Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

CosmeticsCosmetics
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

30 January 2016

11 Pages

Microbiologically Contaminated and Over-Preserved Cosmetic Products According Rapex 2008–2014

and
Department of Biotechnologies, Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Siena, Via Aldo Moro 2, Siena 53100, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cosmetics2016, 3(1), 3;https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics3010003
This article belongs to the Special Issue Cosmetic Safety: Ingredients, Type of Reactions, Undesirable Effects, Cosmetovigilance
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

We investigated the Rapid Alert System (RAPEX) database from January 2008 until week 26 of 2014 to give information to consumers about microbiologically contaminated cosmetics and over-preserved cosmetic products. Chemical risk was the leading cause of the recalls (87.47%). Sixty-two cosmetic products (11.76%) were recalled because they were contaminated with pathogenic or potentially pathogenic microorganisms. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most frequently found microorganism. Other microorganisms found were: Mesophilic aerobic microorganisms, Staphylococcus aureus, Candida albicans, Enterococcus spp., Enterobacter cloacae, Enterococcus faecium, Enterobacter gergoviae, Rhizobium radiobacter, Burkholderia cepacia, Serratia marcescens, Achromabacter xylosoxidans, Klebsiella oxytoca, Bacillus firmus, Pantoea agglomerans, Pseudomonas putida, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Citrobacter freundii. Nine cosmetic products were recalled because they contained methylisothiazolinone (0.025%–0.36%), benzalkonium chloride (1%), triclosan (0.4%) in concentrations higher than the limits allowed by European Regulation 1223/2009. Fifteen products were recalled for the presence of methyldibromo glutaronitrile, a preservative banned for use in cosmetics. Thirty-two hair treatment products were recalled because they contained high concentrations of formaldehyde (0.3%–25%).

1. Introduction

The European Commission (EC) has an early warning system for safety management called the Rapid Alert System (RAPEX). In the database of this system we can find information about dangerous cosmetic products sold in EU markets. Dangerous cosmetic products pose a risk to the consumers due to the presence of certain substances which are banned or the use of which is restricted in these products under cosmetic legislation [1].
Cosmetic products are recognized to be substrates for the survival and development of a large variety of microorganisms, since they posses some of the nutrients that facilitate growth such as water, lipids, polysaccharides, alcohol, proteins, amino acids, glycosides, peptides and vitamins [2]. The presence of pathogenic microorganisms in cosmetic products can pose a health risk for consumers. The use of preservatives, Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and quality control programs has improved the quality, but several studies have reported cases of contaminated cosmetic products [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Studies have shown that the most frequently found microorganisms in cosmetics are P. aeruginosa, K. oxytoca, B. cepacia, S. aureus, E. coli, C. albicans, E. gergoviae, and S. marcescens, but also other bacteria, fungi, and yeasts. Skin and mucous membranes are protected from microorganisms; however, these may be damaged and slight trauma may be caused by the action of some cosmetics that may enhance microbial infection [9]. Research studies have shown cases of infections caused by contaminated cosmetics [10,11,12]. According to SCCP’s (Scientific Committee on Consumer Products) “Notes of Guidance”, cosmetic products are divided into two different categories: (1) Products specifically intended for children under three years or to be used in the eye area and on mucous membranes and (2) other products. Products intended for use on babies and the eye area (category 1) should have not more than 102 Cfu/g or mL of aerobic mesophilic microorganism (other products not more than 103 Cfu/g or mL). Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida albicans or Escherichia coli must not be detectable in 0.5 g or 0.1 mL of product category 1 and in 0.1 g or 0.1 mL of product category 2 [13]. To prevent the microbial contamination of cosmetic products, chemical substances with known antimicrobial properties are used. The EU regulation 1223/2009 provides a list of allowed preservatives in cosmetic products with maximum concentrations in ready-for-use preparation. Preservatives are known as one of the most relevant allergens found in cosmetic products [14,15]. Studies suggest that the problem is much bigger because contact dermatitis prevalence appears to be underestimated [16]. In recent years a significant increase in cases of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy (MI) has been reported [17,18,19,20,21].

2. Experimental Section

We used the RAPEX database to find microbiologically contaminated cosmetic products from January 2008 until week 26 of 2014. We also selected recalled cosmetic products with high concentrations of preservatives.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Microbiologically Contaminated Cosmetics

The risks of recalled cosmetic products were divided in two categories: chemical and microbiological. Chemical risks were the leading cause of the recalls (87.47%). Sixty-two cosmetic products contaminated with microorganisms were recalled during this period. The most frequently found microorganism was the pathogenic Pseudomonas aeruginosa (35.48%). Other microorganisms found were: mesophilic aerobic microorganisms (bacteria, yeast and molds), Burkholderia cepacia, Klebsiella oxytoca, Serratia marcescens, Enterobacter gergoviae, Enterobacter cloacae, Staphylococcus aureus, Achromabacter xylosoxidans, Rhizobium radiobacter, Candida albicans, Pantoea agglomerans, Citrobacter freundii, Pseudomonas putida, Enterococcus faecium and Klebsiella pneumoniae. The types of cosmetic products contaminated were different: skin lightening products, eye creams, eye make-up products, children’s shampoos, skin care products, baby creams, baby balms, toothpastes (Table 1). The recalled products were notified by 14 different countries and 41.67% of them were notified by Germany. The number of recalled contaminated cosmetic products was higher in the last two years (2013, 2014).
In 21 cosmetic products (33.87%), Pseudomonas were present, especially Pseudomonas aeruginosa. P. aeruginosa is a pathogenic Gram-negative bacteria frequently found in cosmetics but also in ophthalmic preparations and, as such, is responsible for a variety of infectious diseases affecting the eye and surrounding tissues (corneal ulcer, bacterial keratitis) [22,23,24,25,26]. Six hair shampoo products were contaminated with P. aeruginosa or P. putida and these products can come in contact with eyes. These bacteria are widely recognized as nosocomial infection–causing pathogens [27,28]. P. aeruginosa in some cases had showed resistance to preservatives in cosmetic products.
Burkholderia cepacia, an opportunistic pathogen, was found in five products: make-up remover, bath gel, mouth spray and mouth wash, body scrub products (4.1 × 105–100 × 105 Cfu/g). Other studies have showed that the presence of B. cepacia in products used for mouth hygiene has frequently been implicated in B. cepacia infection [29,30,31]. Contamination of cosmetics and pharmaceuticals with B. cepacia is also a frequent problem in the United States and it is a cause of major product recalls [32,33,34]. B. cepacia can cause diseases primarily among immuno-compromised populations [35].
Table 1. Microbiologically contaminated products.
Staphylococcus aureus was found in two products: shea butter and massage cream. S. aureus is also one of the most frequently found contaminants in cosmetic products [36]. S. aureus is a Gram-positive microorganism and a potential human pathogen which can cause impetigo and conjunctivitis [37]. Enterobacter gergoviae was present in eye creams and children’s cosmetic products (shampoo, foam soap, gel, creams and lotions, skin cream, etc.) at concentrations of 1.6 × 105–44 × 105 Cfu/g. E. gergoviae is naturally resistant to parabens at the concentrations used in cosmetics [38,39]. The germs are often resistant to antibiotics and this makes treatment more difficult. Serratia marcescens is a Gram-negative bacillus (Enterobacteriaceae). S. marcescens was generally considered non-pathogenic for humans [40], but since the 1950s has become an important cause of nosocomial infection [41]. Infants are at the greatest risk of S. marcescens infection (severe septicemia) or colonization [42,43,44,45]. Baby death has been reported from S. marcescens meningitis and septicemia after use of contaminated baby shampoo [46]. One recalled product was bath milk for babies and it was contaminated with S. marcescens. Two recalled products were contaminated with Klebsiella pneumoniae, a shampoo/shower gel and an herbal tooth powder. Klebsiella pneumonia, a Gram-negative bacterium in the Enterobacteriaceae family, is a human pathogen and can cause severe fulminating pneumonia [47]. Klebsiella present in hand creams and liquid soaps in the past has caused epidemic septicemia in patients with intravenous catheters [48]. Molds and yeasts were also present in two products. A make-up set was contaminated with mold which, according to RAPEX, may cause irritation, inflammation to skin around the eye, respiratory infection if inhaled or loss of eye sight. Candida albicans was isolated in one product (shea butter, Germany).
Rhizobium radiobacter (known as Agrobacterium radiobacter) was present in an eye contour cream product. It is usually of low virulence in humans and rarely acts as an opportunistic human pathogen [49].

3.2. Over-Preserved Cosmetic Products

Twenty-four cosmetic products were recalled because they contained methylisothiazolinone (0.025%–0.36%), methyldibromo glutaronitrile, triclosan (0.4%) and benzalkonium chloride (1%) in concentrations higher than the limits allowed by European Regulation 1223/2009 (Table 2).
Table 2. Over-preserved cosmetics.
Fifteen cosmetic products recalled (shower gels, skin creams, shampoo and children’s shampoo, wet wipes) contained methyldibromo glutaronitrile. This preservative has been banned in EU countries because of increasing rates of contact allergy [50,51,52,53].
Seven cosmetic products recalled contained the preservative methylisothiazolinone (0.01% or 0.0015% of a mixture in the ratio 3:1 of methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone) in excess (0.025%–0.36%) of the approved concentration limit. The country of origin of the products was the Russian Federation. MI is a sensitizing agent and may cause skin sensitization and allergic skin reactions when it exceeds the approved maximum concentration [54,55]. MI is also is an emerging allergen in the pediatric population. Wet wipes with MI were frequently the cause of allergy contact dermatitis [56,57,58,59,60].
One product contained benzalkonium chloride in a concentration 10 times higher than the maximum allowed (eyelash enhancer, 1%). Benzalkonium chloride is a well-recognized irritant for skin and eyes at concentrations greater than 0.1%. According to EU regulation 1223/2009, contact of benzalkonium chloride with eyes should be avoided.
Thirty-two cosmetic products contained formaldehyde (0.3%–25%) in concentrations higher than the limits allow (Table 3). All products recalled were hair treatment products. In the European Union, formaldehyde is not authorized as an active ingredient in hair straightening products. Formaldehyde is a chemical substance used in cosmetics as a preservative for its antimicrobial properties. According to Cosmetics Regulation 1223–2009 Annex V, formaldehyde can be used in oral products in concentrations of not more than 0.1% (free formaldehyde) and 0.2% in other products. Formaldehyde can also be used in nail-hardening products at concentrations of up to 5% (Annex III).
Table 3. Cosmetic products with high concentration of formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde is classified as a carcinogen [61,62]. Some epidemiologic studies have also found increased numbers of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and leukemia in humans exposed to formaldehyde [63].

4. Conclusions

European consumers are exposed to microbiologically contaminated and over-preserved cosmetic products. Hair treatment products with high concentrations of formaldehyde were also found. These products may pose a health risk to consumers. Measures must be taken to guarantee the safety of cosmetic products.

Author Contributions

The authors have equally contributed in data analyzing and paper writing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Song, J.B.; Ahn, I.Y.; Cho, K.T.; Kim, Y.J.; Kim, H.S.; Lee, B.M. Development and application of risk management system for consumer products in compliance with global harmonization. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B. Crit. Rev. 2013, 16, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Herrera, G.A. Microbiological analysis of cosmetics. Methods Mol. Biol. 2004, 268, 293–295. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Lundov, M.D.; Zachariae, C. Recalls of microbiologically contaminated cosmetic in EU from 2005 to May 2008. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 2008, 6, 471–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wong, S.; Street, D.; Delgado, S.I.; Klontz, K.C. Recalls of foods and cosmetics due to microbial contamination reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. J. Food Prot. 2000, 63, 1113–1116. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Behravan, J.; Bazzar, F.; Malaekeh, P. Survey of bacteriological contamination of cosmetic creams in Iran (2000). Int. J. Dermatol. 2005, 44, 482–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hugbo, P.B.; Onyekweli, A.O.; Igwe, I. Microbial contamination and preservative capacity of some brands of cosmetic creams. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2003, 2, 229–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shaqra, Q.; Al-Groom, R. Microbiologically quality of hair and skin care cosmetics manufactured in Jordan. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2012, 69, 69–72. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mwambete, K.D.; Simon, A. Microbiological quality and preservative capacity of commonly available cosmetics in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. J. Pharm. Sci. 2010, 13, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  9. Scientific Committee on Consumer Products. The SCCP’s Notes of Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients and Their Safety Evaluation. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_s_006.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2015).
  10. Ashour, E.; Abdelaziz, A.A.; Hefni, H.; El-Tayeb, M. Microbial contamination of cosmetics and personal care items in Egypt—Body lotion and talcum powders. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 1989, 14, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mpuchane, S.F.; Ekosse, G.E.; Gashe, B.A. Miscrobiological contamination of southern African medicinal and cosmetic clays. 2010, 20, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Baird, R.M. Bacteriological contamination of products used for the skin care in babies. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 1984, 6, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Guidelines on Microbial Quality Management. 1997. Available online: https://www.cosmeticseurope.eu/publications-cosmetics-europe-association/guidelines.html?view=item&id=28 (accessed on 13 September 2015).
  14. Timm-Knudson, V.L.; Johnson, J.S.; Ortiz, K.J.; Yiannias, J.A. Allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives. Dermatol. Nurs. 2006, 18, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Maier, L.E.; Lampel, H.P.; Bhutani, T.; Jacob, S.E. Hand dermatitis: A focus on allergic contact dermatitis to biocides. Dermatol. Clin. 2009, 27, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hamilton, T.; de Gannes, G.C. Allergic contact dermatitis to preservatives and fragrances in cosmetics. Skin Ther. Lett. 2011, 16, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  17. Maio, P.; Carvalho, R.; Amaro, C.; Santos, R.; Cardoso, J. Contact allergy to methylchoroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI): Findings from a contact dermatitis unit. Cutan. Ocul. Toxicol. 2012, 31, 151–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Castanedo-Tardana, M.P.; Zug, K.A. Methylisothiazolinone. Dermatitis 2013, 24, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. García-Gavín, J.; Vansina, S.; Kerre, S.; Naert, A.; Goossens, A. Methylisothiazolinone, an emerging allergen in cosmetics? Contact Dermat. 2010, 63, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Macias, V.C.; Fernandes, S.; Amaro, C.; Santos, R.; Cardoso, J. Sensitization to methylisothiazolinone in a group of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone allergic patients. J. Cutan. Ocul. Toxicol. 2013, 32, 99–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Palmer, M.J.; Nixon, R. Polysensitisation in a laboratory scientist associated with allergic contact dermatitis from methylisothiazolinone in skin cleansers. Australas. J. Dermatol. 2014, 23, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tenenbaum, S. Pseudomonas in cosmetics. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem. 1967, 18, 797–807. [Google Scholar]
  23. Reid, F.R.; Wood, T.O. Pseudomonas corneal ulcer. The causative role of contaminated eye cosmetics. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1979, 97, 1640–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kreger, A.S. Pathogenesis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa ocular diseases. Rev. Infect. Dis. 1983, 5, 931–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hazlett, L.D. Corneal response to Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2004, 23, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Blumenfeld, O.; Nathansohn, N.; Yeshurun, I.; Ashkenazi, I. Eye cosmetics-the beauty and the beast. Harefuah 2005, 144, 357–362. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Amemiya, K.; Taguchi, F. Bacterial contamination of hair washing liquids. J. Jpn. Assoc. Infect. Dis. 1994, 68, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Morrison, A.J.; Wenzel, R.W. Epidemiology of Infections due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1984, 6, 627–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Matrician, L.; Ange, G.; Burns, S.; Fanning, W.L.; Kioski, C.; Cage, G.D.; Komatsu, K.K. Outbreak of nosocomial Burkholderia cepacia infection and colonization associated with intrinsically contaminated mouthwash. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2000, 21, 739–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Martin, M.; Winterfeld, I.; Kramme, E.; Ewert, I.; Sedemund-Adib, B.; Mattner, F. Outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia complex caused by contaminated alcohol-free mouthwash. Anaesthesist 2012, 61, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Molina-Cabrillana, J.; Bolaños-Rivero, M.; Alvarez-León, E.E.; Martín Sánchez, A.M.; Sánchez-Palacios, M.; Alvarez, D.; Sáez-Nieto, J.A. Intrinsically contaminated alcohol-free mouthwash implicated in a nosocomial outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia colonization and infection. Am. J. Infect. Control 1996, 24, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Jimenez, L.; Smalls, S. Molecular Detection of Burkholderia cepacia in Toiletry, Cosmetic, and Pharmaceutical Raw Materials and Finished Products. J. AOAC Int. 2000, 83, 963–966. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Jimenez, L. Microbial diversity in pharmaceutical product recalls and environments. PDA. J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2007, 61, 383–399. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Irwin, A.E.; Price, C.S. More than skin deep: Moisturizing body milk and Burkholderia cepacia. Crit. Care 2008, 12, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Torbeck, L.; Raccasi, D.; Guilfoyle, D.E. Burkholderia cepacia: This Decision Is Overdue. PDA. J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2011, 65, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lundov, M.D.; Johansen, D.J.; Zachariae, C.; Moesby, L. Creams Used by Hand Eczema Patients are often Contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus. Acta Derm. Venereol. 2009, 92, 441–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Brannan, K.D. Cosmetic Microbiology: A Practical Handbook; CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  38. Périamé, M.; Pagès, J.M.; Davin-Regli, A. Enterobacter gergoviae adaptation to preservatives commonly used in cosmetic industry. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 2014, 36, 386–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Davin-Regli, A.; Chollet, R.; Bredin, J.; Chevalier, J.; Lepine, F.; Pagès, J.M. Enterobacter gergoviae and the prevalence of efflux in parabens resistance. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2006, 57, 757–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Scharf, J.W.; Wild, F.; Guggenbichler, J.P. Infection with Serratia marcescens in newborn infants. Clinical aspects, therapy and disease course. Monatsschrift Kinderheilkd. 1991, 139, 695–698. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hejazi, A.; Falkiner, F.R. Serratia marcescens. J. Med. Microbiol. 1997, 46, 903–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Van Ogtrop, M.L.; van Zoeren-Grobben, D.; Verbakel-Salomons, E.M.; van Boven, C.P. Serratia marcescens infections in neonatal departments: Description of an outbreak and review of the literature. J. Hosp. Infect. 1997, 36, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Voelz, A.; Müller, A.; Gillen, J.; Le, C.; Dresbach, T.; Engelhart, S.; Exner, M.; Bates, C.J.; Simon, A. Outbreaks of Serratia marcescens in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units: Clinical aspects, risk factors and management. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2010, 213, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Archibald, L.K.; Corl, A.; Shah, B.; Schulte, M.; Arduino, M.J.; Aguero, S.; Fisher, D.J.; Stechenberg, B.W.; Banerjee, S.N.; Jarvis, W.R. Serratia marcescens outbreak associated with extrinsic contamination of 1% chlorxylenol soap. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 1997, 18, 704–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Hirooka, T.M.; Fontes, R.B.; Diniz, E.M.; Pinto, F.C.; Matushita, H. Cerebral abscess caused by Serratia marcescens in a premature neonate. Arq. Neuropsiquatri. 2007, 65, 1018–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Madani, T.A.; Alsaedi, S.; James, L.; Eldeek, B.S.; Jiman-Fatani, A.A.; Alawi, M.M.; Marwan, D.; Cudal, M.; Macapagal, M.; Bahlas, R.; et al. Serratia marcescens-contaminated baby shampoo causing an outbreak among newborns at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. J. Hosp. Infect. 2011, 78, 16–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Parker, M.T. The clinical significance of the presence of micro-organisms pharmaceutical and cosmetic preparations. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem. 1972, 3, 415–426. [Google Scholar]
  48. Anelich, L.E.; Korsten, L. Survey of micro-organisms associated with spoilage of cosmetic creams manufactured in South Africa. Int. J. Cosmet. Sci. 1996, 18, 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Lai, C.C.; Teng, L.J.; Hsueh, P.R.; Yuan, A.; Tsai, K.C.; Tang, J.L. Clinical and microbiological characteristics of Rhizobium radiobacter infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2004, 38, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Basketter, D.A. Methyldibromo glutaronitrile: Skin sensitization and quantitative risk assessment. Cutan. Ocul. Toxicol. 2010, 29, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Aakhus, A.E.; Warshaw, E.M. Allergy to methyldibromo glutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol (Euxyl K 400): Regulatory issues, epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and management. Dermatitis 2011, 22, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Van Ginkel, C.J.; Rundervoort, G.J. Increasing incidence of contact allergy to the new preservative 1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane (methyldibromo glutaronitrile). J. Dermatol. 1995, 132, 918–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jensen, C.D.; Johansen, J.D.; Menné, T.; Andersen, K.E. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile in rinse-off products causes allergic contact dermatitis: An experimental study. Br. J. Dermatol. 2004, 150, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Hosteing, S.; Meyer, N.; Waton, J.; Barbaud, A.; Bourrain, J.L.; Raison-Peyron, N.; Felix, B.; Milpied-Homsi, B.; Ferrier Le Bouedec, M.C.; Castelain, M.; et al. Outbreak of contact sensitization to methylisothiazolinone: An analysis of French data from the REVIDAL-GERDA network. Cont. Derm. 2014, 70, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Isaksson, M.; Hauksson, I.; Hindsén, M.; Pontén, A.; Svedman, C.; Bruze, M. Methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy is Rising to Alarming Heights Also in Southern Sweden. Acta Derm. Venereol. 2015, 95, 31–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Admani, S.; Matiz, C.; Jacob, S.E. Methylisothiazolinone: A case of perianal dermatitis caused by wet wipes and review of an emerging pediatric allergen. Pediatr. Dermatol. 2014, 31, 350–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Madsen, J.T.; Andersen, K.E. Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by methylisothiazolinone in a child sensitized from wet wipes. Cont. Derm. 2014, 70, 183–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Chang, M.W.; Nakrani, R. Six children with allergic contact dermatitis to methylisothiazolinone in wet wipes (baby wipes). Pediatrics 2014, 133, 434–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Foote, C.A.; Brady, S.P.; Brady, K.L.; Clark, N.S.; Mercurio, M.G. Vulvar dermatitis from allergy to moist flushable wipes. J. Low Genit. Tract. Dis. 2014, 18, 16–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Boyapati, A.; Tam, M.; Tate, B.; Lee, A.; Palmer, A.; Nixon, R. Allergic contact dermatitis to methylisothiazolinone: Exposure from baby wipes causing hand dermatitis. Australas. J. Dermatol. 2013, 54, 264–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Griffin, V. Formaldehyde: Hazard alert on a possible human carcinogen. Qld. Nurse 1990, 9, 14–15. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  62. Blackwell, M.; Kang, H.; Thomas, A.; Infante, P. Formaldehyde: Evidence of carcinogenicity. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1981, 42, 34–46. [Google Scholar]
  63. Swenberg, J.A.; Moeller, B.C.; Lu, K.; Rager, J.E.; Fry, R.C.; Starr, T.B. Formaldehyde carcinogenicity research: 30 years and counting for mode of action, epidemiology, and cancer risk assessment. Toxicol. Pathol. 2013, 41, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Cosmetics in 2015
Previous
High Performance Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry Measurement of Bimatoprost, Latanoprost and Travoprost in Eyelash Enhancing Cosmetic Serums
Next