine their relative inhibitory effects on water and electrolyte absorption using everted hamster jejunal and ileal segments. Differences were found between hydroxylated and nonhydroxylated congeners as well as between cis and trans geometric isomers. At a mucosal concentration of 2.0 mM, the unsaturated fatty acids had the following rank order of potency on inhibition of water absorption: ricionoleate greater than or equal to ricinelaidate- greater than equal to linoleate greater than oleate greater than linelaidate greater than elaidate. Ricinoleyl alcohol was effective at 2.0 mM but the methyl ester of ricinoleic acid was ineffective at this concentration. Among a series of saturated fatty acids including palmitate, stearate, a mixture of 9- and 10-hydroxystearate, and 12-hydroxystearate, only the last compound had any inhibitory effect on water absorption. The results define those portions of the ricinoleic acid molecule required for its effect on water and electrolyte absorption and suggest that classification of this cathartic as an "irritant" or "stimulant" should be re-evlauated.