SCCS/1459/11

Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety
SCCS

OPINIONon
Fragrance allergens in cosmetic products

The SCCS adopted this opinion at its 15th plenary meetingof 26-27 June 2012

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

About the Scientific Committees
Three independent non-food Scientific Committees provide the Commission with thescientific advice it needs when preparing policy and proposals relating to consumer safety,
public health and the environment. The Committees also draw the Commission's attention
to the new or emerging problems which may pose an actual or potential threat.
They are: the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), the Scientific Committee
on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and
Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) and are made up of external experts.
In addition, the Commission relies upon the work of the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Centre for Disease prevention
and Control (ECDC) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
SCCSThe Committee shall provide opinions on questions concerning all types of health and safety
risks (notably chemical, biological, mechanical and other physical risks) of non-foodconsumer products (for example: cosmetic products and their ingredients, toys, textiles,
clothing, personal care and household products such as detergents, etc.) and services (forexample: tattooing, artificial sun tanning, etc.).
Scientific Committee members
Jürgen Angerer, Ulrike Bernauer, Claire Chambers, Qasim Chaudhry, Gisela Degen, Elsa
Nielsen, Thomas Platzek, Suresh Chandra Rastogi, Vera Rogiers, Christophe Rousselle, Tore
Sanner, Jan van Benthem, Jacqueline van Engelen, Maria Pilar Vinardell, Rosemary Waring,
Ian R. White
Contact
European Commission
Health & Consumers
Directorate D: Health Systems and Products
Unit D5 - Risk Assessment
Office: B232
B-1049 Brussels
Sanco-SCCS-Secretariat@ec.europa.eu© European Union, 2011ISSN 1831-4767
Doi:10.2772/77628

ISBN 978-92-79-30752-2
ND-AQ-12-002-EN-N

The opinions of the Scientific Committees present the views of the independent scientists
who are members of the committees. They do not necessarily reflect the views of theEuropean Commission. The opinions are published by the European Commission in their
original language only.
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/index_en.htm

2SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Acknowledgements
Dr. C. Chambers
Dr. Q. ChaudryDr. S.C. Rastogi
Dr. I.R. White(chairman)

External experts
Prof.. A. Börje
Prof. J. D. Johansen
Prof. A-T. Karlberg
Prof. C. Lidén
Dr. D.W. Roberts
Prof. W. Uter

Keywords:

University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Karolinska Institutet, Sweden
Liverpool John Moores University, UK(rapporteur) Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU),
Germany

Erlangen,

SCCS, scientific opinion, labelling, fragrance allergens, directive 76/768/ECC

Opinion to be cited as: SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), opinion on
fragrance allergens in cosmetic products, 26-27 June 20123

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table of contents
Acknowledgements................................................................................................... 3
Table of contents ..................................................................................................... 4
Summary ................................................................................................................ 7
1.

Background ...................................................................................................... 92.

Terms of reference........................................................................................... 10

3.

Introduction.................................................................................................... 11

4.

Clinical aspects of contact allergy to fragrance ingredients ..................................... 12
4.1.

Spectrum of reactions ................................................................................. 12

4.1.1.

Allergic contact dermatitis ..................................................................... 12

4.1.2.

Irritant reactions (including contact urticaria) ........................................... 14

4.1.3.

Pigmentary anomalies........................................................................... 14

4.1.4.

Photo-reactions.................................................................................... 14

4.1.5.

General/respiratory .............................................................................. 14

4.2.

Patch testing ............................................................................................. 15

4.3.

Epidemiology of fragrance allergy ................................................................. 15

4.3.1.

Substances used for screening of contact allergy to fragrance ingredients .... 15

4.3.2.

Clinical epidemiology ............................................................................ 16

4.3.3.

Population-based epidemiology .............................................................. 23

4.4. Consumer products as a cause of fragrance contact sensitisation and allergic
contact dermatitis ............................................................................................... 25
4.4.1.

Clinical relevance ................................................................................. 25

4.4.2.

Elicitation with clinical symptoms/signs, current and past........................... 26

4.4.3.

Elicitation in diagnostic patch tests without clinical history.......................... 28

4.5.

Socio-economic impact of contact allergy....................................................... 29

4.5.1.

Health related quality of life ................................................................... 29

4.5.2.

Occupational restrictions ....................................................................... 29

4.5.3.

Costs to health care/health economics .................................................... 29

4.6.

Allergen avoidance ..................................................................................... 30

4.6.1. Primary prevention: limiting or eliminating exposure to allergens in the
population ...................................................................................................... 30
4.6.2. Secondary prevention: avoiding re-exposure to (a) specific sensitiser(s) inclinically diagnosed individuals........................................................................... 30
4.7.

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 32

5. Activation of weak or non-sensitising substances into sensitisers - prehaptens andprohaptens............................................................................................................ 33

6.

5.1.

Prehaptens................................................................................................ 33

5.2.

Prohaptens................................................................................................ 37

5.3.

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 39

Retrieval of evidence and classification of fragrance substances.............................. 40
6.1.

Retrieval of evidence .................................................................................. 40
4

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

6.1.1.

Search strategy for clinical data ............................................................. 40

6.1.2.

Collection of experimental (LLNA) data .................................................... 41

6.2.

Grading of evidence.................................................................................... 41

6.2.1.

Quality of a clinical study....................................................................... 41

6.2.2.

Quality of an experimental study ............................................................ 42

6.2.3.

Quality of “other” evidence .................................................................... 42

6.3.

Aggregating evidence for a final conclusion .................................................... 42

6.3.1.

Established contact allergen in humans ................................................... 42

6.3.2.

Established contact allergen in animals.................................................... 43

6.3.3.

Likely contact allergen, if human, animal and other evidence is considered ... 43

6.3.4.

Possible contact allergen, if human, animal and other evidence is considered 43

6.4.
7.

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 44

Reported fragrance allergens from the clinical perspective ..................................... 45
7.1.

Tabular summary of evaluated individual fragrance chemicals........................... 45

7.2.

Tabular summary of evaluated natural extracts/essential oils ........................... 53

7.3.

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 57

8.

Animal data .................................................................................................... 58
8.1.

Predictive tests and sensitising potency categories .......................................... 58

8.1.1.

LLNA data ........................................................................................... 59

8.1.2.

LLNA data on oxidised fragrance substances ............................................ 61

8.2.

Methodological considerations ...................................................................... 62

8.3.

Summary of animal data by LLNA ................................................................. 63

8.4.

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 64

9. Structure activity relationships (SAR): grouping of substances based on expert
judgement ............................................................................................................ 66
9.1.

General results .......................................................................................... 71

9.2.

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 71

10.

Exposure ..................................................................................................... 72

10.1.

Concentrations and quantities used............................................................ 72

10.2.

Global exposure (household and occupational exposures) ............................. 81

10.3.

Exposures related to particular anatomical sites........................................... 84

10.4.

Conclusion ............................................................................................. 86

11.

Dose-response relationships and thresholds ...................................................... 87

11.1.

Induction ............................................................................................... 87

11.2.

Elicitation............................................................................................... 88

11.2.1.

General considerations....................................................................... 88

11.2.2.

Studies on specific fragrance ingredients .............................................. 90

11.3.

Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC)................................ 98

11.4.

Conclusion ........................................................................................... 101

12.

Data gaps and research needed .................................................................... 103

12.1.

Clinical and epidemiological research ....................................................... 103
5

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

12.2.
13.

Non-human studies ............................................................................... 104

Opinion...................................................................................................... 105

13.1.

Question 1 ........................................................................................... 106

Conclusions - Question 1 ................................................................................ 114
13.2.

Question 2 ........................................................................................... 115

Conclusions - Question 2 ................................................................................ 116
13.3.

Question 3 ........................................................................................... 117

Conclusions - Question 3 ................................................................................ 119
14.

List of abbreviations .................................................................................... 121

15.

References ................................................................................................. 123

Annex I - Catalgoue of fragrance allergens............................................................... 141
Single chemicals ............................................................................................... 142
Catalogue of single chemicals evaluated ............................................................... 146
Natural extracts / essential oils ........................................................................... 237
Catalogue of natural extracts / essential oils evaluated........................................... 238
References....................................................................................................... 277
Annex II - Animal Data ......................................................................................... 293
References....................................................................................................... 309
Annex III - Tabular summary of dose-elicitation studies in sensitised patients............... 315
Chloroatranol ................................................................................................... 316
Cinnamal ......................................................................................................... 318
Hydroxycitronellal ............................................................................................. 321
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde (HICC) .......................................... 323
Isoeugenol ....................................................................................................... 329
References....................................................................................................... 333

6SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Summary
Contact allergy to fragrance ingredients may develop following skin contact with a sufficientamount of these substances, often through the use of cosmetic products. Contact allergy is
an altered specific reactivity in the immune system, which entails recognition of thefragrance allergen(s) in question by immune cells. Contact allergy, which per se is a latentcondition, i.e. without visible signs or symptoms, persists lifelong. Upon each re-exposure to
sufficient amounts of the allergen(s) eczema develops (allergic contact dermatitis), which
typically will involve the face, the armpits and/or the hand(s). The disease can be severe
and generalised, with a significant impairment of quality of life and potential consequences
for fitness for work.
Around 16% of eczema patients in the European population are sensitised to fragrance
ingredients. From studies performed on sectors of the population it can be estimated thatthe frequency of contact allergy to fragrance ingredients in the general population in Europe
is 1-3%. The overall trend of fragrance allergy has been stable during the last 10 years, assome causes of fragrance allergy have decreased and others increased.
Most individuals with contact allergy to fragrance ingredients are aware that they cannot
tolerate scented products on their skin and are often able to specifically name productcategories that initiated their disease. In this context colognes, eau de toilette, deodorants
and lotions are named significantly more often by fragrance allergic eczema patients thanby patients without fragrance contact allergy.
Commercially available fragrances and other scented cosmetic products can provoke allergic
contact dermatitis under patch test as well as simulated use conditions.
Appropriate diagnostic procedures and patient information are cornerstones in secondary
prevention of contact allergy. The SCCNFP identified in 1999 a set of 26 fragrance allergens
with a well-recognised potential to cause allergy, for which information should be provided
to consumers about their presence in cosmetic products.
This listing has shown to be important in the clinical management of patients who areallergic to one or more of these 26 fragrance chemicals. Listing of the 26 fragrances has
also been shown to be beneficial for patients with contact allergy to one or more of thefragrance chemicals, because these are identified on the ingredient listings of cosmetic
products, and can thus be avoided.
The present opinion updates the SCCNFP opinion with a systematic and critical review of thescientific literature to identify fragrance allergens, including natural extracts, relevant to
consumers. Clinical, epidemiological and experimental studies were evaluated, as well as
modelling studies performed, to establish lists of (i) established fragrance allergens, (ii)likely fragrance allergens and (iii) possible fragrance allergens.
The studies since the SCCNFP Opinion on fragrance allergy in consumers confirm that thefragrance allergens identified by SCCNFP in 1999 are still relevant fragrance allergens for
consumers from their exposure to cosmetic products. The review of the clinical andexperimental data published since then shows that many more fragrance substances havebeen shown to be sensitisers in humans. Based on the clinical experience alone, 82
substances can be classified as established contact allergens in humans, 54 single chemicals
and 28 natural extracts. Of these, 12 chemicals and 8 natural extracts were found to pose ahigh risk of sensitisation to the consumer, considering the high number of reported cases.
In particular one ingredient stood out, hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde,
having been the cause of more than 1500 reported cases since the 1999 opinion.
Moreover, animal experiments indicate that additional fragrance substances can be
expected to be contact allergens in humans, although human evidence is currently lacking.
Additionally, limited in vivo evidence together with Structure-Activity Relationship analysis
suggests that other fragrance ingredients may also be a cause of concern with regard totheir potential of causing contact allergy in humans.
The review also lists fragrance substances that can act as prehaptens or prohaptens,
forming new or more potent allergens by air oxidation and/or metabolic activation. Such
7

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

activation processes are of concern as they increase the risk of sensitisation and also therisk for cross reactivity between fragrance substances. In addition to known prehapten
fragrance substances, the SCCS performed SAR analyses to identify fragrance substanceswith structural alerts that indicate that they are possible prehaptens. While in the case ofprohaptens the possibility of becoming activated is inherent to the molecule and cannot be
avoided, the activation of prehaptens can be prevented by appropriate measures.
The SCCS examined available elicitation dose-response data to decide whether safe
thresholds can be established for the fragrance allergens of concern, i.e. those found topose a high risk of sensitisation to consumers. The SCCS considers that thresholds based on
elicitation levels in sensitised individuals will be sufficiently low to protect both the majority
of sensitised individuals as well as most of the non-sensitised consumers from developing
contact allergy. As data from human dose elicitation experiments are very limited in several
respects, no levels that could be considered safe for the majority of contact allergic
consumers could be established for individual substances. The studies available, however,indicate that a general level of exposure of up to 0.8 µg/cm² (0.01% in cosmetic products)
may be tolerated by most consumers, including these with contact allergy to fragrance
allergens. The SCCS is of the opinion that this level of exposure (up to 0.01%) would suffice
to prevent elicitation for the majority of allergic individuals, unless there is experimental or
clinical substance-specific data allowing the derivation of individual thresholds.
It was not possible to provide a safe threshold for natural extracts of concern, as no specificinvestigations exist and the model providing the general threshold (0.01%) has been basedon individual chemicals only. However the SCCS considers that the maximum use
concentration applies to the identified chemicals both if added as chemicals or as an
identified constituent of a natural ingredient. This will also reduce the risk of sensitisationand elicitation from natural extracts.
The suggested general threshold, although limiting the problem of fragrance allergy in the
consumer significantly, would not preclude that the most sensitive segment of the
population may react upon exposure to these levels and does not remove the necessity forproviding information to the consumer concerning the presence of the listed fragrance
substance in cosmetics.
In the case of hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, the SCCP had recommended
limiting the concentration in cosmetics to 200 ppm. Recent voluntary restrictions(recommendations to lower use concentrations, at least for some product types, to the levelrecommended by the SCCS in 2003) are not reflected in available evidence and areconsidered insufficient. The SCCS considers that the number of cases of HICC allergy
documented over the last decade is exceptionally high and that continued exposure to HICC
by the consumer is not considered safe, even at concentrations as low as 200 ppm.
Therefore, HICC should not be used in consumer products in order to prevent further casesof contact allergy to HICC and to limit the consequences to those who already have become
sensitized.
The SCCP concluded in 2004 that chloroatranol and atranol, the main allergenic constituentsof Evernia prunastri and Evernia furfuracea, should not be present in products for the
consumer. The persistently high frequency of contact allergy to Evernia prunastri andEvernia furfuracea noted in eczema patients does point to a persisting problem with
exposure to the allergenic constituents. The SCCS is of the opinion that the presence of thetwo constituents, chloroatranol and atranol, in cosmetic products are not safe.

8

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

1.

BackgroundAs a result of the public consultation on perfumery materials, which ended on 27 January
2007, there were further requests and information on important and/or frequently usedallergens other than those proposed for regulation, such as farnesol, citral, linalool andhydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde. These substances were not part of theconsultation, but they all belong to the 26 fragrance substances which should be labelledwhen present in cosmetic products under certain conditions.
The 26 fragrance substances were introduced into annex III of the Cosmetics Directive by
the 7th amendment (2003/15/EC) on the basis of the SCCNFP draft opinion(SCCNFP/0017/98) published on 30 September 1999 for public consultation and the final
opinion adopted by the SCCNFP during the plenary session of 8 December 1999.
Thirteen of the allergenic fragrance substances listed in this opinion have been frequently
reported as well-recognised contact allergens in consumers and are thus of most concern;
11 others are less well documented. See the lists below from the opinion.
List A:

Fragrance chemicals, which according to existing knowledge, are most frequently
reported and well-recognised consumer allergens.

Common name

CAS number

Amyl cinnamal
Amylcinnamyl alcohol
Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl salicylate
Cinnamyl alcohol
CinnamalCitralCoumarin
Eugenol
GeraniolHydroxycitronellal
Hydroxymethylpentyl-cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde
Isoeugenol

122-40-7
101-85-9
100-51-6
118-58-1
104-54-1
104-55-2
5392-40-5
91-64-5
97-53-0
106-24-1
107-75-531906-04-4
97-54-1

List B: Fragrance chemicals, which are less frequently reported and thus less documented
as consumer allergens.
Common name

CAS number

Anisyl alcohol
105-13-5
Benzyl benzoate
120-51-4
Benzyl cinnamate
103-41-3
Citronellol
106-22-9
Farnesol4602-84-0
Hexyl cinnamaldehyde
101-86-0
Lilial80-54-6d-Limonene
5989-27-5
Linalool
78-70-6
Methyl heptine carbonate
111-12-6
3-Methyl-4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3-buten-2-one127-51-5

9

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Furthermore, two fragrances (natural mixtures) were added
Common name

CAS number

Oak moss
Tree moss

90028-68-5
90028-67-4

At the time there were insufficient scientific data to allow for the determination of doseresponse relationships and/or thresholds for these allergens. Nevertheless, in a pragmatic
administrative decision the limits of 0.01 and 0.001% were set, for rinse-off and leave-on
products respectively.
Scientific information of both a general and a specific nature has been submitted to DG
ENTR in order to ask the SCCS for a revision of the 26 fragrances with respect to further
restrictions and possible even delisting.
2.

Terms of reference

1.

Does the SCCS still consider that the fragrance allergens currently listed in Annex III,
entries 67-92, for labelling purposes represent those fragrance ingredients that theconsumer needs to be made aware of when present in cosmetic products?

2.

Can the SCCS establish any threshold for their safe use based on the available
scientific data?

3.

Can the SCCS identify substances where processes (e.g. metabolism, oxidation andhydrolysis) may lead to cross-reactivity and new allergens which are relevant for theprotection of the consumer?

10

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

3.

Introduction

Fragrance ingredientsFragrance and flavour substances are organic compounds with characteristic, usuallypleasant, odours. They are ubiquitously used in perfumes and other perfumed cosmetic
products, but also in detergents, fabric softeners, and other household products wherefragrance may be used to mask unpleasant odours from raw materials. Flavourings are usedin foods, beverages, and dental products. Fragrance substances are also used inaromatherapy and may be present in herbal products, and used as topical medicaments fortheir antiseptic properties.
Contact allergy to fragrance ingredients occurs when an individual has been exposed, on theskin, to a suffcient degree of fragrance contact allergens. Contact allergy is a life-long,specifically altered reactivity in the immune system. This means that once contact allergy isdeveloped, cells in the immune system will be present which can recognise and react
towards the allergen. As a consequence, symptoms, i.e. allergic contact dermatitis, may
occur upon re-exposure to the fragrance allergen(s) in question. Allergic contact dermatitis
is an inflammatory skin disease characterised by erythema, swelling and vesicles in theacute phase. If exposure continues it may develop into a chronic condition with scaling andpainful fissures of the skin. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrance ingredients is most oftencaused by cosmetic products and usually involves the face and/or hands. It may affectfitness for work and the quality of life of the individual.
Fragrance contact allergy has long been recognised as a frequent and potentially disabelingproblem. Prevention is possible as it is an environmetal disease and if the environment is
modified (e.g. by reduced use concentrations of allergens), the disease frequency andseverity will decrease. Ingredient information is a cornerstone in the prevention of allergic
contact dermatitis, as knowledge about the allergens which a patient has been exposed to is
crucial for including the right substances in the allergy test, and for subsequent information
on avoidance of re-exposure. However, the labelling rules in the Cosmetics Directive
76/768/EEC stipulated that perfume and aromatic compositions and their raw materials
shall be referred to by the word “perfume” or “aroma”, rather than being labelledindividually. This is the reason why the SCCNFP in their opinion SCCNFP/0017/98 (1)identified 26 fragrance allergens for which information should be provided to consumers
concerning their presence in cosmetic products. This was implemented in the Cosmetics
Directive as individual ingredient labelling of the 26 fragrance allergens (Annex III, entries
67-92). However, safe use concentrations of these fragrances in cosmetic products had not
yet been determined and much new evidence concerning fragrance allergy has been
published since the 1999 opinion. The present request to review the list of recognised
fragrance allergens which the consumer needs to be made aware of, to indicate thresholds
for their safe use and to consider possible modification of allergens by metabolism andautoxidation, required a thorough review of all relevant scientific data. This includes bothpublished scientific literature as well as unpublished scientific information on fragrancesfrom the industry. The International Fragrance Association (IFRA), as representative of thefragrance industry, was contacted to provide relevant unpublished scientific data on
fragrance ingredients. This information, together with the up-to-date published scientific
literature, has been critically reviewed for the present SCCS opinion. The relevant data gaps
are identified and recommendations for research addressing these gaps are made.

11

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

4.

Clinical aspects of contact allergy to fragrance ingredients
4.1.

Spectrum of reactions

Adverse reactions to fragrances in perfumes and in fragranced cosmetic products include
allergic contact dermatitis, irritant contact dermatitis, photosensitivity, immediate contact
reactions (contact urticaria), and pigmented contact dermatitis. Airborne and connubial
contact dermatitis occur.
4.1.1.

Allergic contact dermatitis

Mechanism
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) depends primarily on the activation of allergen-specific Tcells. In allergic contact dermatitis, a distinction is made between induction (sensitisation)and elicitation phases. A useful review is available (2).
The induction phase includes the events following initial contact with the allergen and iscomplete when the individual is sensitised and capable of giving a positive allergic contact
dermatitis reaction.
The elicitation phase begins upon re-exposure to the allergen (challenge) and results inclinical manifestation of allergic contact dermatitis.
The entire process of the induction phase requires ca. 10 days to several weeks, whereas an
elicitation phase reaction develops within 1–2 days.
Most contact allergens are small, chemically reactive compounds. As these compounds are
too small to be directly immunogenic, they act as haptens; i.e. they react with higher
molecular weight epidermal and/or dermal biomolecules to form immunogenic adducts. It is
usually considered that the biomolecules involved are free or membrane bound proteins,which react via nucleophilic thiol, amino, and hydroxyl groups.
Dendritic cells (DCs) and the local tissue microenvironment are crucial factors in thedevelopment of ACD. Langerhans cells (LCs), as epidermal DCs, and dermal DCs are pivotal
for the sensitisation and the elicitation phases of ACD. During sensitisation, DCs react with
the immunogenic complexes by interaction with neighbouring keratinocytes, migration to
the local draining lymph nodes and the priming of naïve T-cells. These reactions are
mediated by inflammatory cytokines, chemokines and adhesion molecules. Antigen specificeffector T-cells are then recruited into the skin upon contact with the same hapten(elicitation). Following their recruitment these T-cells are activated by antigen-presenting
skin cells, including LCs, dermal DCs and keratinocytes, and macrophages.
Although most allergens can form hapten–carrier complexes directly, some need activation,e.g. by enzyme-induced metabolic conversion or abiotic oxidation. Such compounds are
termed prohaptens and prehaptens, respectively, and are discussed in more detail inchapter 5. Well known examples of prehaptens and prohaptens are limonene and eugenol.
Reduced enzyme activity in certain individuals, related to genetic enzyme polymorphisms,
may give an increased or reduced risk of sensitisation to prohaptens (that need enzymatic
activation) in certain individuals or populations.
Once sensitised, individuals can develop allergic contact dermatitis upon re-exposure to thecontact allergen. Positive patch test reactions mimic this process of allergen-specific skinhyper-sensitivity. Skin contact induces an inflammatory reaction that is maximal within 2–3
days and, without further allergen supply, then declines.
Overview of clinical features
Perfumes and deodorants are the most frequent sources of sensitisation to fragrance
ingredients in women, while aftershave products and deodorants are most often responsible
in men (3). Thereafter, eczema may appear or be worsened by contact with other12

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

fragranced products such as cosmetics, toiletries, household products, industrial contacts
and flavourings.
Contact allergy to a particular product or chemical is established by means of diagnostic
patch testing. When patients with suspected allergic cosmetic dermatitis are investigated,fragrances are identified as the most frequent allergens, not only in perfumes, after-shavesand deodorants, but also in other cosmetic products. Evaluation of perfume allergy may bedifficult; a perfume compound may consist of ten to > 300 basic components selected fromabout 2500 materials.
Between 6 and 14% of patients routinely tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis
react to a standard indicator of fragrance allergy, the Fragrance Mix I (4), see also chapter
4.3.2. When tested with ten popular perfumes, 6.9% of female eczema patients proved to
be allergic to them (5) and 3.2–4.2% were allergic to fragrances from perfumes present invarious cosmetic products (6). The finding of a positive reaction to the Fragrance Mix I
should be followed by a search for its relevance, i.e. is fragrance allergy the cause of thepatient’s current or previous complaints, or does it at least contribute to it? Between 50 and
65% of all positive patch test reactions to the mix are relevant. Sometimes, correlation withthe clinical picture is lacking and many patients appear to tolerate perfumes and fragranced
products without problems (7). This may be explained by: a) irritant (false-positive) patch
test reactions to the mix; b) the absence of relevant allergens in those products; and c) theconcentration being too low to elicit clinically visible allergic contact reactions. Contact
allergy to fragrances often causes dermatitis of the hands (and aggravation of), face andneck, axillae and patches in areas where perfumes are dabbed on such as behind the ears,
upper chest, elbow flexures and wrists. Depending on the degree of sensitivity andexposure, the severity of dermatitis may range from mild to severe with dissemination (8)[pp 158–170].
Clinical studies have shown a highly significant association between reporting a history ofvisible skin symptoms from using scented products and a positive patch test to the
Fragrance Mix I (9). Provocation studies with perfumes and deodorants have also shownthat fragrance-mix-positive eczema patients often react to use-tests with the products.
Subsequent chemical analysis of such products has detected significant amounts of one ormore Fragrance Mix I ingredients, confirming the relevance of positive patch tests to the
Fragrance Mix I in these patients (5, 10).
Hands
Contact sensitisation may be the primary cause of hand eczema, or may be a complicationof irritant or atopic hand eczema. The number of positive patch tests has been reported tocorrelate with the duration of hand eczema, indicating that long-standing hand eczema may
often be complicated by sensitisation (11). The most common contact allergies in patientswith hand eczema are metals, the Fragrance Mix, Myroxylon pereirae, and colophonium(12).
Fragrance allergy may be a relevant problem in patients with hand eczema; perfumes arepresent in consumer products to which their hands are exposed (13). A significant
relationship between hand eczema and fragrance contact allergy has been found in somestudies based on patients investigated for contact allergy (14). However, hand eczema is amulti-factorial disease and the clinical significance of fragrance contact allergy in (severe)chronic hand eczema may not be clear. A review on the subject has been published (15).
Axillae
Bilateral axillary dermatitis may be caused by perfume in deodorants and, if the reaction issevere, it may spread down the arms and to other areas of the body (8) [pp 158–170]. In
individuals who consulted a dermatologist, a history of such first-time symptoms was
significantly related to the later diagnosis of perfume allergy (9).
13

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Face
Facial eczema is an important manifestation of fragrance allergy from the use of cosmetic
products (16). In men, aftershave products can cause an eczematous eruption of the beard
area and the adjacent part of the neck (8) [pp 158–170], and men using wet shaving as
opposed to dry have been shown to have an increased risk of 2.9 of being fragrance allergic(17).
4.1.2.

Irritant reactions (including contact urticaria)

Irritant effects of some individual fragrance ingredients, e.g. citral (18, 19), are known.
Irritant contact dermatitis from perfumes is believed to be common, but there are no
exisiting investigations to substantiate this (7). Many more people complain about
intolerance or rashes to perfumes/perfumed products than are shown to be allergic bytesting (9). This may be due to irritant effects or inadequate diagnostic procedures.
Fragrances may cause a dose-related contact urticaria of the non-immunological type(irritant contact urticaria). Cinnamal, cinnamic alcohol, and Myroxylon pereirae are wellrecognised causes of contact urticaria, but others, including menthol, vanillin andbenzaldehyde have also been reported (20). The reactions to Myroxylon pereirae may be
due to cinnamates (21).
A relationship to delayed contact hypersensitivity was suggested (22), but no significant
difference was found between a fragrance-allergic group and a control group in thefrequency of immediate reactions to fragrance ingredients (20), in keeping with a nonimmunological basis for the reactions seen.
4.1.3.

Pigmentary anomalies

The term “pigmented cosmetic dermatitis” was introduced in 1973 for what had previously
been known as melanosis faciei feminae when the mechanism (type IV allergy) andcausative allergens were clarified (23). It refers to increased pigmentation, usually on theface/neck, often following sub-clinical contact dermatitis. Many cosmetic ingredients werepatch tested at non-irritant concentrations and statistical evaluation showed that a numberof fragrance ingredients were associated: jasmine absolute, ylang-ylang oil, cananga oil,benzyl salicylate, hydroxycitronellal, sandalwood oil, geraniol, geranium oil (24).
4.1.4.

Photo-reactions

Musk ambrette produced a considerable number of allergic photocontact reactions (in which
UV-light is required) in the 1970s (25) and was later banned from use in the EU. Nowadays,
photoallergic contact dermatitis is uncommon (26). Furocoumarins (psoralens) in someplant-derived fragrance ingredients caused phototoxic reactions with erythema followed byhyperpigmentation resulting in Berloque dermatitis (8) [pp 417–432]. There are now limits
for the amount of furoumarins in fragrance products. Phototoxic reactions still occur but are
rare (27).
4.1.5.

General/respiratory

Fragrances are volatile and therefore, in addition to skin exposure, a perfume also exposes
the eyes and naso-respiratory tract. It is estimated that 2–4% of the adult population isaffected by respiratory or eye symptoms by such an exposure (28). It is known that
exposure to fragrances may exacerbate pre-existing asthma (29). Asthma-like symptoms
can be provoked by sensory mechanisms (30). In an epidemiological investigation, asignificant association was found between respiratory complaints related to fragrances andcontact allergy to fragrance ingredients, in addition to hand eczema, which wereindependent risk factors in a multivariate analysis (31).
14

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

4.2.

Patch testing

The diagnosis of contact sensitisation (or contactc allergy – regarded here as synonymous)as the immunological alteration underlying allergic contact dermatitis is made by patch
testing. This diagnostic tool involves the standardised application of small doses of a set of
potential or individually suspected allergens for a period of 1 day or, mostly, 2 days. In thefollowing days, exposed skin sites are checked for the occurrence of allergic reactions,which morphologically mimick allergic contact dermatitis occurring elsewhere, after
exposure to culprit products. International guidelines for the application, reading andinterpretation of the patch test exist (32). The present brief secion does not intend toreiterate all technical and scientific aspects, but to outline some aspects of diagnostic patch
testing which are often misunderstood (for a recent comment see also (33)).
•

The patch test identifies whether the patient has contact allergy to a substance, butcannot contribute information on the clinical relevance of that contact allergy for theeczema that led to consultation and to patch testing (see 4.4.1).

•

Exposure conditions of the patch test (one-time, prolonged occlusive application,
usually in petrolatum or water, of a single substance) have been optimised to achive
above diagnostic aim, and thereby have nothing in common with exposures whichlead to sensitisation and elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis. These are normallyrepetitive, often over weeks, months or years, non-occlusive, and to much lower
concentrations and doses/area, respectively, but possibly on damaged or inflamedskin. In fact, the repeated open application test (ROAT), which is sometimes used
after a positive patch test of uncertain validity to verify that contact allergy indeed
exists mimicks these day-to-day exposure conditions, and typically involves single
dosings which are a small fraction of the one-time patch test dose (see 11).

•

It is self-evident that such (repeated, low-level) exposures must have occurred andhave culminated in an adaptive immune response – therefore it is axiomatic that thesubstance involved is a skin sensitiser in humans (33).

•

Repeated patch testing, which is a relatively rare event, does not contributesignificantly to contact allergy (to fragrance allergens).

•

Most allergen test preparations, and certainly those that are included in international
baseline series, have evolved from studies critically (re-) appraising their diagnostic
validity, i.e., sensitivity and specificity. Notwithstanding this, false-positive and falsenegative reactions do occur (as with any diagnostic tool). While in the individual casesuch diagnostic misclassification may have unfortunate consequences, it will hardly
impair epidemiological estimates of contact allergy frequency – at least as long as areasonable balance between false-positive and false-negative reactions is achieved.

4.3.

Epidemiology of fragrance allergy

4.3.1.

Substances used for screening of contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients

A fragrance formula may consist of ten to 300 or more different ingredients. The CosIng
database lists 2587 ingredients used for perfuming1, as well as several other materials
classified as odour “masking” agents, which is equivalent with regard to allergy. A mixtureof seven fragrance chemicals and one natural extract, which have been identified as major
fragrance allergens in the past (34), are used for diagnosing contact allergy to fragrance1

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.results&function=66&search, lastaccessed 2009-10-14.

15

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

ingredients (Table 4-1). This mixture is called the Fragrance Mix (FM I) and is included in
the standard patch test tray containing the most common allergens in Europe.
Table 4-1: Ingredients of Fragrance Mix I (FM I; 8% allergens in petrolatum).
Single constituent: INCI name (common name)Conc. (%)

Amyl cinnamal (alpha-amyl cinnamal)

1

Cinnamyl alcohol (cinnamic alcohol)

1

Cinnamal (cinnamic aldehyde)

1Eugenol

1

Geraniol1

Hydroxycitronellal

1

Isoeugenol

1

Oak moss absolute (a natural extract; INCI: Evernia prunastri)1

Sorbitan sesquioleate (added as an emulsifier)

5

Note:

All single allergens of the above, when used for breakdown testing, are also in petrolatum.

However, due to the introduction of new fragrance ingredients (with allergenic potential),
the above Fragrance Mix I was deemed not to be sufficient for the diagnosis of fragrance
allergy. Thus, Fragrance Mix II was devised to supplement Fragrance Mix I in a European
multicentre study (35, 36). Since then, FM II has been included in the European baseline
series. Table 4-2 lists the ingredients of FM II. In addition to being tested in FM II,
hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) is also tested separately at 5% test
concentration in the baseline series (37).
Table 4-2: Ingredients of Fragrance Mix II (FM II; 14% allergens in petrolatum).
Single constituent: INCI name (common name)Conc. (%)

Citronellol

0.5

Citral1

Coumarin

2.5

Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC)

2.5

Farnesol

2.5

Alpha-hexyl-cinnamal

5

Note:

All single allergens of the above, when used for breakdown testing, are also in petrolatum.

Patch test results in patients and in population samples with these two screening mixes, andsingle allergens, will be presented and discussed in the following two sections.
4.3.2.

Clinical epidemiology

For a number of reasons the bulk of the evidence regarding the frequency of contact allergy
to fragrance ingredients relies on clinical data, i.e. the history, clinical presentation and test
results of patients patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis – in general, andnot specifically due to fragrance ingredients. The frequency of contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients (or other contact allergies, for that matter) cannot be related to the population
16

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

directly, as it is derived from a subgroup (of patients) selected for specific morbidity.
Nevertheless, these data can be examined epidemiologically assuming a largely similar
selection process: (i) across time in a given department; and (ii) between departments at
any point of time. If the notion of similarity, and thus direct comparability, does not appear
valid, adjustment or standardisation techniques can be employed to account for differences,e.g. the average age of patients in a time series on a (fragrance) allergen with ageassociated risk of sensitisation. In this situation, changes in the age composition of thepatients tested may confound a time trend. A distinction must be made between patch
testing “consecutive” patients, i.e. all patients who are patch tested for suspected contact
sensitisation, and “aimed” patch testing, i.e. application of allergens only in the subset ofpatients in whom exposure to the particular allergens of the applied “special series” issuspected. For any given allergen, the latter “aimed” approach will usually yield higher
sensitisation prevalences than the testing of not-further-selected “consecutive” patients.
Thus, information on the inclusion of an allergen either in a baseline series (tested in
virtually all patients) or in a special series (applied in an aimed fashion) must be considered
and is given in the following tables, where available in the cited references.
Notwithstanding the potential pitfalls of clinical data, they have proven useful in identifying
emerging trends or persisting problems, and also in evaluating the effect of preventive
action – either regarding the entire population, or subgroups thereof, such as certain
occupations. Regarding the fragrance mixes (FM I and FM II) mentioned above, evidence
regarding sensitisation frequencies published since 1999 will be outlined below, thus
supplementing the data presented in the SCCNFP opinion on Fragrance Allergy in 1999 (1).

17

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Fragrance Mix I (“Larsen Mix”)
Table 4-3: Results with screening agents for contact allergy to fragrance ingredients reported since1999 in patients patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis in Europe: Fragrance Mix “I”(see Table 4-1). If not given in the publication, the confidence interval (CI) was calculated from theabsolute numbers by the SCCS (§).
Country (Ref.)

Population

Year(s)No. tested

Crude % positive(95% CI)

Sweden (38)Consecutive
patients

2000

3790

6.9

Hungary (39)

1998-1999

3604

8.2
(7.3–9.1)§

Czech Republic (40)1997-2001

12058

5.8
(5.4–6.2)§

Consecutive
patients

1989-1998

6129

5.9
(5.3–6.5)§

Germany (42)Consecutive IVDK
patients

1996-2002

59298

11.3
(11.0–11.5)§

Germany (43)Consecutive IVDK
patients

2005-2008

36961

7.3
(7.0–7.6)§

Consecutive
patients of one
clinic1997-2000

2660

9.1
(8.1–10.3)§

Groningen,
Netherlands (44)Patients (fragrance
allergy suspected)

04/200506/2007

295

5.8
(3.4–9.1)§

The Netherlands(45)

Consecutive
patients

09/199804/1999

1825

10.6
(9.2–12.1)

The Netherlands(46)

Patients (cosmetic
allergy suspected)

1994-1998

757

14.8
(12.3–17.5)§

Leuven, Belgium(47)Consecutive
patients

1990-2005

10128

9.1
(8.6–9.7)§

Coimbra, Portugal(48)

Consecutive
patients

07/198906/1999

2600

10.9
(9.7–12.2)§

Spain (49)Consecutive
patients

10/200506/2008

1253

4.5
(3.4–5.8)§

Sheffield, UK (50)Consecutive
patients

1994-1995

744

11.4
(9.2–13.9)§

St. John’s, London,
UK (51)Consecutive
patients

1980-2004

34072

7.7
(7.4–8.0)§

Copenhagen,Denmark (52)Consecutive
patients

1985-2007

16173

7.2
(6.8–7.6)§

ESSCA (53)Consecutive
patients

2002-2003

9663

7.1
(6.6–7.6)§

ESSCA (54)Consecutive
patients

2004

9941

7.6
(7.1–8.2)§

ESSCA (55)Consecutive
patients

2005-2006

18542

7.0
(6.6–7.4)§

Ljubljana, Slovenia(41)

Vienna, Austria (16)18

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4-4: Results with screening agents for contact allergy to fragrance ingredients reported since1999 in patients patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis in non-European countries:
Fragrance Mix “I” (see Table 4-1). If not given in the publication, the confidence interval (CI) was
calculated from the absolute numbers by the SCCS (§).
Country (Ref.)

Population

Year(s)No. tested

Crude % positive(95% CI)South Korea (56)Consecutive
patients

04/2002–06/2003422

9.7(7.1–13.0)§

Lahore, Pakistan(57)

Dermatitis
patients

2 years prior to
2002

350

7.7
(5.2–11.0)§

Manipal, India (58)

Dermatitis
patients

1989-1998

1780

3.1
(2.3–4.0)§

Tel Aviv, Israel$(59)Consecutive
patients

1999-2000

943

8.5(6.8–10.5)§

Tel Aviv, Israel (60)Consecutive
patients

1998-2004

2156

7.1
(6.1–8.3)§

Tehran, Iran (61)Consecutive
patients

2002-2004

250

4.0(1.9–7.2)§

Ankara, Turkey(62)

Consecutive
patients

1992-2004

1038

2.1
(1.3–3.2) §Beijing, China (63)Consecutive
patients

2000-2003

378

15.9
(12.3–20.0)§

USA (Canada) (64)Probably
consecutive
patients

2003

1603

5.9

NACDG 2009 (USand Canada) (65)Consecutive
patients

2005-2006

4439

11.5

Note:

$ Possibly included in (60).

Beyond the studies discussed above, regarding a time trend of sensitisation to FM I, asignificant increase of positive results to FM I until 1998, and a significant drop thereafter
has been noted in the IVDK study covering 1996 to 2002 (42). A similar drop from 1999 to2007 has been observed in female, but not male patients from Copenhagen (52). In
accordance with these findings, the prevalence of positive reactions to FM I doubled, or
thereabouts, from 1989-1993 to 1994-1998 in Ljubljana, Slovenia (41).
Within Europe, a comparison between different countries and clinical departments ispossible. An EECDRG study covering 1996-2000 found 9.7% positives to FM I (range: 5.0–
12.6% in ten departments from seven European countries (66). A different European study,
covering 10/1997-10/1998, found 11.3% (95% CI: 9.9–12.9%) positive reactions to FM 1
in 1,855 patients; the variation between centres was marked: Gentofte 8.2% vs. Leuven
23.0% as extremes (67). In the first study of the European Surveillance System on Contact
Allergies (ESSCA), covering 2002 and 2003, 9663 patients were patch tested with FM I,
overall yielding 7.1% positive reactions with marked variation between participating
departments. In Dortmund, Germany, the minimum frequency of 3.7% was noted, while in
Lahti, Finland, the highest prevalence, namely 10.4%, was found (53). Subsequently, in theyear 2004, the overall prevalence was 7.6%, i.e. largely unchanged (54). In the mostrecent study by ESSCA, based on 2005/2006 PT data across Europe, significant differenceswere again noted, this time on the aggregated level of European regions, with FM I
sensitisation being the least frequent in the Southern countries (4.8% [95% CI: 3.9–5.5%]
age- and sex-standardised prevalence) vs. 7.7% (95% CI: 7.0–8.4%) in the central
European departments, with the Finnish, Polish and Lithuanian departments (5.7% [95%19SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

CI: 4.6 – 6.8%]) and the UK network (6.8% [95% CI: 6.3 – 7.3%]) in an intermediate
position (55).
Fragrance Mix II
Table 4-5: Results with screening agents for contact allergy to fragrance ingredients reported since1999 in patients patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis: Fragrance Mix “II” (see Table
4-2). The FM II was only conceived in 2005, so results are still sparse). If not given in the publication,
the confidence interval (CI) was calculated from the absolute numbers by the SCCS (§).
Country (Ref.)

Population

Year(s)No. tested

Crude % positive(95% CI)Six clinical depts.

10/200206/2003

1701

2.9
(2.2–3.9)§

IVDK, Germany(68)

Consecutive
patients

01/200512/2008

35633

4.9
(4.7–5.1)§

Groningen,
Netherlands (44)Patients (fragrance
allergy suspected)

04/200506/2007

227

9.3
(5.8–13.8)§

Leuven, Belgium(47)Consecutive
patients

2005 only

335

2.1(0.8–4.3)§

Spain (49)Consecutive
patients

10/200506/2008

1253

0.6
(0.2–1.1)§

Denmark (69) on
behalf of the
DCDG, 2010

Consecutive
patients

2005-2008

12302

4.5
(4.1–4.9)§

EU (35)

Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC)
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) has been the most frequently
reported chemical causing fragrance allergy since the 1999 opinion on fragrance allergy. In
total, reports of about 1500 cases have been published in the scientific literature (seesection 7.1).
HICC was recognised as an allergen in 1995 (70) and later included in the new perfume
mixture, Fragrance Mix II (71), which is routinely used for the diagnosis of perfume allergy,
see above. Furthermore, it is recommended to test separately with HICC, because it is avery frequent allergen (37) and detects relevant fragrance sensitisation which would
otherwise have been missed (49). In the studies performed in European dermatology
clinics, 0.5-2.7% of eczema patients have been found to be allergic to HICC with thehighest frequency in central Europe (55). For further details see Table 4-6.
Table 4-6: Results with fragrance contact allergy screening agents reported since 1999 in patients
patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis: HICC (5% pet. if not stated otherwise). If not
given in the publication, the confidence interval (CI) was calculated from the absolute numbers by the
SCCS (§).
Country (Ref.)

Population

Year(s)No. tested

Crude % positive(95% CI)

Lithuania (72)Consecutive
patients

04/200610/2008

816

0.9
(0.3–1.8)§

Spain (49)Consecutive
patients

10/200506/2008

852

0.8
(0.3–1.7)§

Germany (CH, AT)(73)

Consecutive
patients

03/200002/2001

3245

1.9
(1.5–2.4)§

20

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________Country (Ref.)

Population

Year(s)No. tested

Crude % positive(95% CI)

Germany (CH, AT)(74)

Consecutive
patients

01/200312/2004

21325

2.4
(2.2–2.6)§

Germany (CH, AT)(68)

Consecutive
patients

01/200512/2008

35582

2.3
(2.2–2.5)§

Belgium (47)Consecutive
patients

2002-2005

2901

2.1
(1.6–2.7)§

Denmark (69)Consecutive
patients

2005-2008

12302

2.4
(2.1–2.7)§

South Korea (56)Consecutive
patients

04/2002–06/2003422

1.7(0.6–3.4)§

USA, Canada (64)Probably
consecutive
patients

2003

1603

0.4
(0.2–0.9)§

Myroxylon pereirae (Balsam of Peru)
Myroxylon pereirae is a balm obtained from a Central American tree. It is used as ascreening substance for fragrance allergy in Europe and other geographical areas. Although
the crude balm is not used in Europe in cosmetics, extracts and distillates are used (75).
This natural mixture has been employed as screening agent in the baseline series for many
decades. Hence, a wealth of data is available; Table 4-7 summarises results of the past 10
years.
Table 4-7: Results with fragrance contact allergy screening agents reported since 1999 in patients
patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis: Myroxylon pereirae resin (Balsam of Peru)(25% pet.). If not given in the publication, the confidence interval (CI) was calculated from theabsolute numbers by the SCCS (§).
Country (Ref.)

Population

Year(s)No. tested

Crude % positive(95% CI)§

Tel Aviv, Israel (59)#Consecutive
patients

1999-2000

943

6.6(5.1–8.4)§

South Korea (56)Consecutive
patients

04/2002 –06/2003422

7.3(5.1–10.3)§

Tel Aviv, Israel (60)Consecutive
patients

1998-2004

2156

3.6
(2.9–4.5)§

Manipal, India (58)

Dermatitis patients

1989-1998

1780

1.0
(0.5 – 1.5) §Tehran, Iran (61)Consecutive
patients

2002-2004

250

2.4(0.9–5.2)§

Sevilla, Spain (76)Consecutive
patients

2002-2004

863

5.8(4.3–7.6)§

Ankara, Turkey (62)Consecutive
patients

1992-2004

1038

2.1
(1.3–3.2)§

Vienna, Austria (16)Consecutive
patients of one
clinic1997-2000

2660

5.4
(4.6–6.3)§

Czech Republic (40)Consecutive
patients

1997-2001

12058

7.3
(6.8–7.8)§

Spain (49)Consecutive
patients

10/200506/2008

1253

6.4
(5.1–7.9)§

21

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________Country (Ref.)

Population

Year(s)No. tested

Crude % positive(95% CI)§

Copenhagen,Denmark (52)Consecutive
patients

1985-2007

16173

3.9
(3.6–4.2)§

Sweden (38)Consecutive
patients

2000

3790

6.5

Nine European
countries (53)Consecutive
patients

2002-2003

9672

6.1

Germany, three
Swiss and one
Austrian Dept. (43)Consecutive
patients

2005-2008

36919

8.0
(7.7–8.3)

Ten depts. Fromseven EU countries(66)

Consecutive
patients

1996-2000

26210

6.0

USA (Canada) (64)Probably
consecutive
patients

2003

1603

6.6

NACDG 2009 (65)Consecutive
patients

2005-2006

4449

11.9

Oil of turpentine
This natural extract is not tested in all baseline series. It is considered as a minor screening
allergen for fragrance contact allergy. Moreover, oil of turpentine is used as a raw material
in perfumery (see Annex I). Table 4-8 summarises results of the past 10 years with patch
testing of consecutive patients.
Table 4-8: Results with fragrance contact allergy screening agents reported since 1999 in patients
patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis: Oil of turpentine (10% pet.) patients patch
tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis. If not given in the publication, the confidence interval(CI) was calculated from the absolute numbers by the SCCS (§).
Country

Population

Year(s)No. tested

Crude % positive(95% CI)§

Lisbon, Portugal(77); virtually no.delta.-3-carene

Consecutive
patients

1979-1983

4316

2.3
(1.9–2.8)§

Birmingham, UK(78)

Potters withoccup. handdermatitis

6 months; prior
to 199624

14/4 pos. to“Indonesianturpentine”

Austria/Germany(IVDK) (79)Consecutive
patients

1992-1995

27658

0.47
(0.39–0.55)§

Austria/Germany(IVDK) (42)Consecutive
patients

1996-2002

59478

Annual prevalence 1.6
to 4.4%

Augsburg,Germany (80)

Population
sample19981141

1.2% (on populationlevel!)

Europe (ESSCA)(53)

Consecutive
patients

2002/03

3767

1.6%

Austria/Germany/
Switzerland(IVDK) (43)Consecutive
patients

2005-2008

37163

1.8%

22

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

An “overall burden” of fragrance contact allergy, in terms of the prevalence of contact
allergy to at least one of the up-to-five screening allergens present in the baseline series(FM I, FM II, HICC, Myroxylon pereirae, oil of turpentine) has not been given in the
published studies. A re-analysis of data from the two published studies of the IVDK (43,68), covering central Europe from 2005 to 2008 (Germany, Austria and Switzerland),yielded an estimate of such overall prevalence of 16.2% (95% CI: 15.8-16.6%) (IVDK
technical report, 2011-11-18).

4.3.3.

Population-based epidemiology

In principle, the examination of a representative sample of the population is the most valid
approach for estimating disease frequency, as there is no systematic selection process.
However, in practice, participation of much less than 70% of those approached introduces
the possibility of self-selection and thus of biased morbidity (or risk) estimates. Moreover,
the resources needed prohibit regular, e.g. yearly, patch test studies in a sample of several
thousand persons. For these reasons few studies exist (see Table 4-9).
A Swedish study of hand eczema in an industrial city showed that among 1,087 individuals
recruited from the general population with symptoms of present or previous hand eczema,
5.8% were positive to the Fragrance Mix (81). In Denmark, Fragrance Mix sensitivity was
found in 1.1% (0.3-2.1%) of 567 persons drawn as a sample from the general Danish
population; only nickel sensitivity was more prevalent (82). In Italy, female patients withhand eczema caused by contact with detergents were patch tested. Of 1100 women, 3.1%
reacted to Fragrance Mix I (83). A control group of 619 female patients with no eczema
disease were also patch tested; 1.3% were positive to the Fragrance Mix (83). On the other
hand, in a sample of 593 healthy Italian recruits, only three positive reactions (0.50%) to
FM I were observed (84). Among Danish school children, 14-15 years of age, fragrance
contact allergy was detected in 1.8% by patch testing with Fragrance Mix I (85). A study of
85 American student nurses showed that 15 (17.6%) had a positive reaction to Fragrance
Mix I; 12 of the individuals also had a positive history of contact dermatitis (86). In thisstudy the concentration of Fragrance Mix I was 16% as opposed to the currently
recommended concentration of 8% and the study included only young females. Both ofthese factors may have contributed to the high prevalence of fragrance sensitivity found.
In 1990, 1998 and 2006, samples of the Danish adult population living in the Copenhagenarea were patch tested with the European baseline series. In total 4299 individuals aged 1869 years (18-41 years only in 1998) completed a pre-mailed questionnaire and were patch
tested with FM I and Myroxylon pereirae (82, 87, 88). In 1990, 1.1% were found positive to
FM I and in 2006, 1.6% were positive, which means no general change. However, when theage group of 18-41 years was analysed, the prevalence of FM I sensitisation followed aninverted V-pattern among women, i.e. an increase from 0.7% in 1990 to 3.9% in 1998,
followed by a decrease to 2.3% in 2006. The participation rate varied in the three samples
from 71.5% in 1990 to 52.4% in 1998, and to 43.7% in 2006 (82, 87, 88).
Contact sensitisation to FM I is strongly age related, with the relative risk more thandoubling in the older age groups, compared to younger PT patients. This has been found inboth bivariate (89) and adjusted multifactorial analyses (90). Hence, in older samples of the
population, the prevalence of contact allergy to fragrance ingredients in general, and to FM I
in particular, can be expected to be higher than in younger samples. From this background,the strikingly high prevalence observed in the MONICA/KORA allergy study in Augsburg,
Germany (see Table 4-9) (80), may be explained, together with some residual confounding
from the rather complex sampling process.

23

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4-9: Results from patch testing with Fragrance Mix I in different population based groups.
Country (Ref.)

Population

Year(s)No. tested% positive(95% CI)

Italy (83)Females without
eczemaNot given

619

1.3

Italy (84)Male recruits

Not given

593

0.50

Denmark (82)

Population sample
adults,15-69 years

1990-91567

1.1

Denmark (85)

School children 1216 years old

1995/96717

1.8

Denmark (82, 87)

Population sample
adults, 18-41 years

Jan-Nov 1998

414

2.7

Denmark (88)

Population sample
adults, 18-69 years

June 2006–May
2008

3460

1.6

Norway (91)

Population sample
adults,18-69 years.
(Results reported in
2007)

1994 (92)

1236

1.8
(1.1–2.7)

Germany (80)

Subgroup of
MONICA sample,
age 25-74

1994/95

1141

11.4

USA (86)

Student nurses,
females

1980

85

17.6*

Sweden (81)

Population
sampleadults, age
20-65 years
reporting handeczema1983-84

1087

5.8*

Note: * Testing performed with Fragrance Mix I, containing 16% allergens; the currently used
Fragrance Mix I contains 8% allergens (see above).

Table 4-10: Results from patch testing with other fragrance allergens in different population based
groups. If not given in the publication, the confidence interval (CI) was calculated from the absolute
numbers by the SCCS (§).
Country(Ref.)

Population

Year(s)FragranceallergenNo. tested% positive(95% CI)§

Thailand(93)

Conveniencesample (viaadvertisement),age 18-55

Not
given

Isoeugenol,
Evernia prunastri,
Myroxylon pereirae*

2545

Positive to atleast one ofthree allergens:
2.5(1.9–3.2)§

Germany(80)

Subgroup of
MONICA sample,
age 25-74

1994/95

Myroxylon pereirae

1141

2.4

Denmark(88)

Population sample,
age 18-69

1990

Myroxylon pereirae

567

1.1

3460

0.1

2006

Note: * Myroxylon pereirae is a balm obtained from a Central American tree. It is used as ascreening substance for fragrance allergy in Europe and other geographical areas. Although the crude
balm is not used in Europe in cosmetics, extracts and distillates are used (75).

24

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

4.4.

Consumer products as a cause of fragrance contact sensitisation andallergic contact dermatitis

4.4.1.

Clinical relevance

Clinical relevance is a concept used to describe the significance of a positive (allergic) patch
test reaction for an individual patient: a reaction is deemed relevant if contact allergy to thesubstance is associated with previous or current episodes of allergic contact dermatitis.
Thereby, the evaluation of clincial relevance links past exposure to morbidity. For theevaluation of relevance, past or recent exposure(s) to the allergen need to be identified in
the patient's history. The success of this process generally depends on:•

The patient's understanding and awareness;•

The dermatologist's knowledge concerning exposures;•

Ingredient labelling; and•Information about the actual chemical composition of the implicated product.

As these requirements may be met to a varying extent, the validity of relevance information
as reported in clinical studies may also be variable. However, information on clinicalrelevance is important, in principle, because the proportion of currently relevant
sensitisations reflects the amount of current exposure and resulting disease state, which
may increase or decrease with time. In this way, current relevance also reflects the directburden of a fragrance contact allergy to the individual and indirectly to society. Further
important aspects of the evaluation of clinical relevance as a final step of patch testing havebeen discussed (32, 94-96).
Generally, clinical relevance is categorised as “current”, “previous” or “unknown”. Further
differentiation has been introduced by adding information on:•

Occupational versus non-occupational causation; and•The level of certainty of the relevance statement, e.g. as “certain”, “probable”,“possible”.

In some cases, clinical relevance may not be established due to:•

Immunological cross-reactivity with an individual allergen, diagnosed or not;•Active sensitisation by the patch testing;•Contact sensitisation not caused by the substance, but by a contaminating
constituent; or•Failure to test with a true hapten (e.g. haptens formed from prehaptens on exposure
to air, see chapter 5).

It should be noted that this statement on clinical relevance refers to the past history of apatient. This implies that a lack of, or unknown, clinical relevance does not make future
allergen avoidance unnecessary.
In the context of contact allergy to fragrance ingredients, a number of alternative conceptsof relevance have been used, for example:•

A history of intolerance to perfume or to perfumed products;•

A history of intolerance to perfume actually containing the allergen diagnosed;•

Detection of the culprit allergen in a perfume previously used.

25

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

4.4.2.

Elicitation with clinical symptoms/signs, current and pastIn case reports or small series, the clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions isusually well established and presented in detail. Moreover, a few large-scale clinical studies
on contact allergy to fragrance ingredients have reported results on clinical relevance, which
will be presented and discussed in this section. The studies can be subdivided into thosewhich focus on medical history, patch testing with consumer products or detection of
specific allergens in consumer products used by patients.
Medical history
A series of studies conducted in the 1990s showed that most individuals with contact allergy
to fragrance ingredients were aware that they could not tolerate fragranced products on
their skin and were able to specifically name product categories that initiated their disease(9). In this context, colognes, deodorants and lotions were named significantly more often
by fragrance allergic dermatitis patients than by patients without fragrance contact allergy(3). These studies are described in the SCCNFP opinion on fragrance allergy of 1999 (1).
Newer studies are outlined below.
NACDG 2009 study (65)
The definition of “present” clinical relevance in this North American network study wasstrict, requiring:•

A positive use or patch test with the suspected item(s) for “definite” relevance; and•Verification of the presence of the allergen in known skin contactants, and consistentclinical presentation for “probable”.

If these conditions were not met, but skin contact to items generally containing the item
was likely, “possible” was used.
Regarding fragrance allergens, the proportions were as described in Table 4-11.
Table 4-11: Extract from ((65) Table 3) regarding the proportion of patients with “present clinicalrelevance” (see text) and “past clinical relevance” (criteria not given).
Fragranceallergenn(tested)%(pos.)

Myroxylon
pereirae

4449

FM I

Current relevance (%)

Past
relevance (%)

Definite

Probable

Possible

11.9

1.3

33

53

2.7

4439

11.5

2.0

29.4

54.3

4.3

Cinnamal

4435

3.1

1.5

33.8

50

2.9

Ylang-Ylang oil

4434

1.5

4.6

10.8

73.8

1.5

Jasmine absolute

4447

1.1

0

24.5

67.3

6.1

Frosch 2002 (a) study (67)
In this study, 1,855 consecutive patients were patch tested with FM I and a series of afurther 14 fragrance chemicals. Prior to the test, the history of adverse reactions tofragrances was classified as “certain” (6.6%), “probable” (8.0%), “questionable” (9.2%) or“none” (76.1%) (see (71)).
Frosch 2002 (b) study (97)
A series of 18 essential oils or components thereof, together with FM I, was assessed in
1,606 consecutive patients. Similar to the above study, the proportions of patients with a“certain” or “probable” history (or otherwise) and positive reactions to either FM I or the26

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

special series, or both, were cross-tabulated. Of note, 53.7% of patients with positive
reactions to FM I only, had no history. Similarly 54.2% of patients with positive reactions
only to one of the essential oils had no history. However, in cases of reactivity to both FM I
and one of the essential oils, the proportion of patients with no history was only 36.5%.
Frosch 2005 study (35)The diagnostic properties of FM I and the new FM II were evaluated in 1,701 consecutive
patients patch tested in six European centres. Contrasting a “certain” (found in 8.7% of
patients) with “no history” (75.3% of patients), the sensitivity of FM I was 25.2%, and thepositive predictive value (PPV) 45.1%. In comparison, the sensitivity of FM II at 14%
concentration was 13.5% and the PPV was 55.6%. The combination of the two mixes wasimportant, as more patients with a “certain” history, but also independently from history,
reacted to just one of the mixes rather than to both.
Danish Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2008 (69)
In 12302 consecutive patients patch tested in seven dermatology clinics and three
university hospitals, 10.6% were positive to one or more of the fragrance allergy markers(FM I, FM II, Myroxylon pereirae or hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC)).
Clinical relevance covered current and/or past relevance based on: 1) medical history; 2)results of patch and/or use tests; 3) ingredient labelling: or 4) chemical analysis. Clinicalrelevance was found in 71.0% of cases positive to FM I, 72.2% of those positive to FM II
and 76.7% of those positive to HICC. These proportions were higher than the average forother cosmetic allergens such as preservatives and hair dyes, which gave relevant reactionsin about 50% of those positive, as did Myroxylon pereirae. Myroxylon pereirae itself is not
used in cosmetics as it is banned, but sensitisation may be caused by exposures to related
substances and thus relevance may be difficult to determine.
Cosmetic products
Fragrance formulae from cosmetic products
Popular fine fragrances (5), as well as toilet soaps, shampoos, lotions, deodorants, andaftershaves have been shown to provoke allergic contact dermatitis in patients when used
for patch testing (5, 6, 98, 99). Moreover, commercially available fragrance formulae anddilutions of individual fragrance allergens were potent elicitors of allergic contact dermatitis
under simulated use conditions (10, 100, 101).
More recently, deodorants spiked with the fragrance allergens cinnamal, hydroxycitronellaland HICC, respectively, in realistic in-use concentrations were shown to elicit allergic
contact dermatitis in 89-100% of the fragrance allergic individuals tested (102-104). In
87.5% of HICC sensitised individuals the use of a cream (and in 82.8% the use of an
ethanol solution) spiked with HICC provoked dermatitis (105). These studies are discussed
in more detail in chapter 11 on quantitative aspects. Other new studies are mentioned
below:IVDK “own perfumes” study (106)
A different perspective on clinical relevance is provided by assessing the proportion of
positive reactions to the FM I or single fragrance allergens in patients who had not tolerated
certain perfumed products, such as deodorants and aftershaves and who were patch test
positive to these cosmetics. The following two tables are taken from this publication.

27

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4-12: Extract from ((106) Table 2) on the frequency of positive reactions to fragrance allergens
in patients with vs. without positive patch test reaction to their own deodorant.
Fragrance allergen

Conc.
(%)

Deodorant positive (n=66)

Deodorant negative(n=855)n (test)% pos. (95% CI)

n (test)% pos. (95% CI)

Fragrance Mix I

86138.0 (24.1-51.9)805

15.0 (12.5-17.5)

Myroxylon pereirae

2560

22.9 (12.7-33.1)

806

9.1 (7.2-11.0)

Hydroxycitronellal

133

6.5 (0.7-12.3)

204

4.3 (1.5-7.1)

Isoeugenol

133

6.5 (0.7-12.3)

204

7.2 (3.6-10.8)

Cinnamal1

29

11.3 (0-24.1)

133

1.1 (0-2.7)

Geraniol

129

8.3 (0-20.4)

141

0 (0-2.1)

Of the 66 patients with a positive patch test reaction to their own deodorant, most had
positive reactions to one or more fragrance allergens. This was much more prevalent thanthose patients in whom no positive reaction to their deodorant was observed. Thisobservation supports the notion that the respective fragrance allergens are important incontact allergy to fragrance ingredients caused by deodorants, supporting data regarding
exposure (chapter 10.1).
Table 4-13: Extract from ((106) Table 2) on the frequency of positive reactions to fragrance allergens
in patients with vs. without positive patch test reaction to their own aftershave, eau de toilette or
perfume.
Fragrance allergen

Conc.
(%)

Product positive (n=63)

Product negative (n=819)

n (test)% pos. (95% CI)

n (test)% pos. (95% CI)

Fragrance Mix I

85657.1 (46.2-68.1)

764

13.9 (11.4-16.4)

Myroxylon pereirae25

56

13.9 (7.3-20.4)766

8.8 (6.8-10.7)

HICC

5

20

58.3 (37.5-79.0)

310

1.3 (0-2.7)

Evernia prunastri1

2822.1 (7.0-37.2)

153

8.8 (4.2-13.4)

Hydroxycitronellal

133

6.5 (0.7-12.3)

204

4.3 (1.5-7.1)

Cananga odorata(ylang-ylang oil)

107

16.3 (2.0-30.5)43

5.0 (0-11.3)

Similar results were obtained from the subgroup of patients with a positive reaction to theireau de toilette, aftershave (hydroalcohol solutions) or perfumes (Table 4-13). However,notable differences were: (i) the greater relative importance of Evernia prunastri (Oak moss
absolute); and (ii) generally an extremely high proportion of positive reactions to various
other fragrance ingredients.
4.4.3.

Elicitation in diagnostic patch tests without clinical history

In a variable proportion of patients, a positive patch test reaction does not correlate withrecent or past episodes of presumptive allergic contact dermatitis. Apart from particular
circumstances, such as cross-reactivity or reactivity to contaminants outlined above, there
are several possible explanations for this:•The patch test reaction was a false-positive (irritant).

•

There was erroneous recall/interpretation of the patient's history (false-negative).

•

Lack of knowledge concerning exposures.
28

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________•

If the patient is weakly sensitised (e.g. by a low induction dose), the occlusive
exposure during patch testing may have been the only exposure above the individual
elicitation threshold capable of eliciting an unequivocal allergic contact reaction. In
this situation, clinical relevance would be classified as “unknown”. Nevertheless,there is an alteration of the immune status of the individual.

Sometimes, a repeated open application or provocative use test is employed to mimic“normal” exposure to the allergen. A positive reaction to such a use-related test confirms
actual sensitisation. Moreover, the positive result supports the necessity of future allergenavoidance. Apart from the risk of developing allergic contact dermatitis in the future,sensitisation means an alteration of the immune status of the individual.
4.5.

Socio-economic impact of contact allergy

4.5.1.

Health related quality of life

Skin diseases in general are known to affect quality of life significantly (107); this also
applies to eczema, where most studies concern atopic dermatitis and hand eczema patients(108, 109). Hand eczema has a poor prognosis and may affect the self-image, limit social
activities and lead to occupational restrictions (109, 110). The quality of life in hand eczema
patients with fragrance contact allergy is affected in a similar degree as patients with othercontact allergies (111).
In a questionnaire study of 117 patients recently diagnosed with contact allergy to
fragrance ingredients, most presented with hand or facial eczema. In response to thequestion if and how fragrance allergy had affected their life situation, 67.5% replied thatthey often had to take special precautions, 47.0% replied that they were often bothered byeczema and itch, 17.1% said that they had had to take sick leave due to their fragrance
contact allergy and 45.3% felt that fragrance contact allergy had significantly influenced
their daily living (112).
4.5.2.

Occupational restrictions

Contact allergy is known to influence severity and prognosis of hand eczema (113, 114)
including risk of sick leave (111). Fragrance contact allergy is mostly of a non-occupational
origin (90) related to the personal use of scented cosmetics, but may have secondary
occupational consequences. This may be due to exposure to fragrance ingredients also in
the work place or because hand eczema has developed. Hand eczema itself may make it
impossible to remain in the trade even if protective equipment is used. In young people,
fragrance allergy may limit the choice of occupations, as it will be difficult to work as ahairdresser, cosmetologist or in other occupations with a significant skin exposure to
fragranced products.
4.5.3.

Costs to health care/health economics

In a population based study of 3,460 individuals, contact allergy to FM I was found in 1.6%;
logistic regression analyses showed that medical consultation due to cosmetic dermatitis(OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.83-6.20) and cosmetic dermatitis within the past 12 months (OR 3.53,
CI 2.02-6.17) were significantly associated with sensitisation to FM I (88). Further, as
mentioned above, fragrance allergy may lead to sick leave (112). No specific cost estimatesfor fragrance allergy exist, but the yearly total costs of contact dermatitis in Western Europe
was estimated to be 5.2 billion Euro in 1997. Prices were based on the Allergy White Paper(1997) and on results of investigations and extrapolations of known data for Western
Europe (115). Fragrance allergy is the second most frequent cause of contact allergy after
nickel allergy and is seen in every 10th patient investigated for contact allergy. Even a
modest reduction in nickel allergy has been estimated to have the value of 12 million
Euro/year/million people in Denmark (Environmental Project Nr. 929, 2004;
http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2004/87-7614-295-7/pdf/87-7614-296-5.pdf, last29

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

accessed 2011-11-13). The costs are likely to differ in other countries, some with higher
expenses and some with lower costs. These estimates show that the cost of contact allergy
in the population may be considerable.
4.6.

Allergen avoidance

Generally, “allergen avoidance” can be regarded as having two aspects: (i) primaryprevention of the acquisition of contact allergy achieved by avoiding or limiting exposure of
the general population, or certain parts of it, to allergens; and (ii) secondary prevention interms of avoiding (re-)elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis in sensitised individuals.
4.6.1.

Primary prevention: limiting or eliminating exposure to allergens
in the population

The main aim of public health is the primary prevention of disease in populations. Allergic
contact dermatitis (to fragrances) has the potential to have a significant impact on quality oflife, including effects on fitness for work (chapter 4.5). Moreover, it is a common
phenomenon and therefore a reduction of exposure to (fragrance) allergens must be an
objective of effective Public Health measures.
Means of limiting or eliminating exposure to fragrance allergens include the following:•

Prohibition by regulatory measures or other means.

•

Restriction by regulatory measures or other means of the maximum permissible
concentration of a substance, or a critical component of natural mixtures, possibly
according to different uses and product types, respectively.

•

Substitution with suitable, but less or non-allergenic compounds. Substitution by acomponent which is chemically different, but effectively not different in terms ofallergenicity or cross-reactivity, is not adequate (e.g. an ester) (chapter 5).

•

Formulating the fragrance with the aim of limiting or eliminating those substances
for which a sensitising potential has been shown. One difficulty with this approach isthat sometimes no sensitisation data exist for those components of a fragrance
formula which are used to replace a “known sensitiser”.

•

Deliberate avoidance of the use of fragrances where they are not essential to thefunction of a finished product, but used merely to add to its appeal. Examples could
include most cosmetics, topical medicaments, detergents etc., but obviously not
perfumes, eau de toilette and other products used for their scent.

•Information, e.g. labelling so that the consumer may make an informed choice to
avoid exposure to a particular ingredient.
4.6.2.

Secondary prevention: avoiding re-exposure to (a) specificsensitiser(s) in clinically diagnosed individuals

In clinical dermatology, avoidance of re-exposure to an allergen is central to the care ofsensitised patients. Contact sensitisation, as a latent condition, persists life-long, andtherefore allergen avoidance is the only means of avoiding potentially severe and/or
handicapping disease, which affects quality of life and may affect fitness for work, i.e.
allergic contact dermatitis.
In this context, the valid diagnosis of sensitisation, by patch testing (32) with standardisedmaterials, is a prerequisite of successful allergen avoidance.
In the case of fragrances, a history clearly indicative of “fragrance dermatitis” but in whichpatch testing with commercially available test preparations is negative, most probably
reflects a shortcoming of the patch test procedure, namely, a false-negative investigation.
An important cause is inadequate information on the presence of fragrance substances
30

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

present in cosmetic products (and consumer products in general). This means that patientscannot be tested for relevant substances.
A false-negative investigation can also be due to a number of other reasons: (i) nonadherence to scientific recommendations (32) or guidelines (e.g. (116)); (ii) sub-optimal
patch test concentration; or (iii) use of non-oxidised material if oxidised material is the trueallergen.
In an “ideal” case, from the point of view of successful patient management, the test
procedure identifies all the allergen(s) to which the patient has developed contact allergy,
according to the information on the culprit product(s) brought in by the patient. Suchcontact sensitisation is termed “clinically relevant” (65), and the need for allergen avoidancein the future is unequivocally evident in these cases. However, not infrequently, clinicalrelevance of an allergic patch test reaction cannot be ascertained for various reasons, which
may be beyond control by the clinician (see chapter 4.4). Nevertheless, future elicitation ofallergic contact dermatitis by sufficient contact with the identified “non-relevant” allergen
may be expected. Hence, the patient will need to avoid the respective substance(s).
In a less “ideal” case, only part of the fragrance allergens having caused allergic contact
dermatitis are identified (and can subsequently be avoided), while another part remains
unidentified, for instance because it is: (i) not labelled on the product; and/or (ii) not
available for routine diagnostic patch testing (special investigations such as chemical
analysis of the culprit product, and break-down patch testing of its individual components,
are performed rarely). Such “residual” undetermined sensitisation will hamper the successof secondary prevention of allergic contact dermatitis due to fragrances.
The above consideration raises the question for the patient of how to identify fragrance
chemicals in cosmetics and other products coming into contact with the skin, such asdetergents and household products, topical medicaments, products used professionally (e.g.
by hairdressers, beauticians, masseurs, aromatherapists), and in other industrially usedcategories of products (7) (see also chapter 9). In this regard, the labelling with “perfume”
or “contains fragrances” does not provide sufficient information. Moreover, such generallabelling has two main disadvantages:•

It does not aid the identification of past exposure to specific agents when planning apatch test and later, when interpreting possible positive patch test results regarding
clinical relevance.

•

The diagnosis of allergic contact sensitisation to unidentified fragrance allergens willlead to unnecessary avoidance of other fragrance substances to which the patient is
not sensitised, which are, however, included under the label “perfume”.

Furthermore, the attribute “fragrance-free” may be misleading, as it merely states that nosubstance was added to the product to give it a scent, assuming it is used correctly at all.
Nevertheless, fragrance substances used for other purposes, e.g. as preservatives, may
expose the “fragrance allergic” patient to the allergen even in a “fragrance free” product(117). However, in terms of cosmetic ingredient labelling, such other uses are lessproblematic, as each ingredient not used as a fragrance component must be labelled. Also
the use of natural products (essential oils) as preservatives must be considered in thiscontext.
Ingredient labelling of 26 individual fragrance ingredients, identified as allergens in humans,
was introduced for cosmetics in 2005. The intention was to provide a tool for clinicians for
optimizing the investigation of patients with suspected fragrance allergy, as well as forfragrance allergic patients for avoiding products containing substances they have beenshown to be allergic to. Both these aims are objectives of secondary prevention and seemto have been well accepted. In a study of fragrance allergic patients and their utilisation ofingredient labelling (112), most responded that they used the ingredient labelling (86.3%)
and of those who used it, the majority (65.3%) found it helpful (112). Most allergic patientsused the ingredient labelling (83.2%) to find out if the product was scented, while 35.6%
31

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

also looked for specific ingredients. Many (84.9%) found that a clearer labelling, e.g. easiernames and a larger font size, would increase their benefit.
4.7.

Conclusions

Contact allergy to fragrances is relatively common, affecting 1 to 3% of the general
population, based on limited testing with eight common fragrance allergens and about 16 %of patients patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Fragrance contact allergy
is mostly non-occupational and related to the personal use of cosmetic products.
Allergic contact dermatitis can be severe and widespread, with a significant impairment ofquality of life and potential consequences for fitness for work. Thus, prevention of contact
sensitisation to fragrances, both in terms of primary prevention (avoiding sensitisation) andsecondary prevention (avoiding relapses of allergic contact dermatitis in those alreadysensitised), is an important objective of public health risk management measures.

32

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

5.
Activation of weak or non-sensitising substances into sensitisers prehaptens and prohaptens
Fragrance allergens act as haptens, i.e. low molecular weight chemicals that are
immunogenic only when attached to a carrier protein. However, not all sensitising fragrance
chemicals are directly reactive, but require previous activation.
A prehapten is a chemical that itself is non- or low-sensitising, but that is transformed into a
hapten outside the skin by simple chemical transformation (air oxidation, photoactivation)
and without the requirement of specific enzymatic systems.
A prohapten is a chemical that itself is non- or low-sensitising but that is transformed into a
hapten in the skin (bioactivation) usually via enzyme catalysis.
It is not always possible to know whether a particular allergen that is not directly reactive
acts as a prehapten or as a prohapten, or both, because air oxidation and bioactivation canoften give the same product (geraniol is an example).
Some chemicals might act by all three pathways. One example is geranial (an isomer ofcitral) which is a hapten itself with a moderate sensitisation potency, but can be activated tomore potent sensitisers via air oxidation (autoxidation) thus acting as a prehapten and also
via bioactivation (metabolic activation) thus acting as a prohapten (118).
Increased understanding of the importance of activation through interaction with theenvironment that turns non-sensitising compounds into sensitisers has made it important todistinguish between prehaptens and prohaptens. This distinction facilitates discussions byemphasizing the differences in activation mechanisms between the two types of compounds
requiring activation to become haptens. It is important to note that prehapten activation, in
contrast to bioactivation, can be prevented to a certain extent by avoidance of air exposure
during the handling and storage of the chemicals. This concerns the most prominent
haptens formed by autoxidation i.e. the hydroperoxides. In bioactivation, hydroperoxides
have not been identified as metabolites, but other allergenic oxidation products (inparticular aldehydes and epoxides) have been identified as being formed by both activationroutes depending on the structure of the compound. One thoroughly studied example isgeraniol which forms the aldehyde geranial, epoxy-geraniol, and also epoxy-geranial via
both pathways of activation (autoxidation and metabolic oxidation) (119, 120). When
haptens are formed by both pathways, the impact on the sensitisation potency depends onthe degree of autoxidation in relation to the amount of metabolic oxidation.
Human data on established prehaptens are presented in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2. In Table
5-1 the results from patch testing with air exposed samples of the prehaptens are given.
Table 5-2 shows the results from testing with the prehaptens themselves without intended
air exposure. In addition to the data given in this chapter, animal data (LLNA) on the pureprehaptens or after controlled air exposure are given in Table 8-2. Possible pro- andprehaptens are identified by SAR analyses in chapter 9.
5.1.

Prehaptens

Autoxidation is a free radical chain reaction in which hydrogen atom abstraction in
combination with addition of oxygen forms peroxyl radicals. The reaction shows selectivity
for positions where stable radicals can be formed. So far, all fragrance substances that havebeen investigated with regard to the influence of autoxidation on the allergenic potential,
including identification of formed oxidation products, have oxidisable allylic positions thatare able to form hydroperoxides and/or hydrogen peroxide as primary oxidation products
upon air exposure. Once the hydroperoxides have been formed outside the skin they form
specific antigens and act as skin sensitisers (121). Secondary oxidation products such as
aldehydes and epoxides can also be allergenic, thus further increasing the sensitisation
potency of the autoxidation mixture (122). The process of photoactivation may also play arole, but further research is required to establish whether this activation route is currently
underestimated in importance due to insufficient knowledge of the true haptens in thiscontext.
33

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Most terpenes with oxidisable allylic positions can be expected to autoxidise on air exposuredue to their inherent properties. Depending on the stability of the oxidation products thatare formed, a difference in the sensitisation potency of the oxidised terpenes can be seen.
Oxidation products of commonly used fragrance terpenes (limonene, linalool, geraniol,
linalyl acetate) have been identified as potent sensitisers in predictive animal tests (119,123-128) (see chapter 8). This is also demonstrated for alpha-terpinene (129) andcitronellol (AT Karlberg, personal communication 2012). The oxidised fragrance terpenes
limonene, linalool and linalyl acetate have been tested in consecutive dermatitis patientsand give frequent allergic contact reactions (130-135). Not all oxidised fragrance
substances are strong sensitisers, e.g. caryophyllene is readily oxidised but has a low
sensitisation potency after autoxidation (136). This is supported by clinical studies showing
oxidised caryophyllene to be a less frequent allergen compared to oxidised limonene andoxidised linalool (133). Details are given in Table 5-1 The non-oxidised compounds rarely
cause allergic reactions (43-45, 67, 70, 74, 97, 137-139), for details see Table 5-2. Asoxidised and non-oxidised fragrance terpenes were not patch tested simultaneously in thesame patients, the results are presented in two separate tables (Table 5-1 and Table 5-2).
Oxidised fragrance terpenes with defined content of the major haptens formed after
autoxidation have not been commercially available for testing in dermatology clinics. In the
published clinical studies testing oxidised fragrence terpenes, the patch test preparations
have been obtained specifically for the performed multicentre studies. From 2012, patch
test preparations of oxidised limonene and oxidised linalool with defined content of the
major allergens in the oxidation mixtures, i.e. the hydroperoxides, are commerciallyavailable.
It should be noted that activation of substances via air oxidation results in various haptens
that might be the same or cross-reacting with other haptens (allergens). The main allergens
after air oxidation of linalool and linalyl acetate are the hydroperoxides. If linalyl acetate ischemically hydrolysed outside the skin it can thereafter be oxidised to the same haptens as
seen for linalool. A corresponding example is citronellol and citronellyl acetate. In clincal
studies, concomitant reactions to oxidised linalool and oxidised linalyl acetate have been
observed (140, 141). Whether these reactions depend on cross-reactivity or are due toexposure to both fragrance substances cannot be elucidated as both have an allergenic
effect themselves.
Linalool and linalyl acetate are the main components of lavender oil. They autoxidise on air
exposure also when present in the essential oil, and form the same oxidation products
found in previous studies of the pure synthetic terpenes. Experimental sensitisation studies
showed that air exposure of lavender oil increased the sensitisation potency. Patch test
results in dermatitis patients showed a connection between positive reactions to oxidised
linalool, linalyl acetate and lavender oil (140).
Air oxidation of prehaptens can be prevented to a certain extent by measures during
handling and storage of the ingredients and final products to avoid air exposure, and/or byaddition of suitable antioxidants. The autoxidation rate depends not only on the compound
itself, but also on its purity. The prevention of autoxidation using antioxidants needs
thorough investigation because antioxidants can exert their function by being oxidised
instead of the compound that they protect and might thereby be activated to skinsensitising derivatives after oxidation, which is the case for alpha-terpinene from tea tree oil(129). Alpha-Terpinene together with its analogue gamma-terpinene has been suggested as
an agent for maintaining the oxidative stability of different matrices, such as food,cosmetics and medicaments (142-144). As antioxidants are now frequently used at elevatedconcentrations in scented products due to a growing awareness of the problem of
autoxidation, there is a risk that sensitisation caused by the antioxidants will rise. One of
the most used antioxidants is butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) which is considered aminimal risk for sensitisation in the concentrations used but nevertheless, with increased
concentrations and usage, the risk of sensitisation could increase.

34

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Due to the complexity of scented products, which are mixtures of many different fragrance
substances, there are at present no published data identifying the presence of individualhydroperoxides in cosmetic products containing the above fragrance terpenes. However,clinical studies show a clear connection between contact allergy to oxidised limonene andoxidised linalool, and contact allergy to other markers of fragrance contact allergy (130135); see Table 5-3.
Table 5-1: Contact allergic reactions to the autoxidised fragrance substances limonene, linalool,
caryophyllene, myrcene and linalyl acetate in consecutive dermatitis patients.
INCI name

CAS noTest conc.
(%)

n Positive/ntested (%)

Comments(Ref.)

D-Limonene (ox.)

5989-27-5

5

18/703 (2.6%)§ (130)3

28/1172 (1.6%)

2

3/362 (0.83%)

D-Limonene (ox.)

5989-27-5

3

63/2273 (2.8%)
variation between
centres: 0.3-6.5%§ (131)

D-Limonene (ox.)

5989-27-5,
5989-54-8,
138-86-3

3

49/1812 (2.3%)§ (134)

L-Limonene (ox.)

36/1812 (2.0%)

D – and/or L- Limonene(ox.)

63/2411 (2.6%)

Linalool (ox.)

78-70-6

2

20/1511 (1.3%)
variation between
centres: 0.4-2.7%

Caryophyllene (ox.)

88-44-5

3.9

2/1511 (0.1%)

Myrcene (ox.)

123-35-3

3

1/1511 (0.1%)

Linalool (ox.)

78-70-6

2

14/1693 (0.83%)

4

67/2075 (3.2%)

6

91/1725 (5.3%)

11

72/1004 (7.2%)§ (133)§ (135)

Linalool (ox.)

78-70-6

3

11/483 (2.3%)(145)

Linalyl acetate (ox.)

115-95-7

6

13/1217 (1.1%)(141)

Notes: § Bicentric or multicentre studies.
(ox.) Oxidised.

35

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 5-2: Contact allergic reactions to limonene, linalool, linalyl acetate and caryophyllene inconsecutive dermatitis patient. Please observe that several studies have been performed using thetest substances without reporting the autoxidation status but it has been intended to be low. For
precise information see the original references.
INCI name

CAS

Test
conc.
(%)

n Positive/n tested(%)

Comments(Ref.)

2

0/1200(137)

Limonene

3/2396 (0.1%)§ (74)

DL-Limonene

11/1241 (0.88%)§ (43)

0/320

(44)

3/2396 (0.1%)§ (74)

30

0/179

(139)

20

3/1825 (0.2%)§ (45)

10

2/320 (0.6%)

(44)

10

4/792 (0.5%)(138)

5 and 1

0/100

(70)

10

7/2401 (0.3%)§ (74)

10

2/985 (0.2%)§ (43)

1, 5

0/100

(70)

10

4/1855 (0.2%)§ (67)

5

10/1606 (0.6%)§ (97)

numberLimonene138-86-3

Limonene
DL-Limonene
78-70-6

Linalool

Linalool, “stabilised” *Linalyl acetate115-95-7

beta-Caryophyllene

87-44-5

Notes: § Bicentric or multicentre studies.
(ox.) Oxidised.
* Stabilised: according to the manufacturer contained additional substances aimed at limiting
oxidation.

Table 5-3: Concomitant reactions to fragrance markers: Fragrance Mix I and II (FM I, FM II),
Myroxylon pereire (MP) and to colophonium (coloph.) in the baseline series in patients with positive or
negative patch test reactions to oxidised fragrance substances.
Total numberof pos. and/or
neg. reactions

Pos. to FM I

Pos. to MP

Pos. tocoloph.

n

%

n

%

n

%

Reactions to ox.
D- limonene
and/or limonenehydroperoxide
fraction

Pos.: 49

20

41

12

24

12

24

Neg.: 2751

223

8.1

142

5.2

131

4.8

Reactions to ox.
D- limonene
and/or limonenehydroperoxide
fraction aPos.: 60

22

37

11

18

13

22

Neg.: 729

141

19

71

9.7

58

8

36

Ref.

(130)*(132)*

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Reactions to ox.
D- limonene
and/or ox. Llimonene a

Reactions to anyof ox. linalool,
myrcene,caryophyllene

Pos. to ox. Dlimonene: 41

14

34

11

27

11

27

Neg. to ox. Dlimonene: 1771

113

6.4

91

5.1

62

3.5

Pos. to ox. Llimonene: 36

11

31

12

33

9

25

Neg. to ox. Llimonene: 1776

116

6.5

80

4.5

64

3.6

Pos. to any of
the tested ox.
subst.: 31

12

39

6

31

12

39

Neg. to any of
the tested ox.
subst: 1480

93

6

63

4

46

3

Pos. to FM
I

Reactions to ox.
linaloolPos. at test
conc.

Pos. to
FM II

Pos. toMP

Pos. tocoloph.

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

8

26.
7

5

16.
7

10

33.
3

5

16.
7

12

21.
8

8

14.
5

11

20

8

14.
5

14

19.
4

9

12.
5

14

19.
4

9

12.
5

(134)*(133)*(135)*

4%: 30Pos. at test
conc.
6%: 55
Pos. at test
conc.
11%: 72
Total pos. at
any test conc:
75/1004n.g.

Total neg. at
any test conc:
929/1004

56

n.g
.
6.0

29

n.g

3.1

45

n.g
.
4.8

24

2.6

Notes: * Bicentric or multicentre studies.
n.g. Not given.
(ox.) Oxidised.

5.2.

Prohaptens

Compounds that are bioactivated in the skin and thereby form haptens are referred to asprohaptens. The human skin expresses enzyme systems that are able to metabolise
xenobiotics (146), modifying their chemical structure to increase hydrophilicity and allow
elimination from the body. Xenobiotic metabolism can be divided into two phases: phase I
and phase II. Phase I transformations are known as activation or functionalisation reactions,which normally introduce or unmask hydrophilic functional groups. If the metabolites are
sufficiently polar at this point they will be eliminated. However, many phase I products haveto undergo subsequent phase II transformations, i.e. conjugation to make them sufficiently
water soluble to be eliminated. Although the purpose of xenobiotic metabolism isdetoxification, it can also convert relatively harmless compounds into reactive species.
Cutaneous enzymes that catalyse phase I transformations include the cytochrome P450
mixed-function oxidase system, alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases, monoamineoxidases, flavin-containing monooxygenases and hydrolytic enzymes. Acyltransferases,
glutathione S-transferases, UDP-glucuronosyltransferases and sulfotransferases are37

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

examples of phase II enzymes that have been shown to be present in human skin (146).
These enzymes are known to catalyse both activating and deactivating biotransformations(147), but the influence of the reactions on the allergenic activity of skin sensitisers has notbeen studied in detail.
Skin sensitising prohaptens can be recognised and grouped into chemical classes based on
knowledge of xenobiotic bioactivation reactions, clinical observations and/or in vivo and invitro studies of sensitisation potential and chemical reactivity. Few mechanistic
investigations of prohaptens have so far been published. Investigations that are important
for the bioactivation of fragrance substances are studies on alkenes, e.g. alpha- terpinene(148-150), the allylic primary alcohols geraniol (120) cinnamyl alcohol (151-155), eugenol
and isoeugenol (156).
In order to be able to predict the sensitisation potency of prohaptens, steps of bioactivation
have to be included in the predictive tests where intrinsic bioactivating systems are lacking.
So far, no such predictive non-animal methods have been developed that take account of
this.
When bioactivation occurs, the risk of cross-reactivity also needs to be be considered.
Cross-reactivity between certain aldehydes and their corresponding alcohols, e.g. cinnamal- cinnamyl alcohol and geranial - geraniol, due to the metabolic oxidation of the alcohols tothe aldehydes in the skin is demonstrated (120, 151-155).
When using derivatives of a fragrance substance, it must be taken into account that thederivative could be metabolically transformed in the skin into the parent or cross-reacting
compounds. A prominent example of such bioactivation is the hydrolysis of esters byesterases to the corresponding original alcohols. The metabolic product obtained can act asa hapten or a prohapten in exactly the same way as the non-esterified parent compound.
Isoeugenol and its derivatives are an important example for this mechanism from which
general conclusions may be drawn. As only the use of isoeugenol in fragranced products
needs to be indicated on the ingredients list, the additional exposure to isoeugenol throughits derivatives should also be taken into account. In a study it was shown that several
EDP/EDT/aftershave lotions contained high levels of isoeugenyl acetate and isoeugenol
methyl ether (Table 5-4) (157). Isoeugenyl acetate will be hydrolysed by esterases in theskin to generate isoeugenol. The situation may be similar for eugenyl acetate and geranyl
acetate, which might be used in fragrance formulations instead of eugenol and geraniol,
respectively. Moreover, such derivatives will contribute to exceeding any established`acceptable dose/area level’ of the parent compound, i.e., yield unduly high concentrations
on the skin.
Table 5-4: Mean and median content of isoeugenol and its derivatives in the 29 perfume products.
Fragrance compound
INCI Name

Products containing
the fragrance

Content (ppm)

No.

%

Range

Mean

SD

MedianIsoeugenol

16

55

27-20371

54

45

Isoeugenyl acetate

103420-4689

985

1570

166

Isoeugenyl methyl ether

1345

65-1755

360

442.3

222

38

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

5.3.

Conclusions•

Many fragrance substances can act as prehaptens or prohaptens, forming allergens
which are more potent than the parent substance by abiotic and/or metabolic
activation. Activation can thus increase the risk of sensitisation.

•

Fragrance substances of clinical importance known to be prehaptens and to form
sensitising compounds by air oxidation include limonene, linalool, and linalyl acetate.

•

Fragrance substances of clinical importance known to be prohaptens and to form
sensitising compounds by metabolic transformation include cinnamyl alcohol,
eugenol, isoeugenol and isoeugenol acetate.

•

Fragrance substances of clinical importance with published data known to be bothprehaptens and prohaptens and to form sensitising compounds by air oxidation(prehaptens) and by metabolic transformation include geraniol and alpha-terpinene.

•

A fragrance substance that sensitises without activation, but forms more potent
sensitising compounds by air oxidation and also by metabolic transformation is, as
one example, geranial (one isomer of citral).

•In the case of prehaptens, it is possible to prevent activation outside the body to acertain extent by different measures, e.g. prevention of air exposure during handlingand storage of the ingredients and the final product, and by the addition of suitableantioxidants. When antioxidants are used, care should be taken that they will not be
activated themselves and thereby form new sensitisers.
It should be noted that the possibility to reduce the sensitisation potency by
preventing air oxidation is also important for a direct acting hapten or prohapten, if afurther activation by air oxidation to more allergenic compounds has been shown.

•

In the case of prohaptens, the possibility to become activated is inherent to themolecule and activation cannot be avoided by extrinsic measures. Activation
processes increase the risk for cross-reactivity between fragrance substances. Crossreactivity has been shown for certain alcohols and their corresponding aldehydes, i.e.
between geraniol and geranial (citral) and between cinnamyl alcohol and cinnamal.
Cross-reactivity is also expected between ester derivatives and their parent alcohols,
as the esters will be hydrolysed by esterases in the skin. Esters of important contact
allergens that can be activated by hydrolysis in the skin are isoeugenol acetate,eugenyl acetate and geranyl acetate all of which are known to be used as fragrance
ingredients.

•

Further experimental and clinical research in the area of abiotic and/or metabolic
activation of fragrance substances is clearly needed to increase the safety for the
consumer. Compounds suspected to act as prehaptens and/or prohaptens should beconsidered as allergens, unless it could be demonstrated that they do not become
activated by one of the described pathways.

39

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

6.

Retrieval of evidence and classification of fragrance substances

For a systematic review, a structured approach of identifying, grading and aggregating
available information should be used. Regarding the classification of substances asallergens, a number of approaches have been suggested (158-160). The categorisation ofskin sensitisers according to sensitising potency has also been proposed (161, 162). For thisopinion, these discussions were extended to reconcile different perspectives and to arrive ata strategy that is both consistent and applicable in practice.
By default, positive human evidence (clinical data) overrides negative results obtained inanimals. This implies that the observation of a sufficient number of positive clinical cases ismore important than potency information derived from animal experiments (LLNA).
Cosmetovigilance information based on consumer complaints only is of limited value in theevaluation of sensitisation risk associated with cosmetic allergens, including fragrances, as it
does not identify specific causative substances, and likely to severely under-estimate thefrequency of contact dermatitis. An exception is the combination with qualified diagnostic
work-up, as in the French REVIDAL/GERDA system (299); however, such data are generally
published, thus publicly available, and considered in the present opinion.
6.1.

Retrieval of evidence

A systematic search strategy was employed for the retrieval of clinical data, as outlined
below. Experimental data are often not published hence the exact definition of the scopeconsidered for the review is necessary and is given below. Additional LLNA data werereviewed, if identified by the search strategy, e.g. in chapter 8.1.2 and, as “additional
information”, in Annex I of this opinion. This supplemental evidence was, however, notconsidered for the final categorisation in Table 13-2.
6.1.1.

Search strategy for clinical data

Method of literature search:
1. Manual search of the issues of the journal “Contact Dermatitis” (for the 26 “annex
substances”, which were re-evaluated in the present opinion, starting 1999) up to
October 2010, identifying all studies with fragrance substances.
2. PubMed search of CAS numbers identified in the previous opinion, reviews and alreadyidentified clincial studies, respectively, and manual screening of identified publications(narrowed for the last 10 years for the 26 “annex substances”), if necessary narrowing
the search results by adding “dermatitis” or “allergy”. For example, for citral: 5392-405 AND (dermatitis or allergy),translated into
"5392-40-5"[EC/RN Number] AND(("dermatitis"[MeSH Terms] OR "dermatitis"[All Fields])
OR("hypersensitivity"[MeSH Terms] OR "hypersensitivity"[All Fields] OR "allergy"[AllFields] OR "allergy and immunology"[MeSH Terms] OR ("allergy"[All Fields] AND"immunology"[All Fields]) OR "allergy and immunology"[All Fields]))
3. Manual search of all RIFM reviews published in supplement issues of “Food andChemical Toxicology2” in the past 20 years. In case of the least evidence on humansensitisation the substances were preliminarily selected and further research initiated.

2

Food and Chemical Toxicology, Elsevier Ltd. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02786915.

40

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Consideration of the most important (“top 100”) fragrance compounds in terms ofvolumes used (disregarding functional additives such as solvents) as supplied by theInternational Fragrance Association IFRA (personal communication 2010).
5. Consideration of fragrance compounds ranking 101 to 200 on the list of use volumes, if
they were self-classified by manufacturers as skin sensitisers (R 43).
For the present systematic overview of available clinical data, only original studies wereconsidered, as only these provide direct evidence, while other reviews, partly being basedon the same original reports, only served to identify additional literature. In contrast,
selected reviews, guidelines and similar publications were used as basis for methodologicalapproaches (e.g., in section 11).
6.1.2.

Collection of experimental (LLNA) data

The SCCS requested the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) to submit data on
animal tests performed with fragrance substances, to be presented in a structured format.
In response, industry submitted first a poster (163) and later a report consisting of LLNA
protocol summaries on the 59 fragrance substances in the poster (164). No guinea pig
studies were submitted. The SCCS has reviewed and analysed the report and the
publications quoted in the report. A summary is given in chapter 8 and full data are given in
Annex II. EC3 values on some additional fragrance substances in two published reviews(165, 166) have also been considered. Additional EC3 values may be available in thescientific literature and there may also be other unpublished data.
6.2.

Grading of evidence

Assembled evidence has to be graded in two steps: (i) the quality of each single study, and(ii) the strength of evidence underlying the eventual classification as an allergen. Generally,studies (published or not) which are eligible for consideration will contribute to the final
overall judgement to different degrees.
•

Positive human data, if sufficiently demonstrated (point (i) below), will always
over rule experimental (animal), in vitro or in silico data of similar internal
validity, as they provide direct evidence on allergenicity in humans.

•

Small study groups will contribute less precise information than larger studies ofotherwise similar quality. As a minimum requirement, the size of the study
groups and the numbers of events must be stated in the reports.

The following subsections will address special aspects of clinical and experimental studies,
respectively.
6.2.1.

Quality of a clinical study

Two major types of clinical studies must be distinguished because they provide a different
scope of information:(i) Case reports or small case series, focusing on patients with positive (test) reactions
to the target substance, sometimes including a set of non-exposed, possibly nondiseased “control patients”; these should present a concise summary of all relevant
aspects of the patient's history, diagnostic procedures and possibly further
outcomes.
(ii) Clinical series in which results of a group of patients patch tested with the target
substance, often combined with other substances, are presented. In the latter typeof report, usually only a minority of patients tested show a positive reaction to thetest substance. This implies that the majority of patients can be used to illustrate theproportion of irritant, doubtful and negative reactions. The degree of detail on thepatients' histories is usually limited in such studies, compared to case reports.
41

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Some of the basic quality criteria in clinical patch testing which should be considered are:•

Adherence to international patch test guidelines (32, 96).

•

Material(s) tested should be characterised.

•

Total number of patients tested must be given.

•

Patient selection should be described.

•

Relevance may be demonstrated either on a case-by-case basis, following pertinent
guidelines, or in terms of a significant epidemiological association between
sensitisation and exposure or valid markers of exposure.

Concerning relevance, it must be noted that while clinical relevance can provide important
information (see 4.4.1), it is ideally based on comprehensive knowledge of prior exposures.
Since the implementation of labelling 26 fragrances, previous exposure to these can often
be ascertained in the assessment of relevance of a positive patch test reaction (44).
However, exposure to substances not listed on a product ingredient label is obscure, except
in very rare cases where elaborate diagnostics and chemical analyses are feasible (e.g.
(167)). Thus, a lack of information on relevance (reported in studies) does not invalidate
the impact of diagnosed contact sensitisation.
6.2.2.

Quality of an experimental study

International guidelines such as the pertinent OECD guidelines for testing sensitisation havebeen developed and adopted. Experimental studies following these guidelines are
considered as valid. However, a vast number of non-guideline studies are available andshould be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
6.2.3.

Quality of “other” evidence

Supporting evidence besides human and animal (experimental) data comprises in vitro test
systems, in chemico experiments and structure activity relationships (SARs).
SAR analysis has at present no formal regulatory validation for skin sensitisation,nevertheless it may provide useful indicative information on sensitising potential when no or
limited clinical or animal data are available.
SAR studies must consider a possible formation of haptens (allergens) from compounds able
to act as prehaptens by, e.g. autoxidation outside the body as well as metabolic activationin the skin of compounds able to act as prohaptens (122, 168).
6.3.

Aggregating evidence for a final conclusion

The criteria listed below are followed as a flow chart to arrive at a conclusion. This implies
that if classification into one category is achieved, subsequent categories need not be
considered. Based on the above criteria, fragrance substances were selected to be includedin the present opinion if classified in one of the categories defined below.
6.3.1.

Established contact allergen in humans

To qualify as an established contact allergen, the SCCS considers that at least one of thefollowing two criteria must be met:•

At least two clinical series fulfilling the quality criteria from two different centres withcases of sensitisation, or at least three separate clinical series from different centres
if a study, or studies, do not meet all quality criteria. (→ sufficient human evidence
present)
or•Case reports from at least two independent centres describing more than two
42

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

patients altogether in whom clinically relevant contact sensitisation had
unequivocally been proven (→ sufficient human evidence present)or•

At least one clinical series fulfilling the quality criteria, together with at least one
case report of clinically relevant contact sensitisation (→ sufficient human evidence
present);or•Experimentally induced sensitisation (e.g. unequivocally positive humanmaximisation tests/repeated insult patch test)3 (→ sufficient human evidence
present).
6.3.2.

Established contact allergen in animals

To qualify as an established contact allergen, the following criterion must be met:•

At least one positive animal study carried out according to accepted guidelines,
providing evidence of a sensitisation potential (→ sufficient animal evidence
present).
6.3.3.

Likely contact allergen, if human, animal and other evidence isconsidered

To qualify as an likely contact allergen, if classification as “established …” is not applicable,
at least two of the following criteria must be met:•

Individual cases of allergic patch test reactions not fulfilling the requirements for
sufficient evidence (→ limited human evidence present)or•

At least one positive non-guideline animal study, which should be evaluated on acase-by-case basis (→ limited animal evidence present)or•

Other evidence, e.g. results from in chemico experiments or in vitro tests or fromstructure-activity considerations based on sufficiently valid results for closely related
compounds (→ other evidence present).
6.3.4.

Possible contact allergen, if human, animal and other evidence isconsidered

To qualify as a posible contact allergen, if classification as “established …” or as “likely …”
contact allergen is not applicable, at least one of the following criteria must be met:•

Individual cases of allergic patch test reactions not fulfilling the requirements for
sufficient evidence (→ limited human evidence present)or•

At least one positive non-guideline animal study, which should be evaluated on acase-by-case basis (→ limited animal evidence present)or•

Other evidence, e.g. results from in chemico experiments or in vitro tests or fromstructure-activity considerations based on sufficiently valid results for closely related
compounds (→ other evidence present).

3

It should be noted that the SCCS considers such tests unethical (169.
SCCP.
Opinionconcerningthepredictive testing of potentially cutaneous sensiting cosmetic ingredients or mixtures of ingredients adopted by the
SCCNFP during the 11th plenary session of 17 February 2000. 2000: ).

43

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

6.4.

Conclusions

The present opinion includes (i) a well-defined search strategy for retrieving pertinent
evidence; (ii) a definition of criteria used to evaluate available evidence; and, finally (iii) a
set of rules to categorise the substances with regard to the relevant toxicological endpoint,
i.e. sensitisation in man, based on the evidence.

44

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

7.

Reported fragrance allergens from the clinical perspective

In this chapter, clinical evidence regarding sensitisation to individual fragrance chemicals
and to natural extracts (essential oils) is tabulated. In this report “single chemicals” refers
to chemicals of natural or synthetic origin whose chemical identity is fully known. The term
“natural extracts” refers to plant or animal derived mixtures of natural chemicals, forexample lavender oil, whose composition may be variable and may or may not have been
fully or partly established. Full information, including possible synonyms, structural formulas(in the case of single chemicals only), a short summary of available evidence and further
information, e.g. on regulatory status, is presented in Annex I.
7.1.

Tabular summary of evaluated individual fragrance chemicals

Regarding nomenclature, INCI names are used wherever possible. If an INCI name is notavailable, the perfuming name as listed by CosIng is used. Detailed information on the
publications identified and considered for this report can be found in Annex I. Several
substances are currently banned from the use in cosmetic products by Annex II of the
Cosmetics Directive, based on concerns regarding one or more toxicological endpoints.
While available clinical evidence regarding this set of substances is listed in Annex I, thesesubstances have not been further evaluated and are thus not included in this chapter.
In this section, a tabular overview on the classification of substances considered ispresented in four tables listing:
1. Established contact allergens in humans (→ sufficient human evidence present).
2. Substances with positive human data, which are, however, not sufficient tocategorise as “established contact allergen in humans” (→ limited human evidence
present).
3. Substances with negative human data, i.e. patch tests of patients with suspectedcontact allergy to fragrance ingredients which yielded negative results.
4. Substances eligible for inclusion (see beginning of chapter 6) for which no humandata are available.
A critical point in understanding this scheme is that there is publication bias in reporting
allergens. This is due to the fact that once a substance has been reported and accepted as acontact allergen in humans, further reports are less likely to be published unless they arepart of a epidemiological survey or when there is a novel source of exposure. Moreover, thenumber of patients displaying positive test reactions obviously not only depends on theunderlying prevalence of sensitisation, but also on how often a substance is patch tested.
This implies that inclusion of an allergen or allergen mixture in the baseline patch test series(as for Fragrance Mix I and II, Myroxylon pereirae and HICC, and partly also othersubstances/mixtures) will yield the maximum possible number of cases. In contrast, patch
testing in “special” series, e.g. as a break-down of single constituents of the respective mix
in case of a positive reaction to the latter, or with application only in the case of strongly
suspected fragrance intolerance, will mostly result in higher relative numbers than testing
the same compound consecutively, but also in lower absolute numbers.
In Table 7-1, the single substances are listed with a semi-quantification of their impact
which were categorised as established contact allergens in humans according to the criteria
given in chapter 6.3.
Established contact allergens in humans, according to the criteria outlined in chapter 6.3.1,
were categorised according to the number of patients reacting positively and to the numberof patients tested, based on the publications considered (see annex I for references). The
following categories were used:

45

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________+Up to 10 positive test reactions reported++

11 to 100+++

101 to 1000++++

> 1000If a test allergen has been tested in less than 1,000 patients, “r.t.” (rarely tested) is addedin the following tables. For this categorisation, absolute numbers of cases of sensitisation,and not the relative frequency of positive patch tests, were used, because relative
frequencies depend heavily on the selection of patients for patch testing. Thereby, an
important allergen tested routinely, in the baseline series, may yield 1 to 2% positive
reactions (usually in several thousand patients), while an allergen tested in a selective
fashion (in much fewer patients) may yield an even higher relative frequency. Moreover,case reports/series cannot be interpreted in terms of relative frequencies. The calculation ofabsolute numbers was based on all available literature, as detailed in the annex I to thisopinion, i.e., regarding the 26 substances already listed in Annex III to the Cosmetics
Directive includes data already evaluated in the previous opinion.
Table 7-1: Established contact allergens in humans (summary of evaluation as detailed in chapter
6.3). More detailed information forming the basis of this evaluation can be found in Annex I of thisopinion.
INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)

CAS number

Comment:
see text

ACETYLCEDRENE

32388-55-9+

AMYL CINNAMAL

122-40-7++

AMYL CINNAMYL ALCOHOL

101-85-9++

AMYL SALICYLATE

2050-08-0+trans-ANETHOLE

4180-23-8+

ANISYL ALCOHOL

105-13-5+

BENZALDEHYDE

100-52-7+

BENZYL ALCOHOL

100-51-6++

BENZYL BENZOATE

120-51-4++

BENZYL CINNAMATE

103-41-3++

BENZYL SALICYLATE

118-58-1++

BUTYLPHENYL METHYLPROPIONAL (Lilial®)

80-54-6++

CAMPHOR

76-22-2 / 464-49-3+

beta-CARYOPHYLLENE (ox.)

87-44-5Non-ox.: +, ox.: +CARVONE

99-49-0 / 6485-40-1/ 2244-16-8+

CINNAMAL

104-55-2+++

CINNAMYL ALCOHOL

104-54-1+++

CITRAL

5392-40-5+++

CITRONELLOL

106-22-9 / 1117-619 / 7540-51-4++

COUMARIN

91-64-5+++(DAMASCENONE )23696-85-7+

46(r.t.)(r.t.)(r.t.)(r.t.)

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)

CAS number

Comment:
see text

ROSE KETONE-4
alpha-DAMASCONE (TMCHB)#

43052-87-5
23726-94-5

cis-beta-DAMASCONE #23726-92-3+

57378-68-4+

DIMETHYLBENZYL CARBINYL ACETATE(DMBCA)

151-05-3+

EUGENOL97-53-0+++

FARNESOL

4602-84-0+++

GERANIOL

106-24-1+++

HEXADECANOLACTONE

109-29-5+

HEXAMETHYLINDANOPYRAN

1222-05-5++

HEXYL CINNAMAL

101-86-0++

HYDROXYISOHEXYL 3-CYCLOHEXENE
CARBOXALDEHYDE (HICC)

31906-04-4
51414-25-6

HYDROXYCITRONELLAL

107-75-5+++

ISOEUGENOL

97-54-1+++alpha-ISOMETHYL IONONE

127-51-5++(DL)-LIMONENE

138-86-3++ (non-ox.);delta-DAMASCONE

#

/

/

++

(r.t.)+++++++ (ox.)
LINALOOL

78-70-6++ (non-ox.)+++ (ox.)

LINALYL ACETATE

115-95-7+

MENTHOL

1490-04-6 / 89-78-1/ 2216-51-5++

6-METHYL COUMARIN#

92-48-8++ (photo-allergy)

METHYL 2-OCTYNOATE

111-12-6++

METHYL SALICYLATE

119-36-8+

3-METHYL-5-(2,2,3-TRIMETHYL-3CYCLOPENTENYL)PENT-4-EN-2-OL

67801-20-1++

alpha-PINENE and beta-PINENE

80-56-8 and
91-3, resp.

PROPYLIDENE PHTHALIDE

17369-59-4+

SALICYLALDEHYDE

90-02-8++#

76/768/EEC Annex III, part 1#

76/768/EEC Annex III, part 1

47

127-

(r.t.)++(r.t.)

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)

CAS number

Comment:
see text

alpha-SANTALOL and beta-SANTALOL

115-71-9 and
42-9, resp.

SCLAREOL

515-03-7+

TERPINEOL (mixture of isomers)

8000-41-7+

alpha-TERPINEOL

10482-56-1 / 98-555

Terpinolene

586-62-9

TETRAMETHYL
ACETYLOCTAHYDRONAPHTHALENES

54464-57-2
54464-59-4
68155-66-8
68155-67-9

TRIMETHYL-BENZENEPROPANOL (Majantol)

103694-68-4++

VANILLIN

121-33-5

++

77-

++

++
/
/
/

+

Those substances which were categorised as +++ or more, i.e. those with the mostreported cases, were also the top ranking substances in large series of patients tested withthe 26 labelled fragrance ingredients ((44, 74) and additionally (170)). Geraniol is an
exeption, as it was all negative in the Danish study (170), but was still among the top ten in
the Dutch and German studies (44, 74), with prevalences of 0.5%-0.6% positives. Geraniol
has, in addition, caused many cases of contact allergy in other areas of Europe (49).
The use of absolute numbers allows the pooling of studies with different selection criteria.
Limonene and linalool were not tested in their oxidized forms in the three studies (44, 74,170) and would not have been identified, if only these publications had been the basis ofassessment.
It should be noted that oxidised fragrence terpenes with defined content of the major
haptens formed after autoxidation have not been commercially available for testing indermatology clinics. In the published clinical studies testing oxidised fragrence terpenes, thepatch test preparations have been obtained specifically for the performed multicentre
studies. From 2012, patch test preparations of oxidised limonene and oxidised linalool withdefined content of the major allergens in the oxidation mixtures, i.e. the hydroperoxides,
are commercially available (see also chapter 5).

Table 7-2 lists those substances which gave rise to a few reported cases of contact
sensitisation only, or where results have been reported from just one clinical department.
Thus, the level of evidence concerning human data must be regarded as limited, according
to the definitions given in chapter 6.3.

48

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 7-2: Fragrance substances with positive human data, which are, however, not sufficient tocategorise as “established contact allergen in humans”. More detailed information forming the basis of
this evaluation can be found in Annex I of this opinion.
INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)

CAS
numberComment

Ref.

AMBRETTOLIDE

7779-50-2

3.4% positive reactionsin 178 patients(171)

CARVACROL

499-75-2

2 of 28 patients(Meynadier,after (172))

CUMINALDEHYDE

122-03-2

3ofpositiveCYCLOHEXYL ACETATE

622-45-7

0.5% positive ofselected patientsCYCLOPENTADECANONE

502-72-7

3ofpositivetrans-trans-delta-DAMASCONE

179

patients

(139)

218

(173)

patients(171)71048-82-3

1 positive HRIPT (2/15
with 1%)(174)

2,3-DIHYDRO-2,2,6TRIMETHYLBENZALDEHYDE

116-26-7

1 positive HRIPT (5 of53)(175).

DIMETHYLTETRAHYDRO BENZALDEHYDE

68737-61-1

2.3% positive reactions
isomer mixture in 178
patients(171)

ETHYLENE DODECANEDIOATE

54982-83-1

2 / 218
reactions(173)

ETHYL VANILLIN

121-32-4

1 occupational case(176)

HELIOTROPINE

120-57-0

6 / 1606 consecutive
patients positive(97)

HYDROXYCITRONELLOL

107-74-4

6.0%
positivePTreactions in 218 patients(173)

ISOAMYL SALICYLATE

87-20-71
positivein179
patients,
possibly“excited back syndrome”

(139)

178

positivePT(70)

0 / 95 in another study
with <= 1/10 of above
test conc.
ISOLONGIFOLENEKETONE

33407-62-4

1 / 178 patients

METHOXYCITRONELLAL

3613-30-7

Positive PT data
unknown
validity
Nakayama et al.
22/137 patients.

METHOXYTRIMETHYLHEPTANOL

41890-92-0

0.9% positive PT(173)

METHYL p-ANISATE

121-98-2

1 / 182 patients positive(178)

METHYL CINNAMATE

103-26-4

6 / 142 patients positive(179)

METHYL DIHYDROJASMONATE24851-98-7

3
/
1606
positive(97)

0 / 100

(171)
of
by
in

patients

(177)

(70)

METHYLIONANTHEME

55599-63-8

1 case(180)

5-METHYL-alpha-IONONE

79-69-6

5 / 1606(97)

METHYL OCTINE CARBONATE

111-80-8

1 case(181)

49

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)

CAS
numberComment

MYRCENE

123-35-3

1 / 1511 positive
oxidized myrcene

to

(133)

MYRTENOL

515-00-4

2 HRIPTs with 1 pos.
each

(182)

NEROL

106-25-2

6.0% positive(173)

Nerolidol (isomer not specified)

7212-44-4

Few, unconfirmed pos.
cases according to RIFM
review(183)

NOPYL ACETATE

128-51-8

2/
179
positive,
possibly “excited backsyndrome”(139)

PHENETHYL ALCOHOL

60-12-8

1 / 179;(139)

0 / 100(70)

1.1% of 182 positive.

(178)

1 case(184)

PHENYLACETALDEHYDE

122-78-1

Ref.

PHENYLPROPANOL

122-97-4

2 / 218(173)

PHYTOL

150-86-7

1 case in human max.
test

(185)

RHODINOL

6812-78-8

Several pos. HRIPTs,
clinical data of uncertain
validity(186)

trans-ROSE KETONE-5

39872-57-6

2 / 22 pos. HRIPT(187)

For a number of substances negative patch tests results were obtained, usually in rather
small patient samples (max. 313 patients). For some of these substances exposure issubstantial, according to data submitted from IFRA. It should be noted that a negative
result does not rule out a notable sensitisation prevalence, as the study size has to be larger
than, e.g. n=298 to yield a 95% CI which excludes a prevalence of 1% and larger than
n=597 to exclude a prevalence of 0.5%.

50SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 7-3: Fragrance substances with negative human data, i.e. patch tests of patients withsuspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients which yielded negative results.
INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)

CAS number

Results
Comment/

Ref.

6-ACETYL-1,1,2,4,4,7HEXAMETHYLTETRALINE

21145-77-7

0 / 313 consecutive
patients in 2 centres(70)

AMYLCYCLOPENTANONE4819-67-4

0 / 178(171)

BENZYL ACETATE

140-11-4

0 / 100 consecutive
patients in 1 centre
observed(70)

2-TERT-BUTYLCYCLOHEXYL ACETATE

88-41-5

0 / 313 consecutive
patients in 2 centres(70)

4-tert.-Butylcyclohexyl acetate

32210-23-4

0 / 107 consecutive
patients in 1 centre
observed(70)

6-ETHYLIDENEOCTAHYDRO-5,8-METHANO2H-BENZO-1-PYRAN

93939-86-7

0 / 178(171)

3α,4,5,6,7,7α-HEXAHYDRO-4,7-METHANO1H-INDEN-5(OR 6)-YL ACETATE54830-99-8

0 / 313 consecutive
patients in 2 centres(70)

HEXYL SALICYLATE

6259-76-3

0 / 218(173)“top 100” substanceand classified as R43
HIBISCOLIDE

6707-60-4

0 / 178(171)

alpha-IONONE

127-41-3

0 / 205(70)

beta-IONONE

79-77-6

0 / 205(70)“top 100” substance
ISOBORNYL ACETATE

125-12-2

0 / 107(70)“top 100” substance
METHYL ANTHRANILATE

134-20-3

0 / 91(188)“top 100” substance
METHYL IONONE (mixture of isomers)

1335-46-2

0 / 100(70)“top 100” substanceOXALIDE

1725-01-5

0 / 178(171)

TERPINEOL ACETATE (Isomer mixture)

8007-35-0

0 / 106(70)“top 100” substancealpha-TERPINYL ACETATE

80-26-2

0 / 179(139)

TRIMETHYLPROPYLCYCLOHEXANEPROPANOL

70788-30-6

0 / 178(171)

For yet another subset of substances, no human data were publicly available. However,exposure to these substances is important as they are used in high volumes (this being thesole criterion for inclusion in this list) and, therefore their hazard with regard to contact
sensitisation should be examined.

51

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 7-4: Fragrance substances lacking human data and used in high volumes according to industry
information.
INCI name (or, if none exists, perfuming name according to
CosIng)

CAS number

ANISALDEHYDE

123-11-5

BENZYL ACETONE

2550-26-7

p-tert. -Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde

18127-01-0

CITRONELLYL NITRILE

51566-62-2

CYCLAMEN ALDEHYDE

103-95-7alpha-CYCLOHEXYLIDENE BENZENEACETONITRILE

10461-98-0

DECANAL

112-31-2

DIHYDROMYRCENOL

18479-58-8

2,4-DIMETHYL-3-CYCLOHEXEN-1-CARBOXALDEHYDE

68039-49-6

3,7-DIMETHYL-1,6-NONADIEN-3-OL

10339-55-6

DIPHENYL ETHER

101-84-8

ETHYL 2-METHYLBUTYRATE

7452-79-1

2-ETHYL-4-(2,2,3-TRIMETHYL-3-CYCLOPENTEN-1-YL)-2-BUTEN-1-OL

28219-61-6

ETHYLENE BRASSYLATE

105-95-3

EUCALYPTOL

470-82-6

GERANYL ACETATE

105-87-3

HEXAHYDRO-METHANOINDENYL PROPIONATE68912-13-0

HEXYL ACETATE

142-92-7

IONONE isomeric mixture8013-90-9

ISOAMYL ACETATE

123-92-2

ISOBERGAMATE#

68683-20-5

Longifolene

475-20-7

METHYLENEDIOXYPHENYL METHYLPROPANAL

1205-17-0

METHYLBENZYL ACETATE

93-92-5

METHYL DECENOL

81782-77-6

METHYL beta-NAPHTHYL ETHER

93-04-9

METHYLUNDECANAL

110-41-8

OXACYCLOHEXADECENONE

34902-57-3

PENTADECALACTONE

106-02-5

PHENETHYL ACETATE

103-45-7

PHENOXYETHYL ISOBUTYRATE

103-60-6

PHENYLISOHEXANOL

55066-48-3

Tetrahydrolinalool

78-69-3

TETRAHYDRO-METHYL-METHYLPROPYL)-PYRAN-4-OL

63500-71-0#

Annex III, part 1

52

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________INCI name (or, if none exists, perfuming name according to
CosIng)

CAS number

TRICHLOROMETHYL PHENYL CARBINYL ACETATE

90-17-5

TRICYCLODECENYL PROPIONATE17511-60-3

TRIMETHYLHEXYL ACETATE

58430-94-7

gamma-UNDECALACTONE

104-67-6

VERDYL ACETATE

2500-83-6/ 5413-605

7.2.

Tabular summary of evaluated natural extracts/essential oils

Natural raw materials in terms of extracts are used in the fragrance and flavour industry forvarious reasons. Most importantly, several naturally occurring mixtures have a very
complex composition and sensory nature which cannot (fully) be achieved by synthetic thedemand for perfumes based on natural materials is considerable (189).
The three main methods used to concentrate plant fragrance substances (190); distillation,mechanical separation (“pressing”), and solvent extraction, yield very different extracts.
Essential oils are obtained by water steam, water, ethanol, or water/ethanol distillation.
Essence oils are essential oils that separate from the aqueous phase in the distillation
receiver during the distillative concentration of fruit, usually citrus, juices. Citrus peel oils,
apart from distilled lime oil, are prepared in a special way by pressing the peel to releasemostly volatile substances from the pericarp in small oil glands, mostly highly volatileterpene hydrocarbons. However, they also contain small amounts of non-volatilecompounds such as dyes, waxes and furocoumarins. The method of solvent extraction is
generally applied in the separation of heat-labile materials or if an essential oil can only beobtained in very low yield, e.g. from blossoms. It is also used if the non-volatile components
are desired for their fixative properties, e.g. in the preparation of resinoids from exudates.
The most important extracts are termed: (i) concretes, an extract of fresh plant material
with nonpolar solvents, containing not only volatile, but also a large proportion of nonvolatile substances such as waxes; and (ii) absolutes, which are prepared by taking up
concretes in ethanol; compounds that precipitate on cooling are removed by filtration,yielding a wax-free residue called absolute. Resinoids, used for their fixative properties, areprepared by extracting plant exudates with alcohols or nonpolar solvents. The products areusually highly viscous and thus sometimes diluted, e.g. with phthalates or benzyl benzoate.
Oleoresins are concentrates prepared from spices by solvent extraction (189).
An ISO norm exists regarding the nomenclature of aromatic natural raw materials (ISO/DIS
9235 Aromatic raw materials - vocabulary; International Standardisation Organisation,
Geneva, Switzerland). This nomenclature has been considered in Annex I, whereas in thepresent opinion, nomenclature is according to the CosIng database. Concerning extraction
processes for many essential oils, ISO standards exist; for detailed information see Annex I
to this opinion.
Regarding clinical data in terms of contact allergy to essential oils and natural extracts, themain focus is on general dermatological patients with complaints related to use of cosmetics
etc. However, series of cases with occupational exposure to essential oils with occupational
allergic contact dermatitis have also been reported (e.g. masseurs, physiotherapists (191,
192), aromatherapists (193-197), beauticians performing massages (198). For further
details, e.g. PT results with various essential oils, see Annex I.
In this section, a tabular overview on the classification of substances considered ispresented in three tables listing:
1. Extracts identified as established contact allergens in humans(→ sufficient humanevidence present).
53

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Extracts with positive human data, which are, however, not sufficient to categorise
as established contact allergen in humans (→ limited human evidence present).
3. Extracts with negative human data, i.e. patch tests of patients with suspectedcontact allergy to fragrance ingredients which yielded negative results.
In Table 7-5, essential oils with sufficient human evidence to categorise these as establishedcontact allergens in humans are presented.
Table 7-5: Natural extracts classified as established contact allergens in humans (summary ofevaluation as detailed in chapter 6.3). More detailed information forming the basis of this evaluation
can be found in Annex I of this opinion, including variants of botanical nomenclature.
INCI name (or, if none exists, $perfuming
name according to CosIng4) in bold; plantpart / type of extract (partly indicative) in plainfont

CAS number

Comment:
see text

CANANGA ODORATA and Ylang-ylang oil

83863-30-3; 8006-81-3+++

CEDRUS ATLANTICA BARK OIL

92201-55-3; 8000-27-9++

8007-80-5
84649-98-9++

CITRUS AURANTIUM AMARA FLOWER / PEEL
OIL

8016-38-4; 72968-50-4++

CITRUS BERGAMIA PEEL OIL EXPRESSED$

89957-91-5+

CITRUS LIMONUM PEEL OIL EXPRESSED #84929-31-7++

CITRUS SINENSIS (syn.: AURANTIUM DULCIS)PEEL OIL EXPRESSED$

97766-30-8; 8028-48-6++

CYMBOPOGON CITRATUS / SCHOENANTHUS
OILS

89998-14-1;
89998-16-3++

EUCALYPTUS SPP. LEAF OIL$

92502-70-0; 8000-48-4++

EUGENIA CARYOPHYLLUS LEAF / FLOWER OIL

8000-34-8+++

EVERNIA FURFURACEA EXTRACT 5(Tree moss)

CINNAMOMUMCASSIALEAFCINNAMOMUM ZEYLANICUM BARK OIL

OIL

8007-02-1;(r.t.)(r.t.)

90028-67-4+++#

90028-68-5+++

JASMINUM GRANDIFLORUM / OFFICINALE

84776-64-7;
8022-96-6

JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA

8000-27-9; 85085-41-2++

LAURUS NOBILIS

8002-41-3;
84603-73-6++

EVERNIA PRUNASTRI EXTRACT (Oak moss)

LAVANDULA HYBRIDA

90045-94-6;

8007-48-5;+++

91722-69-9+

84776-65-8++

MENTHA PIPERITA

8006-90-4; 84082-70-2++

MENTHA SPICATA

84696-51-5++

MYROXYLON PEREIRAE(Balsam of Peru) #8007-00-9++++

LAVANDULA OFFICINALIS$

4

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/#

76/768/EEC Annex III, part 1#

76/768/EEC Annex III, part 1

54(r.t.)

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________INCI name (or, if none exists, $perfuming
name according to CosIng4) in bold; plantpart / type of extract (partly indicative) in plainfont

CAS number

Comment:
see text

NARCISSUS SPP.

diverse++90082-51-2; 8000-46-2++

90082-72-7 / 97676-05-6++

POGOSTEMON CABLIN

8014-09-3; 84238-39-1++

ROSE FLOWER OIL (ROSA SPP.)Diverse++SANTALUM ALBUM

84787-70-2; 8006-87-9+++

8006-64-2;
8052-14-0++++

PELARGONIUM GRAVEOLENSPINUS MUGO/ PUMILA

TURPENTINE (oil)##VERBENA absolute#

9005-90-7;

8024-12-2++

Notes: r.t. Rarely tested.

Table 7-6 lists a number of essential oils, mostly tested in just one clinical department, andthus, or for other reasons, not satisfying the criteria for being categorised as establishedcontact allergen in humans (i.e. limited human evidence present).
Table 7-6: Natural extracts with positive human data, which are, however, not sufficient to categorise
as “established contact allergen in humans”. More detailed information forming the basis of thisevaluation can be found in Annex I of this opinion.
INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)
in bold; plant part / type of extract(partly indicative) in plain font

CAS number

Comment

Ref.

ACORUS CALAMUS ROOT OIL

84775-39-3

n=7 pos. reactions
to “calamus”(199)

CEDRUS DEODARA WOOD OIL

91771-47-0

Rudzki 1976/1986
found
3
/
3
positive reactions(199, 200).

CITRUS AURANTIUM AMARA LEAF OIL

72968-50-4

Several cases in 2
seriesfrom1centre(199, 200)

CITRUS TANGERINA …

223748-44-5

1 case(201)

89998-15-2;
91771-61-8

Several cases in 2
seriesfrom1centre(199, 200)

84650-59-9

Cases of active
sensitisation; 34%consecutive
patients pos. to
1%

(202)

CYMBOPOGONNARDUSWINTERIANUS HERB OILILLICIUM VERUM FRUIT OIL/

55

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)
in bold; plant part / type of extract(partly indicative) in plain font

CAS number

Comment

Ref.

LAVANDULA SPICA

97722-12-8

Several cases in 2
seriesfrom1centre(199, 200)

LITSEA CUBEBA

90063-59-5

Several cases in 2
seriesfrom1centre(199, 200)

PELARGONIUM ROSEUM

90082-55-6

2.1% pos. of 1483
patients(203)

ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS

84604-14-8

3 cases in 2 series
from 1 centre(199, 200)SALVIA spp.

DiverseSeveral cases in 2
seriesfrom1centre(199, 200)

TAGETES PATULA

91722-29-1

1
case(aromatherapist)(193)

THYMUS spp.

84929-51-1

4 / 84 pos(199)

VETIVERIA ZIZANOIDES

8016-96-4;
84238-29-9

1 / 200 and 9 / 86
pos.

(199, 200)

The final table is an indicative list of natural extracts which lack published human data, butwhich are of interest: (i) as high-volume exposure; (ii) due to published positive animal
experiments; or (iii) because they contain well-known (established) contact allergens.
Table 7-7: Indicative list illustrating natural extracts containing established human allergens or
having R43-lable or positive LLNA, lacking published human data.
INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming
nameaccordingto
CosIng) in bold; plant part / type of
extract (partly indicative) in plain font

CAS number

Comment

CITRUS PARADISI PEEL OIL

8016-20-4

high volume substance, classified as
R4384649-81-0

Pos. LLNA study by RIFM: EC3 value
9.6% (204).

MENTHA ARVENSIS

68917-18-0

high volume, classified as R43

OCIMUM BASILICUM

84775-71-3

Pos. LLNA study by RIFM: EC3 value< 2.5% (204).

PIMENTA RACEMOSA

85085-61-6

Contains, among other substances,the established contact allergeneugenol (42-56%)

SANTALUM SPICATA

8024-35-9

Contains, among other substances,the established contact allergens
santalols (75%) and farnesol (10%)

CYMBOPOGONEXTRACTMARTINIHERB

56

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

7.3.

Conclusions• According to the criteria described in chapter 6.3 a total of 54 individual chemicals and28 natural extracts (essential oils) can be categorised as established contact allergens
in humans, including all currently regulated substances.
• Of the 54 individual chemicals which are established contact allergens in humans, 12
are considered to be of special concern due to the high number of reported cases, (>100, i.e. category +++ or ++++ in Table 7-1). These are further considered in chapter
5 (limonene and linalool) and the remainder in chapter 11. In particular one ingredientstands out, hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, having been the cause of
more than 1,500 reported cases since the 1999 opinion (see also chapter 4.3.1, chapter
11.3 and Annex I).
• For an additional 33 individual chemicals (Table 7-2) and 14 natural extracts (Table
7-6), positive patch test results have been reported. However, they do not qualify forthe above category, i.e.only limited human evidence is present.
• For a number of fragrance substances (n=18, Table 7-3) patch testing did not yieldpositive results. However, numbers of patients tested are generally too small to rule out
the existence of clinical contact sensitisation with sufficient confidence.No clinicalevidence has been identified for 39 individual chemicals that have been reported to be
frequently used (Table 7-4).
• For the substances (and, if possible, also for the main constituents of the natural
mixtures) with limited or no human evidence, additional animal data and/or SAR
considerations are taken into account. Aggregated data for these substances arepresented in chapter 13.

57

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

8.

Animal data
8.1.

Predictive tests and sensitising potency categories

The animal test methods used in harmonised classification of substances, according to theirpotential to cause skin sensitisation, are the guinea pig maximisation test (GPMT), theBuehler test6 and the local lymph node assay (LLNA)7. These methods are used in hazard
identification and risk assessment for regulatory purposes under REACH8. For registration in
REACH, the LLNA is the preferred method for measuring skin sensitisation potential inanimals, and justification for the use of other methods needs to be provided. According to
the directives on classification and labelling9, substances and preparations meeting positive
criteria in these tests shall be classified as sensitising and assigned the symbol “Xi” and therisk phrase “R43: May cause sensitisation by skin contact”; or, according to the recent
regulation on classification, labelling and packaging (CLP10) “H317: May cause an allergic
skin reaction”.
As yet, there is no officially validated in vitro test method for skin sensitisation. Therefore,
for cosmetic ingredients the LLNA, the GPMT and the Buehler test have also been used inrisk assessment for regulatory purposes.
Positive results from the OECD guideline animal tests mentioned above which are sufficient
to classify a substance as a skin sensitiser (R43) are:•••

GPMT; at least 30% of the animals have a positive response.
Buehler test; at least 15% of the animals have a positive response.
LLNA; at least a 3-fold increase in lymph node cell proliferative activity is induced,
compared to vehicle-treated controls (stimulation index SI ≥3). For positive LLNAs,
an EC3 value is calculated which gives the estimated concentration of a chemicalnecessary to give a 3-fold increase in proliferative activity compared to vehicletreated controls.

Further categorisation of substances classified with R43 into three groups according toallergen potency (extreme, strong and moderate) has been proposed by a European
Commission expert group on skin sensitisation (161, 205), and proposed also in the ECHA
guidance document on application of the CLP criteria (162). Such categorisation is based on
EC3 values in the LLNA, on intradermal induction concentration in the GPMT, and topicalinduction concentration in the Buehler test. The potency categories and their default
concentration values based on EC3 values in the LLNA as defined in (161): extreme
sensitiser (EC3 value ≤ 0.2); strong sensitiser (EC3 > 0.2 - ≤ 2); and moderate sensitiser(EC3 value > 2). When LLNA EC3 values are available from more than one study, the lowest
value should normally be used. Where multiple animal data sets lead to different
categorisation of the same substance, the higher potency category should apply (161, 205).
The potency categorisation of substances based on the LLNA is applied by the SCCP in risk
assessment of cosmetic ingredients, particularly hair dye substances (206).

6

OECD Guideline for testing of chemicals. Guideline 406: Skin Sensitisation. OECD, Adopted 12 May 1981,
updated 17th July 1992.
7
OECD Guideline for testing of chemicals. Guideline 429: Skin Sensitisation: Local Lymph Node Assay. OECD,
Adopted 22 July 2010.
8
Council Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 of 30 May 2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No
1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation andRestriction of Chemicals (REACH).
9
Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC.
10Regulation No. 1272/2008.

58

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

8.1.1.

LLNA data

The SCCS requested the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) to submit data on
animal tests performed with fragrance substances, to be presented in a structured format.
In response, IFRA submitted first a poster (163) and later a report consisting of LLNA
protocol summaries on the 59 fragrance substances in the poster (164). No guinea pig
studies were submitted. The SCCS has reviewed and analysed the report and the
publications quoted in the report.
Table 8-1 displays the EC3 values for fragrance substances in the report submitted byindustry (164). EC3 values for some additional fragrance substances in two publishedreviews (165, 166) have also been included in Table 8-1. Table 8-2 presents LLNA resultsfor oxidised substances. Full data are given in Annex II. Table 8-3 summarises the
distribution of fragrance substances, by potency category, according to EC3 values.
Additional EC3 values may be available in the scientific literature. Many more animal
experiments may have been performed, but have not been published.
Table 8-1: Summary of local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 66 fragrance substances, based on areport submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. (RIFM, 2009 (164)) and in
published reviews by Gerberick et al. 2005 (165) and Kern et al. 2010 (166), respectively. EC3 values(% and M) are given. The order of substances is by decreasing sensitisation potency as assessed by
LLNA EC3 values (lowest EC3 value indicating highest potency).
Substance

CAS no.

EC3 value%M

Reference

Hexyl salicylate6259-76-3

0.18

0.008

(164, 166)

Cinnamal

104-55-2

0.2

0.015

(164)

Methyl 2-octynoate

111-12-6<0.5<0.032(164, 166)

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

0.54

0.033

(164)

Citral5392-40-5

1.2

0.079

(164)

2-Hexylidene cyclopentanone

17373-89-6

2.4

0.14

(164)

Methyl octine carbonate

111-80-8

2.5

0.15

(164)

Peru balsam absolute

8007-00-9

2.5

n/a

(164)

trans-2-Hexenal

6728-26-3

2.6

0.26

(164)

Benzyl Salicylate

118-58-1

2.9

0.23

(164, 166)

Butylphenyl methylpropional (BMHCA)

80-54-6

2.9

0.14

(164)

Phenylacetaldehyde

122-78-1

3

0.25(164, 165)

Allyl phenoxyacetate

7493-74-5

3.1

0.16

(164)

Benzylideneacetone122-57-6

3.7

0.25

(165)

3-Propylidenephthalide

17369-59-4

3.7

0.21

(164, 165)

Evernia prunastri extract oak moss

90028-68-5

3.9

n/a

(164)

Balsam oil, Peru (Myroxylon pereirae
Klotzsch)

8007-00-9

4

n/a

(164)

Farnesol4602-84-0

4.1

0.18

(164)

p-t-Butyl-dihydrocinnamaldehyde

18127-01-0

4.3

0.23

(164)

α-Methyl cinnamic aldehyde

101-39-3

4.5

0.31

(164, 165)59

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Substance

CAS no.

EC3 value%M

Reference

Eugenol

97-53-0

5.3

0.32

(164)

Hexyl cinnamal

101-86-0

5.3

0.25

(164)

Dihydrocoumarin

119-84-6

5.6

0.38

(165)

Geraniol

106-24-1

5.6

0.36

(164)

Carvone6485-40-1

5.7

0.38

(164)

Diethyl maleate

141-05-9

5.8

0.34

(165)

2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol

93-51-6

5.8

0.42(164, 165)

Anise alcohol

105-13-5

5.9

0.43

(164, 166)

Jasmine absolute (Grandiflorum)8022-96-6

5.9

N/a

(164)

Dibenzyl ether

103-50-4

6.3

0.32

(164)

Cananga odorata leaf/flower oil ylang
ylang “extra”

8006-81-3

6.8

N/a

(164)

Isocyclocitral

1335-66-6

7.3

0.48

(164)

2,3-Dihydro-2,2,6trimethylbenzaldehyde

116-26-7

7.5

0.50

(165)

Amyl cinnamal

122-40-7

7.6

0.38

(164)

Perillaldehyde p-Mentha-1,8-dien-7-al

2111-75-3

8.1

0.54

(164, 165)p-Isobutyl-α-methylhydrocinnamaldehyde

6658-48-6

9.5

0.46

(164)

d-Limonene*5989-27-5

<10

<0.73

(164)

Methylundecanal

110-41-8

10

0.54

(165)

Acetylcedrene

32388-55-9

13.9

0.57

(166)

Methylenedioxyphenyl methylpropanal1205-17-0

16.4

0.85

(164, 166)

Benzyl benzoate

120-51-4

17

0.80

(165)

Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene
carboxaldehyde

31906-04-4

17.1

0.81

(164, 165)

Benzyl cinnamate

103-41-3

18.4

0.77

(164, 166)

Hydroxycitronellal

107-75-5

19.3

1.12

(164)

Cinnamyl alcohol

104-54-1

21

1.57

(165)

α-iso-Methylionone

127-51-5

21.8

1.06

(164, 166)

Cyklamen aldehyde

103-95-7

22

1.64

(165)

4-Methoxy-α-methyl benzenpropanal5462-06-6

23.6

1.32

(164)

Amyl cinnamyl alcohol

101-85-9

~25

~1.22

(164, 166)

Tetramethyl
acetyloctahydronaphthalenes (OTNE)

54464-57-2

25.1

1.07

(164)

Ethyl acrylate

140-88-5

28

2.8

(165)

Linalool*

78-70-6

30

1.94

(165)

Trimethylbenzenepropanol Majantol

103694-68-4

30

~1.68

(164)

Jasminum Sambac Flower
CERA/Extract/Water

91770-14-8

35.4

N/a

(164)

60

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Substance

CAS no.

Citronellol

EC3 value106-22-9

%

M

43.5

2.78

Reference(164, 166)

No EC3 value was established; higher concentrations should also have been tested
6-Methyl-3,5-heptadien-2-one

1604-28-0

>5

>0.40

(164)

Camellia sinensis leaf tea leaf absolute

84650-60-2

>5

N/a

(164)

Cinnamyl nitrile

1885-38-7

>10

>0.77

(164)

Menthadiene-7-methyl formate

68683-20-5

>10

>0.51

(164)

Evernia furfuracea extract tree moss
absolute

90028-67-4

>20

N/a

(164)

Isocyclogeraniol

68527-77-5

>25

>1.62

(164)

1-Octen-3-yl acetate

2442-10-6

>30

>1.76

(164)

Benzyl alcohol

100-51-6

>50

>4.62

(164)

Coumarin

91-64-5

>50

>3.42

(164)

Vanillin

121-33-5

>50

>3.3

(164)

100-52-7-

No EC3 value calculated
Benzaldehyde(165)

Notes: * Material with low levels of oxidation according to (164)n/a: Not applicable (mixture of compounds).
M: EC3 based on molar concentration

8.1.2.

LLNA data on oxidised fragrance substances

For fragrance substances that can autoxidise upon air exposure, it is also important toinvestigate the sensitisation potency after air exposure. The oxidised compounds areclinically relevant as they represent what the consumers could come in contact with from
perfumes and fragranced products. In Table 8-2 the LLNA data for some of the mostcommonly used fragrance substances, pure and after autoxidation, are presented. The EC3
values obtained for the pure substances are 5-10 times higher compared to those obtained
for the same substances after air exposure. The experimental air exposure simulated air
exposure that can take place during normal handling and storage. In the production
process, some perfumes are “matured” aerobically, stirring included. During this process,some fragrance substances may be oxidised. It should be noted that, although only a few
substances capable of oxidation have so far been investigated, structural alerts indicating
possible autoxidation are common among the fragrance substances listed in this document(see chapter 9). It is important to further investigate this issue for increased understandingof the associated risk.
Table 8-2: Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on four fragrance substances and one essential oil
before and after air exposure, comparing the sensitisation potency of the pure (not oxidised)
substance with the potency of the oxidised.
Substance

CAS no.

Doses % (w/v)
vehicle: A:OO
4:1*

EC3 value (%w/v)

Reference

D-Limonene (ox. 10 w)

5989-27-5

1, 5, 25

3.0

(207)

D-Limonene (pure)5989-27-5

25, 50, 100

30

61

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Substance

CAS no.

Doses % (w/v)
vehicle: A:OO
4:1*

EC3 value (%w/v)

Reference

Linalool (ox. 10 w)

78-70-6

5, 10, 25

9.4

(127)

Linalool (ox. 45 w)

78-70-6

2.5, 10, 25

4.8

Linalool (pure)

78-70-6

25, 50, 100

46.2

Linalyl acetate (ox. 10 w)

115-95-7

0.5, 10, 40

3.6

Linalyl acetate (pure)115-95-7

10, 30, 100

25

Geraniol (ox. 10 w)

106-24-1

1, 3, 6, 10, 20

4.4

Geraniol (ox. 45 w)

106-24-1

0.5, 1, 3, 6, 10

5.8

Geraniol (pure)106-24-1

5, 10, 15, 20, 30

22.4

Lavender oil (ox. 10 w)

1, 5, 10, 20, 50

11Lavender oil (ox. 45 w)

1, 5, 10, 20, 50

4.4

Lavender oil (not ox.)5, 25, 100

36

(128)

(119)

(140)

Notes: Pure: Purified before testing as most commercially available fragrance substances are notpure.
Not ox.: Not purified but used as it was delivered as this is a complex mixture and not a
specific substance.
Ox. x w: Oxidised by air exposure during x weeks.
* Acetone:olive oil.

8.2.

Methodological considerations

EC3 mean values
In the submitted poster (163) and the report by IFRA (164), the LLNA weighted mean EC3
values (µg/cm2) are presented. The SCCS considers it is misleading to present EC3 values
as mean values from tests performed with different vehicles. It is generally agreed that thelowest EC3 value should be used if there is more than one study fulfilling the OECD
guideline requirements (161, 205), and these have been introduced into Table 8-1. The EC3
values in the reviews by Gerberick et al. and Kern et al. (165, 166) were based on single
representative experiments with a vehicle described in the OECD guideline 429 (see above),and preferably with acetone:olive oil. EC3 mean values, as in the submission by IFRA, were
not presented in these two reviews.
VehicleThe most frequently used vehicle in the submission by IFRA (164) was ethanol:diethyl
phthalate (1:3), followed by acetone:olive oil (4:1). In some experiments, antioxidants
were mixed with ethanol:diethyl phthalate. The vehicle was not reported in some of thereferences, and no rationale for using vehicles other than those recommended was given in
the report (164). According to the OECD guideline 429 (see above), the recommended
vehicles are acetone:olive oil (4:1), N,N-dimethylformamide, methyl ethyl ketone,
propylene glycol, and dimethyl sulphoxide, but others may be used if sufficient scientificrationale is provided. It is well known that a difference in the EC3 value can be obtained forthe same substance depending on which vehicle is used in the LLNA. Thus as an additional
control, supplementary to the guideline based LLNA control, a clinically relevant solvent or
the commercial formulation in which the test substance is marketed may be used.

62

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Number of doses and animals
According to the OECD guideline 429 (see above), a minimum of three concentrations
should be tested. The number of consecutive doses used in the reported data, was generally
five, sometimes three and in few experiments two. The SCCS considers that too few
concentrations were tested in four studies in which only two concentrations were used.
Lower concentrations than those tested should have been used in experiments with fivefragrance substances, in which the EC3 value could not be determined. Higher
concentrations than those tested should also have been used in experiments with 12
substances, in which the EC3 value could not be determined.
The number of animals per dose group was generally four plus a non-exposed control
group, sometimes five, and in few experiments six; the minimum according to the OECD
guideline being four.
Units for concentrations
In the submission by IFRA (164) the EC3 values are given in weight per area unit (µg/cm2).
The SCCS considers that the EC3 values (%) are the values of primary interest incommunicating risk assessment, as EU legislation, OECD guideline 429 and scientific
literature refer to EC3 values (%). However, the SCCS recommends that molar (M) EC3
values should be considered, as they give the concentration based on the molecular weightof substances. They have thus been calculated and introduced into Table 8-1.
EC3 values (%) overestimate the intrinsic molecular sensitisation potency for low molecularweight compounds while compounds with a high molecular weight are underestimated.
Regarding the differences in molecular weight between the studied fragrance substances, avariation is seen if the ranking list of the sensitisation potency is based on EC3 (%) or EC3(M) since some substances have a molecular weight twice as high as others.
From comparisons in Table 8-1, we notice that, e.g. hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene
carboxaldehyde (HICC) has an EC3 value of 17.1 %, or 0.81 M when the calculation
includes its molecular weight, while for trans-2-hexenal the corresponding values are 2.6%
and 0.26 M. The example shows that comparing the sensitisation potency between these
two substances using the EC3 values in % exaggerates the sensitisation potency of trans-2hexenal compared to that of HICC. When using the EC3 values in molar concentrations thedifference is not so pronounced.
8.3.

Summary of animal data by LLNA

The distribution of sensitising potency of fragrance substances compared to othersubstances, (e.g. biocides, dyes, plastic materials) taken from three references (164-166)
as assessed by EC3 values in the LLNA, is shown in Figure 8-1 and Table 8-3.
For 10 substances, no EC3-value could be established. These should have been tested at
higher concentrations – some of these would most probably have generated an EC3 value.
However, we reported here “No EC3 value established”. 5 substances should have beentested also at lower concentration and in these cases the EC3 value could have been
lowered, meaning a more severe potency category could have been achieved. In all, approx
150 experiments were reported in (164), listed in Annex II.
The median EC3 value of evaluable fragrance substances (5.9%) is similar to othersubstances tested (5.5%). However, very few fragrance substances have low EC3 values (≤2).
Substances with an EC3 value ≤2 may be categorised as strong or extreme sensitisers.
Such potent sensitisers are comparatively rare among fragrance substances assessed in the
LLNA. Nevertheless, fragrances are important allergens in humans, which points to repeatedskin exposure to less potent sensitisers as a factor strongly determining sensitisation risk.

63

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 8-1: The distribution of fragrance chemicals and a variety of other chemicals (e.g. biocides,
dyes, plastic materials), taken from the three references (164-166), are depicted as boxplots on alogarithmic scale. The bottom of the box denotes the 1st quartile (25% percentile), the thick line in thebox the median, and the top of the box the 3rd quartile (75% percentile). Outliers, i.e. below the 25%
and above the 75% percentiles, are shown as whiskers. Beyond the 1.5-fold interquartile range, single
values are shown as circles instead of whiskers. The difference in distribution is not significant(Wilcoxon test: p=0.061).
Note: EC3 values for the five oxidised fragrances additionally examined (Table 8-2) range from 3.0 to
4.8 (median 4.4) and are lower by a factor of around 7 than EC3 values of the respective non-oxidisedmaterial.

Table 8-3: Summary of EC3 values for fragrance substances in Table 8-1 and for other substances,
all taken from the three references (164-166). The EC3 value intervals for potency categorisation(161, 205) were used for comparison of fragrances substances vs other substances.
EC3 value interval

Fragrance substances

Other substances

n

%

n

%

≤ 0.2

2

3%

28

11%

> 0.2 - ≤ 2

3

4%

38

15%

>2

50

71%

127

49%

No EC3 value established *

10

14%

0

0%

No EC3 value calculated (NC)

5

7%

69

26%

All substances

70

Note:

262

* Substances should have been tested also at higher concentrations.

8.4.
•
•
•
•

Conclusions
In the event that human data are lacking, the LLNA provides important
information on skin sensitising potential and potency.
Animal data on fragrance substances submitted by IFRA (164) and assessed inthis opinion were generated exclusively by LLNA. Other guideline methods are,however, also available.
The vast majority of the submitted (164) and additional (165, 166) fragrance
substances tested by the LLNA are skin sensitisers.
Several studies in the IFRA report (164) were of insufficient quality, not following
the OECD guideline.
64

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________••

Fragrance substances that can be predicted to autoxidise upon air exposure
should also be tested after air exposure, as oxidation may significantly increase
their sensitising potency.
It can be concluded that the skin sensitising potency, as assessed by the LLNA, isonly one of several factors that are of importance for sensitisation to fragrance
substances. This is illustrated by the fact that only a small fraction of sensitising
fragrance substances can be categorised as an extreme allergen based on LLNA
test results. Therefore, doses from repeated deposition onto skin must be
considered a driving force of sensitisation risk.

65

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

9.
Structure activity relationships (SAR): grouping of substances based on
expert judgement
Whether or not a particular chemical will be a sensitiser, and how potent it will be if it is asensitiser, depends on its ability, either directly or after activation, to react with appropriate
proteins in the skin. This fundamental concept was intitially demonstrated by Landsteinerand Jacobs in 1936 (208) and subsequently validated by numerous studies with various
types of chemicals (some key references: (209-213)). The ability to predict sensitisation
potency, or lack of it, depends on being able to predict reactivity to skin proteins. This is thebasis of SAR analysis for skin sensitisation. The prediction can often be made based on thechemical structure, recognising structural features (referred to as structural alerts) thatare associated with reactivity.
The relationships between molecular structure and reactivity that form the basis forstructural alerts are based on well established principles of mechanistic organic chemistry(214). Examples of structural alerts are aliphatic aldehydes (alerting to the possibility ofsensitisation via a Schiff base reaction with protein amino groups), and α,β-unsaturated
carbonyl groups, C=C-CO- (alerting to the possibility of sensitisation via Michael addition ofprotein thiol groups). Major mechanistic reactivity domains have been discussed in detail by
Aptula and Roberts (215). Prediction of the sensitisation potential of compounds that can
act via abiotic or metabolic activation (pre- or prohaptens) is more complex compared tothat of compounds that act as direct haptens without any activation. The autoxidation
patterns can differ due to differences in the stability of the intermediates formed, e.g. it has
been shown that autoxidation of the structural isomers linalool and geraniol results indifferent major haptens/allergens. Moreover, the complexity of the prediction increases
further for those compounds that can act both as pre- and prohaptens. In such cases, theimpact on the sensitisation potency depends on the degree of abiotic activation (e.g.
autoxidation) in relation to the metabolic activation.
These structural alerts can be applied by computerized expert systems, i.e. in silico or by
estimations made by organic chemists (in cerebro) using their experience. When an organic
chemist looks at a chemical structure, they recognise parts of the structure that they can
associate with reactivity, the type of reactivity (i.e. assign the reaction mechanistic
domain), and other features of the molecular structure that will affect the reactivity
positively or negatively. Human experts should be aware of the complexities, and how
structural modification can alter the reactivity associated with structural alerts, etc.
Importantly, they can also recognise where there are unfamiliar structural features whose
effects they cannot confidently predict. In such cases they can call for experimental
chemistry work (in chemico) to be done to ascertain the presence or nature of, and degreeof reactivity. In chemico methods include organic chemistry experimentation to identify
chemical reaction products from oxidation and/or reaction with model nucleophiles,
identification of mechanisms of reaction. In so called in chemico reactivity methods, theability of a specific chemical to react with selected peptides is determined so as to predict
the sensitisation potential of the chemical under investigation (216, 217). To make inchemico reactivity methods able to predict the activity of prohaptens, the addition ofhorseradish peroxidase and hydrogen peroxide oxidation system has been tested to model
the enzymatic oxidation in the skin (218, 219).
Although computerized expert systems are derived from input by human experts, they areless well able to capture the subtleties of structure reactivity relationships, and theysometimes fail to detect aspects of chemistry that are obvious to organic chemists. Humanexperts should be aware of the complexities, as well as how structural modification can alter
the reactivity associated with structural alerts, etc.
The SAR evaluation made in the section below is based on in cerebro alerts appliedby organic chemists.
Depending on the type of reactivity (the reaction mechanistic domain), it is sometimes
possible to make a quantitative prediction of potency in the LLNA, which can be used to
predict potency in humans relative to related known human sensitisers. These predictions
use quantitiative mechanistic models (QMMs) based on reactivity expressed quantitatively
66

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

by model parameters, and sometimes in combination with hydrophobicity. For example,
potency of aliphatic aldehydes and ketones (the Schiff base domain) in the LLNA is modelled
by a combination of reactivity and hydrophobicity (220), whereas the LLNA potency of
DNCB analogues (the SNAr domain) is well modelled by reactivity alone (221).
QMMs aiming not only to predict the potential to be a sensitiser but also to predict thepotency, promise to be a useful tool in non-animal based risk assessment for skinsensitisation. However, in the field of fragrance substances there are major gaps in ourpresent ability to apply QSAR/QMM. This is largely because many of the fragrance
substances of interest have the potential to act via abiotic or metabolic activation (preand/or prohaptens, i.e. they themselves are only weak or non-sensitisers, but have thepotential to be activated to form more potent sensitisers. Resulting sensitisation potency
will depend on the extent of activation and the nature of the resulting products. It is
possible to apply SAR analysis to identify these plausible possibilities, but QSAR modelling
for these cases is not yet developed. However, much progress has been made in identifying
structural alerts for the various activation mechanisms that have been recognised. This isreviewed by Karlberg et al. (122).
Chemicals with no structural alerts for direct reactivity, or for known activation mechanisms,
and no unfamiliar structural features that might be associated with as yet unidentified
activation mechanisms, can be predicted to be non-sensitising. Chemicals that do havealerts for reactivity (direct or via activation) are not necessarily sensitisers – they may beinsufficiently reactive and/or insufficiently hydrophobic.
Substances meeting the inclusion criteria (see chapter 6), for which, however, nocategorisation as established contact allergen in humans or established contact allergen inanimals was possible, have been assessed for structural alerts. The results are presented infour tables based on the prediction made for the actual substance. The following SAR
assessments have been used:•

Predicted sensitiser; structural alerts:
Compounds containing structural alerts comprising direct reactive compounds and forcompounds that after specific abiotic or metabolic activation (prohaptens andprehaptens) can be predicted to be sensitisers by structural comparison to known
allergens.

•

Possible sensitiser; structural alerts:
Compounds containing structural alerts that by comparison to known allergens withsimilar structures were expected to be less reactive and hence less likely to besensitising. Also compounds with structural alerts indicating a possible abiotic or
metabolic activation (possible prehaptens or prohaptens) but with no structural data
available for comparison, were included in this group. Consequently, a possible
sensitiser may turn out to be a non sensitiser when tested in vivo.

•

Predicted non-sensitiser (NS); no obvious structural alerts•

Not predictable due to insufficient/conflicting data

Table 9-1: Predicted sensitisers.
Substance (INCI) name

CAS number

Structural alerts

p-tert.-Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde

18127-01-0

Schiff base

Citronellal

106-23-0

Schiff base and possible prehapten

Citronellyl nitrile

51566-62-2

Possible prehapten

Decanal112-31-2

Schiff base

3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-nonadien-3-ol

10339-55-6

Prehapten

Geranyl acetate

105-87-3

Prehapten and prohapten§

67

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Isoamyl salicylate

87-20-7Acyltranfer agent

Methyl cinnamate103-26-4

Michael acceptor

Methylundecanal

110-41-8

Schiff base

Myrcene123-35-3

Prehapten

Nerol106-25-2

Prehapten and prohapten

Nerolidol (isomer not specified)

7212-44-4

Possible prehapten

Oxacyclohexadecenone

34902-57-3

Michael acceptor

Phenethyl salicylate

87-22-9Acyltransfer agent

trans-Rose ketone-5

39872-57-6

Michael acceptor and possible prehapten

Note:§ Classified as R43.

Table 9-2: Possible sensitisers.
Substance (INCI) name

CAS number

Structural alerts

Ambrettolide

7779-50-2

Possible prehapten

Amylcyclopentanone

4819-67-4

Schiff base; the combination of reactivity
and hydrophobicity may be enough toconfer sensitisation

Benzyl acetate140-11-4

Prohapten via hydrolysis leading to benzyl
alcohol

Carvacrol

499-75-2

Possible prehapten

Cuminaldehyde

122-03-2

Schiff base and possible prehaptenalpha-Cyclohexylidene
benzeneacetonitrile

10461-98-0

Possible Michael acceptor

Cyclopentadecanone

502-72-7

Schiff base; the combination of reactivity
and hydrophobicity may be enough toconfer sensitisationtrans-beta-Damascone

23726-91-2

Possible Michael acceptor

trans-trans-delta-Damascone

71048-82-3

Possible Michael acceptor and possible
prehapten

gamma-Damascone

35087-49-1

Possible Michael acceptor and possible
prehapten

Dihydromyrcenol

18479-58-8

Possible prehapten

2,3-Dihydro-2,2,6trimethylbenzaldehyde

116-26-7

Possible Michael acceptor and possible
prehapten and possible prohapten

2,4-Dimethyl-3-cyclohexen-1carboxaldehyde §68039-49-6

Schiff base and possible prehapten

Dimethyltetrahydrobenzaldehyde

68737-61-1

Schiff base and possible prehapten

6-Ethylideneoctahydro-5,8methano-2H-benzo-1-pyran93939-86-7

Possible prehapten

2-Ethyl-4-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3cyclopenten-1-yl)-2-buten-1-ol

19-61-6

Possible prehapten

Ethyl vanillin

121-32-4

Complex

Heliotropine

120-57-0

Possible prohapten

3α,4,5,6,7,7α-Hexahydro-4,7methano-1H-inden-5(or 6)-yl

54830-99-8

Possible prehapten

68

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Substance (INCI) name

CAS number

Structural alerts

Hexahydro-methanoindenyl
propionate

68912-13-0

Possible prehapten

Ionone isomeric mixture8013-90-9

Possible Michael acceptor and possible
prehaptenalpha-Ionone

127-41-3

Possible Michael acceptor and possible
prehapten

beta-Ionone

79-77-6

Possible Michael acceptor

Isobergamate

68683-20-5

Possible prehapten

Isolongifoleneketone

33407-62-4

Schiff base; the combination of reactivity
and hydrophobicity may be enough toconfer sensitisation

Longifolene§475-20-7

Possible prehapten

Methoxycitronellal

3613-30-7

Schiff base

Methyl decenol

81782-77-6

Possible prehapten

Methyl ionone (mixture ofisomers)1335-46-2

Possible Michael acceptor and possible
prehapten

Methylionantheme

55599-63-8

Possible Michael acceptor and possible
prehapten

5-Methyl-alpha-ionone

79-69-6

Possible Michael acceptor and possible
prehapten

Myrtenol

515-00-4

Possible prehapten

Nopyl acetate128-51-8

Possible prehapten

Phytol150-86-7

Possible prehapten and/or prohapten

Rhodinol

6812-78-8

Possible prehapten

Terpineol acetate (isomer
mixture)8007-35-0

Possible prehaptenalpha-Terpinyl acetate80-26-2

Possible prehapten

Tricyclodecenyl propionate

17511-60-3

Possible prehapten

Verdyl acetate

2500-83-6/
5413-60-5

Possible prehapten

acetateNote:§

Classified as R43.

Table 9-3: Predicted non-sensitisers with no obvious structural alerts.
Substance (INCI) name

CAS number

6-Acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7hexamethyltetraline

21145-77-7

Benzyl acetone

2550-26-7

2-tert.-Butylcyclohexyl acetate

88-41-5

4-tert.-Butylcyclohexyl acetate

32210-23-4

Cyclohexyl acetate622-45-7Diphenyl ether

101-84-8

Structural alerts

Schiff base; the combination of reactivity
and hydrophobicity may not be enough toconfer sensitisation

69

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Substance (INCI) name

CAS number

Ethyl 2-methylbutyrate

7452-79-1

Ethylene dodecanioate

54982-83-1

Ethylene brassylate

105-95-3

Eucalyptol

470-82-6

Hexyl acetate142-92-7

Hibiscolide

6707-60-4

Hydroxycitronellol

107-74-4

Isoamyl acetate

123-92-2

Isobornyl acetate125-12-2

Methoxytrimethylheptanol

41890-92-0

Methyl p-anisate121-98-2

Methyl anthranilate

134-20-3

Methylbenzyl acetate

93-92-5

Methyl dihydrojasmonate

24851-98-7

Oxalide1725-01-5

Pentadecalactone

106-02-5

Phenethyl acetate103-45-7

Phenethyl alcohol60-12-8

Phenoxyethyl isobutyrate

103-60-6

Phenylisohexanol

55066-48-3

Phenylpropanol

122-97-4

Tetrahydrolinalool

78-69-3

Tetrahydro-methylmethylpropyl)-pyran-4-ol

63500-71-0

Trimethylhexyl acetate

58430-94-7

Trimethylpropylcyclohexanepropanol(tmch)

70788-30-6

gamma-Undecalactone

104-67-6

Structural alerts

However, dehydration followed by
autoxidation could give sensitising
impurities

Schiff base; the combination of reactivity
and hydrophobicity may not be enough toconfer sensitisation

Table 9-4: Not predictable.
Substance (INCI) name

CAS number

Structural alerts

Anisaldehyde

123-11-5

Due to insufficient /conflicting data;
structural similarities to benzaldehyde
suggest certain activity in man

Trichloromethyl phenyl carbinyl
acetate90-17-5

Due to insufficient /conflicting data

Methyl beta-naphthyl ether

93-04-9Due to insufficient /conflicting data70

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

9.1.

General results

From this work with the included SAR predictions, the following observations can be made.
•For substances for which sufficient experimental/clinical evidence is missing, SAR
analyses have been performed to predict a probable or possible risk of allergenic(sensitising) effect. These predictions are based on chemical reactivity and therecognition of structural features in a substance that are in common with thestructural features that have been shown to cause sensitisation from othersubstances. In cases where the SAR analysis indicates a sensitisation potential, thesubstance should be investigated further to confirm or reject the conclusion drawn
from the SAR analysis.

•

Prediction of the sensitisation potential of compounds that can act via abiotic or
metabolic activation (pre- or prohaptens) becomes more complex compared to thatof compounds that act as direct haptens without any activation.

•

The complexity of the prediction increases further for those compounds that can act
both as prehaptens and prohaptens.

•

Prediction of the sensitisation potential of compounds that can act as prehaptens isfurther complicated by the fact that the autoxidation patterns can differ due todifferences in the stability of the intermediates formed, e.g. it has been shown that
autoxidation of the structural isomers of linalool and geraniol results in different
major haptens/allergens.
9.2.

Conclusions

The SAR evaluation made in this section is based on in cerebro alerts applied by organic
chemists.
•

Applying only mechanism-based QSAR (QMM) as a tool in non-animal based risk
assessment for skin sensitisation is of limited value for fragrance substances. This isdue to major information gaps in the present model when addressing substancesthat act via abiotic or metabolic activation, and the high incidence of such substancesin fragrances.

•

Quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) models should be further
developed, combining, as appropriate, information from in silico, in chemico and invitro methods.

•

SAR, as performed here, is only one consideration in the overall weight of evidence.

71

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

10.

Exposure

Exposure to fragrance chemicals and other potential allergens is most commonly by direct
skin contact. Exposures to fragrance chemicals occur from:•

Personal cosmetic use;•

Detergents and other household products;•

Medicaments;•

Occupation, i.e. personal hygiene, manufacturing ingredient(s), product in work
process, plant materials;•

Secondary exposure from another individual (e.g. spouse, child);

•

Toys;

•

Oral intake;•Airborne exposure.

Factors that are important for both the induction and elicitation of contact allergy are:•

Dose per unit area;•

Vehicle effects including penetration enhancers;•

Presence of skin irritants;•

Presence of other allergens (combination effects);•

Duration of skin exposure;•

Frequency of applications;•Anatomical sites of exposure;•

Condition of the skin (barrier function impairment, pre-existing inflammation);•

Occlusion (e.g. in flexures, under clothing and personal protective equipment).

Fragrance mix ingredients are commonly present in cosmetic formulations (71, 222-224).
Cosmetics based on natural ingredients may contain fragrance allergens at a higher
concentration than other cosmetic products (225). The clinical significance of exposure tonatural extracts is difficult to determine as there is often “hidden and variable” exposure toimportant and potent allergens in natural products.
10.1. Concentrations and quantities used
Consumers are exposed in daily life to fragrance chemicals from a large variety of products,
such as cosmetics, toys, detergents and other cleaning products, etc. The fragrance
exposure may be via dermal and/or inhalation route. With respect to “Terms of Reference”
to the SCCS, only dermal exposure from cosmetics is addressed in this opinion. As
cosmetics are the perfumed products most commonly used in daily life, potential fragrance
allergens identified by the use of cosmetics also represent the exposures of these chemicals
from other product categories. In recent years, it has become a trend to add fragrance
chemicals to many other types of consumer products, such as children’s toys, toilet paperand nappies, which may contribute significantly to the fragrance exposure of the consumer
by the dermal route.
Factors for the fragrance exposure assessment by the dermal route require knowledge on:•

Product types (categorisation of scented products) used by the consumer.

•

Market survey (impression of the qualitative and quantitative contents of different
allergens in consumer products).

72

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________•

Hydrolysis, metabolism or oxidation of a fragrance material, which may generate apotential skin allergen.

•

Chemicals in the product matrix, which may significantly enhance or reduce dermal
absorption of a fragrance material.

Fragrance materials, both defined chemical substances and natural mixtures of chemicals(essential oils), are used in all types of cosmetic products: perfumes, eau de cologne, eaude perfume (EDP), and eau de toilette (EDT), aftershave lotion, deodorants, skin careproducts, skin cleansers, make-up cosmetics, hair care products, and oral care products,
etc. However, some unscented cosmetic products have also reached the market in the last
decade. Products containing the highest concentration of fragrance chemicals are perfumes,
followed by eau de cologne, eau de perfume (EDP) and eau de toilette (EDT).
Concentrations of fragrance chemicals in deodorant products are lower than those in
EDT/EDP products, but still significant. Aftershave products also contain relatively highamounts of fragrance chemicals. Other cosmetic products contain relatively low amounts,
0.1-1% of fragrance compound, compared to up to 30% fragrance compound in EDT/EDP(226). The fragrance compound are mixtures of 20 to over 200 synthetic fragrance
chemicals or natural fragrance materials (essential oils), selected from over 3,000 fragrance
materials (226). For the exposure assessment, levels of fragrance chemicals in cosmetics
containing significant amounts of fragrance materials (i.e. EDP/EDT/aftershave/deodorant)
should be selected. It may not be possible to detect/measure the amounts of all fragrance
chemicals when present in highly diluted form in a cosmetic product such as skin careproducts, make-up cosmetics etc. On the other hand, if a fragrance is evaluated safe for use
when present in significant amounts in a product, it will also be safe for use in otherproducts. Also the analysis of trend of the use of individual fragrance materials should bebased on monitoring their contents in fine perfumes and deodorants.
Ninety of the 100 fragrance materials used in annual volumes > 175 tons in perfume
formulations are fragrances and the remaining ten are used for other functions such as
solvents or antioxidants (IFRA, personal communication 2010).
Among the 26 fragrances currently requiring individual labelling, amyl cinnamal, benzyl
benzoate, benzyl salicylate, butyl phenyl methyl propional, citral, citronellol, coumarin,
eugenol, geraniol, hexyl cinnamal, hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxyaldehyde (HICC),
alpha-isomethyl ionone, and linalool are used in volumes greater than 175 ton. αAmylcinnamyl alcohol, anisyl alcohol, benzyl alcohol, benzyl cinnamate, cinnamal, cinnamyl
alcohol, farnesol, hydroxycitronellal, isoeugenol, d-limonene, methyl-2-octynoate, oak moss(Evernia prunastri), tree moss (Evernia furfuracea) are used in volumes less than 175 ton.
According to the information from the fragrance industry, 80% of the total fragrance
chemical volume is used in cosmetics and 20% in household products.
Since the implementation of the regulation of labelling of 26 fragrance substances incosmetic products, qualitative information on fragrance exposure from cosmetics is provided
in some market surveys performed on cosmetics (Table 10-1, (227)) and (Table 10-2,(228)) and on consumer products including cosmetics (Table 10-3, (229); Table 10-4,(115); and Figure 10-1, (105)). Thus, the implementation of the regulation of fragrance
allergens in detergents (Directive 648/2004/EC), similar to that for cosmetics, has also
added to the knowledge of fragrance exposure to the consumer. These market surveys
revealed that fragrance ingredients which are potent allergens and frequently cause
allergies in consumers are used as ingredients in consumer products including cosmetics.
The results of these surveys further revealed that limonene and linalool were the mostcommonly used fragrance chemicals in cosmetics, while anisyl alcohol, cinnamal, αamylcinnamyl alcohol, oak moss and tree moss were the least used fragrance ingredients incosmetics and other consumer products. In general, the most potent allergens were also themost infrequently used ingredients. Prior to the regulation of the 26 allergens, analysis of
21 selected fragrance chemicals in deodorants also revealed additional 66 potential
allergens in these products on the basis of structure activity relationship (230).
73

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 10-1: Presence in children's cosmetics of the 26 fragrance substances that are required to belabelled in cosmetics (227).

INCI name

CAS number% Products labelled tocontain the fragrance
substance

Amyl cinnamal

122-40-78.2

alpha-Amylcinnamyl alcohol

101-85-9

2.9

Anise alcohol

105-13-5

0

Benzyl alcohol

100-51-6

9.6

Benzyl benzoate

120-51-4

9.1

Benzyl cinnamate

103-41-3

2.9

Benzyl salicylate

118-58-1

9.6Butyl phenyl methyl propional

80-54-6

7.7

Cinnamal

104-55-2

1

Cinnamyl alcohol

104-54-1

6.7

Citral5392-40-5

8.2

Citronellol

106-22-9

10.5

Coumarin

91-64-5

4.8

Eugenol

97-53-0

7.2

Farnesol4602-84-0

2.9

Geraniol

106-24-1

12

Hexyl cinnamal

101-86-0

10.1

Hydroxycitronellal

107-75-5

6.3

Hydroxyisohexyl-3cyclohexene carboxyaldehyde

31906-04-4

5.8

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

0.5

Alpha-isomethyl ionone

127-51-5

5.8

d-Limonene

5989-27-5

23.1

Linalool

78-70-6

21.6

Methyl-2-octynoate

111-12-60Evernia prunastri/oak moss

90028-68-50

Evernia furfuracea/tree moss

90028-67-4

0

Fragrance substance74

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 10-2: Usage trends in deodorants of fragrance chemicals that are required to be labelled in cosmetics.
Fragrance substance
INCI name88 products investigated in 2007 (228)
CAS number% Products
labelled tocontain thefragrance

Content in 23 selected
products

70 products investigated in1998 (231)
Content in all 70 products% Products
found tocontain thefragrance

Range(ppm)% Products
found tocontain thefragrance

Range (ppm)

Amyl cinnamal▪

122-40-7

10.2

17

2.3-16531

1-617

alpha-amyl cinnamyl alcohol

101-85-9

-

-

-

n.a.

n.a.

Anise alcohol

105-13-5

2.3

9

1, 51

n.a.

n.a.

Benzyl alcohol

100-51-6

17.1

26

32-16676

1-629*

Benzyl benzoate

120-51-4

25.0

48

3-405471

1-1075

Benzyl cinnamate

103-41-3

3.4

974, 143

n.a.

n.a.

Benzyl salicylate

118-58-1

39.8

48

136-5279

49

1-18758

Butyl phenyl methyl propional

80-54-648.9

70

1-545551

1-3732Cinnamal▪

104-55-2

1.1

4

5

17

1-424

Cinnamyl alcohol▪

104-54-1

12.5

48

2-503

39

6-1169Citral▫

5392-40-5

26.1

44

39-554n.a.

n.a.

Citronellol▫

106-22-9

65.9

91

1-584881

1-5585

Coumarin▫

91-64-5

33.0

52

3.8-125557

1-1411

Eugenol▪

97-53-0

27.3

30

1-514

57

1-2355Farnesol▫

4602-84-0

14.8

39

9-1791n.a.

n.a.

Geraniol▪

106-24-1

48.9

87

1-399

76

1-117875

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Fragrance substance

88 products investigated in 2007 (228)

70 products investigated in1998 (231)

Hexyl cinnamal▫

101-86-0

33.0

48

1-443471

2-1684

Hydroxycitronellal▪

107-75-5

27.3

70

1-174650

1-1023HICC▫

31906-04-4

33.0

74

1-443153

1-1874

Isoeugenol▪

97-54-1

9.1

35

1-138

29

1-458

Alpha-isomethyl ionone

127-51-5

46.6

65

6-258861

1-2765D-Limonene◦5989-27-5

53.4

70

1022-11386

n.a.

n.a.

Linalool◦

78-70-6

53.4

96

8-344797

9-1927

Methyl-2-octynoat◦111-12-6

1.1

-

-

n.a.

n.a.

Evernia prunastri▪/oak moss

90028-68-5

4.6

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Evernia furfuracea▪/tree moss

90028-67-4

2.3

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Notes:HICC Hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxyaldehyde.
- Fragrance not detected in any product.
n.a. Not analysed.
* Benzyl alcohol could not be determined in 49% of the products due to interference.

The most common fragrance allergens are contained in the two mixtures, which are used for diagnosing fragrance allergy, called Fragrance Mix I (▪) andFragrance Mix II (▫), besides the oxidation product of terpens (◦), and tree moss extract are common allergens. Methyl-2-octynoate is an extreme, butrare allergen.

76

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 10-3: Frequency of occurrence in consumer products of the 26 fragrance allergens that are
required to be labelled in cosmetics and detergents (229).

Table 10-4: Frequency in 516 consumer products of the 26 fragrance substances that are required
to be labelled in cosmetics* (115).
Fragrance substance INCI name% Productcontaining thechemical

D-Limonene

48.3

Linalool

35.8

Butyl phenyl methyl propional

24.8

Geraniol

22.1

Alpha-isomethyl ionone

21.7

Hexyl cinnamal

21.3

Citonellol

21.1

Benzyl salicylate

18.6

Coumarin

17.0

Eugenol

15.7

Benzyl alcohol

15.3

Benzyl benzoate

14.7

Hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene
carboxyaldehyde

12.8

77

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Fragrance substance INCI name% Productcontaining thechemicalCitral

11.6

Hydroxycitronellal

10.8Amyl Cinnamal

7.9

Anise alcohol

7.0

Cinnamyl alcohol

6.4

Farnesol

3.9

Isoeugenol

3.1

Cinnamal

2.5

Benzyl cinnamate

2.3

Amylcinnamyl alcohol

1.9

Methyl-2-octynoate

1.0

Evernia prunastri▪/oak moss

0.8

Evernia furfuracea▪/tree moss

0.4

Note: * Consumer Products: Cosmetics and household products with labelling of the 26 fragrance
allergens. The content of these fragrances was confirmed by chemical analysis.

Figure 10-1: Frequency of occurrence in 3,000 consumer products of the 26 fragrance allergens
that are required to be labelled in cosmetics and detergents (CVUA Karlsruhe, Germany,
2006/2007), according to (105).

78

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Contents of fragrance substances determined in cosmetic products have been describedin several studies, both before and after the regulation of the 26 fragrance allergens. The
studies prior to the regulation of the 26 fragrance allergens included many, but not all ofthese 26 allergens. On the other hand, these studies included some other possible
fragrance allergens. The quantitative analysis of fragrance substances has been
performed in prestige perfumes (5, 157, 232-234), deodorants (228, 231), children’s
cosmetics and cosmetic toys (115, 227, 235), products marketed as natural cosmetics(225) and in cosmetics used by patients with contact allergy to fragranced products (35,71). Quantitative analyses have revealed that the consumer is exposed to most, but not
all of the 26 fragrance allergens from the use of cosmetics. However, when fragrance
exposure from other consumer products, for example detergents and other householdproducts is also taken into consideration (Table 10-3, Table 10-4, Figure 10-1), (105,115, 229, 236), exposure to all of the 26 allergens is foreseeable in daily life. Althoughfrom the data available, the exposure to α-amylcinnamyl alcohol, cinnamal, methyl-2octynoate, Evernia prunastri (oak moss) and tree moss may appear to be low, these arevery strong allergens.
The changes in the use of fragrance chemicals in cosmetic formulations, during last 12
years, i.e. before and after the regulation of the 26 fragrance allergens, is reflected in thestudies concerning contents of fragrances substances in popular perfumes (5, 232). As
described in Table 10-5, the content of FM I allergens in prestige perfumes was
significantly reduced from 1996 to 2003. Whether this is also the case for the perfumes
sold as natural cosmetics (Table 10-6) has not yet been investigated.
Table 10-5: Concentration of Fragrance Mix I ingredients in five prestige perfumes before andafter the regulation of the 26 fragrance allergens.
Fragrance
INCI nameConcentration in the perfumes
before regulation (5)Concentration in the perfumes
after regulation (232)

In no. ofperfumes

Range %
(w/w)

Mean %(w/w)

In no. ofperfumes

Range %
(w/w)

Mean %(w/w)

Geraniol*

50.0720.432

0.340

5

0.0900.236

0.156

Cinnamal

20.0020.002

0.002

0

-

-

Hydroxycitronellal

50.2220.979

0.615

5

0.0150.478

0.169

Cinnamylalcohol

40.0680.232

0.147

0

-

-

Eugenol

50.0320.738

0.337

2

0.001,
0.001

0.001

Isoeugenol

30.0260.249

0.119

2

0.001,
0.004

0.003

Amyl cinnamal

1

0.019

0.019

0

-

-

Note: * Due to interference by linalyl acetate, concentration of geraniol+linalyl acetate isreported.

79

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 10-6: Concentrations of Fragrance Mix I ingredients, hexyl cinnamal and coumarin in 22
perfumes marketed as natural cosmetics investigated in 1996.
Fragrance

In no. ofperfumes

Concentration % (w/w)

Geraniol14

1.191*

Cinnamal

30.089, 0.109, 2.101

Hydroxycitronellal

50.135-6.044

Cinnamyl alcohol

80.035-2.289

Eugenol

20.027, 0.139

Isoeugenol

80.194-3.039

Amyl cinnamal

90.105-7.706

Coumarin

11

0.046-6.043

Note: * Quantification was performed in one sample only, due to interference by a very large
amount of linalyl acetate in other samples.

The trend in the use of most of the fragrance allergens in deodorants before and after
their regulation is reflected by the two studies performed by Rastogi et al. (228, 231).
The results of these studies cannot be directly compared, because the study from 1998
included randomly selected deodorants, while selection of the deodorants for the 2007
study was based on the labelling of the presence of known strong fragrance allergens inthese products. The number of products analysed in the 1998 study were three times
more than those analysed in 2007, but not all of the 26 fragrance allergens wereanalysed in the 1997 study. However, an indication of the change in the use of thefragrance allergens during 1998-2007 may be obtained by reviewing the results of these
two studies. Among the 17 common fragrance substances studied in the two studies, thefrequency of use of 16 of these substances in deodorants was reduced in 2007 comparedto that in 1998 (Table 10-2). The frequency of use of butyl phenyl methyl propional indeodorants appeared to be unchanged. The contents of benzyl alcohol, benzyl salicylate,cinnamal, cinnamyl alcohol, eugenol, geraniol, isoeugenol and linalool were found to belower in the deodorants analysed in 2007 compared to those in 1998. Citronellol,
coumarin and alpha-isomethylionone contents in the deodorants were similar in bothstudies, but concentrations of benzyl benzoate, butyl phenyl methyl propional, hexyl
cinnamal, hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxyaldehyde and linalool were muchhigher in deodorants in 2007 compared to those in 1998. This analysis of trend of use offragrance allergens in cosmetic products indicates that the regulated fragrance allergens
are used less frequently, but exposures from some of the regulated fragrance allergens
may be much higher compared to those before regulation.

80

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 10-7: Atranol and chloroatranol content in eau de toilette/eau de perfume, investigated in
2004 and in 2007.
2007 Study

2004 Study

No. of samples

22

17

Atranol present in no. of samples

15 (68%)12 (70%)Atranol content

ppb (ng/ml)

ppb (ng/ml)

Rangen.d.-880

n.d.-791

Mean±SD157±249

97±224

Median47

20

Chloroatranol present in no. of samples

9 (41%)*

14 (82%)

Atranol content

ppb (ng/ml)

Ppb (ng/ml)

Range

0.9-208

1-175

Mean±SD

63±73

36±51

Median2210Notes: n.d. Not detected.
*P <0.05 (chi-square test).
SD: Standard deviation.

Atranol (CAS no. 526-37-4) and chloroatranol (CAS no. 57074-21-2), constituents of oak
moss and tree moss have been shown to be very potent fragrance allergens (237, 238).
The EC Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) recommended that atranol
and chloroatranol should not be present in cosmetic products (239). Two other commonlyused fragrance chemicals, isoeugenol (240) and hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene
carboxyaldehyde (HICC) (71), have also been shown to be important contact allergens.
The contents of atranol, chloroatranol, isoeugenol and hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene
carboxyaldehyde in fine fragrances was determined for the exposure assessment of thesefragrances (233). The results revealed that isoeugenol was present in 56%, HICC in
72%, atranol in 59%, and chloroatranol in 36% of the 22 eau de toilette/eau de parfum
products. The concentrations of isoeugenol were, in all products, below 0.02% which is
the maximum concentration recommended by the fragrance industry. HICC reached amaximum concentration of 0.2%, which is 10-fold higher than the maximum tolerable
concentration considered safe by the EC Scientific Committee (241). The concentrationsof atranol and chloroatranol in the products investigated in 2007 were comparable tothose found in similar products in 2004 (Table 10-7, (233, 234). A significant decrease in
the frequency of the presence of chloroatranol in the products was found in 2007 (Table
10-7).
10.2.

Global exposure (household and occupational exposures)

Fragrances are used in cosmetics that the consumer applies to themself, as described in
the previous section. In addition, exposure to fragrance substances is possible by anumber of other exposure routes briefly outlined in this section.
Topical pharmaceutical products
In a study from Belgium, 370 of the 3,280 topical products marketed in Belgium havebeen found to contain one or more of 66 fragrance substances (242). This publication
also contains a description of causative fragrance allergens in 127 patients reacting to 48
specific topical products. In a broader sense, exposure of the patient by extracts used inaromatherapy falls in this category as well.
81

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Childrens products and toys
Children’s products may contain fragrance allergens and high levels may be present(235). It has been stated that children may become sensitised to fragrance chemicals
used by their mothers (243).
Clothing
Washed fabrics have been reported to contain fragrances (244). Odour-neutralising
agents are sometimes used for shoe insoles. In one case, an insole containing cinnamon,
has been reported to lead to plantar vesicular contact dermatitis due to contact
sensitisation to FM I and, in the breakdown, to cinnamal and cinnamyl alcohol (245).
Cleaning agents and other household productsContact dermatitis from geraniol in washing-up liquid has been reported (246). Terpenes
are used as solvents and cleansing agents (e.g. limonene) (247) and have been reported
as cause of hand dermatitits (248, 249). In an analysis of 59 household products themost common fragrance allergens were limonene (78%), linalool (61%) and citronellol(47%) (250). In a review of 301 cosmetic and detergent consumer products in Sweden,in half of the cosmetics and one-third of the detergents, one or more of the 26
fragrances requiring labelling were identified (251). In the UK, a review of 300 consumer
products showed that linalool and limonene were present in 63% of products. Dental
products contained on average 1.1 fragrance substances that are presently required tobe labelled and women’s perfumes contained 12 of these fragrance substances (Table
4-1 and Table 4-3) (229).
Candles
The dermal hand transfer of three fragrance materials (cinnamic aldehyde, d-limonene
and eugenol) from scented candles was determined in ten subjects (i.e. 20 hands) after
grasping scented candles for five consecutive 20 second exposures/grasps. The total
mean residues of cinnamal and eugenol transferred per grasp from the candles to thehands were 0.255 µg/cm(2) and 0.279 µg/cm(2), respectively (252).
Food
Food causing cheilitis or bullous stomatitis (e.g. due to cinnamal (253)) or lichen planuslike lesions (e.g. due to cinnamal (254)) or contact gingivitis (e.g. due to eugenol (255))
has been reported. Moreover, food containing fragrance allergens, e.g. citrus oil terpenes(256) may cause allergic contact dermatitis by handling this food.
Occupational exposure
In a number of occupations, contact allergy to fragrances is more common than inothers, including geriatric nurses, masseurs and physiotherapists, metal furnace
operators and potters/glass makers, according to a multifactorial analysis (90).
Moreover, hairdressers, beauty therapists and aroma therapists are examples ofoccupations where there is occupational exposure to fragrance-containing cosmetic andother products. Cleaners are exposed to fragrance-containing household products (e.g.
detergents). Cooks and bakers are exposed to flavour chemicals and spices. Healthcare
workers are also at risk of acquiring fragrance contact allergy. “Odour maskers” maycontain important fragrance allergens (89, 90, 257-259). Occupational exposure and82

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

occupational ACD to fragrances have been described in perfume bottlers (260). Industrial
use of a powder masking the vinyl smell of car seats, containing cinnamal, causing
occupational ACD has been reported (259).
A number of fragrance chemicals are also used as biocides (see Commission Regulation(EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work
programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliamentand of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, published11.12.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 325/3 –L325/65), see Table 10-8
below.
Table 10-8: Parts of Annex I to (EC) No 1451/2007 (see above): “Active substances identified asexisting”, if use is ‘perfuming’ or ‘masking’ according to CosIng.
BiocideEINECS

CAS number

Biocidal productgroup

Linalool

201-134-4

78-70-6

19

Geraniol203-377-1

106-24-1

18, 19Benzyl benzoate

204-402-9

120-51-4

2, 18

Eugenol

202-589-1

97-53-0

Not given

Farnesol

225-004-1

4602-84-0

Not given(R)-p-mentha-1,8diene

227-813-5

5989-27-5

12

Citriodiol/mixture ofcis- and trans-pmenthane-3,8 diol

255-953-7

42822-86-6

1, 2, 19

Citral226-394-6

5392-40-5

Not given

Pine ext.

304-455-9

94266-48-5

10

TANACETUM
CINERARIIFOLIUM
FLOWER EXTRACT

289-699-3

89997-63-7

18

Citrus oils (maincomponent: limonene)severalvarious

Clove oil (maincomponent: eugenol(83.8 %),
caryophyllene (12.4%)/

8000-34-8

Product groups(According to Biocide Directive 98/8/EC)
1
2
3
10
12
18
19

Human hygiene biocidal products
Private area and public health area disinfectants and other biocidal products
Veterinary hygiene biocidal products
Masonry preservatives
Slimicides
Insecticides, acaricides and products to control other arthropods
Repellents and attractants

83

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

The above illustrates that the consumer is exposed to fragrance substances from a wide
variety of cosmetic products, other consumer products, pharmaceuticals and occupational
exposures.
All these exposures are of importance in the context of contact allergy as it is not thesource of exposure that is critical for both induction and elicitation, but the cumulative
dose per unit area.
10.3. Exposures related to particular anatomical sites
Contact allergy to fragrances most often causes dermatitis of the hands, face and axillae.
Axillary involvement has been shown to be statistically related to fragrance allergy (9). It
is recognised that the axillary skin is a problematic area as it is moist, occluded and iseasily irritated. Moreover, facial eczema is a common manifestation of fragrance allergy(3, 47). There is an association between fragrance allergy and hand eczema or
aggravation of hand eczema (13-15). Vehicles may influence elicitation capacity of anallergen and the presence of detergents (surfactants) as in hand cleaning products may
increase the clinical response by a factor of 4-6 (261). Men using wet shaving as opposed
to electric razors have an increased risk of being fragrance allergic (17), most likely due
to microtraumata and to the presence of surface active substances in shaving foam.
In use tests, the upper arm has been shown to be more sensitive than the forehead andlower arm (262). The axillae, neck and face are more sensitive than the upper arms (10).
The threshold of elicitation may vary depending on the volatility of the substance (263).
A cumulative effect of exposures occurs so that repeating exposures cause elicitation in
more individuals (264).
Patients appear to become sensitised to fragrances primarily from deodorants andperfumes and to a lesser extent from other cosmetic types (74). Allergic contact
dermatitis may develop where a perfume has been applied (behind ears, neck, upperchest, antecubital fossae, wrists and the axillae bilaterally (265). Following this, eczema
may appear, or be worsened by, the use of a variety of product types including othercosmetics, household products, industrial products and flavours.
The association between contact allergy to fragrance ingredients and certain anatomicalsites, which mirrors exposure to fragrance-containing products on these anatomical sites,
has been described in several publications (266, 267), see above. However, due to thepotential confounding effect of other factors, at least on some anatomical sites, anadjusted analysis will provide a more valid impression of the association between certain
anatomical sites and contact allergy to fragrance ingredients. As an adjusted,multifactorial analysis relies on: (i) a substantial number of observations (patients
tested); and (ii) an outcome prevalence not too close to 0%, such an approach has,hitherto, been limited to FM I.
In a paper published 2001, data from the IVDK in terms of patch test reactions to FM I
and relevant clinical and demographic information of the patients tested (n=57,779) was
studied by Poisson regression analysis (90). Risk was quantified by the prevalence ratio,
which can be interpreted as an estimate of relative risk, i.e. the factor by which the riskof being sensitised to FM I (in this example) is to be multiplied (RR > 1: elevated risk; or
RR < 1: reduced risk) if a certain “risk factor” is present, compared to those patients inwhom this risk factor is not present (the reference category) (general aspects of suchanalyses are discussed in (268)). In the analysis, potential risk factors and confounders,
respectively, including occupation, year of patch testing (to address a possible timetrend), sex, age, past or current atopic dermatitis, in addition to anatomical site. The
relevant part of Table 3 of (90) is reproduced below.

84

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 10-9: Result of a Poisson regression analysis of patients tested with the Fragrance Mix
between January 1992 and December 1998, considering two alternative outcomes – part I: nonoccupational factors

Compared to the trunk, which was arbitrarily chosen as the reference category, all otheranatomical sites are associated with an increased risk of being sensitised to FM I
(significantly if the lower limit of 95% CI is > 1). Most evidently, dermatitis of theaxilla(e) is strongly associated with contact allergy to FM I, presumably due to theapplication of deodorants. Furthermore, the part of the table shown above illustrates astrong, positive age gradient, i.e. the older patients are, the more likely they are to besensitised to FM I, the risk being almost double when comparing the oldest with theyoungest age group. This observation is in concordance with a bivariate (unadjusted)association between age and contact allergy to FM I found in another study (89). This
association is presumably the result of life long exposures and cumulative risk.
In a similar analysis of Myroxylon pereirae resin, published in 2002 (269): (i) an evenstronger age gradient; and (ii) no particular association to axillary dermatitis (included in
the “other” category) was found (Table 10-10).

85

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 10-10: Association between selected risk factors and positive patch test toMyroxylon pereirae resin. For full model see (269). Risk quantified with the prevalence
ratio (PR) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).
FactorPR

95% CI

1.02(0.95-1.10)

1.13(1.06-1.20)

Trunk

1.00

(reference)

Hand or Arm

1.03(0.94-1.12)

Foot or Leg

1.76(1.61-1.92)

Head or Neck

0.94

(0.86-1.03)“Other” site

0.72

(0.64-0.81)

Missing site

1.07

(0.97-1.19)

30 years and younger

1.00(reference)

31 to 44

1.92

(1.73-2.12)

45 to 58

2.87

(2.61-3.16)

58 or older

3.85(3.49-4.25)

Atopicpresent

dermatitis,

past

or

Female sex
Site

Age

10.4. Conclusion
There are various modes of exposure to fragrances, including not only products used fortheir scent, such as perfumes and eau de toilette, after shaves, and deodorants, but also
types of products where scent is an added feature, such as other cosmetic categories(including wipes), topical pharmaceuticals, household products, and products
encountered in the occupational setting.
Consumer exposure can change over time, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
Different routes of exposure are reflected by certain anatomical sites affected:
deodorants are associated with axillary dermatitis, the axillary skin being particularly
vulnerable to sensitisation due to occlusion, maceration and irritation. However, whilesensitisation and initial disease may follow a distinct pattern, later less specificexposures, e.g. via hand creams, cleaning lotions etc. may be sufficient to cause allergic
contact dermatitis.

86

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

11.

Dose-response relationships and thresholds

The dose-response relationship between exposure to contact allergens and induction ofallergy, i.e. sensitisation, is well established in animal models and by experiments inhealthy volunteers (270). It seems that not only the dose per unit area of allergen (271),
but also the number of exposures, i.e. the accumulated dose, is of importance for therisk of induction of contact allergy (272). The induction of contact allergy is an
immunological process (type IV-allergy), which is without any clinical symptoms. In thecase of continued exposure or re-exposure with a sufficient dose of allergen, elicitation
will occur. Elicitation is an inflammatory response (eczema) with clinical symptoms oferythema, induration and in some cases vesicles. Studies of the elicitation response arenormally done in patients with an allergy to the substance in question. Different
provocation models exist (see chapter 11.2.1). Elicitation experiments in healthy humanvolunteers following the induction have only rarely been performed (273) and may beconsidered a less valid model than patient studies. The reason is that following
experimental induction, the level of sensitivity may not be at the same level as in a reallife situation and that individuals who have actually acquired the disease are a more
relevant endpoint to study.
Knowledge of the dose-response relationship provides an opportunity to establish levelsof exposure which are safe for the majority of individuals. In the following chapter, theuse of different data and models for the establishment of such safe levels in relation to
fragrance ingredients are explored. The focus will be on those chemicals, which havebeen identified in chapter 7.1 as established contact allergens in humans and which havealready given rise to a significant number of published cases (category 3 or more):
cinnamal,cinnamylalcohol,
citral,coumarin,eugenol,farnesol,
geraniol,hydroxycitronellal, isoeugenol. Limonene and linalool are considered in chapter 5 as theirability to cause sensitisation depends on air oxidation, and hydroxyisohexyl 3cyclohexene carboxaldehyde is considered in chapter 4.3.2 and 11.4.
11.1. Induction
A model for dermal sensitisation quantitative risk assessment (QRA) has been developedand implemented by the fragrance industry. This model relies on thresholds, no effect or
low-effect levels, established in healthy human volunteers and/or in animal experiments,
mainly the local lymph node assay (LLNA) (see chapter 8.1). A set of safety factors areapplied for inter-individual differences, for vehicle effects and for use considerations,stated to give rise to a safety margin from 10 to 1000 (274). In this way, a so-called“acceptable exposure level” is derived. The exposure to an allergen in different types of
products should be below this level. The restrictions, which have been introduced by thefragrance industry based on the QRA model, are given in Table 11-1 for some important
product categories.
The IFRA guidelines give concentration limits for 11 product categories(http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/standards_1, last accessed 2011-11-02), three of which
are mentioned in Table 11-1. These three products have the lowest concentrations
except for lip products, which give a slightly lower concentration limit.

87

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 11-1: Current IFRA restrictions based on induction experiments.
IFRA guideline1

Fragrance chemicals
Deodorant(%)

Hand cream(%)

Perfume(%)

Cinnamal

0.02

0.05

0.05

Cinnamyl alcohol

0.1

0.4

0.4

Citral

0.05

0.3

0.6

Coumarin

0.13

0.8

1.6

Eugenol

0.2

0.5

0.5

Farnesol

0.11

0.6

1.2

0.4

2.8

5.3

0.2

1.0

1.0

0.01

0.02

0.02

Geraniol2

Hydroxycitronellal
Isoeugenol

2

Notes:

1) Exposure per mg/cm2/day is based on 8.5 mg/cm2/day for deodorants, 2.2 for perfumes and 4.2
for hand creams as it is these exposure levels that are used by the IFRA.
2) Cosmetic Directive Annex III: Hydroxycitronellal restricted to 1% in all products and isoeugenol
to 0.02% in all products.

The SCCP evaluated this methodology (275) as well as its application to three modelfragrance substances.
It was, among other things, concluded that:“The data provided show that the application of the dermal sensitisation QRA approach
would allow increased exposures to allergens already known to cause allergic contact
dermatitis in consumers. The model has not been validated and no strategy ofvalidation has been suggested. There is no confidence that the levels of skin sensitisers
identified by the dermal sensitisation QRA are safe for the consumer.”and that:“Identification of safe levels of exposure to existing substances known to cause allergic
contact dermatitis in the consumer should be based on clinical data and/or elicitation
low-effect levels. Currently, these are the only methods which have proven efficient in
reducing/preventing existing problems of sensitisation/allergic contact dermatitis in the
consumer.”
11.2. Elicitation
11.2.1.

General considerations

A response in terms of elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis by application of the(suspected) allergen under standardised conditions is the outcome of interest of theroutine diagnostic procedure for suspected contact allergy, the patch test. While thepatch test procedure is largely standardised, it is optimised as a diagnostic tool forcontact allergy. Thus exposure conditions are not comparable to actual exposuresoccurring in the daily life or working environment of the patient, which often involve
long-term, repeated and low-dose contact with the allergen. Here, procedures such as
the repeated open application test (ROAT) or provocative use test are often used,because they reflect actual exposure much better and can be used, for instance, tovalidate the current clinical relevance of a positive PT reaction.
88

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Generally, exposure of a sensitised patient to a set of graded doses (quantity/area) of
the suspected allergen, i.e. threshold testing, will allow not only quantitative diagnosis of
the presence or absence of specific contact sensitisation but will additionally provide
evidence on the intensity (degree) of sensitisation. This may have important individual
consequences in terms of everyday or occupational exposures being capable (or not) of
eliciting allergic contact dermatitis. However, beyond the individual perspective, clinicaldose-response data collected from sensitised individuals provide a valuable estimate of
the usual doses/unit area resulting in a positive, allergic response in a certain proportionof sensitised persons, e.g. 10, 50 or 90%. Maximum concentration levels can be derived,
which are safe in terms of eliciting allergic reactions in only a defined low percentage ofsensitised persons. As such data will always be based on small samples, the precision of
the estimate should be considered, and therefore results are preferably given withconfidence intervals.
A statistically significant relationship between threshold concentrations in the ROAT andpatch test has been found, on analysing results from different allergens (see Table 11-2)(276), but the dose of allergen per unit area per application needed to elicit a reaction in
the two study methods is not the same. A translation factor between the two methods
has been suggested for non-volatile substances: EDxx(ROAT)=0.0296 *EDxx(patch test)
based on testing nickel and methyldibromo glutaronitrile (276). Based on this theeliciting dose per application in an open test is 33 times lower than in the patch test. In
practice it means that the cumulative dose in a ROAT (in µg/cm²) in two weeks with two
applications per day (total 28 applications) will be almost identical to the eliciting patch
test dose (in µg/cm2) for a given number of responders (see Figure 11-1). For a given
cut-off point the elicitation dose determined by patch testing will be higher thandetermined by ROATs.
Table 11-2: Spearman’s rank correlation between the threshold concentration in the patch test
and the repeated open application test for three allergens.

89

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 11-1: The fitted dose-response curve for patch test (solid line) is seen to be displaced to
the right compared to the observed response from repeated open applications of the same allergen(HICC). It means that a smaller dose per application is needed to elicit a response than by one
single occluded application as in the patch test.

In the translation between methods, evaporation needs to be taken into consideration forvolatile substances. The experience, based on a study of the fragrance ingredient HICC
and using the results from the literature on isoeugenol, is that if the same equation isused as for non-volatile substances, the response in the ROAT will be overestimated by afactor 3 to 4. Thus, the translation factor would be 0.1060 instead of 0.0296, but thisneeds to be confirmed by other fragrance allergens. This implies that for the fragrance
ingredients tested, the eliciting dose per application in a ROAT was 9.4 times lower thanthe patch test compared to a 33 times lower dose for non-volatile substances (276). This
needs to be confirmed by studying other fragrance allergens. Thus, according to theseexperiments, the dose (µg/cm2) eliciting a response in threshold patch testing will be at
most 33 times higher than established in the ROAT if an identical vehicle is used.
Volatility effects in skin sensitisation
The potency of volatile skin sensitisers can be underestimated, to an extent depending
on how rapidly it evaporates, by assays such as the LLNA in which the test substance isapplied topically to exposed healthy skin without occlusion. Such sensitisers present agreater sensitisation risk to consumers when the skin is occluded by clothing and/or
compromised, than when healthy non-occluded skin is exposed.
Volatility at physiological temperature, say 40˚C, is represented by the vapour pressure
p40 at that temperature. This is related to the boiling point TB by the Clapeyron-Clausius
equation, which can be written (277):Log (p40) = - (TB – 40)Tr/2.303RT
Where p is in atmospheres, TB is in ˚C, R is the gas constant, Tr is the Trouton constant(also defined as the molar entropy of vaporisation, and equal to 22 cal.deg-1 for manyorganic compounds) and T is physiological temperature in degrees absolute (= 313 for40˚C).
It has been shown, in experiments where evaporation from a glass slide is measured
under simulated LLNA conditions, that 2-hexenal (TB = 146-149˚C, p40 = 17 mmHg)
evaporates rapidly, less than 20% remaining after 5 minutes, whereas with cinnamal (TB= 248˚C, p40 = 0.5 mmHg), more than 90% remains after 1 hour (278). In agreementwith these findings, cinnamal fits a QSAR relating LLNA EC3 to reactivity, whereas theEC3 for 2-hexenal is higher (lower potency) than predicted from its reactivity.
The above is only a partial rationalisation, since different solubilities in different vehicles
will influence the tendency to evaporate, according to Henry's law.
11.2.2.

Studies on specific fragrance ingredients

Studies concerning chloroatranol/atranol, cinnamal, hydroxycitronellal, hydroxyisohexyl
3-cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde and isoeugenol have been identified. These aresummarised in Annex III.
Overview of results
In four studies dummy deodorants spiked with a single fragrance allergen in realistic use
concentrations have been used to study elicitation responses, unscented deodorants wereused as control products in paired designs. The deodorants were used by patients
sensitised to the fragrance allergen in question as well as a healthy control group90

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________(without fragrance allergy) (102,103,104,279). Between 76 and 100% of the sensitised
individuals reacted to the deodorants spiked with allergen, isoeugenol, cinnamal,hydroxycitronellal and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, and none of thecontrols (Table 11-4).
Table 11-3: Overview of results of deodorant provocation investigations with different allergens.
Frequency in % of test groups, which reacted at different doses of allergen applied in a roll-on
deodorant in the axilla, is given in the table.
Dose in ppm indeodorant

Isoeugenol

Cinnamal(1)

Cinnamal(2)

Hydroxycitronellal

HICC

0

0

0

0

0

0

63

23

100

11

200

69

320

64
25

55

57

600

85

630

76

1000

75

88

71

1800

100

3200

100

No. test persons

13

No. of control
persons

10% control persons,
who reacted
Exposureaccording to study
should be:

100
7

14

20

7

10

0

0

0

0

< 63 ppm<100 ppm<320 ppm

< 200
ppm

(279)

(103)

(104)

(102)

Reference

89Note: HICC hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde.

Eleven studies concerning dose-response results of the five allergens listed above wereidentified, including the above mentioned studies of deodorants. An overview of theresults of the studies concerning thresholds is given in Table 11-4. In Annex III thedetails of each study are given.
Table 11-4: Overview of threshold results from clinical studies.
“Observed” means that the proportion was actually observed in the study while “estimated” meansthat the value is derived from a fitted curve, i.e. is interpolated.
Chloroatranol
ROAT

Ref.

In ethanol 92 % positive

0.025 μg/cm2

observed(238)

In ethanol 100% positive2

observed(238)

0.125 μg/cm

PATCH TEST91

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

ED10%

0.0004 μg/cm2

estimated

(238)

ED50%

2

estimated(238)

0.0045 μg/cm
CinnamalROAT
In ethanol no effect0.02%

observed(101)

In ethanol 44 % positive

0.1%

observed(101)

In ethanol 72 % positive

0.8%

observed(101)

2

Deodorant matrix 11% positive

0.26 μg/cm (0.01%)

observed(103)

Deodorant matrix 41% positive

0.84 μg/cm2 (0.032%)

observed(103)

2.63 μg/cm (0.1%)

observed(103)

96 μg/cm2

estimated(101)

No effect level2

0.4 μg/cm (0.01%)

observed(101)

No effect level

NG (0.002%)

observed(103)

4.9 μg/cm2

interpolated

(105)

2

Deodorant matrix 82% positive

2

PATCH TEST
ED50%

HICC
ROAT
In a cream base ED10%
In a perfume (ethanol) ED10%

interpolated(105)

In ethanol 61% positive2

15.3 μg/cm (3.4-22.2)

observed(224)

In ethanol 89% positive

126.2 μg/cm2 (40.5226.2)

observed(224)

0.0357 μg/cm2

observed(263)

2

In ethanol/water no response
In ethanol/water ED10%
In deodorant matrix between 64% to100% positive

1.2 μg/cm

0.064 μg/cm

estimated

(263)

2

0.79 μg/cm (median)observed(102)

0.662 μg/cm2 (0.0522.35)

estimated(263)

0.75 μg/cm2

estimated(102)

PATCH TEST
ED10% (95% CI)
ED10%

2

ED10%

0.9 μg/cm 29 (7-69) ppm

estimated(224)

ED50% (95% CI)

11.1 μg/cm2 (3.41- 33.1)

estimated(263)

ED50% (95% CI)2estimated(102)

20 μg/cm 662 (350-1250)
ppm

estimated(224)<0.0022 μg/cm2

observed(263)

ED50% (95% CI)
No effect level

18.3 μg/cm (3.41- 33.1)
2

Hydroxycitronellal
ROAT
Deodorant matrix 57 % positive
Deodorant matrix 71 % positive
Deodorant matrix 100 % positive

0.94 μg/cm2 (0.032%)

observed(104)2

observed(104)2

observed(104)

2.94 μg/cm (0.1%)
9.40 μg/cm (0.32%)

PATCH TEST92

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

No effect level<0.00012 % (=0.036
μg/cm2)* (*calculated)

observed(104)

Isoeugenol
ROAT
in ethanol 63% positive

5.6 μg/cm2

observed(100)in ethanol 42% positive

2.2 μg/cm

2

observed(264)

in ethanol 67% positive

9.0 μg/cm

2

observed(264)

Deodorant matrix 23 % positive

0.167 μg/cm2

observed(279)

Deodorant matrix 69 % positive

2

0.53 μg/cm

observed(279)

Deodorant matrix 77 % positive2

observed(279)

estimated(100)<0.0005% (0.15 μg/cm )observed(264)<0.4 μg/cm2

observed(100)

1.67 μg/cm

PATCH TEST
32 μg/cm2

ED50% (in petrolatum)
No effect (in ethanol)
No effect (in petrolatum)2

Summary of results for specific fragrance ingredients
Chloroatranol (constituent of Evernia prunastri)
In ROAT a dose of 0.025 μg/cm2 to 0.125 μg/cm2 in ethanol elicited reactions in 92% to100% of sensitised subjects.
In patch testing the ED10% was 0.0004 μg/cm2.
CinnamalIn ROAT a dose of 0.26 μg/cm2 gave a response in 11% when applied as deodorant in
the axilla and 82% responded to 2.63 μg/cm2.
The ED50 in patch testing was 96 μg/cm2.
HICC
In ROAT a dose of 0.0357 μg/cm2 gave no response, while the dose that elicited areaction in 10% of the sensitised test group (in ethanol) ranged from 0.064 μg/cm2 to
1.2 μg/cm2. The dose in a cream base was 4.9 μg/cm2.
In ROAT a dose of 15.3 μg/cm2 to 126.2 μg/cm2 in ethanol elicited reactions in 61% to
89% of sensitised subjects.
The ED10 in patch testing ranged from 0.66-0.9 μg/cm2.
Hydroxycitronellal
In ROAT a dose of 0.94 μg/cm2 gave a response in 57% when applied in a deodorant in
the axilla and 100% responded to 9.40 μg/cm2.
The no-effect level in patch testing was below 0.036 μg/cm2.
Isoeugenol
In ROAT a dose of 2.2 μg/cm2 a response in 42% and 9.0 μg/cm2 in 67%, when appliedin ethanol on the arm. With a deodorant applied to the skin of the axillary, a dose of
0.167 μg/cm2 caused a response in 23% and 77% reacted to 1.67 μg/cm2.
The ED50 in patch testing was 32 μg/cm2.
The no-effect in patch testing was below 0.15 μg/cm2.
93

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Elicitation levels have been studied for cinnamal, isoeugenol and hydroxycitronellal which
are established contact allergens in humans and which already have given rise to asignificant number of cases (> 100, see chapter 7). Further HICC has been studied
extensively, but is considered in a separate section (chapter 11.3) of this opinion. It is
however not possible to derive a safe threshold directly from the data of cinnamal,
isoeugenol and hydroxycitronellal. The main reasons are that many of the test subjects
reacted to all the tested doses in ROAT, which is a simulation of every day exposures.
Thus it was not possible to determine the dose only eliciting responses in a few, e.g. 10%of the subjects and that only a limited number of exposure scenarios were studied.
The studies have covered few product types: hydro-alcoholic products, e.g. perfumes anddeodorant roll-on matrix. The vehicle is one of many factors which influence thethresholds of allergic reactions. Also the presence of irritants and other allergens caninfluence the elicitation level. This means that the currently available studies do notcover all the relevant exposure scenarios. However, taking into account that doseresponse investigations in sensitised patients are very complex to perform, it is not likelythat much more data will become available in the near future. It is therefore necessary to
exploit the full pool of elicitation data, also covering chemicals other than fragrance
ingredients, to derive a more general threshold which could be used when no or
insufficient data exist to set a specific threshold for a substance of concern.
General thresholds
The methodology of the different experiments has varied to some extent as different
anatomical sites of exposure have been employed, different vehicles, exposure periods
and cut-off points. The reason is that the studies have been performed to investigate
various clinical and scientific aspects of allergic contact reactions and not for formal
regulatory requirements. Some studies are small and for this reason the precision of theestimates of thresholds is limited. In spite of this, the results of the various experiments
are reasonably uniform, except for chloroatranol which had very low threshold reactions,and show that low concentrations may elicit allergic reactions.
The reasonably uniform data generated on the above fragrance ingredients are inagreement with a recent “meta-analysis” of dose-response data of different allergens,incorporating some of the same studies as mentioned above, but also other allergens,such as preservatives and metals. The ED10 at patch testing varied by a factor of 7 fromthe lowest to the highest value and the median was 0.82 µg/cm2 if the three outliers
formaldehyde (1997), nickel (1999) and methyldibromo glutaronitrile (2004) were leftout and 0.84 µg/cm2 if included (see Table 11-6 and Figure 11-2 below: (280)). An
explanation of these results could be that thresholds in elicitation is less dependent on
the antigenic properties of the individual substance (inherent potency) than thresholds of
induction and more on the level of sensitivity of the individual, i.e. the level of T-cellclones able to recognise the antigen, which is not present in naïve not-sensitised,individuals. This seems plausible, based on both the recent clinical evidence (280) andguinea pig QSAR evidence (281). It provides the basis for a general approach inestablishing safe thresholds for substances of concern.
The consequences of a limit of 0.8 µg/cm2 for the product types most important for
fragrance allergy are calculated below.
The calculation is based on:-

The generally safe exposure level, which is the median ED10 value (the dose
which will elicit allergic contact dermatitis in 10% of sensitised eczema patients)
under patch test conditions: 0.8 μg/cm2 (280).

94

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________-

Exposure doses and exposure areas from SCCS notes of guidance 7th revision(282) [Tables 2 and 3] and Technical dossier Quantitative Risk Assessment fromRIFM (274).

Equation:
Safe concentration in product = (Generally safe exposure level (0.8 μg/cm2)/daily
exposure to product (μg/cm2/day)) x 100 (for %).
Table 11-5: Concentration limits in different product types based on 0.8 μg/cm2 allergen as a'generally safe exposure level', if specific dose-response data are unavailable.

Body lotion

Estimateddaily
exposurelevel (g)(Table 3
SCCS NoG)

Mean
exposedskin surface(cm2) (Table
2 SCCS NoG)

Exposure/cm2/dayin grams

Exposure/cm2/dayin μg (1g=1x106 μg )Concentration
limit inproduct % inproduct:(GEL/daily
exposure) x
100

7.82 g

15,670 cm2

0.000499

499

0.16%

2

Face cream

1.54 g565 cm

0.002725

2725

0.03%

Hand cream

2.16 g860

0.002511

2511

0.03%

Deodorant
aerosol sprayethanol based
Perfume
spray
Note:

2

1.43 g200 cm0.007150

7150

0.01%

not given?

0.002211)

2210

0.04%

1) 2.21 mg/cm2/day from Technical dossier Quantitative Risk Assessment.

The estimated daily use of the various product categories in Table 11-5 are based on the
SCCS Notes of Guidance (see above), except for perfume, for which no value is given.
This value is taken from the Technical Dossier on Quantitative Risk Assessment fromRIFM.
Generally the estimated use of different products is higher in the IFRA/RIFM assessments
than in SCCS Notes of Guidance.
Table 11-6: Overview of dose-response studies and thresholds for eight allergens, after (280).
ED10 patch test values from each of the 16 selected studies with 95 % confidence intervals withthe allergens chromium (283), MCI/MI (Kathon ™ CG) (284), nickel (285), methyldibromo
glutaronitrile (MDBGN) (286), hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) (102, 224,263), isoeugenol (264, 279) and formaldehyde (287). The shaded values were considered as
outliers.
Study

Number of patients

ED10 (µg/cm2)

95 % interval

MCI/MI12

1.05

0.17–2.27

Formaldehyde

20

20.1

4.09–43.9

Nickel 1997

24

1.58

0.32–4.04

Nickel 1998

19

0.8

0.078–2.59

95

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Number of patients

ED10 (µg/cm2)

95 % interval

Nickel 1999

26

7.49

2.42–14.5

Nickel 2005

13

0.74

0.066–2.38

Nickel 2007

20

0.82

0.13–2.37

Cobalt 2005

11

0.44

0.033–1.3

Chromium17

1.04

0.0033–5.55

Isoeugenol 2001

24

1.48

0.22–4.74

Isoeugenol 2005

13

0.23

0.0073–1.32

HICC 2003

18

0.85

0.062–3.26

HICC 2007

14

1.17

0.043–5.05

HICC 2009

17

0.66

0.052–2.35

MDBGN 2004

19

0.025

0.00021–0.19

MDBGN 2008

18

0.50

0.052–1.69

Study

Note: The ED10 value is the concentration which elicits an allergic reaction in 10% of a group ofsensitised individuals under patch test conditions.

ED10 with 95 % confidence limits
MCI/MI 1989
Formaldehyde 1997
Nickel 1997
Nickel 1998
Nickel 1999
Nickel 2007
Nickel 2005
Cobalt 2005
Chromium 2001
Isoeugenol 2001
Isoeugenol 2005
HICC 2003
HICC 2007
HICC 2009
MDBGN 2004
MDBGN 2008

0.0001 0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

Applied concentration (µg/cm 2)
Figure 11-2: The threshold data with 95% confidence intervals from Table 11-6 presented
graphically, after (280).

96

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 11-3: The fitted dose-response curves from the studies in Table 11-6, which are the basis
for estimation of the ED10 value, after (280).

The meta-analysis above has shown that the median elicitation dose by patch testing for
10% of sensitised individuals was 0.8 µg/cm2. In the model data for the fragrance
substances isoeugenol and HICC was included. The two studies on isoeugenol and thethree studies on HICC gave an average ED10 value of 0.85 µg/cm2 and 0.89 µg/cm2
with a range 0.23-1.48. This means that even if the model was used for thesesubstances individually the result would be very similar to the general threshold value.
The data from cinnamal and hydroxycitronellal studies was not incorporated in the model
because: (i) serial dilution patch testing was done in petrolatum for cinnamal, making thedosing less exact; (ii) and only seven patients participated in the hydroxycitronellal
study, while a criteria for inclusion in the model was ten participants (280).
According to the above calculations, a limit of 0.8 µg/cm2 for the product types of mostimportance for fragrance allergy corresponds to concentrations of 100 to 400 ppm (0.010.04%) for deodorants, perfume spray, hand and face lotions. For body lotion thegeneral threshold was 0.16%. However, it does not seem meaningful in the context ofcontact allergy to distinguish between different types of creams, as a body cream would
be applied with the hands and the relevant parameter in contact allergy is dose per area
skin and not total dose.
A general threshold would have to take into consideration the uncertainties inquantification of exposure and safe thresholds as well as the possibilities of aggregate
exposures and exposure to chemically similar substances. Therefore in setting one
general threshold the product category carrying the highest risk of sensitisation andelicitation, which is deodorants, was chosen to drive the generation of the threshold. Thismeans that a threshold of 0.8 µg/cm2 is equal to 0.01% or 100 ppm (see Table Table
11-1 and the related text), the lowest of the threshold values derived.
The approach taken by the SCCS is based on scientific evidence published in peerreviewed journals (283)(284)(285)(286)(102, 224, 263)(264, 279)(287) in the past 20 years.
The meta-analysis deriving the general threshold limit at 0.8 ug/cm² limit has been
published (280) in a peer-reviewed journal. The use of threshold limits based on
elicitation data is a well established methodology which has been applied (with success)in EU to prevent further cases of induction and elicitation (primary and secondary
prevention) in the case of nickel allergy, chromium in cement, chromium in shoes in
97

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Germany, dimetyl fumurate in consumer items and also in part in IFRA guidelines e.g.
concerning HICC.
The elicitation threshold model is based on 16 studies of 8 allergens, two of which are
fragrance ingredients. It includes data from moderate to extreme allergens with a
median EC3 value of 1.2.
The 11 fragrance allergens to which the limit is suggested to apply range from extreme
to moderate with median EC3 value of 4.8, although in the case of coumarin an EC3
value could not be established.
Thus in general the potency profile of the fragrance substances of concern is not very
different from those included in the model to provide the suggested general safe
threshold.
The approach is targeting the relevant end-point, namely, allergic contact dermatitis. The
mere consideration of potency of the allergen, according to the LLNA (EC3), is insufficientin identifying the size of the problems of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis.
Additional information is needed from clinical and epidemiological studies, exposure
assessment and dose-elicitation studies. For instance, the elicitation thresholds of e.g.
HICC (EC3: 17.1) and isoeugenol (EC3: 0.54) are very similar (0.85 µg/cm² and 0.89
µg/cm², respectively) despite very different potencies. Both are frequent causes ofcontact allergy.
It should be noted that the general threshold is only suggested to be used for substancesof concern if no specific data of sufficient quality exist to set an individual safe threshold.
In cases where specific data of sufficient quality are available, these data should be used
to set an individual safe threshold.
The general threshold is indicative of a safe level for the majority of sensitised
individuals, but does not preclude that the most sensitive subset of the population may
react upon exposure to the allergen. These levels are based on patch tests and take noaccount of anatomical sites of exposure, frequency of exposure or vehicle effects.
Therefore, any limitations in exposures are not substitutes for providing information to
the consumer about the presence of a substance in a product as a certain fraction ofsensitised individuals will still need to avoid specific exposures.
Based on experience, limitations in exposure based on elicitation thresholds will, apartfrom helping the sensitised consumer, also significantly reduce the risk of induction. Thisis the case for nickel allergy, where the restrictions in the EU nickel directive are basedon elicitation threshold, leading to a significant reduction in new cases of sensitisation inyoung women (288) and in a reduction in morbidity, i.e. elicitation (289). Anotherexample is restriction of chromium VI in cement (290).
It is not possible to provide a safe threshold for natural extracts of concern, as no specificinvestigations exist, and the model providing the general use concentration limit (0.01%)
has been based on chemicals only.
The SCCP concluded in 2004 that Chloroatranol and atranol, the main allergenic
constituents of Evernia prunastri and Evernia furfuracea, should not be present in
consumer products because they are extremly potent allergens (239). The persistently
high frequency of contact allergy to Evernia prunastri and Evernia furfuracea noted ineczema patients does point to a persisting problem with exposure to the allergenic
constituents.
11.3. Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC)
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) has been the most frequently
reported individual fragrance chemical causing allergy since the 1999 opinion on
fragrance allergy. In total, reports of about 1500 cases have been published in thescientific literature (see chapter 7.1 and Annex I to this opinion), while the second most98

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

frequently reported individual chemical was cinnamal with around 350 published cases.
Only a minority of the cases seen by clinicians is published and only a (small) proportionof those with allergic contact dermatitis seeks or has the possibility to seek medical
attention.
Natural extracts such as Myroxylon pereirae and turpentine (oil) have been more
frequently reported, but while HICC is a synthetic fragrance chemical, where the only
source of exposure is fragrances, the natural extracts are used in many other contexts
than fragrances/cosmetics.
Of patients tested by the Danish monitoring network of dermatologists 2.4% were foundto be allergic to HICC in 2005-2008 (with no decreasing trend from 2003 to 2007 (291))(for more studies see chapter 4.3.2); in 70% of the cases the reaction was of current
relevance, i.e. causing disease (69). This is in agreement with the results of a recent
German study with HICC, where 48 out of 51 patients (94.1%) with a positive patch test
reaction to HICC also reacted in a repeated open application test, simulating normal use
conditions of cosmetics containing HICC (105). In a Danish study 69% of 14 HICC
allergic individuals developed allergic contact dermatitis from use of cosmetics containing
HICC in realistic amounts (102).
On the basis of the high frequency of allergy to HICC, in 2003 the Scientific Committee
on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) recommended 0.02% (200 ppm)
as maximum amount of HICC in cosmetic products (292). This has not been
implemented and no restrictions apply in the Cosmetic Directive.
The fragrance industry, via the International Fragrance Association (IFRA), has its own
safety guidelines. Up until 2003 HICC was used without any restriction; in 2003 a limit of
1.5% HICC in any kind of product was introduced. In 2008 this was changed according to
the new risk assessment model (QRA) applied by the fragrance industry to different
levels in 11 different product types derived from the QRA (see11.1). Limits from 0.11%
in lip products to 1.5% in hair styling products were set. In 2009 a further lowering was
made of the limits by industry with the following reasoning: “The industry firmly believesand continues to support thresholds based on induction rather than elicitation. However,given the exceptional situation in Europe, the fragrance industry elected to take further
restrictive action on this material” (293). An overview of the IFRA restrictions is given in
the table below.
Table 11-7: Restriction for HICC independent of the QRA according to (293).
IFRA QRA
Category

Product type thatdrives thecategory

Consumer
exposure level
2003–2008 (%)

IFRA Standard
July 2008 (%)

IFRA Standard
July 2009 (%)

Category 1

Lip products

1.5

0.11

0.02

Category 2

Deodorants/
antiperspirants

1.5

0.15

0.02

Category 3

Hydroalcoholics forshaved skin

1.5

0.60

0.2

Category 4

Hydroalcoholics forunshaved skin

1.5

1.5

0.2

Category 5

Hand cream

1.5

1.0

0.2

Category 6

Mouthwash

1.5

1.5
Not applicable∗

Category 7

Intimate wipes

1.5

99

0.3

0.02

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Category 8

Hair styling aids

1.5

1.5

0.2

Category 9

Rinse-off hairconditioners

1.5

1.5%

0.2%

Category 10

Hard surface
cleaners

1.5

1.5%

0.2%

Category 11

Incidental or nonskin contact15

Not restricted

Not restricted

Note:

HICC Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde.
QRA Quantitative risk assessment.
* Not applicable because HICC is not approved for flavour use.

As an update since the presentation of the pre-consultation version of the opinion,
surveillance data on HICC from two European countries have become available, covering
the period 2002-2011 (IVDK/Germany (294)) and 2003-2011 (Danish contact dermatitits
group (295)), respectively. The first analysis identified a slight decrease, which wasconsidered “not overwhelming in absolute terms”, namely, from 2.3% in 2002 to 2.1% in2011 (crude prevalences, Figure 11-4). Thus, despite statistical significance, thedecrease is too slight to be interpreted as relevant improvement. In the Danish study,some fluctuation around a mean prevalence of about 2.5% was noted, but no trend(Figure 11-5). It is reported that 74% of the positive reactions were regarded as clinically
relevant.

Figure 11-4: Time trend of hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde sensitisation
prevalence [standardised prevalence of positives (%)] during 2002-2011. The decrease over timeis statistically significant, after (294).

100

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 11-5: Prevalence of positive patch test reactions to hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene
carboxaldehyde over time in 37 860 subjects tested by the Danish Contact Dermatitis Group (295).

11.4. Conclusion•

A dose-response relationship between exposure to contact allergens and inductionof allergy (sensitisation) as well as elicitation is well established. This means thatin principle, thresholds can be identified which are safe for the consumer.

•

A model for dermal sensitisation quantitative risk assessment has been developed(QRA) and implemented by the fragrance industry. This model relies onthresholds, no effect or low-effect levels, established in healthy human volunteers
and/or in animal experiments. The SCCP has previously reviewed thismethodology and concluded that: “There is no confidence that the levels of skinsensitisers identified by the dermal sensitisation QRA are safe for the consumer.”•

Elicitation data can provide thresholds indicative for the safe use of those
substances which have already caused significant problems in the consumer. In
this context, “safe use” means that the thresholds will protect the majority of
consumers from allergic contact dermatitis, but does not preclude that the mostsensitive subset of the population may react upon exposure to the allergen.

•

Furthermore, based on experience from intervention studies, such thresholds will
also be sufficiently low to protect (most of) the non-sensitised consumers fromdeveloping contact allergy.

•

Elicitation levels have been studied specifically for the fragrance chemicals
cinnamal, hydroxycitronellal and isoeugenol. These studies, however, are notadequate to derive safe thresholds for the individual substances directly from the
data.

•

In the absence of adequate substance specific data it is possible to use a generalthreshold. Based on a statistical analysis of the available data in the scientific
literature, a threshold of 0.8 µg/cm2 was derived. This corresponds to 0.01% (100ppm) limit in cosmetic products indicative for safe use.

101

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________•

It is not possible to provide a safe threshold for natural extracts of concern, as no
specific investigations exist and the model providing the general threshold(0.01%) has been based on individual chemicals only. However the maximum use
concentration applies to the identified chemicals both if added as chemicals or as
an identified constituent of a natural ingredient. This will also reduce the risk ofsensitisation and elicitation from natural extracts.

•

For substances for which there are no clinical data of concern, models such as thedermal sensitisation QRA approach may, after refinement and validation, be used
to suggest a safe level of exposure prior to incorporation into products. However,aggregated exposures must be incorporated in the dermal sensitisation QRA
model.

•HICC has for more than 10 years been recognized as an important allergen withmore cases documented in the scientific literature than for any other fragrance
chemical in this period. HICC has been shown to be a significant cause of diseaseas many of those with contact allergy to HICC had also reactions to cosmetics,
which contained or were likely to contain HICC. Since 2003 attempts have been
made by the fragrance industry to contain the outbreak of HICC allergy, but withno convincing success so far. Recent voluntary restrictions (recommendations tolower use concentrations, at least for some product types, to the levelrecommended by the SCCS in 2003) are not reflected in available evidence andare considered insufficient. The SCCS considers that the number of cases of HICC
allergy documented over the last decade is exceptionally high and that continued
exposure to HICC by the consumer is not considered safe, even at concentrations
as low as 200 ppm. Therefore, HICC should not be used in consumer products inorder to prevent further cases of contact allergy to HICC and to limit theconsequences to those who already have become sensitized.

•

The SCCP concluded in 2004 that chloroatranol and atranol, the main allergenic
constituents of Evernia prunastri and Evernia furfuracea, should not be present in
consumer products because they are extremly potent allergens. The persistently
high frequency of contact allergy to Evernia prunastri and Evernia furfuracea
noted in eczema patients does point to a persisting problem with exposure to theallergenic constituents, despite efforts to reduce the allergen content (296).

102

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

12.

Data gaps and research needed

In the course of working on this opinion, the following points are highlighted as importantdata gaps, ordered by research area:
12.1. Clinical and epidemiological research•

Clinical data on more fragrance substances are needed to assess more fully the
epidemiology of fragrance contact allergy and pin-point the culprit substances for
induction and elicitation of contact allergy in man.

•

Data from a broader range of EU countries on the clinical and epidemiologicalpicture of fragrance contact allergy is needed, as difference in exposure and use
habits are expected across Europe.

•

A co-ordinated strategy for data collection should be developed.

•

Very little is known about susceptible groups of the population, e.g. up 10% of theEuropean population carry mutations, which impairs the skin barrier and which
seem to increase the risk of fragrance allergy. Data are needed to qualify andquantify the increase in risk of susceptible groups in order to provide a better
protection of all consumers.

•

Aberrant enzyme activity in certain individuals, often related to genetic enzyme
polymorphisms, may give an increased or reduced risk of sensitisation toprohaptens (that need enzymatic activation) in certain individuals or populations.
More research into the role of relevant traits is needed.

•

Dose-response data from clinical studies are available for only a few allergens. To
establish individual safe levels such data are required for all established allergensof concern and covering an appropriate range of product types. This would also
consolidate the basis of the use of a general threshold for safe use of fragrance
allergens.

•

Data on human exposure to fragrances from the use of different productcategories is very scarce and therefore does not provide an optimal basis of risk
assessment, e.g. exposure data on use for perfume/eau de cologne are lacking.

•

Most experimental studies are done on individual fragrance ingredients, while
exposure to allergens in cosmetic products is usually to mixtures of allergens. The
risk of sensitisation and elicitation may depend on the mixture of substances, butvery few studies on this exist. It is necessary to improve the knowledge base on
cocktail effects on sensitisation/elicitation to improve the basis of risk assessmentand management.

•

Screening in dermatitis patients should be performed with air exposed samples ofsuch fragrance substances that in experimental studies have been demonstrated
to act as prehaptens, i.e. autoxidise and form oxidation mixtures containing
allergenic oxidation products.

•

Patch testing should if possible, be performed with the isolated true haptens
formed from prehaptens and prohaptens to increase the possibility to diagnose
allergy from these type of substances.

•

There is a need for more experimental research to further establish the impact of
the behaviour of fragrance substances when applied on the skin (including factors
such as volatility, autoxidation, skin penetration, reactivity in skin andbioactivation).

103

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

12.2. Non-human studies•

Several studies in the industry submission (164) were of insufficient quality, notfollowing the OECD guidelines.

•

In some cases it was found that either very few concentrations points had beenused in LLNAs, or concentrations were insufficient for achieving a 3-fold increaseof the SI.
A sufficient number of doses (concentrations) should be applied in LLNAs (at least5) so that interpolation (for deriving an EC3 value) can rely on more than two or
three actual data points to be more reliable. SCCS therefore suggests a change in
the OECD guideline 429. (It is important to remember that the production of
unreliable data is a waste of animals.) Moreover, the maximum concentration
should be high enough to achieve a > 3-fold increase in SI, as far as this ispossible with the substance/vehicle combination chosen.

•

Data on experimental results are often not published, but available only on file inthe companies having performed the tests. Access to such results would be
important for the scientific community, e.g. in the context of REACH, or
independently, either to the public domain, or to a Public Trustee.

•

The OECD guideline 429 recommends several vehicles. It is well known that adifference in the EC3 value can be obtained for the same substance depending on
which vehicle is used in the LLNA. Thus, as an additional control, supplementary
to the guideline based LLNA control, a clinically relevant solvent or the commercial
formulation in which the test substance is marketed may be used.

•

As long as no validated in vitro method exists, more research is needed. Until one
or more method(s) have been decided to fulfil the requirements for substituting invivo testing, the in vivo testing for prediction of skin sensitisation has to be used.

•

Applying only mechanism-based QSAR (QMM) as a tool in non-animal based risk
assessment for skin sensitisation is of limited value for fragrance substances. Thisis due to major information gaps in the present model when addressing
substances that act via abiotic or metabolic activation, and the high incidence ofsuch substances in fragrances. Therefore, further experimental and clinicalresearch in the area of abiotic and/or metabolic activation of fragrance substancesis needed to increase the safety for the consumer, i.e. experimental studies which
include air oxidation and bioactivation.

•

Further experimental investigations of the sensitisation potential of fragrance
substances are needed to determine the impact of the volatility of the substanceas well as the effect of the vehicle on skin penetration/absorption and reactivity.

•

From a clinical perspective it is important for the individual who is sensitised to
one fragrance substance to know if they must also avoid other fragrance
substances that can cause allergic contact dermatitis due to cross-reactivity withthe original sensitiser. Prediction of risks for cross-reactivity requires soundapplication of theoretical principles in combination with well-designed
experimental studies. This is a field that has not been studied very much so far
and needs to be focused on much more in the future.

•

Quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) models should be further
developed, combining, as appropriate, information from in silico, in chemico andin vitro methods as possible. Prediction of different activation pathways should be
included.

•

Effect estimates such as proportions of sensitised humans or animals, or mean
stimulation indices, EC3 values and other derivations should ideally be
accompanied by an interval estimate (confidence interval) to address precision(297).
104

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

13.

OpinionContact allergy to fragrances is a common, significant and relevant problem in Europe.
The studies since the SCCNFP opinion on fragrance allergy in consumers in 1999
(SCCNFP/0017/98) (SCCNFP 1999) have confirmed that the 26 fragrance allergens,
identified by the SCCNFP, are still relevant fragrance allergens for consumers because of
their exposure from cosmetic products. Additional exposure to many of these 26
fragrance allergens also occurs from the use of other consumer products, such asdetergents, toys, etc. Some of these fragrance substances are also used aspreservatives.
The overall trend of fragrance contact allergy appears to have been stable for the last 10
years, as some causes of fragrance allergy have decreased and others increased. From
the few population-based studies, it can be estimated that the frequency of contact
allergy to fragrance ingredients in the general population in Europe is 1-3%. This isbased on the limited testing with eight common fragrance allergens (FM I) out of theapproximately 2500 fragrance ingredients listed in CosIng and indicative of thesubstances that may be present in fragrance compounds. However, the real prevalenceof contact allergy to fragrance substances may be higher if the testing were to be
performed with the full spectrum of fragrance allergens, including oxidised substances,where relevant.
Among eczema patients in the European population, around 16% are sensitised tofragrance ingredients. The disease can be severe and generalised, with a significant
impairment of quality of life and potential consequences for fitness for work.
Contact sensitisation, and its clinical manifestation, allergic contact dermatitis, can beprevented if the exposure to known contact allergens is reduced or abolished (primaryprevention). Experiences so far, have indicated that not all substances that later turned
out to be significant contact allergens after human exposure, were predicted byexperimental studies, e.g. the preservative methyldibromo glutaronitrile and thefragrance chemical HICC. Thus, a significant exposure of the population may occur before
a substance is established as an important contact allergen in man.
Elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis occurs when a consumer sensitised to a certain
substance is re-exposed to the substance in question. Prevention at this stage, termed
secondary prevention, can be achieved if use of the allergen in products is eliminated or
reduced to a tolerable level (general prevention), or if the patients succeed in avoiding all
sources of exposure (individual prevention). Ingredient listing of individual fragrance
allergens has been shown to be an important tool to enable consumers with an identified
allergy to reduce/avoid relevant exposures. Moreover, ingredient listing is also of great
importance to ensure that an adequate diagnosis of fragrance contact allergy can bemade without undue delay. If the information given on the presence of fragrance
allergens is incomplete, diagnosis of fragrance contact allergy may be missed.
The SCCNFP, in its 1999 opinion, identified 26 fragrance allergens for which information
should be provided to consumers concerning their presence in cosmetic products. Thiswas implemented in the European Cosmetics legislation (298) as ingredient labelling ofthese 26 fragrance substances (Annex III, entries 67-92). However, safe use
concentrations for these substances in cosmetic products have not yet been determined
and much new evidence concerning fragrance allergy has been published since 1999. The
present opinion updates the SCCNFP opinion with a systematic and critical review of thescientific literature up to October 2010. This review addresses the issue of contact allergy
to fragrance substances, including natural extracts and updates the list of fragrance
allergens relevant to consumers. Clinical, epidemiological and experimental studies were
evaluated, as well as modelling studies performed, to establish lists of: (i) establishedfragrance allergens; (ii) likely fragrance allergens; and (iii) possible fragrance allergens.
The review also includes fragrances, which on modification by oxidation or by enzyme
mediated processes, can produce allergens. Available dose-response data have been
105

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

examined to answer whether safe thresholds can be established for the most frequent
fragrance allergens.
13.1. Question 1
Does the SCCS still consider that the fragrance allergens currently listed in
Annex III, entries 67-92, for labelling purposes represent those fragrance
ingredients that the consumer needs to be made aware of when present incosmetic products?
In order to answer this question, the SCCS has used clinical and epidemiological data toidentify known fragrance allergens. These were categorised as established contact
allergens in humans (see Table 13-1).
Where sufficient animal evidence was present, these substances were categorised as
established contact allergens in animals (Table 13-2). For a number of other fragrance
substances, combinations of limited clinical data together with SAR considerations havebeen applied to indicate likely fragrance allergens in man (Table 13-3). Finally, SAR has
also been applied to substances that lack human data to identify fragrance chemicals
that have the structural potential to be contact allergens. Substances with insufficienthuman data were also considered as possible fragrance allergens. For these further tests(experimental/clinical data) are required (Table 13-4).
Table 13-1: Established contact allergens in humans.
For categorisation of importance (+ to ++++) see chapter 7.1. Allergens of special concern are
substances where between 100 and 1,000 cases (+++) and more than 1,000 (++++) have been
published. These are set in bold. Fragrance substances identified as allergens in the 1999 opinionof SCCNFP (1) are marked with an asterisk.
“ox.” = oxidised; “non-ox.” = non-oxidised; “r.t.” = rarely tested (see chapter 7)
INCI name (or, if none exists, perfuming nameaccording to CosIng)

CAS number

Human evidence:
see text

Individual chemicals
ACETYLCEDRENE

32388-55-9+

AMYL CINNAMAL*

122-40-7++

AMYL CINNAMYL ALCOHOL*

101-85-9++

AMYL SALICYLATE

2050-08-0+trans-ANETHOLE

4180-23-8+

ANISE ALCOHOL*

105-13-5+

BENZALDEHYDE

100-52-7+

BENZYL ALCOHOL*

100-51-6++

BENZYL BENZOATE*

120-51-4++

BENZYL CINNAMATE*

103-41-3++

BENZYL SALICYLATE*

118-58-1++

BUTYLPHENYL METHYLPROPIONAL *80-54-6++

CAMPHOR

76-22-2 / 46449-3+

beta-CARYOPHYLLENE (ox.)

87-44-5Non-ox.: +,ox.: +

106(r.t.)(r.t.)

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________INCI name (or, if none exists, perfuming nameaccording to CosIng)

CAS number

Human evidence:
see text

CARVONE

99-49-0 / 648540-1 / 2244-168+

CINNAMAL*

104-55-2+++

CINNAMYL ALCOHOL*

104-54-1+++

CITRAL*5392-40-5+++

CITRONELLOL*

106-22-91117-61-9
7540-51-4

COUMARIN*

91-64-5+++(DAMASCENONE )23696-85-7+//(r.t.)++(r.t.)ROSE KETONE-4
alpha-DAMASCONE (TMCHB)

43052-87-5
23726-94-5

cis-beta-DAMASCONE

23726-92-3+

delta-DAMASCONE

57378-68-4+

DIMETHYLBENZYL CARBINYL ACETATE (DMBCA)

151-05-3+

EUGENOL*97-53-0+++

FARNESOL*

4602-84-0++ - +++GERANIOL*

106-24-1+++

HEXADECANOLACTONE

109-29-5+

HEXAMETHYLINDANOPYRAN

1222-05-5++

HEXYL CINNAMAL*

101-86-0++

HYDROXYISOHEXYLCARBOXALDEHYDE (HICC)*

3-CYCLOHEXENE

31906-04-4
51414-25-6

/

/

++

(r.t.)++++HYDROXYCITRONELLAL*

107-75-5+++

ISOEUGENOL*

97-54-1+++alpha-ISOMETHYL IONONE*

127-51-5++(DL)-LIMONENE*

138-86-3++ (non-ox.);+++ (ox.)

LINALOOL*

78-70-6++ (non-ox.)+++ (ox.)

LINALYL ACETATE

115-95-7+ (non-ox.)++ (ox.)MENTHOL

1490-04-6 / 8978-1 / 2216-515++

6-METHYL COUMARIN

92-48-8++

METHYL 2-OCTYNOATE*

111-12-6++

METHYL SALICYLATE

119-36-8+

3-METHYL-5-(2,2,3-TRIMETHYL-3-

67801-20-1

++

107

(r.t.)

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________INCI name (or, if none exists, perfuming nameaccording to CosIng)

CAS number

Human evidence:
see text

alpha-PINENE and beta-PINENE

80-56-8
and
127-91-3, resp.

++

PROPYLIDENE PHTHALIDE

17369-59-4+

SALICYLALDEHYDE

90-02-8++alpha-SANTALOL and beta-SANTALOL

115-71-9
and
77-42-9, resp.

++

SCLAREOL

515-03-7+

TERPINEOL (mixture of isomers)

8000-41-7+

alpha-TERPINEOL

10482-56-1
98-55-5

Terpinolene

586-62-9

TETRAMETHYL ACETYLOCTAHYDRONAPHTHALENES

54464-57-2
54464-59-4
68155-66-8
68155-67-9

TRIMETHYL-BENZENEPROPANOL (Majantol)

103694-68-4++

VANILLIN

121-33-5++

CANANGA ODORATA and Ylang-ylang oil

83863-30-3;
8006-81-3+++

CEDRUS ATLANTICA BARK OIL

92201-55-3;
8000-27-9++

CINNAMOMUM CASSIA LEAF OILCINNAMOMUM ZEYLANICUM BARK OIL

8007-80-5
84649-98-9++

CITRUS AURANTIUM AMARA FLOWER / PEEL OIL

8016-38-4;
72968-50-4++

CITRUS BERGAMIA PEEL OIL EXPRESSED

89957-91-5+

CITRUS LIMONUM PEEL OIL EXPRESSED

84929-31-7++

CITRUS SINENSIS (syn.: AURANTIUM DULCIS) PEEL OIL
EXPRESSED

97766-30-8;
8028-48-6++

CYMBOPOGON CITRATUS / SCHOENANTHUS OILS

89998-14-1;
8007-02-1;
89998-16-3++

EUCALYPTUS SPP. LEAF OIL

92502-70-0;
8000-48-4++

EUGENIA CARYOPHYLLUS LEAF / FLOWER OIL

8000-34-8+++

EVERNIA FURFURACEA EXTRACT*

90028-67-4+++

EVERNIA PRUNASTRI EXTRACT*

90028-68-5+++

JASMINUM GRANDIFLORUM / OFFICINALE

84776-64-7;
90045-94-6;
8022-96-6+++

JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA

8000-27-9;++

CYCLOPENTENYL)PENT-4-EN-2-OL(r.t.)

/
+
/
/
/

+

Natural extracts

108(r.t.)(r.t.)

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________INCI name (or, if none exists, perfuming nameaccording to CosIng)

CAS number

Human evidence:
see text

85085-41-2
LAURUS NOBILIS

8002-41-3;
8007-48-5;
84603-73-6++

LAVANDULA HYBRIDA

91722-69-9+

LAVANDULA OFFICINALIS

84776-65-8++

MENTHA PIPERITA

8006-90-4;
84082-70-2++

MENTHA SPICATA

84696-51-5++

MYROXYLON PEREIRAE

8007-00-9;++++

NARCISSUS SPP.

diverse++PELARGONIUM GRAVEOLENS

90082-51-2;
8000-46-2++

PINUS MUGO/PUMILA

90082-72-7
97676-05-6

POGOSTEMON CABLIN

8014-09-3;
84238-39-1++

ROSE FLOWER OIL (ROSA SPP.)Diverse++SANTALUM ALBUM

84787-70-2;
8006-87-9+++

TURPENTINE (oil)8006-64-2;
9005-90-7;
8052-14-0++++

VERBENA ABSOLUTE

8024-12-2++/(r.t.)++

Table 13-2: Fragrance substances categorised as established contact allergens in animals.
INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)

CAS
numberHumanevidence:
see text

EC 3 value (min;%)

Individual chemicals
Allyl phenoxyacetate

7493-74-5

none

3.1

p-tert. -Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde

18127-01-0

none

4.3

CYCLAMEN ALDEHYDE

103-95-7

none

22

Dibenzyl ether

103-50-4

none

6.3

2,3-DIHYDRO-2,2,6TRIMETHYLBENZALDEHYDE

116-26-7

limited7.5

trans-2-Hexenal

6728-26-3

none

2.6

2-Hexylidene cyclopentanone

17373-89-6

none

2.4

HEXYL SALICYLATE

6259-76-3

negative

0.18

p-Isobutyl-α-methyl hydrocinnamaldehdye

6658-48-6

none

9.5

109

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

EC 3 value (min;%)

INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)

CAS
numberHumanevidence:
see text

Isocyclocitral

1335-66-6

none

7.3

α-Methyl cinnamic aldehyde

101-39-3

none

4.5

METHYLENEDIOXYPHENYLMETHYLPROPANAL

1205-17-0

none

16.4

METHYLUNDECANAL

110-41-8

none

10

2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol

93-51-6none

5.8

4-Methoxy-α-methyl benzenpropanal5462-06-6

none

23.6

METHYL OCTINE CARBONATE

111-80-8

limited

2.5

Perillaldehyde p-Mentha-1,8-dien-7-al

2111-75-3

none

8.1

PHENYLACETALDEHYDE

122-78-1

limited

3

none

35.4

Natural extracts
Jasminum Sambac Flower CERA / Extract /Water

91770-14-8

Table 13-3: Fragrance substances categorised as likely contact allergens by combination ofevidence.
INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)

CAS
numberHumanevidence:
see text

EC 3 value(min; %)SAR

AMBRETTOLIDE

7779-50-2

limitednone+

CARVACROL

499-75-2

limitednone+

Citrus paradisi §8016-20-4

none

R43

n.a.

CUMINALDEHYDE

122-03-2

limitednone+

CYCLOPENTADECANONE

502-72-7

limitednone+trans-trans-delta-DAMASCONE

71048-82-3

limitednone+

2,4-dimethyl-3-cyclohexen-1carboxaldehyde §68039-49-6

none

R43

+

DIMETHYLTETRAHYDRO BENZALDEHYDE

68737-61-1

limitednone+

ETHYL VANILLIN

121-32-4

limitednone+

HELIOTROPINE

120-57-0

limitednone+

ISOAMYL SALICYLATE

87-20-7limitednone++

ISOLONGIFOLENEKETONE

33407-62-4

limitednone+

Longifolene §475-20-7

none

R43

+

Mentha arvensis §68917-18-0

none

R43

n.a.

METHOXYCITRONELLAL

3613-30-7

limitednone+

METHYL CINNAMATE

103-26-4

limitednone++

METHYLIONANTHEME

55599-63-8

limited

none

+

110

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________INCI name (or, if none exists,
perfuming name according to CosIng)

CAS
numberHumanevidence:
see text

EC 3 value(min; %)SAR

5-METHYL-alpha-IONONE

79-69-6limitednone+

MYRCENE

123-35-3

limitednone++

MYRTENOL

515-00-4

limited

none

+

NEROL

106-25-2

limitednone++

Nerolidol (isomer not specified)

7212-44-4

limitednone++

NOPYL ACETATE

128-51-8

limitednone+

PHYTOL

150-86-7

limitednone+

RHODINOL

6812-78-8

limitednone+trans-ROSE KETONE-5

39872-57-6

limitednone++§ Substances/natural mixtures were classified as R43, according to the submission by IFRA. The evidence on
which this classification was based was not available to the SCCS, so the validity of classification cannot be
assessed. Nevertheless, the four substances/substance mixtures should be treated as likely contact allergens.
n.a.: not applicable (natural mixture)

Table 13-4: Fragrance substances categorised as possible contact allergens.
INCI name (or, if none
exists, perfuming nameaccording to CosIng)

CAS number

Humanevidence:
see text

EC
3
value
(min;
%)

SAR

Individual chemicals
CYCLOHEXYL ACETATE

622-45-7

limitednone

0

ETHYLENE DODECANEDIOATE

54982-83-1

limitednone

0

HYDROXYCITRONELLOL

107-74-4

limitednone

0

METHOXYTRIMETHYLHEPTANO
L

41890-92-0

limitednone

0

METHYL p-ANISATE

121-98-2

limitednone

0

METHYL DIHYDROJASMONATE24851-98-7

limitednone

0

PHENETHYL ALCOHOL

60-12-8limitednone

0

PHENYLPROPANOL

122-97-4

limitednone

0

AMYLCYCLOPENTANONE4819-67-4

negative

none+

BENZYL ACETATE

140-11-4

negativenone+

6-ETHYLIDENEOCTAHYDRO5,8-METHANO-2H-BENZO-1PYRAN

93939-86-7

negativenone+

3α,4,5,6,7,7α-HEXAHYDRO4,7-METHANO-1H-INDEN5(OR 6)-YL ACETATE54830-99-8

negativenone+

alpha-IONONE

127-41-3

negativenone+

beta-IONONE

79-77-6

negative

none+

METHYL IONONE (mixture of1335-46-2

negative

none

+

111

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________CAS number

Humanevidence:
see text

EC
3
value
(min;
%)

SAR

TERPINEOL ACETATE (Isomer
mixture)8007-35-0

negativenone+

alpha-TERPINYL ACETATE

80-26-2

negative

none+

CITRONELLYL NITRILE

51566-62-2

none

none

++

alpha-CYCLOHEXYLIDENE
BENZENEACETONITRILE

10461-98-0

none

none

+

DECANAL

112-31-2

none

none

++

DIHYDROMYRCENOL

18479-58-8

none

none

+

3,7-DIMETHYL-1,6NONADIEN-3-OL

10339-55-6

none

none

++

2-ETHYL-4-(2,2,3TRIMETHYL-3-CYCLOPENTEN1-YL)-2-BUTEN-1-OL

28219-61-6

none

none

+

GERANYL ACETATE

105-87-3

none

none

++

HEXAHYDROMETHANOINDENYLPROPIONATE68912-13-0

none

none

+

IONONE isomeric mixture8013-90-9

none

none

+

ISOBERGAMATE

68683-20-5

none

none

+

METHYL DECENOL

81782-77-6

none

none

+

TRICYCLODECENYLPROPIONATE17511-60-3

none

none

+

OXACYCLOHEXADECENONE

34902-57-3

none

none

++

VERDYL ACETATE

2500-83-6/ 5413-60-5

none

none

+

trans-beta-Damascone

23726-91-2

none

none

+

gamma-Damascone

35087-49-1

none

none

+

Citronellal

106-23-0

none

none

++

Phenethyl salicylate

87-22-9

none

none

++

INCI name (or, if none
exists, perfuming nameaccording to CosIng)
isomers)

Natural extracts
ACORUS CALAMUS ROOT OIL

84775-39-3

Limitednone

CEDRUS DEODARA WOOD OIL

91771-47-0

Limitednone

CITRUS AURANTIUM AMARA
LEAF OIL

72968-50-4

Limitednone

CITRUS TANGERINA …

223748-44-5

Limitednone

89998-15-2; 91771-61-8

Limitednone

ILLICIUM VERUM FRUIT OIL

84650-59-9

Limitednone

LAVANDULA SPICA

97722-12-8

Limitednone

CYMBOPOGONNARDUSWINTERIANUS HERB OIL/

112

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________INCI name (or, if none
exists, perfuming nameaccording to CosIng)

CAS number

Humanevidence:
see text

EC
3
value
(min;
%)

LITSEA CUBEBA

90063-59-5

Limitednone

PELARGONIUM ROSEUM

90082-55-6

Limitednone

SALVIA spp.

DiverseLimitednone

TAGETES PATULA

91722-29-1

Limitednone

THYMUS spp.

84929-51-1

Limitednone

VETIVERIA ZIZANOIDES

8016-96-4; 84238-29-9

Limitednone

SAR

Regarding the above categorisation of fragrance substances, the following aspects need
to be considered when interpreting an outcome other than established contact allergen inhumans:•If human evidence is negative, there is still a potential sensitisation risk, as in thisset of substances the number of (consecutive) patients tested was low, i.e. up toa few hundred.

•

If EC3 values are given as higher (>) than a certain value (see 8.3), an exact EC3
could not be established, as the substance had been tested in too low
concentration(s). In these cases, the substances have not been categorised as‘established contact allergen in animals’.

•

For SAR, the categories of prediction are: non-sensitiser (0); possible-sensitiser(+); predicted sensitiser (++); and not predictable (n.p.). (For details see Table
9-3 and Table 9-4). SAR predictions are only considered when human and animal
data are limited or missing.

•

Several substances are currently banned from the use in cosmetic products byAnnex II of the Cosmetics Directive, based on concerns regarding one or more
toxicological endpoints. While available clinical evidence regarding this set of
substances is listed in Annex I to this opinion, these substances have not further
been evaluated.

Fragrance ingredients listed in Table 13-1 clearly have caused disease in man, and basedon the clinical experience alone, these 82 substances were classified as establishedcontact allergens in humans, 54 individual chemicals and 28 natural extracts (mixtures ofchemicals), including all 26 fragrance allergens identified by SCCNFP in 1999. For anumber of other substances, no patch test data were available, but positive animal data,obtained by a validated guideline method (LLNA) addressing hazard, indicate that a – yet
not quantified – risk for humans is very likely to exist, given sufficient exposure. In othercases only in a relatively small number of patients has been tested positively (‘limited
human evidence’). Here, combination with SAR analyses corroborates the conclusion thatthese substances, too, are sufficiently qualified to be regarded as ‘likely fragrance
allergens’.
Of those 82 substances identified as established contact allergens in humans, 12
chemicals (listed in Table 13-5) and eight natural extracts are considered of special
concern as they have given rise to at least 100 reported cases. These substances pose aparticularly high risk of sensitisation to the consumer and are further considered in theanswer of question 2. One substance, hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde(HICC), was shown to be the cause of allergic contact dermatitis in more than 1500
reported cases since 1999. The number of cases is only those reported in scientificpublications, and therefore the actual number of cases is severely under-estimated.
113

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 13-5: Established fragrance contact allergens of special concern (single chemicals only).
CinnamalCinnamyl Alcohol*
CitralCoumarin
Eugenol*
Farnesol*
Geraniol*Hydroxycitronellal
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC)
Isoeugenol*
Limonene (oxidised)
Linalool* (oxidised)*including their respective esters

The established contact allergens in animals (Table 13-2) and the likely contact
allergens, identified based on a combination of limited evidence from man together withpositive SAR predictions (Table 13-3), are predicted to cause disease in man given
sufficient exposure.
Information on the presence of all the substances given in Table 13-1, Table 13-2 andTable 13-3 in cosmetic products is important in order to enable aimed testing of patientswith contact dermatitis and to diagnose fragrance allergy without delay. Further, thisinformation is important to the sensitised consumer as it will enable them to avoid
cosmetic products, which they may not tolerate.
Substances given in Table 13-4 are possible contact allergens and further data are
required to judge if these are contact allergens in humans and give rise to contact allergy
in consumers.
Conclusions - Question 1
The studies since the SCCNFP Opinion on fragrance allergy in consumers (1) haveconfirmed that the fragrance allergens currently listed in Annex III, entries 67-92 are still
relevant fragrance allergens for the consumers from their exposure to cosmetic products.
The review of the clinical and experimental data shows that many more fragrance
substances than those identified in the SCCNFP opinion of 1999 have been shown to besensitisers in humans. A comprehensive list of established contact allergens in humans isgiven in Table 13-1.
Moreover, animal experiments indicate that additional fragrance substances can be
expected to be contact allergens in humans, although human evidence is currently
lacking.
Additionally, limited human and/or animal evidence together with structure activity
relationship analysis suggests that other fragrance ingredients may be a cause of concern
with regard to their potential of causing contact allergy in humans.
Ingredient listing is important in clinical practice for the management of patients who areallergic to one or more of the listed fragrance chemicals. It is also important for the114

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

patients in order to avoid future exposure to fragrance contact allergens which they may
not tolerate.
The SCCS considers that those substances itemised in Table 13-1, Table 13-2 and Table
13-3 represent those fragrance ingredients that the consumer should be made aware ofwhen present in cosmetic products.
Substances known to be transformed (e.g. hydrolysis of esters) to known contact
allergens should be treated as equivalent to these known contact allergens. The
combined concentration of the alcohol and its ester must be considered regarding
exposure. Important indicative, but not exhaustive, examples include isoeugenol and its
esters, geraniol and its esters, eugenol and its esters, and linalool and its esters.
13.2. Question 2
Can the SCCS establish any threshold for their safe use based on the available
scientific data?
Dose-response relationships exist between exposure to contact allergens and the
proportion of consumers who will become sensitised to an allergen (i.e. induction), as
well as the proportion who will suffer from allergic contact dermatitis (elicitation). For anumber of recognised contact allergens in man, dose-elicitation studies on sensitised
individuals are available. These studies indicate that it is in principle possible to derive
exposure levels that the majority of sensitised individuals will tolerate. The SCCS
considers that thresholds based on elicitation levels in sensitised individuals will be
sufficiently low to protect both the majority of sensitised individuals as well as most of
the non-sensitised consumers from developing contact allergy and limit the risk of
induction.
Among the established chemical fragrance allergens, 12 were identified as posing a highrisk of sensitisation to the consumer (Table 13-5), i.e. more than 100 reported cases. For
these substances, limitation of exposure would help to protect sensitised consumers fromdeveloping allergic contact dermatitis.
In cases where specific data of sufficient quality on threshold levels for a particularallergen are available, these data should be used to set an individual safe threshold.
However, when such quality data are not available and a substance has been identified topose a high risk of sensitisation to the consumer, a general threshold limit can beapplied.
Dose-response studies have been performed with only four of these fragrance substances(HICC, isoeugenol, cinnamal and hydroxycitronellal). In addition, such a study has also
been performed on chloroatranol, a potent allergen in Evernia prunastri and Evernia
furfuracea. These studies, however, are not adequate to derive safe thresholds for theindividual substances directly from the data.
If no adequate data are available, for substances posing a high risk to the consumer (likethe 12 listed in Table 13-5), the use of a general threshold may be considered. A
threshold of 0.8 µg/cm2 has been derived based on a statistical analysis of the available
data in the scientific literature, including two fragrance allergens. This corresponds to
0.01% (100 ppm) limit in cosmetic products indicative for safe use. This approximation
may hold for weak to strong allergens. However, some strong and extreme sensitisers
may require lower individual thresholds. As an example, chloroatranol, present in thenatural product Evernia prunastri and in Evernia furfuracea, has been shown to have anelicitation threshold of 0.0004 µg/cm2 under experimental conditions similar to thoseyielding above results. On the other hand, for very weak sensitisers, this genericthreshold may be too conservative.
The model providing the general threshold of 100 ppm has been based on single
substances only and no general safe level for the natural extracts of concern can be
115

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

identified, but the maximum use concentration applies to the identified fragrance
allergens also when present in the natural extract.
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) has been the most frequently
reported chemical causing fragrance allergy since the 1999 opinion on fragrance allergy.
In total, reports of more than 1500 cases have been published in the scientific literature(see chapter 7.1 and Annex I), which will severely underestimate the actual prevalencein the population. HICC has been shown to be a significant cause of disease as many of
those with contact allergy to HICC had also reactions to cosmetics, which contained orwere likely to contain HICC. The SCCP concluded in 2003 that 200 ppm of HICC would be
tolerated by the majority of sensitised individuals and this level of exposure would have a
low potential to induce sensitisation (241). Since 2003 attempts have been made by thefragrance industry to contain the outbreak of HICC allergy, but with no convincing
success so far. Recent voluntary restrictions (recommendations to lower use
concentrations, at least for some product types, to the level recommended by the SCCS
in 2003) are not reflected in available evidence and are considered insufficient. The SCCS
considers that the number of cases of HICC allergy documented over the last decade is
exceptionally high and that continued exposure to HICC by the consumer is notconsidered safe, even at concentrations as low as 200 ppm. Chloroatranol and atranol
are the main allergenic components of Evernia prunastri and Evernia furfuracea. The
SCCS concluded in 2004 (239) that these should not be present in cosmetic products,
due to their exceptionally high sensitisation potential. Attempts to effectively reduce thecontent of these compounds in “oak moss abs.” (300) have largely failed to reduce
contact allergy to Evernia prunastri and Evernia furfuracea and the data presented in thisopinion show that the number of cases remains high.
Conclusions - Question 2
There are two components to the safety of fragrance ingredients in terms of contact
allergy. First, the need to eliminate or reduce induction of contact allergy (primaryprevention), which, when it occurs, is life long. Secondly, the need to eliminate or reduce
elicitation reactions (secondary prevention) on the skin of those individuals who are
already sensitised. Human dose elicitation experiments have hithereto been performed
only for a very small number of substances. It is unlikely that more of these studies will
be performed due to experimental and subject recruitment difficulties.
For individual substances, no levels that could be considered safe for the majority of
consumers could be established from the available data.
The dose elicitation studies available indicate that a general level of exposure of up to 0.8µg/cm2 (0.01%) may be tolerated by most consumers with contact allergy to fragrance
allergens. The SCCS considers that this level of exposure could be efficient in limiting
elicitation unless there is substance specific data, either experimental or clinical, to thecontrary.
Such a threshold based on elicitation levels in sensitised individuals will be sufficiently
low to protect both sensitised individuals as well as most of the non-sensitised
consumers from developing contact allergy.
The SCCS is of the opinion that for substances idendified as posing a high risk to theconsumer and for which no individual thresholds could be derived (Table 13-5), thegeneral threshold of 0.01% would limit the problem of fragrance allergy in the consumer
significantly.
It was not possible to provide a safe threshold for natural extracts of concern, as no
specific investigations exist and the model providing the general threshold (0.01%) has
been based on individual chemicals only. However the SCCS considers that the maximum
use concentration applies to the above identified fragrance allergens also when present in
the natural extract. This will also reduce the risk of sensitisation and elicitation fromnatural extracts.
116

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

It is important to stress that this general threshold, although limiting the problem, does
not preclude that the most sensitive segment of the population may react upon exposure
to these levels. Hence, this threshold does not remove the necessity for providing
information to the consumer concerning the presence of the fragrance substance incosmetics.
In the case of hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, in 2003 the SCCP
suggested that levels of up to 200 ppm would be tolerated by the majority of sensitised
individuals. Recent voluntary restrictions (recommendations to lower use concentrations,at least for some product types, to the level recommended by the SCCS in 2003) are notreflected in available evidence and are considered insufficient. The SCCS considers thatthe number of cases of HICC allergy documented over the last decade is exceptionallyhigh and that continued exposure to HICC by the consumer is not considered safe, evenat concentrations as low as 200 ppm. Therefore, HICC should not be used in consumer
products in order to prevent further cases of contact allergy to HICC and to limit theconsequences to those who already have become sensitized. The SCCP concluded in
2004 that chloroatranol and atranol, the main allergenic constituents of Evernia prunastri
and Evernia furfuracea, should not be present in products for the consumer. The
persistently high frequency of contact allergy to Evernia prunastri and Evernia furfuracea
noted in eczema patients does point to a persisting problem with exposure to allergenic
constituents, despite efforts to reduce the allergen content (296). The SCCS is of theopinion that the presence of the two constituents, chloroatranol and atranol, in cosmetic
products are not safe.

13.3. Question 3
Can the SCCS identify substances where processes (e.g. metabolism, oxidationand hydrolysis) may lead to cross-reactivity and new allergens which are
relevant for the protection of the consumer?
Many fragrance substances can act as prehaptens or prohaptens, forming allergens which
are more potent than the parent substance by abiotic and/or metabolic activation, andthus increasing the risk of sensitisation.
Experimental and clinical studies have shown that there are fragrance substances thatact as prehaptens, i.e. their sensisitation potency is markedly increased by air exposuredue to oxidation (autoxidation). Non/low-sensitising compounds are thereby transformed
into more potent sensitisers. Limonene, linalool, linalyl acetate, alpha-terpinene andgeraniol have all been identified as prehaptens. These fragrance substances are common
in scented cosmetics as well as in household products. The clinical studies show that the
exposure to allergens formed due to autoxidation causes significant contact allergy inconsumers. Patch testing with oxidised limonene and oxidised linalool shows that thesesubstances rank among the most common contact allergens.
In the SAR analyses performed in this work by the SCCS, fragrance compounds withstructural alerts that indicate that they are possible prehaptens have been identified(Table 9-1, Table 9-2). In such cases further thorough investigations are needed. It isalso important to investigate the stability of the primary oxidation products (thehydroperoxides) formed from various structures of fragrance compounds. The stability ofthese compounds can have great impact on the sensitisation potency of the oxidised
compound as they are strong sensitisers. However, the secondary oxidation products(aldehydes and epoxides) can also be important sensitisers depending on the overall
structure of the compound as was demonstrated for oxidised geraniol.
Air oxidation of prehaptens can be prevented to a certain extent by measures during
handling and storage of the ingredients and final products to avoid air exposure, and/or
by addition of suitable antioxidants. The autoxidation rate depends not only on thecompound itself, but also on its purity. The prevention of autoxidation using antioxidants
117

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

needs thorough investigation because antioxidants can exert their function by being
oxidised instead of the compound that they protect and might thereby be activated toskin sensitising derivatives after oxidation. As antioxidants are now frequently used atelevated concentrations in scented products due to a growing awareness of the problem
of autoxidation, there is a risk that sensitisation caused by the antioxidants will rise. Oneof the most used antioxidants is butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) which is considered aminimal risk for sensitisation in the concentrations used but nevertheless, with increased
concentrations and usage, the risk of sensitisation could increase.
It should be noted that, to decrease the risk for sensitisation in the population, thepossibility to reduce the sensitisation potency by preventing autoxidation is importantalso for a direct acting hapten or prohapten, if a further activation by air oxidation tomore allergenic compounds has been shown.
Based on the clinical data, oxidised limonene and oxidised linalool are allergens of highconcern (Table 13-5) which pose a high risk of sensitisation to the consumer. For thesesubstances the presence of the oxidised fraction represented by the peroxide content
should not be higher than 10 ppm. Alternatively, the suggested general thresholddose/area of 0.8 µg/cm2 (100 ppm in cosmetic products) could be applicable to the total
oxidised fraction, i.e. not only peroxides but also secondary oxidation products such as
aldehydes and epoxides.
Compounds that are bioactivated by metabolising enzymes to haptens are referred to asprohaptens. Established prohaptens of clinical importance are cinnamyl alcohol, geranial,
geraniol, eugenol, isoeugenol and alpha-terpinene.
Table 13-6: Known prehaptens and prohaptens.
Fragrance
substance

Activation by air
oxidation

Bioactivation(oxidation)

Cinnamyl alcoholxEugenolx

Eugenyl acetatexGeranialxx

Geraniolxx

Geranyl acetatexx

Isoeugenolx

Isoeugenyl acetatex

Limonenex

Linaloolx

Linalyl acetatexalpha-Terpinene.

x

Bioactivation(hydrolysis)

x

x

x

x

When bioactivation occurs, the risk of cross-reactivity should be considered. An increased
complexity in the cross-reactivity pattern is obtained when a compound could act both asa prehapten and a prophapten. For instance, it is known that cinnamyl alcohol andcinnamal can cross-react due to the formation of common sensitising substances. The
same applies to geraniol and citral.
In case derivatives of a fragrance substance are used, it must be taken into account thatthe derivative could be transformed into the parent or a cross-reacting compound. For
such derivatives the same rules as for the corresponding parents should apply, unless the118

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

stability of the derivative has been demonstrated. In particular, hydrolysis of esters to
the corresponding alcohols can cause cross-reactions. Acetate esters of eugenol,
isoeugenol and geraniol are frequently used in cosmetics.
To be able to predict the sensitisation potency of prohaptens, steps of bioactivation haveto be included in the predictive tests.
Activation of individual compounds to various haptens increases the risks of crossreactivity between chemicals and also causes difficulties in prediction of these risks.
Prediction of risks requires sound application of theoretical principles in combination withwell designed experimental studies. Based on the acquired knowledge, qualified
suggestions using structure activity relationship (SAR) regarding many fragrance
substances have been made (Table 9-1 to Table 9-3). However, as the stability of formed
oxidation products (mainly hydroperoxides) is important for the sensitisation potency,
the SAR hypotheses must be followed by experimental investigations for the actual
compounds.
Conclusions - Question 3
Many fragrance substances can act as prehaptens or prohaptens, forming allergens which
are more potent than the parent substance by abiotic and/or metabolic activation.
Activation can thus increase the risk of sensitisation. Fragrances with published data
showing the formation of sensitising compounds by autoxidation, bioactivation or bothinclude the following (see also Table 13-6).
Fragrance substances of clinical importance known to be prehaptens and to form
sensitising compounds by air oxidation are limonene, linalool, and linalyl acetate.
Fragrance substances of clinical importance known to be prohaptens and to form
sensitising compounds by metabolic transformation are cinnamyl alcohol, eugenol,
isoeugenol and isoeugenyl acetate.
Fragrance substances of clinical importance with published data known to be bothprehaptens and prohaptens and to form sensitising compounds by air oxidation(prehaptens) and by metabolic transformation are geraniol and alpha -terpinene.
A fragrance substance that sensitises without activation but forms more potent
sensitising compounds by air oxidation and also by metabolic transformation is geranial(one isomer of citral).
In the case of prehaptens, it is possible to prevent activation outside the body to acertain extent by different measures, e.g. prevention of air exposure during handling andstorage of the ingredients and the final product and by the addition of suitableantioxidants. When antioxidants are used, care should be taken that they will not be
activated themselves and thereby form new sensitisers.
The possibility to reduce the sensitisation potency by preventing air oxidation isimportant also for a direct acting hapten or prohapten, if a further activation by air
oxidation to more allergenic compounds has been shown.
In the case of prohaptens, the possibility to become activated is inherent to the moleculeand activation cannot be avoided by extrinsic measures. Activation processes increase
the risk for cross-reactivity between fragrance substances. Cross-reactivity has beenshown for certain alcohols and their corresponding aldehydes, i.e. between geraniol andgeranial (citral) and between cinnamyl alcohol and cinnamal.
Cross-reactivity is also expected between ester derivatives and their parent alcohols, as
the esters will be hydrolysed by esterases in the skin. Esters of important contact
allergens that can be activated by hydrolysis in the skin are isoeugenyl acetate, eugenyl
acetate and geranyl acetate which all are known to be used as fragrance ingredients.

119

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________The substances presented above are based on current knowledge and should be seen as
indicative and illustrative of the general problem. As substances with structural alerts for
acting as pro- and/or prehaptens are quite common among the fragrance substances
listed (see Tables 9-1 and 9-2), the possibility for activation to generate new potent
allergens should be considered.
The SCCS is of the opinion that substances known to be transformed (e.g. by oxidation
either via air oxidation or via bioactivation) to known contact allergens should be treatedas equivalent to these contact allergens, i.e the same restrictions and other regulatory
requirements should apply, unless specific data exist that allow for an individual
assessment. Important indicative examples include limonene, linalool, linalyl acetate,
geraniol, geranial, alpha-terpinene, eugenol, isoeugenol and cinnamyl alcohol.

120

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

14.

List of abbreviations

ACD

Allergic contact dermatitis

alc.

Alcohol (as vehicle)

CI

Confidence interval

CLPClassification, labelling and packaging

coloph.

Colophonium

DCs

Dendritic cells

EC

European Commission

ESSCA

European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies

EDT

Eau de toilette

EDP

Eau de perfume

EU

European Union

FM

Fragrance mix

GC

Gas chromatography

GPMT

Guinea pig maximisation test

HICC

Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde

HRIPT

Human repeat insult patch test

IFRA

International Fragrance Association (www.ifraorg.org)

IVDK

Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (www.ivdk.gwdg.de)

INCIInternational Nomenclature on Cosmetic Ingredients

LCs

Langerhans cells

LLNA

Local lymph node assay

MPR

Myroxylon pereirae resin

NACDG

North American Contact Dermatitis GroupOECD

Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development

ox.

oxidisedpet.

Petrolatum (as vehicle)

ppm

parts per million (10000 ppm = 1%)

PPV

Positive predictive value

PR

Prevalence ratioPT(ed)(ing)

Patch test(ed) (ing)

QMM

Quantitative mechanistic model

QRA

Quantitative risk assessment(Q)SAR(Quantitative) structure activity relationship

REACH

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals

RIFM

Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (www.rifm.org/)
121

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

ROAT

Repeated open application test

SC

Single constituents (of one of the fragrance mixes)

SCCS

Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety

SCCNFP

Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products

SCCP

Scientific Committe on Consumer Products

UK

United Kingdom

US(A)United States (of America)

UV

Ultraviolet

122

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

15.

References

1.
SCCNFP. The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products
intended for Consumers: Opinion concerning Fragrance Allergy in Consumers. A Reviewof the Problem. Analysis of the Need for appropriate Consumer Information and
Identification of Consumer Allergens, adopted 8 December 1999. SCCNFP/0017/98 Final
1999:
2.
Rustemeyer T, van Hoogstraten I M W, von Blomberg M E, Scheper R J.
Mechanisms in Allergic Contact Dermatitis. In: Frosch P J, Menné T, Lepoittevin J P, eds.
Contact Dermatitis. Heidelberg: Springer, 2006:
3.
Johansen J D, Andersen T F, Kjoller M, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen K E, Menne
T. Identification of risk products for fragrance contact allergy: a case-referent study
based on patients' histories. Am J Contact Dermat 1998: 9: 80-86.
4.
Marks J G, Belsito D V, DeLeo V A, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis
Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topicalallergens. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998: 38: 911-918.
5.
Johansen J D, Rastogi S C, Menné T. Contact allergy to popular perfumes:
assessed by patch test, use test and chemical analysis. Br J Dermatol 1996: 135: 419422.
6.
Johansen J D, Rastogi S C, Andersen K E, Menne T. Content and reactivity to
product perfumes in fragrance mix positive and negative eczema patients. A study of
perfumes used in toiletries and skin-care products. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 291296.
7.
de Groot A C, Frosch P J. Adverse reactions to fragrances. A clinical review.
Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 57-86.
8.

Cronin E. Contact Dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1980:

9.
Johansen J D, Andersen T F, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen K E, Menne T. Patch
testing with markers of fragrance contact allergy. Do clinical tests correspond to patients'
self-reported problems? Acta Derm Venereol 1997: 77: 149-153.
10.
Johansen J D, Rastogi S C, Bruze M, Andersen K E, Frosch P, Dreier B, Lepoittevin
J P, White I, Menne T. Deodorants: a clinical provocation study in fragrance-sensitive
individuals. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 39: 161-165.
11.
Lammintausta K, Kalimo K, Havu V K. Occurrence of contact allergy and handeczemas in hospital wet work. Contact Dermatitis 1982: 8: 84-90.
12.
Meding B. Epidemiology of Hand Eczema in an Industrial City. Acta Dermatol
Venerol (Stockh) Suppl 1990: 153: 2-43.
13.
Heydorn S, Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Svedman C, White I R,
Basketter D A, Menne T. Fragrance allergy in patients with hand eczema - a clinicalstudy. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 317-323.
14.
Buckley D A, Rycroft R J, White I R, McFadden J P. Contact allergy to individualfragrance mix constituents in relation to primary site of dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis
2000: 43: 304-305.
15.
Heydorn S, Menne T, Johansen J D. Fragrance allergy and hand eczema - areview. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 59-66.
16.
Wöhrl S, Hemmer W, Focke M, Götz M, Jarisch R. The significance of fragrance
mix, balsam of Peru, colophony and propolis as screening tools in the detection offragrance allergy. Br J Dermatol 2001: 145: 268-273.
123

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

17.
Edman B. The influence of shaving method on perfume allergy. Contact Dermatitis
1994: 31: 291-292.
18.
Heydorn S, Menne T, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Svedman C, White I R, Basketter D
A. Citral a fragrance allergen and irritant. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 32-36.
19.
Rothenborg H W, Menne T, Sjolin K E. Temperature dependent primary irritantdermatitis from lemon perfume. Contact Dermatitis 1977: 3: 37-48.
20.
Tanaka S, Matsumoto Y, Dlova N, Ostlere L S, Goldsmith P C, Rycroft R J,
Basketter D A, White I R, Banerjee P, McFadden J P. Immediate contact reactions tofragrance mix constituents and Myroxylon pereirae resin. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 51:
20-21.
21.
Hausen B M. Contact allergy to balsam of Peru. II. Patch test results in 102
patients with selected balsam of Peru constituents. Am J Contact Dermat 2001: 12: 93102.
22.
Katsarou A, Armenaka M, Ale I, Koufou V, Kalogeromitros D. Frequency of
immediate reactions to the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 276279.
23.
Nakayama H. Perfume allergy and cosmetic dermatitis (in Japanese). Jpn J
Dermatol 1974: 84: 659–667.
24.
Nakayama H, Harada R, Toda M. Pigmented cosmetic dermatitis. Int J Dermatol
1981: 15: 673–675.
25.

Cronin E. Photosensitivity to musk ambrette. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 11: 88-92.

26.
Darvay A, White I R, Rycroft R J, Jones A B, Hawk J L, McFadden J P.
Photoallergic contact dermatitis is uncommon. Br J Dermatol 2001: 145: 597-601.
27.
Wang L, Sterling B, Don P. Berloque dermatitis induced by "Florida water". Cutis
2002: 70: 29-30.
28.
Elberling J, Linneberg A, Dirksen A, Johansen J D, Frolund L, Madsen F, Nielsen N
H, Mosbech H. Mucosal symptoms elicited by fragrance products in a population-based
sample in relation to atopy and bronchial hyper-reactivity. Clin Exp Allergy 2005: 35: 7581.
29.
Kumar P, Caradonna-Graham V M, Gupta S, Cai X, Rao P N, Thompson J.
Inhalation challenge effects of perfume scent strips in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy
Asthma Immunol 1995: 75: 429-433.
30.
Millqvist E, Bende M,
Lowhagen O. Sensory hyperreactivity--a possible
mechanism underlying cough and asthma-like symptoms. Allergy 1998: 53: 1208-1212.
31.
Elberling J, Linneberg A, Mosbech H, Dirksen A, Frolund L, Madsen F, Nielsen N H,
Johansen J D. A link between skin and airways regarding sensitivity to fragrance
products? Br J Dermatol 2004: 151: 1197-1203.
32.
Lindberg M, Matura M. Patch Testing. In: Johansen J D, Frosch P, Lepoittevin J P,
eds. Contact Dermatitis. Heidelberg etc., : Springer, 2011: 439-464.
33.
Basketter D. Diagnostic patch testing - does it have a wider relevance? Contact
Dermatitis 2012: 67: 1-2.
34.
Larsen W G. Perfume Dermatitis. A Study of 20 Patients. Arch Dermatol 1977:
113: 623-626.
35.
Frosch P J, Pirker C, Rastogi S C, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Svedman C, Goossens
A, White I R, Uter W, Arnau E G, Lepoittevin J P, Menne T, Johansen J D. Patch testingwith a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by
the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 207-215.
124

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

36.
Frosch P J, Rastogi S C, Pirker C, Brinkmeier T, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Svedman
C, Goossens A, White I R, Uter W, Arnau E G, Lepoittevin J P, Johansen J D, Menne T.
Patch testing with a new fragrance mix - reactivity to the individual constituents andchemical detection in relevant cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 216-225.
37.
Bruze M, Andersen K E, Goossens A. Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2
and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) in the European baseline
patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 129-133.
38.
Lindberg M, Edman B, Fischer T, Stenberg B. Time trends in Swedish patch test
data from 1992 to 2000. A multi-centre study based on age- and sex-adjusted results of
the Swedish standard series. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 205-210.
39.
Temesvari E, Nemeth I, Balo-Banga M J, Husz S, Kohanka V, Somos Z, Judak R,
Remenyik E V, Szegedi A, Nebenfuhrer L, Meszaros C, Horvath A. Multicentre study offragrance allergy in Hungary. Immediate and late type reactions. Contact Dermatitis
2002: 46: 325-330.
40.
Machovcova A, Dastychova E, Kostalova D, Vojtechovska A, Reslova J,
Smejkalova D, Vaneckova J, Vocilkova A. Common contact sensitizers in the Czech
Republic. Patch test results in 12,058 patients with suspected contact dermatitis*.
Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 162-166.
41.
Lunder T, Kansky A. Increase in contact allergy to fragrances: patch-test results
1989-1998. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 107-109.
42.
Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, Frosch P J, Uter W. Contact allergy to
fragrances: frequencies of sensitization from 1996 to 2002. Results of the IVDK*.
Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 65-76.
43.
Uter W, Geier J, Frosch P J, Schnuch A. Contact allergy to fragrances: current
patch test results (2005 to 2008) from the IVDK network. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 63:
254-261.
44.
van Oosten E J, Schuttelaar M L, Coenraads P J. Clinical relevance of positive
patch test reactions to the 26 EU-labelled fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 217223.
45.
deGroot A C, Coenraads P J, Bruynzeel D P, Jagtman B A, van_Ginkel C J W, Noz
K, van_der_Valk P G M, Pavel S, Vink J, Weyland J W. Routine patch testing withfragrance chemicals in The Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 184-185.
46.
Hendriks S A, van Ginkel C J. Evaluation of the fragrance mix in the European
standard series. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 161-162.
47.
Nardelli A, Carbonez A, Ottoy W, Drieghe J, Goossens A. Frequency of and trends
in fragrance allergy over a 15-year period. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 134-141.
48.
Brites M M, Goncalo M, Figueiredo A. Contact allergy to fragrance mix--a 10-year
study. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 181-182.
49.
Cuesta L, Silvestre J F, Toledo F, Lucas A, Perez-Crespo M, Ballester I. Fragrance
contact allergy: a 4-year retrospective study. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 63: 77-84.
50.
Katsarma G, Gawkrodger D J. Suspected fragrance allergy requires extended
patch testing to individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 193-197.
51.
Buckley D A, Basketter D A, Kan-King-Yu D, White I R, White J L, McFadden J P.
Atopy and contact allergy to fragrance: allergic reactions to the fragrance mix I (theLarsen mix). Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 220-225.
Thyssen J P, Carlsen B C, Menne T, Johansen J D. Trends of contact allergy to
52.
fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae among Danish eczema patients tested between
1985 and 2007. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 238-244.
125

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

53.
Uter W, Hegewald J, Aberer W, Ayala F, Bircher A J, Brasch J, Coenraads P J,
Schuttelaar M L, Elsner P, Fartasch M, Mahler V, Belloni Fortina A, Frosch P J, Fuchs T,
Johansen J D, Menne T, Jolanki R, Krecisz B, Kiec-Swierczynska M, Larese F, Orton D,
Peserico A, Rantanen T, Schnuch A. The European standard series in 9 European
countries, 2002/2003 - First results of the European Surveillance System on Contact
Allergies. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 136-145.
54.
Hegewald J, Uter W, Aberer W, Ayala F, Beliauskiene A, Belloni Fortina A, Bircher
A, Brasch J, Chowdhury M M, Coenraads P J, Schuttelaer M-L, Elsner P, English J,
Fartasch M, Mahler V, Frosch P J, Fuchs T, Gawkrodger D J, Giménez-Arnau A M, Green C
M, Johansen J D, Menné T, Jolanki R, King C M, Krecisz B, Kiec-Swierczynska M, Larese
F, Ormerod A D, Orton D, Peserico A, Rantanen T, Rustemeyer T, Sansom J E, Statham B
N, Corradin M T, Wallnofer W, Wilkinson M, Schnuch A. The European Surveillance
System of Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results of patch testing the standard series, 2004.
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2008: 22: 174–181.
55.
Uter W, Rämsch C, Aberer W, Ayala F, Balato A, Beliauskiene A, Fortina A B,
Bircher A, Brasch J, Chowdhury M M, Coenraads P J, Schuttelaar M L, Cooper S, Corradin
M T, Elsner P, English J S, Fartasch M, Mahler V, Frosch P J, Fuchs T, Gawkrodger D J,
Gimenez-Arnau A M, Green C M, Horne H L, Jolanki R, King C M, Krecisz B, KiecSwierczynska M, Ormerod A D, Orton D I, Peserico A, Rantanen T, Rustemeyer T,
Sansom J E, Simon D, Statham B N, Wilkinson M, Schnuch A. The European baseline
series in 10 European Countries, 2005/2006--results of the European Surveillance
System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA). Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 31-38.
56.
An S, Lee A Y, Lee C H, Kim D W, Hahm J H, Kim K J, Moon K C, Won Y H, Ro Y S,
Eun H C. Fragrance contact dermatitis in Korea: a joint study. Contact Dermatitis 2005:
53: 320-323.
57.
Hussain I, Rani Z, Rashid T, Haroon T S. Suitability of the European standard
series of patch test allergens in Pakistani patients. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 50-51.
58.
Gupta N, Shenoi S D, Balachandran C. Fragrance sensitivity in allergic contact
dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 40: 53-54.
59.
Freireich-Astman M, David M, Trattner A. Standard patch test results in patientswith contact dermatitis in Israel: age and sex differences. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56:
103-107.
60.
Lazarov A. European Standard Series patch test results from a contact dermatitis
clinic in Israel during the 7-year period from 1998 to 2004. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 55:
73-76.
61.
Kashani M N, Gorouhi F, Behnia F, Nazemi M J, Dowlati Y,
contact dermatitis in Iran. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 154-158.

Firooz A. Allergic

62.
Akyol A, Boyvat A, Peksari Y, Gurgey E. Contact sensitivity to standard series
allergens in 1038 patients with contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis 2005:
52: 333-337.
63.
Lu X, Li L F, Wang W, Wang J. A clinical and patch test study of patients withpositive patch test reactions to fragrance mix in China. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52:
188-191.
64.
Belsito D V, Fowler J F, Jr., Sasseville D, Marks J G, Jr., De Leo V A, Storrs F J.
Delayed-type hypersensitivity to fragrance materials in a select North American
population. Dermatitis 2006: 17: 23-28.
65.
Zug K A, Warshaw E M, Fowler J F, Jr., Maibach H I, Belsito D L, Pratt M D,
Sasseville D, Storrs F J, Taylor J S, Mathias C G, Deleo V A, Rietschel R L, Marks J.
Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006. Dermatitis
2009: 20: 149-160.
126

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

66.
Bruynzeel D P, Diepgen T L, Andersen K E, Brandao F M, Bruze M, Frosch P J,
Goossens A, Lahti A, Mahler V, Maibach H I, Menne T, Wilkinson J D. Monitoring theEuropean standard series in 10 centres 1996-2000. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 146149.
67.
Frosch P J, Johansen J D, Menne T, Pirker C, Rastogi S C, Andersen K E, Bruze M,
Goossens A, Lepoittevin J P, White I R. Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive
to fragrances. I. Reactivity to 14 frequently used chemicals. Contact Dermatitis 2002:
47: 78-85.
68.
Krautheim A, Uter W, Frosch P, Schnuch A, Geier J. Patch testing with fragrance
mix II: results of the IVDK 2005-2008. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 63: 262-269.
69.
Heisterberg M V, Andersen K E, Avnstorp C, al. e. Fragrance mix II in thebaseline series contributes significantly to detection of fragrance allergy. Contact
Dermatitis 2010: (accepted):70.
Frosch P J, Pilz B, Andersen K E, Burrows D, Camarasa J G, et al. Patch testingwith fragrances: results of a multicenter study of the European Environmental andContact Dermatitis Research Group with 48 frequently used constituents of perfumes.
Contact Dermatitis 1995: 33: 333-342.
71.
Frosch P J, Johansen J D, Menne T, Rastogi S C, Bruze M, Andersen K E,
Lepoittevin J P, Gimenez Arnau E, Pirker C, Goossens A, White I R. Lyral is an importantsensitizer in patients sensitive to fragrances. Br J Dermatol 1999: 141: 1076-1083.
72.
Beliauskiene A, Valiukeviciene S, Uter W, Schnuch A. The European baseline
series in Lithuania: results of patch testing in consecutive adult patients. Journal of theEuropean Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV 2011: 25: 59-63.
73.
Geier J, Brasch J, Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Pirker C, Frosch P J. Lyral has been
included in the patch test standard series in Germany. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 295297.
74.
Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Frosch P J. Sensitization to 26
fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation. Results of the IVDK
and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 1-10.
75.
Api A M. Only Peru Balsam extracts or distillates are used in perfumery. Contact
Dermatitis 2006: 54: 179.
76.
Avalos-Peralta P, Garcia-Bravo B, Camacho F M. Sensitivity to Myroxylon pereirae
resin (balsam of Peru). A study of 50 cases. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 304-306.
77.
Cachao P, Menezes Brandao F, Carmo M, Frazao S, Silva M. Allergy to oil ofturpentine in Portugal. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 14: 205-208.
78.
Lear J T, Heagerty A H M, Tan B B, et al. Transient re-emergence of oil ofturpentine allergy in the pottery industry. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 169-172.
79.
Treudler R, Richter G, Geier J, Schnuch A, Orfanos C E, Tebbe B. Increase insensitization to oil of turpentine: recent data from a multicenter study on 45,005 patientsfrom the German-Austrian Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK).
Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 68-73.
80.
Schäfer T, Böhler E, Ruhdorfer S, Weigl L, Wessner D, Filipiak B, Wichmann H E,
Ring J. Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy 2001: 56: 1192-1196.
81.
Meding B, Swanbeck G. Occupational hand eczema in an industrial city. Contact
Dermatitis 1990: 22: 13-23.
82.
Nielsen N H, Menné T. Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish
population - the Glostrup allergy study, Denmark. Acta Dermatol Venerol (Stockh) 1992:
72: 456-460.
127

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

83.
Meneghini C L, Sertoli A, Nava C, Angelini G, Francalani S, Foti C, Moroni P.
Irritant contact dermatitis of the hands in housewives. In: Elsner P, Maibach H I, eds.
Irritant Dermatitis New Clinical and Experimental Aspects Curr Probl Dermatol. Basel:
Karger, 1995: 41-48.
84.
Seidenari S, Manzini B M, Danese P, Motolese A. Patch and prick test study of 593
healthy subjects. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 23: 162-167.
85.
Mørtz C G, Bindslev-Jensen C, Lauritsen J, Andersen K E. Allergic contact
sensitization in 8th grade school children in Odense, Denmark. . Abstract presented at
the Jadassohn Centenary Congress, London 9-12 Oct 1996 1996:
86.
Guin J D, Berry V K. Perfume sensitivity in adult females. A study of contact
sensitivity to a perfume mix in two groups of student nurses. J Am Acad Dermatol 1980:
3: 299-302.
87.
Nielsen N H, Linneberg A, Menne T, Madsen F, Frolund L, Dirksen A, Jorgensen T.
Allergic contact sensitization in an adult Danish population: two cross-sectional surveys
eight years apart (the Copenhagen Allergy Study). Acta Derm Venereol 2001: 81: 31-34.
88.
Thyssen J P, Linneberg A, Menne T, Nielsen N H, Johansen J D. The prevalence
and morbidity of sensitization to fragrance mix I in the general population. Br J Dermatol
2009: 161: 95-101.
89.
Buckley D A, Rycroft R J, White I R, McFadden J P. The frequency of fragrance
allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol 2003: 149: 986989.
90.
Uter W, Schnuch A, Geier J, Pfahlberg A, Gefeller O. Association between
occupation and contact allergy to the fragrance mix: a multifactorial analysis of national
surveillance data. Occup Environ Med 2001: 58: 392-398.
91.
Dotterud L K, Smith-Sivertsen T. Allergic contact sensitization in the general adult
population: a population-based study from Northern Norway. Contact Dermatitis 2007:
56: 10-15.
92.
Smith-Sivertsen T, Dotterud L K, Lund E. Nickel allergy and its relationship withlocal nickel pollution, ear piercing, and atopic dermatitis: a population-based study from
Norway. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999: 40: 726-735.
93.
White J M, Gilmour N J, Jeffries D, Duangdeeden I, Kullavanijaya P, Basketter D A,
McFadden J P. A general population from Thailand: incidence of common allergens withemphasis on para-phenylenediamine. Clin Exp Allergy 2007: 37: 1848-1853.
94.
225.

Bruze M. What is a relevant contact allergy? Contact Dermatitis 1990: 23: 224-

95.
Ale I,
Maibach H I. Clinical Relevance in Allergic Contact Dermatitis. An
algorithmic approach. Derm Beruf Umwelt 1995: 43: 119-121.
96.
Wahlberg J E, Lindberg M. Patch Testing. In: Frosch P J, Menné T, Lepoittevin J P,
eds. Contact Dermatitis. Berlin: Springer, 2006: 365-390.
97.
Frosch P J, Johansen J D, Menne T, Pirker C, Rastogi S C, Andersen K E, Bruze M,
Goossens A, Lepoittevin J P, White I R. Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive
to fragrances. II. Reactivity to essential oils. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 279-287.
98.
Rothenborg H W, Hjorth N. Allergy to perfumes from toilet soaps and detergentsin patients with dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 1968: 97: 417-421.
99.
Hannuksela M, Kousa M,
Dermatitis 1976: 2: 105-110.

Pirila V. Allergy to ingredients of vehicles. Contact

100. Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Menné T. Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact
allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 414-418.
128

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

101. Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Rastogi S C, Menne T. Threshold responses incinnamic-aldehyde-sensitive subjects: results and methodological aspects. Contact
Dermatitis 1996: 34: 165-171.
102. Jorgensen P H, Jensen C D, Rastogi S, Andersen K E, Johansen J D. Experimental
elicitation with hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde-containing deodorants.
Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 146-150.
103. Bruze M, Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Frosch P, Lepoittevin J P, Rastogi S,
Wakelin S, White I, Menne T. Deodorants: an experimental provocation study withcinnamic aldehyde. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003: 48: 194-200.
104. Svedman C, Bruze M, Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Goossens A, Frosch P J,
Lepoittevin J P, Rastogi S, White I R, Menne T. Deodorants: an experimental provocation
study with hydroxycitronellal. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 217-223.
105. Schnuch A, Uter W, Dickel H, Szliska C, Schliemann S, Eben R, Rueff F, GimenezArnau A, Loffler H, Aberer W, Frambach Y, Worm M, Niebuhr M, Hillen U, Martin V, Jappe
U, Frosch P J, Mahler V. Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing inhydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde sensitive-patients. Contact Dermatitis
2009: 61: 152-162.
106. Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A, Frosch P J. Patch test results with patients' own
perfumes, deodorants and shaving lotions: results of the IVDK 1998-2002. J Eur Acad
Dermatol Venereol 2007: 21: 374-379.
107. Basra M K, Fenech R, Gatt R M, Salek M S, Finlay A Y. The Dermatology Life
Quality Index 1994-2007: a comprehensive review of validation data and clinical results.
Br J Dermatol 2008: 159: 997-1035.
108. Skoet R, Zachariae R, Agner T. Contact dermatitis and quality of life: a structured
review of the literature. Br J Dermatol 2003: 149: 452-456.
109. Moberg C, Alderling M, Meding B. Hand eczema and quality of life: a populationbased study. Br J Dermatol 2009: 161: 397-403.
110. Meding B,
Swanbeck G. Consequences of having hand eczema. Contact
Dermatitis 1990: 23: 6-14.
111. Agner T, Andersen K E, Brandao F M, Bruynzeel D P, Bruze M, Frosch P, Goncalo
M, Goossens A, Le Coz C J, Rustemeyer T, White I R, Diepgen T. Contact sensitisation in
hand eczema patients-relation to subdiagnosis, severity and quality of life: a multi-centre
study. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 291-296.
112. Lysdal S H, Johansen J D. Fragrance contact allergic patients: strategies for useof cosmetic products and perceived impact on life situation. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61:
320-324.
113. Meding B, Wrangsjo K, Jarvholm B. Fifteen-year follow-up of hand eczema:
predictive factors. J Invest Dermatol 2005: 124: 893-897.
114. Hald M, Agner T, Blands J, Ravn H, Johansen J D. Allergens associated withsevere symptoms of hand eczema and a poor prognosis. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61:
101-108.
115. Wijnhoven S W P, Ezendam J, Schuur A G, van Loveren H, van Engelen J G M.
Allergens in consumer products. RIVM Reprot 320025001. Bilthoven: Institute for Public
Health and the Environment, 2008.
116. Schnuch A, Aberer W, Agathos M, Becker D, Brasch J, Elsner P, Frosch P J, Fuchs
T, Geier J, Hillen U, Löffler H, Mahler V, Richter G, Szliska C. Durchführung desEpikutantests mit Kontaktallergenen. Leitlinien der Deutschen Dermatologischen
Gesellschaft; Deutschen Gesellschaft für Allergie und klinische Immunologie. J Dtsch
Dermatol Ges 2008: 6: 770-775.
129

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

117. Scheinmann P L. The foul side of fragrance-free products: What every clinician
should know about managing patients with fragrance allergy. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999:
41: 1020-1024.
118. Hagvall L, Backtorp C, Norrby P O, Karlberg A T, Borje A. Experimental andtheoretical investigations of the autoxidation of geranial: a dioxolane hydroperoxide
identified as a skin sensitizer. Chemical research in toxicology 2011: 24: 1507-1515.
119. Hagvall L, Backtorp C, Svensson S, Nyman G, Borje A, Karlberg A T. Fragrancecompound geraniol forms contact allergens on air exposure. Identification andquantification of oxidation products and effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol
2007: 20: 807-814.
120. Hagvall L, Baron J M, Borje A, Weidolf L, Merk H, Karlberg A T. Cytochrome P450mediated activation of the fragrance compound geraniol forms potent contact allergens.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2008: 233: 308-313.
121. Brared Christensson J, Matura M, Backtorp C, Borje A, Nilsson J L, Karlberg A T.
Hydroperoxides form specific antigens in contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 55:
230-237.
122. Karlberg A T, Bergstrom M A, Borje A, Luthman K, Nilsson J L. Allergic contact
dermatitis--formation, structural requirements, and reactivity of skin sensitizers. Chem
Res Toxicol 2008: 21: 53-69.
123. Karlberg A T, Boman A, Melin B. Animal experiments on the allergenicity of dlimonene--the citrus solvent. Ann Occup Hyg 1991: 35: 419-426.
124. Karlberg A T, Magnusson K, Nilsson U. Air oxidation of d-limonene (the citrus
solvent) creates potent allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 26: 332-340.
125. Karlberg A T, Shao L P, Nilsson U, Gafvert E, Nilsson J L. Hydroperoxides inoxidized d-limonene identified as potent contact allergens. Arch Dermatol Res 1994: 286:97-103.
126. Sköld M, Börje A, Matura M, Karlberg A T. Studies on the autoxidation andsensitizing capacity of the fragrance chemical linalool, identifying a linaloolhydroperoxide. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 267-272.
127. Sköld M, Börje A, Harambasic E, Karlberg A T. Contact allergens formed on air
exposure of linalool. Identification and quantification of primary and secondary oxidation
products and the effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 2004: 17: 1697-1705.
128. Sköld M, Hagvall L, Karlberg A T. Autoxidation of linalyl acetate, the main
component of lavender oil, creates potent contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2008:
58: 9-14.
129. Rudback J, Bergstrom M A, Borje A, Nilsson U, Karlberg A T. alpha-Terpinene, anantioxidant in tea tree oil, autoxidizes rapidly to skin allergens on air exposure. Chem
Res Toxicol 2012: 25: 713-721.
130. Karlberg A T, Dooms-Gossens A. Contact allergy to oxidized d-limonene among
dermatitis patients. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 201-206.
131. Matura M, Goossens A, Bordalo O, Garcia-Bravo B, Magnusson K, Wrangsjo K,
Karlberg A T. Oxidized citrus oil (R-limonene): a frequent skin sensitizer in Europe. J Am
Acad Dermatol 2002: 47: 709-714.
132. Matura M, Goossens A, Bordalo O, Garcia-Bravo B, Magnusson K, Wrangsjo K,
Karlberg A T. Patch testing with oxidized R-(+)-limonene and its hydroperoxide fraction.
Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 15-21.
133. Matura M, Skold M, Borje A, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Frosch P, Goossens A,
Johansen J D, Svedman C, White I R, Karlberg A T. Selected oxidized fragrance terpenes
are common contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 320-328.
130

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

134. Matura M, Skold M, Borje A, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Frosch P, Goossens A,
Johansen J D, Svedman C, White I R, Karlberg A T. Not only oxidized R-(+)- but also S(-)-limonene is a common cause of contact allergy in dermatitis patients in Europe.
Contact Dermatitis 2006: 55: 274-279.
135. Christensson J B, Matura M, Gruvberger B, Bruze M, Karlberg A T. Linalool--asignificant contact sensitizer after air exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 62: 32-41.
136. Sköld M, Karlberg A T, Matura M, Börje A. The fragrance chemical betacaryophyllene-air oxidation and skin sensitization. Food Chem Toxicol 2006: 44: 538545.
137. Santucci B, Cristaudo A, Cannistraci C,
fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 1987: 16: 93-95.

Picardo M. Contact dermatitis to138. Fregert S, Hjorth N. Results of Standard Patch Tests with Substances Abandoned.
Contact Dermatitis Newsletter 1969: 5: 85-86.
139. de Groot A C, Liem D H, Nater J P, van Ketel W G. Patch tests with fragrance
materials and preservatives. Contact Dermatitis 1985: 12: 87-92.
140. Hagvall L, Skold M, Brared-Christensson J, Borje A, Karlberg A T. Lavender oillacks natural protection against autoxidation, forming strong contact allergens on air
exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 143-150.
141.

Berglund V. Master Thesis University of Gothenburg. 2011.

142. Ruberto G, Baratta M T, Deans S G, Dorman H J. Antioxidant and antimicrobialactivity of Foeniculum vulgare and Crithmum maritimum essential oils. Planta Med 2000:
66: 687-693.
143. Kim H J, Chen F, Wu C, Wang X, Chung H Y, Jin Z. Evaluation of antioxidant
activity of Australian tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia) oil and its components. J Agric Food
Chem 2004: 52: 2849-2854.
144. Foti M C, Ingold K U. Mechanism of inhibition of lipid peroxidation by gammaterpinene, an unusual and potentially useful hydrocarbon antioxidant. J Agric Food Chem
2003: 51: 2758-2765.
145. Buckley D A. Allergy to oxidized linalool in the UK. Contact Dermatitis 2011: 64:
240-241.
146. Smith C K, Hotchkiss S A. Enzymes and mechanisms of xenobiotic metabolism.
In: editor?)) w i, eds. Allergic Contact Dermatitis Chemical and Metabolic Mechanisms.
Taylor and Francis, London and New York, 2001: 45-87.
147. Kalgutkar A S, Gardner I, Obach R S, Shaffer C L, Callegari E, Henne K R, Mutlib A
E, Dalvie D K, Lee J S, Nakai Y, O'Donnell J P, Boer J, Harriman S P. A comprehensive
listing of bioactivation pathways of organic functional groups. Curr Drug Metab 2005: 6:
161-225.
148. Nilsson A M, Bergstrom M A, Luthman K, Nilsson J L, Karlberg A T. A conjugateddiene identified as a prohapten: contact allergenic activity and chemical reactivity of
proposed epoxide metabolites. Chem Res Toxicol 2005: 18: 308-316.
149. Bergström M A, Luthman K, Nilsson J L, Karlberg A T. Conjugated dienes asprohaptens in contact allergy: in vivo and in vitro studies of structure-activity
relationships, sensitizing capacity, and metabolic activation. Chem Res Toxicol 2006: 19:
760-769.
150. Bergström M A, Ott H, Carlsson A, Neis M, Zwadlo-Klarwasser G, Jonsson C A,
Merk H F, Karlberg A T, Baron J M. A skin-like cytochrome P450 cocktail activates
prohaptens to contact allergenic metabolites. J Invest Dermatol 2007: 127: 1145-1153.

131

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

151. Basketter D A. Skin Sensitization to Cinnamic Alcohol: The Role of Skin
Metabolism. Acta Derm Venereol 1992: 72: 264-265.
152. Smith C K, Moore C A, Elahi E N, Smart A T, Hotchkiss S A. Human skinabsorption and metabolism of the contact allergens, cinnamic aldehyde, and cinnamic
alcohol. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2000: 168: 189-199.
153. Cheung C, Hotchkiss S A, Pease C K. Cinnamic compound metabolism in humanskin and the role metabolism may play in determining relative sensitisation potency. J
Dermatol Sci 2003: 31: 9-19.
154. Elahi E N, Wright Z, Hinselwood D, Hotchkiss S A, Basketter D A, Pease C K.
Protein binding and metabolism influence the relative skin sensitization potential of
cinnamic compounds. Chem Res Toxicol 2004: 17: 301-310.
155. Ott H, Wiederholt T, Bergstrom M A, Heise R, Skazik C, Czaja K, Marquardt Y,
Karlberg A T, Merk H F, Baron J M. High-resolution transcriptional profiling of chemicalstimulated dendritic cells identifies immunogenic contact allergens, but not prohaptens.
Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2010: 23: 213-224.
156. Bertrand F, Basketter D A, Roberts D W, Lepoittevin J P. Skin sensitization toeugenol and isoeugenol in mice: possible metabolic pathways involving ortho-quinone
and quinone methide intermediates. Chemical research in toxicology 1997: 10: 335-343.
157. Rastogi S C, Johansen J D. Significant exposures to isoeugenol derivatives in
perfumes. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 278-281.
158. Flyvholm M A, Andersen K E, Baranski B, Sarlo K. Criteria for classification ofskin- and airway-sensitizing substances in the work and general environments. Regional
Office for Europe: WHO, 1996.
159. Basketter D A, Flyvholm M A, Menne T. Classification criteria for skin-sensitizing
chemicals: a commentary. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 40: 175-182.
160. Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Schulz K H, Becker D, Diepgen T L, Drexler H, Erdmann
S, Fartasch M, Greim H, Kricke-Helling P, Merget R, Merk H, Nowak D, Rothe A, Stropp G,
Uter W, Wallenstein G. When should a substance be designated as sensitizing for theskin ('Sh') or for the airways ('Sa')? Hum Exp Toxicol 2002: 21: 439-444.
161. Basketter D A, Andersen K E, Liden C, Van Loveren H, Boman A, Kimber I, Alanko
K, Berggren E. Evaluation of the skin sensitizing potency of chemicals by using theexisting methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis 2005:
52: 39-43.
162. Anonymous. Guidance to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labellingand packaging (CLP) of substances and mixtures. ECHA Reference: ECHA-11-G-06-EN.
Date: 04/2011 http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17217/clp_en.pdf 2011.
163. Lalko J, Api A M, Politano V T, Letizia C. Quantitative risk assessment for dermal
sensitization to fragrance ingrediets: The utility of LLNA data in the weight of evidence
approach to identifying thresholds. 46th Congress of the European Societies of
Toxicology, September 13-16 2009, Dresden, Germany 2009:164. RIFM. Local lymph node assay (LLNA) protocol summaries: Data presented at the
46th Congress of the European Societies of Toxicology. Research Institute for Fragrance
Materials, Inc 2009:
165. Gerberick G F, Kern P S, Schlatter H, Dearman R J, Kimber I, Patlewicz G Y,
Basketter D A. Compilation of historical local lymph node data for evaluation of skinsensitization alternative methods Dermatitis 2005: 16: 157-202.
166. Kern P S, Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, Kimber I, Aptula A, Basketter D A. Local
lymph node data for the evaluation of skin sensitization alternatives: a second
compilation. Dermatitis 2010: 21: 8-32.
132

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

167. Arnau E G, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Frosch P J, Johansen J D, Menne T, Rastogi S
C, White I R, Lepoittevin J P. Identification of Lilial as a fragrance sensitizer in a perfume
by bioassay-guided chemical fractionation and structure-activity relationships. Contact
Dermatitis 2000: 43: 351-358.
168. Lepoittevin J P. Metabolism versus chemical transformation or pro- versus
prehaptens? Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 73-74.
169. SCCP. Opinion concerning the predictive testing of potentially cutaneous sensiting
cosmetic ingredients or mixtures of ingredients adopted by the SCCNFP during the 11th
plenary session of 17 February 2000. 2000:
170. Heisterberg M V, Menne T, Johansen J D. Contact allergy to the 26 specificfragrance ingredients to be declared on cosmetic products in accordance with the EU
cosmetics directive. Contact Dermatitis 2011: 65: 266-275.
171. Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch P, Burrows D, Jordan W, Shaw
S, Wilkinson J, Marks J, Jr., Sugawara M, Nethercott M, Nethercott J. Fragrance contact
dermatitis: a worldwide multicenter investigation (Part II). Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44:344-346.
172. Andersen A. Final report on the safety assessment of sodium p-chloro-m-cresol,p-chloro-m-cresol, chlorothymol, mixed cresols, m-cresol, o-cresol, p-cresol, isopropyl
cresols, thymol, o-cymen-5-ol, and carvacrol. Int J Toxicol 2006: 25 Suppl 1: 29-127.
173. Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch P, Burrows D, Jordan W, Shaw
S, Wilkinson J, Marks J, Sugawara M, Nethercott M, Nethercott J. Fragrance contact
dermatitis - a worldwide multicenter investigation (Part III). Contact Dermatitis 2002:
46: 141-144.
174. Lapczynski A, Lalko J, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on trans,trans-delta-damascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1:
S211-215.
175. Letizia C S, Cocchiara J, Wellington G A, Funk C,
toxicology. Food Chem Toxicol 2000: 38 Suppl 3: S1-236.

Api A M. Food and chemical

176. Mitchell D M, Beck M H. Contact allergy to benzyl alcohol in a cutting oil
reodorant. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 301-302.
177. Mitchell J C. Contact hypersensitivity to some perfume materials. Contact
Dermatitis 1975: 1: 196-199.
178. Malten K E, van Ketel W G, Nater J P, Liem D H. Reactions in selected patients to22 fragrance materials. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 11: 1-10.
179. Mitchell J C, Calnan C D, Clendenning W E, Cronin E, Hjorth N, Magnusson B,
Maibach H I, Meneghini C L, Wilkinson D S. Patch testing with some components ofbalsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 1976: 2: 57-58.
180. Bernaola G, Escayol P, Fernandez E, de Corres L F. Contact dermatitis frommethylionone fragrance. Contact Dermatitis 1989: 20: 71-72.
181. English J S, Rycroft R J. Allergic contact dermatitis from methyl heptine andmethyl octine carbonates. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 174-175.
182. Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on
myrtenol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S237-240.
183. Lapczynski A, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review onnerolidol (isomer unspecified). Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S247-250.
184. Sanchez-Politta S, Campanelli A, Pashe-Koo F, Saurat J H, Piletta P. Allergic
contact dermatitis to phenylacetaldehyde: a forgotten allergen? Contact Dermatitis 2007:
56: 171-172.
133

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

185. McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on phytol. Food Chem
Toxicol 2010: 48 Suppl 3: S59-63.
186. Lapczynski A, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review onrhodinol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S259-262.
187. Lapczynski A, Lalko J, McGinty D, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on alpha-isodamascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S267271.
188. Trattner A,
David M. Patch testing with fine fragrances: comparison withfragrance mix, balsam of Peru and a fragrance series. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 287289.
189. Surburg H, Panten J. Common fragrance and flavor materials: preparation,
properties and uses. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2006.
190. Schmidt E. Production of Essential Oils. In: Husnu Can Baser K, Buchbauer G, eds.
Handbook of Essential Oils - Science, Technology, and Applications. Boca Raton: CRC
Press, 2010: 88-95.
191. Trattner A, David M, Lazarov A. Occupational contact dermatitis due to essential
oils. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 282-284.
192. Jung P, Sesztak-Greinecker G, Wantke F, Gotz M, Jarisch R,
Hemmer W.
Mechanical irritation triggering allergic contact dermatitis from essential oils in a
masseur. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 297-299.
193. Bilsland D, Strong A. Allergic contact dermatitis from the essential oil of Frenchmarigold (Tagetes patula) in an aromatherapist. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 23: 55-56.
194. Cockayne S E,
Gawkrodger D J. Occupational contact dermatitis in anaromatherapist. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 306-307.
195. Boonchai W, Iamtharachai P,
Sunthonpalin P. Occupational allergic contact
dermatitis from essential oils in aromatherapists. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 181-182.
196. Keane F M, Smith H R, White I R, Rycroft R J. Occupational allergic contact
dermatitis in two aromatherapists. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 49-51.
197. Selvaag E, Holm J O, Thune P. Allergic contact dermatitis in an aroma therapist
with multiple sensitizations to essential oils. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 33: 354-355.
198. Romaguera C, Vilaplana J. Occupational contact dermatitis from ylang-ylang oil.
Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 251.
199. Rudzki E, Grzywa Z. Allergy to perfume mixture. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 15:
115-116.
200. Rudzki E, Grzywa Z, Bruo W S. Sensitivity to 35 essential oils. Contact Dermatitis
1976: 2: 196-200.
201. Vilaplana J, Romaguera C. Contact dermatitis from the essential oil of tangerinein fragrance. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 108.
202. Rudzki E, Grzywa Z. Sensitizing and irritating properties of star anise oil. Contact
Dermatitis 1976: 2: 305-308.
203. Sugiura M, Hayakawa R, Kato Y, Sugiura K, Hashimoto R. Results of patch testingwith lavender oil in Japan. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 157-160.
204. Lalko J, Api A M. Investigation of the dermal sensitization potential of various
essential oils in the local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2006: 44: 739-746.
205. SCCP. Memorandum Classification and categorization of skin sensitisers andgrading of test reactions (SCCP/0919/05). Scientific Committee for on Consumer
Protection, adopted 20 September 2005. 2005.
134

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

206. SCCP. Memorandum on Hair Dye Substances and their Skin Sensitising Properties.
Scientific Committee on Consumer Protection, adopted 19 December 2006. 2006.
207. Christensson J B, Johansson S, Hagvall L, Jonsson C, Borje A, Karlberg A T.
Limonene hydroperoxide analogues differ in allergenic activity. Contact Dermatitis 2008:
59: 344-352.
208. Landsteiner K, Jacobs J. Studies on the sensitization of animals with simple
chemical compounds. J Exp Med 1936: 64: 625-629.
209. Ridriguez E, Towers G H N, Mitchell J C. Biological aspects of sequiterpene
lactones. Phytochemistry 1976: 15: 1573-1580.
210. Roberts D W, Goodwin B F J, Williams D L, Jones K, Johnson A W, Alderson J C E.
Correlation between skin sensitization potential and chemical reactivity for nitrobenzyl
compounds. Food Chem Toxicol 1984: 21: 811-813.
211. Dupuis G, Benezra C. Allergic contact dermatitis to simple chemicals: a molecularapproach New York: Marcel Dekker, 1982.
212. Smith C K, Hotchkiss S A. Allergic Contact Dermatitis, Chemical and Metabolic
Mechanisms. London: Taylor and Francis, 2001.
213. Roberts D W, Lepoittevin J P. Hapten-Protein Interactions. In: Lepoittevin J P,
Basketter D, Goossens A, Karlberg A T, eds. Allergic Contact Dermatitis The Molecular
Basis. Heidelberg: Springer, 1998:
214. Sykes P. A guidebook to mechanism in organic chemistry Edinburgh: Pearson,
1961.
215. Aptula A O, Roberts D W. Mechanistic applicability domains for nonanimal-based
prediction of toxicological end points: general principles and application to reactive
toxicity. Chem Res Toxicol 2006: 19: 1097-1105.
216. Gerberick G F, Vassallo J D, Bailey R E, Chaney J G, Morrall S W, Lepoittevin J P.
Development of a peptide reactivity assay for screening contact allergens. Toxicologicalsciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology 2004: 81: 332-343.
217. Natsch A, Gfeller H, Rothaupt M, Ellis G. Utility and limitations of a peptide
reactivity assay to predict fragrance allergens in vitro. Toxicology in vitro : aninternational journal published in association with BIBRA 2007: 21: 1220-1226.
218. Gerberick G F, Troutman J A, Foertsch L M, Vassallo J D, Quijano M, Dobson R L,
Goebel C,
Lepoittevin J P. Investigation of peptide reactivity of pro-hapten skinsensitizers using a peroxidase-peroxide oxidation system. Toxicological sciences : anofficial journal of the Society of Toxicology 2009: 112: 164-174.
219. Troutman J A, Foertsch L M, Kern P S, Dai H J, Quijano M, Dobson R L M, Lalko J
F, Lepoittevin J-P, Gerberick G F. The incorporation of lysine into the peroxidase peptide
reactivity assay for skin sensitization assessments. Toxicol Sci 2011: 122: 422-436.
220. Roberts D W, Aptula A O, Patlewicz G. Mechanistic applicability domains for nonanimal based prediction of toxicological endpoints. QSAR analysis of the schiff baseapplicability domain for skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 2006: 19: 1228-1233.
221. Roberts D W, Aptula A O, Patlewicz G Y. Chemistry-Based Risk Assessment for
Skin Sensitization: Quantitative Mechanistic Modeling for the S(N)Ar Domain. Chem Res
Toxicol 2011:
222. Johansen J D. Contact allergy to fragrances: clinical and experimental
investigations of the fragrance mix and its ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46(suppl. 3): 4-31.
223. Fenn R S. Aroma chemical usage trends in modern perfumery. Perfumer Flavorist
1989: 14: 1-10.
135SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

224. Johansen J D, Frosch P J, Svedman C, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Pirker C, Menne T.
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde- known as Lyral: quantitative aspects
and risk assessment of an important fragrance allergen. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48:
310-316.
225. Rastogi S C, Johansen J D, Menne T. Natural ingredients based cosmetics.
Content of selected fragrance sensitizers. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 423-426.
226. Müller P M, Lamparsky D. Perfumes: Art Science and Technology. London:
Elsevier Applied Science, 1991.
227. Poulsen P B, Schmidt A. A survey and health assessment of cosmetic products forchildren. Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products, No. 88. Copenhagen:
Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2007.
228. Rastogi S C, Jensen G H, Johansen J D. Survey and risk assessment of chemical
substances in deodorants. Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products, No. 86.
Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2007.
229. Buckley D A. Fragrance ingredient labelling in products on sale in the U.K. Br J
Dermatol 2007: 157: 295-300.
230. Rastogi S C, Lepoittevin J P, Johansen J D, Frosch P J, Menne T, Bruze M, Dreier
B, Andersen K E, White I R. Fragrances and other materials in deodorants: search forpotentially sensitizing molecules using combined GC-MS and structure activity
relationship (SAR) analysis. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 39: 293-303.
231. Rastogi S C, Johansen J D, Frosch P, Menne T, Bruze M, Lepoittevin J P, Dreier B,
Andersen K E, White I R. Deodorants on the European market: quantitative chemical
analysis of 21 fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 38: 29-35.
232. Rastogi S C, Menne T, Johansen J D. The composition of fine fragrances ischanging. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 130-132.
233. Rastogi S C, Johansen J D, Bossi R. Selected important fragrance sensitizers in
perfumes--current exposures. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 201-204.
234. Rastogi S C, Bossi R, Johansen J D, Menne T, Bernard G, Gimenez-Arnau E,
Lepoittevin J P. Content of oak moss allergens atranol and chloroatranol in perfumes andsimilar products. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 367-370.
235. Rastogi S C, Johansen J D, Menne T, Frosch P, Bruze M, Andersen K E, Lepoittevin
J P, Wakelin S, White I R. Contents of fragrance allergens in children's cosmetics andcosmetic-toys. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 84-88.
236. Rastogi S C. Contents of selected fragrance materials in cleaning products andother consumer products. Survey of chemical compounds in consumer products, No. 8.
Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.
237. Bernard G, Gimenez-Arnau E, Rastogi S C, Heydorn S, Johansen J D, Menne T,
Goossens A, Andersen K, Lepoittevin J P. Contact allergy to oak moss: search forsensitizing molecules using combined bioassay-guided chemical fractionation, GC-MS,and structure-activity relationship analysis. Arch Dermatol Res 2003: 295: 229-235.
238. Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Svedman C, Bruze M, Bernard G, Gimenez-Arnau E,
Rastogi S C, Lepoittevin J P, Menne T. Chloroatranol, an extremely potent allergenhidden in perfumes: a dose-response elicitation study. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49:
180-184.
239. SCCP. Opinion on Atranol and Chloroatranol present in natural extracts (e.g. oakmoss and tree moss extract). Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, adopted 7
December 2004. 2004.

136

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

240. White I R, Johansen J D, Arnau E G, Lepoittevin J P, Rastogi S, Bruze M, Andersen
K E, Frosch P J, Goossens A, Menne T. Isoeugenol is an important contact allergen: canit be safely replaced with isoeugenyl acetate? Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 272-275.
241. SCCP. Opinion on Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (sensitisationonly). Scientific Committee on Consumer Products. Adopted 7 December 2004. 2004.
242. Nardelli A, D'Hooghe E, Drieghe J, Dooms M, Goossens A. Allergic contact
dermatitis from fragrance components in specific topical pharmaceutical products in
Belgium. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 60: 303-313.
243.

Fisher A A. Cosmetic dermatitis in childhood. Cutis 1995: 55: 15-16.

244. Corea N V, Basketter D A, Clapp C, Van Asten A, Marty J P, Pons-Guiraud A,
Laverdet C. Fragrance allergy: assessing the risk from washed fabrics. Contact Dermatitis
2006: 55: 48-53.
245. Hartmann K, Hunzelmann N. Allergic contact dermatitis from cinnamon as anodour-neutralizing agent in shoe insoles. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 253-254.
246. Murphy L A, White I R. Contact dermatitis from geraniol in washing-up liquid.
Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 52.
247. Foti C, Zambonin C G, Conserva A, Casulli C, D'Accolti L, Angelini G. Occupational
contact dermatitis to a limonene-based solvent in a histopathology technician. Contact
Dermatitis 2007: 56: 109-112.
248. Topham E J, Wakelin S H. D-Limonene contact dermatitis from hand cleansers.
Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 108-109.
249. Wakelin S H, McFadden J P, Leonard J N, Rycroft R J. Allergic contact dermatitis
from d-limonene in a laboratory technician. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 38: 164-165.
250. Rastogi S C, Heydorn S, Johansen J D, Basketter D A. Fragrance chemicals indomestic and occupational products. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 45: 221-225.
251. Yazar K, Johnsson S, Lind M L, Boman A, Liden C. Preservatives and fragrances inselected consumer-available cosmetics and detergents. Contact Dermatitis 2011: 64:
265-272.
252. Api A M, Bredbenner A, McGowen M, Niemiera D, Parker L, Renskers K, Selim S,
Sgaramella R, Signorelli R, Tedrow S, Troy W. Skin contact transfer of three fragrance
residues from candles to human hands. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2007: 48: 279-283.
253. Nadiminti H, Ehrlich A, Udey M C. Oral erosions as a manifestation of allergic
contact sensitivity to cinnamon mints. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 46-47.
254. Hoskyn J, Guin J D. Contact allergy to cinnamal in a patient with oral lichen
planus. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 160-161.
255. Silvestre J F, Albares M P, Blanes M, Pascual J C, Pastor N. Allergic contact
gingivitis due to eugenol present in a restorative dental material. Contact Dermatitis
2005: 52: 341.
256. Guarneri F, Barbuzza O, Vaccaro M, Galtieri G. Allergic contact dermatitis andasthma caused by limonene in a labourer handling citrus fruits. Contact Dermatitis 2008:
58: 315-316.
257. Wallenhammar L M, Ortengren U, Adreasson H, Barregard L, Björkner B, Karlsson
S, et al. Contact allergy and hand eczema in Swedish dentists. Contact Dermatitis 2000:
43: 192-199.
258. Geier J, Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Uter W. Contact sensitizations in metalworkers
with occupational dermatitis exposed to water-based metalworking fluids: results of theresearch project "FaSt". Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2004: 77: 543-551.
137

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

259. Decapite T J, Anderson B E. Allergic contact dermatitis from cinnamic aldehyde
found in an industrial odour-masking agent. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 51: 312-313.
260. Schubert H J. Skin diseases in workers at a perfume factory. Contact Dermatitis
2006: 55: 81-83.
261. Heydorn S, Andersen K E, Johansen J D, Menne T. A stronger patch testelicitation reaction to the allergen hydroxycitronellal plus the irritant sodium laurylsulfate. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 133-139.
262. Hannuksela M. Sensitivity of Various Skin Sites in the Repeated Open Application
Test. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1991: 2: 102-104.
263. Fischer L A, Menné T, Avnstorp C, Kasting G B, Johansen J D. Hydroxyisohexyl 3cyclohexene carboxaldehyde allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open
application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 2009: 161: 560-567.
264. Andersen K E, Johansen J D, Bruze M, Frosch P J, Goossens A, Lepoittevin J P,
Rastogi S, White I, Menne T. The time-dose-response relationship for elicitation ofcontact dermatitis in isoeugenol allergic individuals. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2001: 170:
166-171.
265. DeGroot A C, Frosch P J. Adverse reactions to fragrances. A clinical review.
Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 57-86.
266. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch P J. Another look on allergies to fragrances:frequencies of sensitisation to the fragrance mix and its constituents. Results from the
IVDK. Exog Dermatol 2002: 1: 231-237.
267. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Frosch P J. Contact allergy to farnesolin 2021 consecutively patch tested patients. Results of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis
2004: 50: 117-121.
268. Uter W, Schnuch A, Gefeller O. Guidelines for the descriptive presentation andstatistical analysis of contact allergy data. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 51: 47-56.
269. Uter W, Gefeller O, Geier J, Lessmann H, Pfahlberg A,
Schnuch A.
Untersuchungen zur Abhängigkeit der Sensibilisierung gegen wichtige Allergene vonarbeitsbedingten sowie individuellen Faktoren. Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt fürArbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, Forschung, Fb 949. Bremerhaven: 2002.
270. van Loveren H, Cockshott A, Gebel T, Gundert-Remy U, de Jong W H, Matheson J,
McGarry H, Musset L, Selgrade M K, Vickers C. Skin sensitization in chemical risk
assessment: report of a WHO/IPCS international workshop focusing on dose-response
assessment. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP 2008: 50: 155-199.
271. Kimber I, Dearman R J, Basketter D A, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F, McNamee P M,
Lalko J, Api A M. Dose metrics in the acquisition of skin sensitization: thresholds andimportance of dose per unit area. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP 2008:
52: 39-45.
272. Paramasivan P, Lai C, Pickard C, Ardern-Jones M, Healy E, Friedmann PS.
Repeated low-dose skin exposure is an effective sensitizing stimulus, a factor to be taken
into account in predicting sensitization risk. Br J Dermatol. 2010: 162: 594-7
273. Suskind R R. The hydroxycitronellal story: What can we learn from it? In: Frosch P
J, Johansen J D, White I R, eds. Fragrances Beneficial and adverse effects. Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1988: 159-165.
274. Api A M, Basketter D, Cadby P A, Cano M-F, Ellis G, Gerberick F, Griem P,
McNamee P M, Ryan C A, Safford B. Dermal Sensitization Quantitative Risk Assessment(QRA) For Fragrance Ingredients Technical Dossier. June 22, 2006 QRA Expert Group.
http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/search/tags_21261 (last accessed 2011-11-27). 2006.
138

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

275. SCCP. Opinion on Dermal Sensitisation Quantitative Risk Assessment (Citral,
Farnesol and Phenylacetaldehyde). Scientific Committee for on Consumer Protection,
adopted 24 June 2008. 2008:
276. Fischer L A, Voelund A, Andersen K E, Menne T, Johansen J D. The dose-response
relationship between the patch test and ROAT and the potential use for regulatory
purposes. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 201-208.
277. Roberts D W. QSAR for upper-respiratory tract irritation. Chem Biol Interact 1986:
57: 325-345.
278. Roberts D W, Natsch A. High throughput kinetic profiling approach for covalentbinding to peptides: application to skin sensitization potency of Michael acceptor
electrophiles. Chem Res Toxicol 2009: 22: 592-603.
279. Bruze M, Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Frosch P, Goossens A, Lepoittevin J P,
Rastogi S C, White I, Menne T. Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with
isoeugenol. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 260-267.
280. Fischer L A, Menne T, Voelund A, Johansen J D. Can exposure limitations for wellknown contact allergens be simplified? An analysis of dose-response patch test data.
Contact Dermatitis 2011: 64: 337-342.
281. Franot C, Roberts D W, Basketter D A, Benezra C, Lepoittevin J P. Structureactivity relationships for contact allergenic potential of gamma,gamma-dimethyl-gammabutyrolactone derivatives. 2. Quantitative structure-skin sensitization relationships foralphasubstituted-alpha-methyl-gamma,gamma-dimethyl-gamma-butyrolactones.
Chem Res Toxicol 1994: 7: 307-312.
282. SCCS. Notes of Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients and their Safety
Evaluation, 7th revision . Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety, adopted 14
December 2010. 2010.
283. Basketter D, Horev L, Slodovnik D, Merimes S, Trattner A, Ingber A. Investigationof the threshold for allergic reactivity to chromium. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 70-74.
284. Pasche F, Hunziker N. Sensitization to Kathon CG in Geneva and Switzerland.
Contact Dermatitis 1989: 20: 115-119.
285. Fischer L A, Johansen J D, Menne T. Nickel allergy: relationship between patch
test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 2007: 157: 723-729.
286. Fischer L A, Johansen J D,
Menne T. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile allergy:
relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J
Dermatol 2008: 159: 1138-1143.
287. Flyvholm M A, Hall B M, Agner T, et al. Threshold for occluded formaldehyde
patch test in formaldehyde- sensitive patients. Relationship to repeated open application
test with a product containing formaldehyde releaser. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 2633.
288. Thyssen J P, Johansen J D, Menne T, Nielsen N H, Linneberg A. Nickel allergy inDanish women before and after nickel regulation. The New England journal of medicine
2009: 360: 2259-2260.
289. Thyssen J P, Linneberg A, Menne T, Nielsen N H, Johansen J D. The association
between hand eczema and nickel allergy has weakened among young women in thegeneral population following the Danish nickel regulation: results from two crosssectional studies. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 342-348.
290. Zachariae C O, Agner T, Menné T. Chromium allergy in consecutive patients in acountry where ferrous sulfate has been added since 1981. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 35:
83-85.
139

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

291. Braendstrup P, Johansen J D. Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde(Lyral) is still a frequent allergen. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 187-188.
292. SCCNFP. Opinion on hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde. The
Scientific Committee on Cosmetic products and Non-Food Products Intended forConsumers,adopted 9 December 2003. 2003.
293. Api A M,
Vey M. A new IFRA Standard on the fragrance ingredient,hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 62: 254-255.
294. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W. Is hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde
sensitisation declinging in central Europe? Contact Dermatitis 2012: 67: 47-49.
295. Heisterberg M V, Laurberg G, Veien N, Menné T, Avnstorp C, Kaaber K, Andersen
K A, Sommerlund M, Danielsen A, Andersen B, Kristensen B, Kristensen O, Nielsen N H,
Thormann J, Vissing S, Johansen J D. Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis caused byhydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehye has not changed in Denmark. Contact
Dermatitis 2012: 67: 49-51.
296. Nardelli A, Gimenez-Arnau E, Bernard G, Lepoittevin J P, Goossens A. Is a low
content in atranol/chloroatranol safe in oak moss-sensitized individuals? Contact
Dermatitis 2009: 60: 91-95.
297. Anonymous. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals / Section 4: Health
Effects. Test No. 429: Skin Sensitisation (Local Lymph Node Assay). Paris: OECD, 2002.
298. Anonymous. 76/768/EEC - Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on theapproximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products. Official
Journal L 1976: 262, 27/09/1976: 169.
299. Vigan M. Contact dermatitis sentinel network by GERDA. Nouv Dermatol 1996:
15: 677-678.
300. SCCP. Opinion on Oak moss/Tree moss (sensitisation only) Scientific Committee
on Consumer Products, adopted 15 April 2008. 2008.

140

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex I - Catalgoue of fragrance allergens

Contents
Single chemicals .............................................................................................. 142
Catalogue of single chemicals evaluated ........................................................... 146
Natural extracts / essential oils .......................................................................... 237
Catalogue of natural extracts / essential oils evaluated....................................... 238
References ...................................................................................................... 277

141

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Single chemicals
Often, results with the single constituents of the FM I or, yet more rarely, FM II, arepresented in one paper. As the main ordering of this annex is by allergen, core
information on these studies is presented in a tabular format and referenced by a uniqueacronym in the single sections, to avoid redundancy. Regarding nomenclature, terms
which are often not officially an INCI Name but Perfuming Name as listed by CosIng areused. “Current Regulation” refers to the EU Cometics Directive only.

Table 55: Background information on studies reporting results with (all)single constituents of the FM I (amyl cinnamal, cinnamyl alcohol,
cinnamal, eugenol, geraniol, hydroxycitronellal, isoeugenol,
EVERNIA PRUNASTRI)
Reference

Country

Study period, Patients

Comments
reviewers

Larsen 2002c (1)7industrial
countries worldwide

Prior
to
2002
n=218
patients
withknown contact allergy to
fragrance ingredients

Test
concentrations
identified
asnonirritatingin
serialdilution testing in 20
healthy volunteers

Utrecht 1999
(2)

Utrecht,
Netherlands

1994-1998
n=757
patients
suspected
ACD
cosmetics

All patients tested withFMI
andsingleconstituents

Sheffield
1999 (3)UK

1994-1995
n=744, 40 of these
positive to FM I andtestedwithsingleconstituents

IVDK
(4)

Germany + one
centre in Austria
and
Switzerland
each

01/2003–
12/2004,n=1658 to 21325, seetext, consecutive patients

Hungary
2002 (5)Hungary,
multicentre study,

1998-1999,
n=3604Groningen2009 (6)Groningen,
Netherlands

04/2005-06/2007
n=320

IVDK
(7)

Germany,
Switzerland
one
centre

2007

2010

The

The

and
in

with
to

patients

2005-2008
n=36961 tested with FM
I, n=4167 with FM II and142

byrecruitment not clear,presumably
consecutive patientspatients
selectedaccording to history orsite
suspiciousofcontact
allergytofragrance ingredients

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Austria

all SC

Table 56: Results of PTing with single constituents of the FM I in patients
positive to the FM I (as percent)N(pos) to FM
I, ref.

Evernia
prun.

Isoeu
g.

Hydroxy
citron.

Cinna
mal

Cinnamyl alcohol

Eugen
ol

Geraniol

Alphaamyl
cinnam
al

13.1%

14.8
%

2.5%

8.1%

20.6%

8.8%

7.5%

5.0%

18.4%

11.2
%

10.1%

6.1%

6.1%

6.6%

4.6%

2.4%

19.6%

14.3
%

8.9%

8.9%

7.1%

5.4%

2.7%

0%

n=40
Sheffield
1999 (3)

30%

20%

2.5%

12.5
%

10%

5%

0%

0%

N=226
Coimbra2000 (9)

22.1%

19.9
%

6.6%

13.3
%

7.9%

14.6
%

8.4%

4.4%

N=655
IVDK 2010
(7)

29.8%

18.0
%

12.8%

11.6
%

9.6%

6.7%

4.7%

2.8%

N=160 (5)N= 991 (8)N=50 (2)Table 57: Background information on studies reporting results with (all)single constituents of the FM II (citronellol, citral, coumarin,hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC), Farnesol,alpha-Hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde)
Reference

Country

Study period, Patients

IVDK 2007 (4)Germany+
one
centre in Austria
and
Switzerland
each

01/2003 – 12/2004,
n=1658 to 21325, see
text,
consecutive
patients

EU 2005 (10)6 European centres

10/2002n=1701Groningen 2009
(6)

Groningen,
Netherlands

04/2005-06/2007

The

n=320

143

–

06/2003,

Comments
reviewersby

Appliedinconsecutive patientspatients
selectedaccording to history
or site suspicious ofcontact allergy to
fragrance
ingredients

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________IVDK 2010b (11)Germany,
Switzerland and one
centre in Austria

2005-2008
n=35633 tested withFM II, n=2217 with all
SC

Table 58: Background information on studies reporting results withseveral fragrance compounds not, or only partly, corresponding to mixes(later created) or with essential oils
Reference

Country

Study period, PatientsdeGroot 2000 (12)The
Netherlands(multicentre)

09/1998-04/1999
n=1825 consecutive patients

An 2005 (13)South
(multicentre)

04/2002–n=422 consecutive patients

Sugiura 2000 (14)Nagoya, Japan

1990-1998
n=1483
patients
cosmetic dermatitis

Frosch 1995 (15)

11 European depts.

Prior
to
n=1069 consecutive patients

Frosch 2002 a (16)6 European depts.

10/1997-10/1998
n=1855 consecutive patients

Frosch 2002 b (17)6 European depts.

Prior
to
n=1606 consecutive patients

Coimbra 2000 (9)Portugal

07/1989-06/1999
n=226
with
FM
I
n=67 also with other fragrances

Larsen 1977 (18)

US

1977
n=20 “perfume-sensitive patients”

Larsen 2001 (19)worldwide
multicentre?
(priorto2001)
n=178 patients with known contact
allergy to fragrance ingredients

Belsito 2006 (20)North American (5US,1Canadian)
depts.

2003
n=1603 patients

NACDG 2009 (21)

US and Canada

2005-2006
n= 4454 patients

Wöhrl 2001 (22)“FAZ” clinic Vienna

1997-2000
n=747 of 2660 consecutive patients
tested with special series

EECDRG 1995 (15)European,multicentre

Different fragrances, tested in 2
concentrations, in sets of about 100
patients each in different centres

Goossens 1997 (23)Leuven, Belgium

1978-1987
n=111 “Japanese perfume(highly selected patients)

Korea

144

with

06/2003suspected
1995

2002

SC

series”

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Reference

Country

Study period, Patients

Malten 1984 (24)Dutch multicentre

N=182
patients
withsuspected
cosmetic dermatitis tested with 22
fragrance compounds

DeGroot 1985 (25)

Dutch

N=179
patients
withsuspected
cosmetic dermatitis tested with 16
fragrance compounds

Rudzki 1976 (26)

Warsaw, Poland

N=200 consecutive patients

Rudzki 1986 (27)

Warsaw, Poland

N=86 patients of 299 (of 5315)
patients with positive reaction to FM I
tested with essential oils series

Santucci 1987 (28)Rome, Italy

N=1500 consecutive patients; n=63
reacting positively to FM I re-tested
with extended fragrance series

Nakayama 1974 (after
(29))

Japan

N=183
patients
dermatitis

IVDK 2010c (30)Germany,
Switzerland and one
centre in Austria

15682 patients tested with at least one
essential oil in different test series

Trattner/David (31)Tel Aviv, Israel

N=641 consecutive patients

145

with

cosmetic

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Catalogue of single chemicals evaluated

ACETYLCEDRENE
CAS # 32388-55-9
EC # 251-020-3
1-[(3R,3aR,7R,8aS)-2,3,4,7,8,8a-Hexahydro-3,6,8,8tetramethyl-1H-3a,7-methanoazulen-5-yl]-ethanone
Other names
1-(2,3,4,7,8,8a-Hexahydro-3,6,8,8-tetramethyl-1H-3a,7methanoazulen-5-yl)-, [3R-(3α,3aβ,7β,8aα)]-Ethanone; 1H3a,7-Methanoazulene, Ethanone deriv.; Acetyl-α-cedrene;
Lixetone; Vertofix
Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
In the Frosch 2002 a study, a total of 0.2% had positive PT reactions (16). In the Frosch
1995 dose-finding pilot study, 1 positive reaction to 1% and and none to 5% “Vertofix ®”in pet., tested in 100 consecutive patients in Stockholm, were observed (15). In a casereport, a 28-year-old patient with axillary dermatitis after using 2 different deodorants
tested positive not only to HICC, but also to acetyl cedrene (tested 10.8% in
diisopropylene glycol (20 healthy controls negative) (32). In this case report it is statedthat “Acetyl cedrene (Vertofix Coeur) is a complex reaction mixture of which a principal
constituent is methyl cedryl ketone”.
Additional
information:
Acetyl cedrene (Vertofix®, IFF) is a complex mixture obtained from cedar wood oil by theacetylation of terpenes. The principal component of acetyl cedrene is methyl cedryl
ketone (CAS 32388-55-9). It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010)

6-ACETYL-1,1,2,4,4,7-HEXAMETHYLTETRALINE
CAS # 21145-77-7
EC # 216-133-4 / 244-240-6
1-(5,6,7,8-Tetrahydro-3,5,5,6,8,8-hexamethyl-2naphthalenyl)-ethanone
AHMT (perfume), AHTN, Extralide, Fixolide, Musk tonalid, NSC
19550, Tentarome, Tetralide, Tonalid, Tonalide.
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, entry 182
Clinicaldata:
In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5%“Tonalide ®” in pet., tested in 313 consecutive patients in Bordeaux and London,
were observed (15).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

146

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________AMYL CINNAMAL
CAS # 122-40-7
EC # 204-541-5
2-(Phenylmethylene)-heptanal
Cinnamaldehyde, α-amyl- (4CI); Cinnamaldehyde, α-pentyl(6CI,7CI,8CI);
2-(Phenylmethylene)heptanal;
2Benzylideneheptanal; Amylcinnamaldehyde; Amylcinnamic acidaldehyde; Amylcinnamic aldehyde; Flomine; Jasminal;
Jasminaldehyde;
Jasminealdehyde;
NSC
6649;
Pentylcinnamaldehyde;
α-Amyl-β-phenylacrolein;
αAmylcinnamal;
α-Amylcinnamaldehyde;
αPentylcinnamaldehyde
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, entry 67
Clinicaldata:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion (33), amyl cinnamal(synonymous: alpha amyl cinnamaldehyde) has been classified as frequently reported
contact allergen because it has been identified as a cause of allergic reactions in persons
with eczema from cosmetic products.
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded n=4, i.e., 0.2%
(95% CI: 0.1 – 0.5%) positive reactions to this compound (1% pet.) in 2062
consecutively PTed patients (4). In the Groningen 2009 study, no positive reactions tothis allergen, tested at 2% pet., were observed (6). The Larsen 2001 study yielded 2.3%
positive reactions in 178 patients with known contact allergy to fragrance ingredients(test concentration: 5% pet.) (19). In the Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing 747 patients withsuspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded n=2 (0.3%) positive reactions
to amyl cinnamal (22). The IVDK 2010 study, 0.26% (95% CI: 0 – 0.60%) of 1214
consecutively tested patients reacted to the compound, while 0.61% (95% CI: 0.36 –
0.86%) of 4375 of patients tested in a more aimed manner, partly as break-down testing
to the FM I, had a positive PT reaction (7).
Additional
information:
It is a “top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010).

AMBRETTOLIDE
CAS # 7779-50-2
EC # 231-929-1
Oxacycloheptadec-7-en-2-one
1-Oxa-7-cycloheptadecen-2-one; 16-Hydroxy-6-hexadecenoic
acid lactone; 16-Hydroxy-6-hexadecenoic acid ω-lactone
Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
The Larsen 2001 study, using omega-6-hexadecenlactone (HDL, 5% pet.) as test
concentration, diagnosed 3.4% positive reactions in 178 patients with known contact
allergy to fragrance ingredients (19).
Additional

information:
147

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Ambrettolide is 1 of 2 components of Ambrette seed oil (obtained from Hibiscus
abelmoschus L., Malvaceae) responsible for the musk odour. In Surburg/Panten, thecompound has the chemical name (Z)-7-hexadecen-16-olide (or Hexadec-7-en-16olide according to CosIng), CAS 123-69-3 (34).

AMYL CINNAMYL ALCOHOL
CAS # 101-85-9
EC # 202-982-8
2-(Phenylmethylene)-heptan-1-ol,
2-Benzylidene(6CI,8CI)1-heptanol;
2-Amyl-3-phenyl-2propen-1-ol; 2-Benzylidene-1-heptanol; 2-Pentyl-3-phenyl-2propen-1-ol; Buxinol; α-Amylcinnamic alcohol; α-Amylcinnamyl
alcohol
Current regulation: Annex II, Part 1, entry 74
Clinicaldata:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, amyl cinnamyl alcohol ismentioned to cross-react with amyl cinnamal. Moreover, this compound has been
identified as a cause of allergic reactions in a notable number of persons with eczema
from the use of cosmetic products (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded 0.4% (95% CI:
0.1 – 0.7%) positive reactions in 1977 consecutively PTed patients (4). The IVDK2010 study, 0.79% (95% CI: 0.54 – 1.04%; percentages standardised for age andsex) of 5650 patients PTed reacted to the compound (7). In the Groningen 2009
study, 0.6% (95% CI: 0.1 – 2.2%) had positive reactions to this allergen (6).
Additional information: A RIFM review is available (35) where selected clinical studies
published until 1994 were considered.

AMYLCYCLOPENTANONECAS # 4819-67-4
EC # 225-392-2
2-Pentylcyclopentanone
2-Pentyl-1-cyclopentanone;
2-Pentylcyclopentanone;
2Pentylcyclopenten-1-one; 2-n-Amylcyclopentanone; 2-nPentyl cyclopentanone; Delphone
Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
In the Larsen 2001 study, none of 178 patients with contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients reacted positively to this ingredient, PTed at 5% pet. (19).
Additional information: /148

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________AMYL SALICYLATE
CAS # 2050-08-0
EC # 218-080-2
Pentyl-2-hydroxybenzoate
Amyl ester salicylic acid, (4CI); Pentyl ester salicylic acid,(6CI,8CI); 2-Hydroxybenzoic acid pentyl ester; Amyl
salicylate; NSC 403668; NSC 44877; NSC 46125; Pentyl
salicylate
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 a study, a total of n=3 (0.2%) had positive PT reactions (16). In the
Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% amyl salicylate and 1
positive reaction to 5% amyl salicylate were observed in 100 consecutive patients patch
tested in Stockholm (15).
Additional
information:
A RIFM review is available (36). It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010)trans-ANETHOLE
CAS # 4180-23-8
EC # 224-052-0 / 203-205-5
1-Methoxy-4-(1E)-1-propen-1-yl-benzene(E)-p-Propenyl-anisole (8CI); (E)-1-Methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzene; 1-Methoxy-4-(1E)-1-propenyl-benzene (9CI); (E)1-(4-Methoxyphenyl)propene;(E)-1-pMethoxyphenylpropene; (E)-Anethol; (E)-Anethole (REACH,
EINECS);
E-Anethole(INCI);
1-Methoxy-4-[(1E)-1propenyl]benzene;(E)-1-Methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzene (CosIng);
NSC
209529;trans-1-(4Methoxyphenyl)-1-propene;trans-1-(p-Methoxyphenyl)-1propene; trans-1-(p-Methoxyphenyl)propene; trans-1-pAnisylpropene; trans-4-(1-Propenyl)anisole; trans-Anethol;trans-Anethole;trans-p-Anethole;trans-p-Methoxy-βmethylstyrene
Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
A case of a 64 year old patient, who developed severe cheilitis and a loss of taste has
been described (37). Both were reversible after the cessation of use of previous
toothpastes. The patch test was strongly positive to anethole (isoform not given) 5%
pet.; this was found an ingredient of the causative toothpaste. Two cases ofoccupational allergic contact dermatitis occurring in a traditional cake factory due toanise oil have been described, both testing (strongly) positive to anise oil (5% o.o.) andanethole (5% pet.) (38).
Additional
information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). trans-Anethole can be purified
from star anise oil (34, 39), see 3.2., and is the main component of anise, star anise
149

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

and fennel oils (38)

ANISALDEHYDE
CAS # 123-11-5
EC # 204-602-6
4-Methoxy-benzaldehyde
p-Methoxybenzaldehyde; p-Anisaldehyde; 4-Anisaldehyde;
Aubepine; Crategine; NSC 5590; Obepin; p-Anisic aldehyde;
Anisic aldehyde; p-Formylanisole.
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

150

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________ANISYL ALCOHOL
CAS # 105-13-5
EC # 203-273-6
4-Methoxy-benzenemethanol
p-Methoxy-benzyl alcohol (8CI); (4-Methoxyphenyl)methyl
alcohol;
4-(Hydroxymethyl)anisole;
4(Methoxyphenyl)methanol; 4-Methoxy-α-hydroxytoluene; 4Methoxybenzenemethanol; 4-Methoxybenzyl alcohol; Anise
alcohol;Anisicalcohol;
NSC
2151;[4(Methyloxy)phenyl]methanol; p-(Methoxyphenyl)methanol;p-Anisalcohol; p-Anisyl alcohol; p-Methoxybenzyl alcohol
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 80
Clinicaldata:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, anisyl alcohol is classified
as “less frequently reported allergen”; 2 studies were identified where 3 and 4 cases,
respectively, with cosmetic dermatitis due to contact allergy to anisyl alcohol had beenreported (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded n=1, i.e., 0.1%
(95% CI: 0.00 – 0.3%) positive reactions in 2004 consecutively PTed patients, patch
test concentration: 1% pet. (4). Similar results were obtained in the following period,
with n=1 (and n=3 irritant and n=6 doubtful) reactions in 986 patients tested with 1%
in pet. (30). In the Groningen 2009 study, no positive reactions to this allergen, tested
at 5% pet., were observed in 320 patients (6).This test concentration has been regarded
as relatively high by Hostynek and Maibach (40). The test concentration of Anisyl
Alcohol has been further validated by Bruze et al. and 10% in pet was recommended asa non-irritant concentration for routine investigations (40a).
Additional information: /ANISYLIDENE ACETONECAS # 943-88-4
EC # 213-404-9
4-(4-Methoxyphenyl)-3-Buten-2-one
1-(p-Methoxyphenyl)-1-buten-3-one; 4-(4-Methoxyphenyl)3-buten-2-one;
4-(p-Methoxyphenyl)-3-buten-2-one;
4Methoxybenzalacetone; 4-Methoxybenzylideneacetone; 4Methoxystyryl
methylketone;4'Methoxybenzylideneacetone;
Anisalacetone;
Methylpmethoxystyryl ketone; NSC 31752; NSC 7946; pAnisalacetone;
p-Methoxybenzalacetone;
pMethoxybenzylideneacetone; p-Methoxystyryl methyl ketone
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 443
Clinicaldata:
In the Malten 1984 study, 1.1% of 182 patients displayed a positive PT reaction to
anisylidene acetone 2% pet. (24)151

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional information: /BENZALDEHYDE
CAS # 100-52-7
EC # 202-860-4
Benzaldehyde
Artificial Almond Oil; Benzaldehyde FFC; Benzenecarbonal;
Benzenecarboxaldehyde; Benzoic acid aldehyde; Benzoic
aldehyde; NSC 7917; Phenylformaldehyde; Phenylmethanal
Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
In the Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients yielded n=3 (0.4%) positive reactions to benzaldehyde 5% pet. (22). The
IVDK 2010 study, 6 weak positive reactions were observed, i.e., 0.16% (95% CI: 0.03 –
0.29%; percentages standardised for age and sex) of 2820 patients PTed reacted to thecompound (7). A review is available in the Int. J. Toxicol. (41). In the case of a 19 year
old pastry maker, Seite-Bellezza et al. report on immediate reactions to MP, cinnamal
and benzaldehyde (tested at 5% pet.) subsiding after a few hours, in line with thepatient’s history (42).
Additional information: /BENZYL ACETATE
CAS #140-11-4
EC # 205-399-7 / 202-940-9
Benzyl actetate
Benzyl ester acetic acid; Benzyl alcohol, acetate (6CI);(Acetoxymethyl)benzene; Benzyl ethanoate; NSC 4550;
Phenylmethyl
acetate;MethylPhenylacetate;αAcetoxytoluene ; Methyl alpha-Toluate
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5% benzyl
aceteate in pet., tested in 100 consecutive patients in Odense, DK, were observed (15).
Benzyl acetate is a component of several natural mixtures, for example a major
constituent of Narcissus abs., and a minor constituent of Jasmine abs. (17).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

BENZYL ACETONECAS # 2550-26-7

152

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

EC # 219-847-4
4-Phenyl-2-butanone
4-Phenylbutan-2-one (REACH, EINECS); Benzylacetone;
Methyl 2-phenylethyl ketone; Methyl phenethyl ketone; NSC
44829; NSC 813M; Phenethyl methyl ketone; 1-Phenyl-3butanone; 2-Phenylethyl methyl ketone
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional
information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). A RIFM review is available (43).

BENZYL ALCOHOL
CAS # 100-51-6
EC # 202-859-9
Phenylmethanol
Benzyl alcohol; (Hydroxymethyl)benzene; Benzenecarbinol;
Benzylic
alcohol;
NSC
8044;
Phenylcarbinol;
Benzenemethanol; Phenylmethyl alcohol; Sunmorl BK 20; TB
13G; α-Hydroxytoluene; α-Toluenol
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 45; Annex VI, part1, n ° 34
Clinicaldata:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, benzyl alcohol is classified
as allergen frequently causing allergic reactions. It has been found to cause allergic
reactions in 1.2 to 15% of patients with eczema from cosmetic products (33). A CIR
expert panel review is available in the Int. J. Toxicol. (44).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1– 0.7%) positive reactions in 2166 consecutively PTed patients (4). In the Groningen2009 study, n=1, i.e. 0.3% (95% CI: 0.01 – 1.7%) had positive reactions to thisallergen (6).
Both in terms of case reports (45-47) and clinical epidemiology data (0.22 % [95% CI:
0.16 – 0.28%] positive tested with benzyl alcohol in the context of a “topical drugs”
series, n=26448 (7)) the relevance of this alternative exposure is highlighted. In a study
from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patients were tested with benzyl alcohol, yielding 2
positive reactions (48).
After application of saline soaks preserved with benzyl alcohol onto his stasis dermatitis,
a 53 year old patient developed a rash, which was, according to test results obtained by
J. D. Guin and J. Goodman, at least partly due to an immediate hypersensitivity tobenzyl alcohol, as verified by an intense urticarial reaction at the test site lasting several
days (49). According to 2 cases reported by A. A. Fisher, PT-proven, relevant delayed
type hypersensitivity is not associated with immediate reactions in scratch or
intradermal tests (50). D. W. Shaw describes a patient with allergic contact dermatitis
caused by benzyl alcohol in a hearing aid impression material and in topical medications(51). Another contribution points to covert exposures to benzyl alcohol even in products
labelled “fragrance free” (52) probably because benzyl alcohol is used as preservative,
or an essential oil containing benzyl alcohol is used as cosmetic ingredient.

153

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional information:
Benzyl alcohol is a component of several natural mixtures, including Myroxylon pereirae
resin, which have been used for extraction, but is nowadays synthesised (53). It ispermitted in certain foodstuffs (liquors: < 100 mg/l, sweets and cakes: < 250 mg/kg)
under
the
coding“E1519”(http://www.zusatzstoffeonline.de/zusatzstoffe/317.e1519_benzylalkohol.html, last accessed 2009-11-27). In
addition to being a fragrance compound (which may be used, even in relatively highconcentration, to scent topical medications (54)), benzyl alcohol is used as antioxidant in
topical therapeutics or cosmetics. The German “Rote Liste” (http://www.rote-liste.de,last accessed 2009-11-11), for instance, lists 205 specialties containing benzyl alcohol.
Benzyl alcohol may be used up to 1.0% as a preservative in cosmetic products according
to the Cosmetic Directivr 76/768/EEC

BENZYL BENZOATE
CAS # 120-51-4
EC # 204-402-9
Benzyl benzoate
Benzyl ester benzoic acid; Ascabin; Ascabiol; Benylate;
Benzyl benzenecarboxylate; Benzyl benzoate; Benzyl
phenylformate; Benzylets; Colebenz; NSC 8081; Nicca
Sunsolt LM 7EX; Novoscabin; Pelemol B66; Peruscabin;
Phenylmethyl benzoate; Scabagen; Scabanca; Scabcare BB;
Scabide; Scabiozon; Scobenol; Vanzoate; Venzonate
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 85
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, benzyl benzoate isclassified as “less frequently reported allergen”; in several studies, only single cases had
been reported in each, except for patients sensitive to MP (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded n=1, i.e., 0.1%
(95% CI: 0.00 – 0.3%) positive reactions in 2003 consecutively PTed patients, test
concentration 1% pet. (4). In the subsequent period (2005-2008), n=1062 patientswere tested in the IVDK 2010 study, with no positive reactions (7). In the Groningen2009 study, no positive reactions to this allergen, tested at 5% pet., were observed in
320 patients (6). Thus, the pooled proportion of positive patch test reactions is 1 / 3385
(0.03%, exact upper 1-sided 95% CI: 0.14%)
Additional information:
Benzyl benzoate naturally occurs in MP resin and ylang-ylang oil. Nowadays it issynthesised and used for a variety of purposes (53). These include use as a scabicide(one brand specialty on the German market, using a concentration of 10% for children
and 25% for adults), possibly with some differences among European countries. In
France, a combination of benzyl benzoate 10% and sulfiram 2% is reported to be usedmost often (55). Hausen et al. review the older literature and mention a study
identifying 1 sensitised patient in 73 patients treated for scabies (details not given) (53).
According to the mandatory factsheet (see PDF “benzylbenzoate_infosheet_DE.pdf”)
dermatitis after anti-scabies treatment is “rare”, in a range between 1:1000 and
1:10000.
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).
154

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________BENZYL CINNAMATE
CAS # 103-41-3
EC # 203-109-3
Benzyl 3-phenylprop-2-enoate
Benzyl ester cinnamic acid; 3-phenyl-phenylmethyl ester 2propenoic acid; 3-Phenyl-2-propenoic acid benzyl ester;
Benzyl 3-phenylpropenoate; Benzyl γ-phenylacrylate;
Cinnamein; NSC 11780; NSC 44403
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 81
Clinicaldata:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, benzyl cinnamate(synonymous: benzyl 3-phenyl-2-propenoate, cinnamein) is classified as “less frequently
reported allergen”; one study of patients with contact allergy to cosmetic products was
identified and further a study where benzyl cinnamate associated with contact
sensitisation to MP (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1– 0.6%) positive reactions in 2042 consecutively PTed patients, test concentration 5%
pet. (4). The IVDK 2010 study, n=4 weak positive were observed, amounting to 0.12%(95% CI: 0 – 0.25%; percentages standardised for age and sex) of 2872 patients PTed
reacted to the compound (7). In the Groningen 2009 study, no positive reactions to thisallergen, using the same test concentration, were observed in 320 patients (6). In the
Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients yielded n=3 (0.4%) positive reactions (22).
Additional information: A RIFM review is available (56).

155

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________BENZYL SALICYLATE
CAS # 118-58-1
EC # 204-262-9
Benzyl 2-hydroxybenzoate
Salicylic acid, Benzyl ester; Benzoic acid, 2-Hydroxy-,
phenylmethyl ester; Benzyl o-hydroxybenzoate; NSC 6647
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 75
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion (33), benzyl salicylate isclassified among the frequent allergens, with 0.2 to 10% of patients with eczema fromcosmetic products testing positively. In one study, benzyl salicylate accounted for 75%
of reactions to commercial products (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded n=2, i.e. 0.1%
(95% CI: 0.01 – 0.4%) positive reactions in 2041 consecutively PTed patients (testconcentration 1% pet.) (4). The IVDK 2010 study, 2 of 3775 patients PTed reacted
weakly positive to the compound (7). In the Groningen 2009 study, n=1, i.e. 0.3%
(95% CI: 0.01 – 1.7%) had positive reactions to this allergen, tested at 2% pet. (6). In
the deGroot 2000 study, 10 of 1825 consecutive patients tested positive to benzyl
salicylate (2% pet.), of these, 3 were not detected by the FM I (12). In the Wöhrl 2001
study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded
n=3 (0.4%) positive reactions (22). Trattner/David found 2 positive cases in 641
consecutive eczema patients (31). In a study from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patientswere tested with benzyl salicylate, yielding 2 positive reactions (48).
Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). A RIFM
review is available, including internal results on, e.g. HRIPT, and a review of LLNA
results, where benzyl salicylate is classified as “weak” allergen (57).

BENZYLIDENEACETONECAS # 122-57-6
EC # 204-555-1
4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-one
4-Phenylbut-3-en-2-one; 2-Butenone, 4-Phenyl- (2CI);
Ketone, Methyl styryl (7CI); 1-Phenyl-1-buten-3-one; 2Phenylethenyl methyl ketone; 2-Phenylvinyl methyl ketone;
4-Phenyl-3-buten-2-one;
4-Phenyl-3-butene-2-one;
4Phenylbutenone;
Acetocinnamone;
Benzalacetone;
Benzylideneacetone; Methyl 2-phenylvinyl ketone; Methyl
phenylvinyl ketone; Methyl styryl ketone; Methyl β-styryl
ketone; NSC 5605; Styryl methyl ketone
Current regulation: Annex II, n° 356
Clinicaldata:
In the Malten 1984 study, none of 182 patients displayed a positive PT reaction to156

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

benzylidene acetone 0.5% pet. (24).
Additional information: /157

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

2-TERT-BUTYLCYCLOHEXYL ACETATE
CAS # 88-41-5
EC # 201-828-7
2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)cyclohexyl acetate
Cyclohexanol,
2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-,acetate;Cyclohexanol,
2-Tert-butyl-,acetate;2-TertButylcyclohexanol acetate; Verdox; o-Tert-Butylcyclohexyl
acetateCurrent regulation: /Clinicaldata:
In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5% “Verdox®” in pet., tested in 313 consecutive patients in Bordeaux and London, were observed(15)Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). A RIFM review is available (58).

4-TERT-BUTYLCYCLOHEXYL ACETATEO

CAS # 32210-23-4

O

EC # 250-954-9
4-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)cyclohexyl acetate
Boisinol A 464D; Cyclohexanol, 4-tert-Butyl-, acetate;
Cyclohexanol, 4-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-, acetate; 4-(1,1Dimethylethyl)cyclohexyl acetate; 4-tert-Butylcyclohexanol
acetate; Dorisyl; Madeflor; NSC 163103; Oryclone, Oryclone
special, Oryclon extra; p-t-BCHA; p-tert-Butylcyclohexyl
acetate;para-tert-Butylcyclohexyl
acetate;PTBCHA;
Velvetone; Verbeniax; Vertenex; Vertinate; Vertopol;
YlanateCurrent regulation: /Clinicaldata:
In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5%“Vertenex ®” in pet., tested in 107 consecutive patients in High Wycombe, wereobserved (15).
Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). A RIFM review is available (59).

p-tert -Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde
CAS # 18127-01-0
EC # 242-016-2

158

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

4-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-benzenepropanal
p-tert-Butyl-hydrocinnamaldehyde;
Butylphenyl)propanal;
Bourgeonal;
Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde

3-(4-tertp-tert-

Current regulation: III/155
Clinical data: /Additional
It is a “top 200” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010)

information:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details_v2&id=39132

BUTYLPHENYL METHYLPROPIONAL (Lilial®)
CAS # 80-54-6
EC # 201-289-8
3-(4-tert-Butylphenyl)-2-methylpropanal
p-t-Butyl-alpha-methylhydrocinnamic aldehyde; 2-(4-tertButylbenzyl)propionaldehyde (REACH, EINECS); 4-(1,1Dimethylethyl)-α-methyl-benzenepropanal;
Hydrocinnamaldehyde,
p-tert-Butyl-α-methyl-;(±)-2Methyl-3-(4-tert-butylphenyl)propanal; 2-Methyl-3-(4-tertbutylphenyl)propanal;
2-[(4-tertButylphenyl)methyl]propanal;
3-(4-tert-Butylphenyl)-2methylpropanal;
3-(p-tert-Butylphenyl)-2methylpropionaldehyde;
3-(p-tertButylphenyl)isobutylaldehyde;
4-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-αmethylbenzenepropanal;
4-tert-Butyl-αmethylhydrocinnamic aldehyde; Lilestralis; Lilial; Lysmeral;
NSC
22275;
lilestral;
p-tert-Butyl-αmethylhydrocinnamaldehyde;
p-tert-Butyl-αmethylhydrocinnamic aldehyde; pt-Bucinal; α-Methyl-p-tertbutylhydrocinnamaldehyde; β-Lilial
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 83
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, lilial is classified as “lessfrequently reported allergen”; with 2 cases of contact allergy reported in 1 study of 176
eczema patients and 1 case with contact allergy to Lilial from a deodorant; a number ofother reported positive cases were considered to possibly have been false positive (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the Frosch 2002a study yielded 0.2% positive
reactions to Lilial® (10% pet.) among the 1855 consecutive patients tested (16). The
IVDK 2007 study yielded 0.4% (95% CI: 0.2 – 0.8%) positive reactions in 2004 patientsconsecutively tested (4). The IVDK 2010 study, 0.62% (95% CI: 0.04 – 1.21%;
percentages standardised for age and sex) of 1947 patients PTed reacted to thecompound (7). In the Groningen 2009 study, n=2, i.e. 0.6% (95% CI: 0.1 – 2.2%) had
positive reactions to this allergen, tested at only 1% pet. (6). In the deGroot 2000
study, 9 of 1825 consecutively tested patients had a positive reaction to lilial® (5%159

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________pet.) (12). Lilial® has been identified as constituent of perfumes used by a patient,causing ACD (60).
Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

160

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

CAMPHORCAS # 76-22-2 / 464-49-3
EC # 207-355-2 / 200-945-0

76-22-2

1,7,7-Trimethyl-bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-one (76-22-2)(1R,4R)-1,7,7-Trimethyl-bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-one(464-49-3)
76-22-2:
DL-Bornan-2-one(REACH,
EINECS);
2Bornanone; Bornan-2-one, INCI name according to CAS;
CAMPHOR/DL-bornan-2-one; Camphor; (±)-Camphor; DLCamphor;
1,7,7-Trimethylnorcamphor;
2-Camphanone;
Alphanon; Borneo camphor; Root bark oil; Spirit of camphor

464-49-3

464-49-3:(1R)-1,7,7-Trimethyl-bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2one; (1R,4R)-(+)- Camphor; (+)-2-Bornanone; (+)Camphor; (1R)-(+)-Camphor; (1R)-Camphor; (1R,4R)-(+)Camphor; (R)-(+)-Camphor; (R)-Camphor; Camphor; DCamphor; D-(+)-Camphor; Alcanfor; Japanese camphor.
Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
From the UK, a case of allergic contact dermatitis after application of Earex ® ear drops
due to rectified camphor oil (tested 10% pet.) was reported (61). Application of a liquid
rubefacient of Asian origin caused allergic contact dermatitis in a 58-year-old patient,according to the positive PT result with 10% camphor (“alcaonfor”) in pet. due to thisingredient (62). In the US, a case of contact dermatitis due to “Vics VapoRub” has beenreported (63).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010).

beta-CARYOPHYLLENE
CAS # 87-44-5
EC # 201-746-1(1R,4E,9S)-4,11,11-Trimethyl-8-methylenebicyclo[7.2.0]undec-4-ene(E)-(1R,9S)-(-)-4,11,11-Trimethyl-8-methylenebicyclo[7.2.0]undec-4-ene;[1R-(1R*,4E,9S*)]-4,11,11Trimethyl-8-methylene-bicyclo[7.2.0]undec-4-ene; (-)-(E)Caryophyllene; (-)-Caryophyllene; (-)-E-Caryophyllene; (-)trans-Caryophyllene;(-)-β-Caryophyllene;(E)Caryophyllene; Caryophyllene; Caryophyllene B; NSC
11906;
l-Caryophyllene;trans-Caryophyllene;
βCaryophyllen; β-Caryophyllene; (-)-β-Caryophyllene
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 b study, 0.6% positive reactions to caryophyllene (5% pet.) in 1606
consecutive were observed (17).
161

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional information:beta-Caryophyllene autoxidizes at air exposure. As the primary oxidation products, thehydroperoxides, are very unstable and immediately form epoxides with low sensitizing
capciaty, the increase in allergenic activity caused by autoxidation is comparably low(64). A multicenter study identified 0.5% positive reactions to oxidized betacaryophyllene (3.0% pet.) in 1511 consecutive patients (65). Of these, 2 patients(0.1%) reacted to the major oxidation product (caryophyllene oxide) (3.9% pet.).

CARVACROL
CAS # 499-75-2
EC # 207-889-6
2-Methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)-phenol
2-Hydroxy-1-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)benzene; 2-Hydroxyp-cymene; 2-Methyl-5-(1-methylethyl)phenol; 2-Methyl-5isopropylphenol; 3-Isopropyl-6-methylphenol; 5-Isopropyl2-methylphenol;
5-Isopropyl-o-cresol;
6-Methyl-3isopropylphenol; Antioxine; Dentol; Isopropyl o-cresol;
Isothymol; NSC 6188; p-Cymen-2-ol
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The DeGroot 1985 study identified 2 (1.1%) positive reactions among 179 patients using
a 5% PT preparation of this compound – these reactions may have been at least partly
due to an “excited back syndrome” and are thus of limited evidence (25). Meynadier etal. 11 patch tested 28 patients with contact allergy to fragrance ingredients using 2%
carvacrol in pet. Positive reactions were observed in 3 of 28 patients (after (66)).
Additional information:
Carvacrol is derived from p-cymene by sulfonation followed by alkali fusion. Carvacrol
can also be derived from savory, thyme, marjoram, oregano, lovage root, and Spanish
origanum oil (66). Carvacrol is a flavor ingredient that can be found in alcoholic
beverages, baked goods, chewing gum, condiment relish, frozen dairy, gelatin pudding,non-alcoholic beverages, and soft candy at concentrations from 0.1 to 28.54 ppm (RIFM
2001, according to (66).

CARVONE
CAS # 99-49-0 / 6485-40-1 / 2244-16-8
EC # 202-759-5 / 229-352-5 / 218-827-2
2-Methyl-5-(1-methylethenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1-one(99-49-0)

11

99-49-0

Meynadier, J. M., J. Meynadier, J. L. Peyron, and L. Peyron. 1986. Clinical forms of skinmanifestations in allergy to perfume. Ann. Dermatol. Venerol. 113:31–39.
162

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________(5R)-2-Methyl-5-(1-methylethenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1one (6485-40-1)(5S)-2-Methyl-5-(1-methylethenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1one (2244-16-8)
99-49-0:
p-Mentha-6,8-dien-2-one;(±)-Carvone;
2Methyl-5-isopropenyl-2-cyclohexenone;
5-Isopropyl-2methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one; Carvone; DL-Carvone; Karvon;
Limonen-6-one; NSC 6275; p-Mentha-1(6),8-dien-2-one
6485-40-1:
R)-(-)-p-Mentha-6,8-dien-2-on);(-)-(5R)Carvone; (-)-(R)-Carvone; (-)-Carvone; (-)-p-Mentha-6,8dien-2-one;(4R)-(-)-Carvone;(R)-(-)-Carvone;(R)Carvone;
L-(-)-Carvone;
L-Carvone;l-1-Methyl-4isopropenyl-6-cyclohexen-2-one; l-Carvone

6485-40-1

2244-16-8

2244-16-8:(S)-(+)-p-Mentha-6,8-dien-2-one;(+)Carvone; (S)-(+)-Carvone; (S)-(+)-p-Mentha-6,8-dien-2one; (S)-Carvone; (+)-Carvone; D-(+)-Carvone; DCarvone; Talent; d-1-Methyl-4-isopropenyl-6-cyclohexen-2one; (S)-2-Methyl-5-(1-methylvinyl)cyclohex-2-en-1-one; dCarvone
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
Cases of allergic contact cheilitis due to L-carvone in toothpastes have been reported(67-69). In an earlier study, 15 of 541 (2.8%) of consecutive PT patients tested alsowith L-Carvone (5% pet.) exhibited positive reactions, which were (i) associated withpositive PT results to Compositae mix and (ii) mostly were not considered clinically
relevant. Upon re-testing with lower concentrations (2% and 1% pet.) only 2 of 8
patients thus tested were positive (70).
“Carvone has occasionally been reported as an allergen, usually in flavourings. Isomersof carvone have been either a mint or a rye flavour and aroma. We report a woman withpositive patch-test reactions to carvone (newly added to the North American Contact
Dermatitis Group standard series) and dermatitis on the head. She had used a hairconditioner with a “mint” scent, and the dermatitis resolved when she discontinued
using this product. While the manufacturer would not confirm carvone as an ingredient,
the clinical course, patch-test results, and ingredient list strongly suggest that this was a
relevant allergen in this case of allergic contact dermatitis”12
Additional information:
D-Carvone occurs in caraway seed oil and dill oil in a concentration of up to 60%. LCarvone is a component of the oil from Mentha spicata (spearmint).
R-Carvone is identified as a secondary oxidation product in autoxidized limonene (71).
However, it is not a major allergen in this oxidation mixture and only one of 30 patientswith known contact allergy to oxidized R- limonene reacted when tested with carvone(3% pet.) (72). Experimental findings in guinea pigs show no cross reactivity between
R- and S carvone, but both enantiomers were found to be equally strong sensitizers
(73).

12

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20233552
163

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________CINNAMAL
CAS # 104-55-2
EC # 203-213-9
3-Phenyl-2-propenal
Cinnamaldehyde;
3-Phenyl-2-propen-1-al;
3-Phenyl-2propenaldehyde; 3-Phenylacrolein; 3-Phenylacrylaldehyde;
3-Phenylpropenal; Abion CA; Benzylideneacetaldehyde;
Cassia aldehyde; Cinnacure; Cinnamal; Cinnamic aldehyde;
Cinnamite; Cinnamyl aldehyde; NSC 16935; NSC 40346;
Phenylacrolein; Zimtaldehyde; β-Phenylacrolein
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 76
Clinicaldata:
In the “background information” section of the previous opinion (33), cinnamal, one of
the 8 constituents of the FM I, is classified as frequent allergen, causing allergic
reactions in a notable persons with eczema from cosmetic products in several studies(33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded 1.0% (95% CI: 0.6– 1.6%) positive reactions in 2063 consecutively PTed patients (4). In the Groningen2009 study, 1.6% (95% CI: 0.5 – 3.6%) had positive reactions to cinnamal (6). In a
study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, no significant trend of cinnamal
contact sensitisation in the consecutive patients analysed was observed between 1984
(5.9% pos.) and 2000 (3.6% pos.); tested at 1% pet. (74). In the An 2005 study, 7 of422 consecutive patients, i.e., 1.7%, had positive reaction (13). The Belsito 2006 study(20) yielded 1.7% positive reactions. In the Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing 747 patients withsuspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded 1.9% positive reactions (22).
The NACDG study found 3.1% positive reactions in 4435 patients tested (21). The IVDK2010 study, 1.43% (95% CI: 0.67 – 2.18%) of 1214 consecutively tested patients
reacted to the compound, while 2.64% (95% CI: 2.16 – 3.13%) of 4527 of patients
tested in a more aimed manner, partly as break-down testing to the FM I, had a positive
PT reaction (7). In a study from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patients were patch tested
with an extended fragrance series; n=7 reacted positively to cinnamal (48).
While, in addition to typical ACD due to contact sensitisation, immediate reactions tosome fragrance compounds (and MPR, see below) are observed not infrequently, such
immediate type reactions may rarely be very severe (anaphylaxis) and possibly
immunologically mediated, as illustrated by the case of a 42 year old nurse with
anaphylaxis (maximum grade of contact urticaria syndrome) 20 min after application of
cinnamal (75). Following industrial use as “odour masking” agent, cinnamal caused
occupational ACD in an exposed worker (76).
Additional information:
A specific RIFM review is available (77); another RIFM review addresses several
cinnamic compounds (78).

CINNAMYL ALCOHOL
CAS # 104-54-1
EC # 203-212-3
3-Phenyl-2-propen-1-ol
164

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Cinnamylalcohol;
1-Phenyl-3-hydroxy-1-propene;
1Phenylprop-1-en-3-ol; 3-Hydroxy-1-phenylprop-1-ene; 3Phenyl-2-propenol; 3-Phenylallyl alcohol; Cinnamic alcohol;
NSC 623440; NSC 8775; Styrone; Styryl alcohol; Styryl
carbinol; γ-Phenylallyl alcohol
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 69
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the previous opinion (33), cinnamyl alcohol,
one of the 8 constituents of the FM I, is classified as frequent allergen, causing allergic
reactions in a notable persons with eczema from cosmetic products (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3– 1.1%) positive reactions in 2063 consecutively PTed patients (4). In the Groningen2009 study, 2.5% (95% CI: 1.1 – 4.9%) had positive reactions to cinnamyl alcohol,
tested at 2% pet., i.e., twice the commonly used concentration (6). As test
concentrations of up to 5% are apparently non-irritating (de Groot et al. after (33)), thelatter data can be regarded as valid. In the An 2005 study, 13 of 422 consecutive
patients, i.e., 3.1%, had positive reaction (13) (test concentration 2%). In the Wöhrl
2001 study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredientsyielded 1.5% positive reactions (22). The IVDK 2010 study, 0.73% (95% CI: 0.17 –
1.30%) of 1214 consecutively tested patients reacted to the compound, while 2.36%(95% CI: 1.89 – 2.83%) of 4502 of patients tested in a more aimed manner, partly as
break-down testing to the FM I, had a positive PT reaction (7). In a study from Alicante,
Spain, 86 selected patients were patch tested with an extended fragrance series; n=12
reacted positively to cinnamyl alcohol (48).
Additional information:
In a recent experimental study protein-cinnamal adducts were detected in skinhomogenates treated with cinnamal and cinnamyl alcohol but not with alpha-amyl
cinnamal. This suggests that there is a common hapten involved in cinnamal andcinnamyl alcohol sensitization, in line with the observation of a marked concordance
upon patch testing (7, 79), and that metabolic activation (to cinnamal) is involved in thelatter. Conversely, there does not appear to be a common hapten for cinnamal andalpha-amyl cinnamal (80), again in line with the observations in the IVDK 2010 study(7).
A RIFM review is available (81)

CITRAL
CAS # 5392-40-5
EC # 226-394-6
3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadienal
3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-al; Citral;
Lemarome N; Lemsyn GB; NSC 6170

CitralPQ

Extra;

Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 70
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the previous opinion (33), citral is classified
as frequent allergen, causing about 1% allergic reactions in consecutive PT patients, andbeing a proven cause of contact allergic reactions in 2.6% patients with eczema from165

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

cosmetic products (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the Frosch 2002 a study yielded 1.1% positive(and 1.3% doubtful) reactions among the 1855 consecutive patients tested (16). In a
study on 586 consecutive patients with hand eczema it has been noted that citral (2%pet.) not only caused (mostly weak) positive PT reactions, but far more often irritantreactions (n=82 vs. n=28). It was hypothesised that this very property could contributeto citral’s sensitising potential (82). In the EU 2005 study, 12 of 1701 patients (0.7%,
95% CI: 0.4 – 1.2%) reacted positively to 2% citral in pet. (10). The IVDK 2007 study
yielded 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3 – 1.1%) positive reactions in 2021 consecutively PTedpatients; 10 of 13 citral positive patients also reacted positively to geraniol (4). In the
Groningen 2009 study, 0.6% (95% CI: 0.1 – 2.2%) had positive reactions to thisallergen (6). In the deGroot 2000 multicentre study, 19 of 1825 consecutive patients
tested positively to citral (2% pet.), 4 of whom did not react positively to the FM I (12).
In the An 2005 study, 5 of 422 consecutive patients, i.e., 1.2%, had positive reaction(13) (test concentration 2%). In the Malten 1984 study, neral at 1% in pet. yielded
2.6% positive reactions in 182 patients (24). In a study from Alicante, Spain, 86
selected patients were tested with citral, yielding 2 positive reactions (48).
Citral in a lip salve has been reported to have caused longstanding, recurrent allergic
contact cheilitis in a 30 year old female patient, diagnosed by a strong positive reaction
to the FM II, followed by a strong positive reaction to citral (83).
Additional information:
Citral is the mixture of two isomers: cis-citral (neral) and trans-citral (geranial).
Geranial forms oxidation product with increased sensitizing capacity both via
spontaneous autoxidization at air exposure and via metabolic oxidation (Hagvall L.
Thesis 2009: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/18951).
Geranial and neral have been identified as secondary oxidation products when geraniol
autoxidizes (84). They have also been identified as metabolites of geraniol (85). This
explains the simultaneous reactions to geraniol and citral seen by (4).
It is a “top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

166

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________CITRONELLAL
CAS # 106-23-0
EC # 203-376-6
3,7-Dimethyl-6-octenal(±)-Citronellal; 2,3-Dihydrocitral; 3,7-Dimethyloct-6-en-1al; Citronellal; NSC 46106; Rhodinal; dl-Citronellal; βCitronellal
Current regulation: /Clinical/data:

Additional information: A compound of essential oils of citrus fruits, namely grapefruit,
but also contained in “citronella oil” and oil of Melissa.

CITRONELLOL
CAS # 106-22-9 / 1117-61-9 / 7540-51-4
EC # 247-737-6 / 214-250-5 / 231-415-7
3,7-Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol(106-22-9);
Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol(1117-61-9);
Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol (7540-51-4)(3R)-3,7(3S)-3,7-

106-22-9

106-22-9:(±)-3,7-Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol;(±)Citronellol; (±)-β-Citronellol; 2,3-Dihydrogeraniol; 2,6Dimethyl-2-octen-8-ol; Cephrol; Citronellol; Citronellol
950; DL-Citronellol; Dihydrogeraniol; NSC 8779; Rodinol;
dl-Citronellol; β-Citronellol
1117-61-9: (R)-3,7-Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol; (R)-(+)-3,7Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol;(+)-(R)-Citronellol;(+)Citronellol; (+)-β-Citronellol; (3R)-(+)-β-Citronellol; (R)(+)-Citronellol; (R)-(+)-β-Citronellol; (R)-Citronellol; (R)β-Citronellol; D-Citronellol; d-Citronellol

1117-61-9

7540-51-4

7540-51-4:(-)-3,7-Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol;(-)-(S)Citronellol;(-)-Citronellol;(-)-β-Citronellol;(S)-(-)Citronellol;(S)-(-)-β-Citronellol;(S)-3,7-Dimethyl-6octen-1-ol; (S)-Citronellol; (S)-β-Citronellol; L-Citronellol;
l-Citronellol
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 86
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, citronellol is classified as“less frequently reported allergen”; with few cases of contact allergy reported in theliterature (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, in the Larsen 2002 c study, „DL citronellol“ (5%in pet.) elicited positive PT reactions in 8.7% of the patients (1). In 1855 consecutive
patients of the Frosch 2002 a study, 0.4% positive reactions were noted (16). In the EU2005 study, 4 of 1701 patients (0.2%, 95% CI: 0.06 – 0.6%) reacted positively to 1%
167

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

citronellol in pet.; at the same concentration, n=23 doubtful or irritant reactions wereobserved (10). The IVDK 2007 study yielded 0.5% (95% CI: 0.2 – 0.9%) positive
reactions in 2003 patients consecutively PTed (4). In the Groningen 2009 study, n=1, i.e.
0.3% (95% CI: 0.01 – 1.7%) had positive reactions to this allergen, tested at only 2%
pet. (6). The Larsen 2001 study yielded 5.6% positive reactions to l-citronellol (5% pet.)in 178 patients with known contact allergy to fragrance ingredients (19).
Additional information:
Citronellol autoxidizes spontaneously in contact with air in the same way as linalool
forming allergenic primary oxidation products, hydroperoxides (AT Karlberg, personalcommunication, 2011).
RIFM reviews have been published regarding L-citronellol (86), D-citronellol (87) and DLcitronellol (88). Another review is available by Hostynek and Maibach (89). It is a “top100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

CITRONELLYL NITRILE
CAS # 51566-62-2
EC # 257-288-8
3,7-Dimethyl-6-octenenitrile
3,7-Dimethyl-6-octenonitrile(REACH,
Agrunitril; Agrunitrile; Citronellyl nitrile

EINECS,

INCI);

Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010)

COUMARIN
CAS # 91-64-5
EC # 202-086-7
2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one
1,2-Benzopyrone; 2-Chromenone; 2-Propenoic acid, 3-(2hydroxyphenyl)-, δ-lactone;5,6-Benzo-2-pyrone; Benzo-αpyrone; Coumarinic anhydride; NSC 8774; Rattex; Tonka
beancamphor;
cis-o-Coumarinicacid
lactone;oHydroxycinnamic acid lactone
Current regulation: Annex III, part1, n° 77
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the previous opinion (33), coumarin isclassified as frequent allergen, causing allergic reactions in about 0.4 – 0.8% in
consecutive PT patients, and causing contact allergic reactions in 0.8-10% of patientswith eczema from cosmetic products (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, in the Frosch 2002 a study, 0.3% positive PT
reactions to consecutive patients were noted (16). In the EU 2005 study, none of the168

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

1701 patients reacted positively to 5% coumarin in pet., while 7 doubtful or irritantreactions were observed (10). The IVDK 2007 study yielded 0.4% (95% CI: 0.2 – 0.8%)
positive reactions in 2020 consecutively PTed patients (4). In the Groningen 2009 study,
0.6% (95% CI: 0.1 – 2.2%) had positive reactions to this allergen (6). In the deGroot
2000 study, 13 of 1825 consecutive patients reacted positively to coumarin (5% pet.)(12).
V. Mutterer et al. present the case of a 44 year old patient in whom coumarin was
identified as culprit allergen by controlled ROAT testing with 1%, after having causeddermatitis by the use of a deodorant containing coumarin at 0.23% and an EdT (90).
Additional information:
Coumarin is found in several plant families, including Melilotus and Galium, e.g., Galium
odoratum (sweet woodruff), however, also in oil of lavender, lovage and others (53).
Researchers from INSERM and “Rhodia Organique, Lyon , France” observed that purecoumarin is not an allergen in the LLNA, however, commercially available materials,
containing “contaminants” (3,4-dihydrocoumarin, 6-chlorocoumarin and 6,12-epoxy6H,12H-dibenzo[b,f][1,5] dioxocin, were identified as weak and moderate sensitisers,
resp. (91).
Coumarin is a “top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

CUMINALDEHYDE
CAS # 122-03-2
EC # 204-516-9
4-(1-Methylethyl)-benzaldehyde
4-Isopropylbenzaldehyde;p-Isopropylbenzaldehyde;4(Propan-2-yl)benzaldehyde;
4Isopropylphenylcarboxaldehyde;
Cumaldehyde;
Cumic
aldehyde; Cuminal; Cuminaldehyde; Cuminic aldehyde;
Cuminyl aldehyde; NSC 4886; p-Cumic aldehyde; pIsopropylbenzaldehyde; p-Isopropylbenzenecarboxaldehyde
Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
The DeGroot 1985 study identified 3 (1.7%) positive reactions among 179 patients using
a 15% PT preparation of cuminaldehyde (25).
Additional information: …

CYCLAMEN ALDEHYDE
CAS # 103-95-7
EC # 203-161-7
α-Methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-benzenepropanal
p-Isopropyl-α-methyl-hydrocinnamaldehyde; 2-Methyl-3-(4isopropylphenyl)propionaldehyde;
2-Methyl-3-(pisopropylphenyl)propionaldehyde; 3-(4-Isopropylphenyl)-2methylpropanal;
3-(p-Isopropylphenyl)-2169

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

methylpropionaldehyde;
3-p-Cumenyl-2methylpropionaldehyde(REACH, EINECS); 4-Isopropyl-αmethylhydrocinnamic
aldehyde;
Cyclamal;
Cyclamenaldehyde; Cyclosal; Cyclosal perfume; Cymal; p-Isopropyl-αmethylhydrocinnamaldehyde;
α-Methyl-4-(1methylethyl)benzenepropanal;
α-Methyl-pisopropylhydrocinnamaldehyde
Current regulation: …
Clinical/data:

Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers.
comm.2010).

CYCLOHEXYL ACETATE
CAS # 622-45-7
EC # 210-736-6
Cyclohexyletanoat
Acetic acid cyclohexanyl ester;
Cyclohexyl acetate; NSC 8772

Acetoxycyclohexane;

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Larsen 2002 c study, 0.5% positive reactions among 218 patients with know
contact allergy to fragrance ingredients were observed (1).
Additional information: A RIFM review is available (92).

alpha-CYCLOHEXYLIDENE BENZENEACETONITRILE
CAS # 10461-98-0
EC # 423-740-1
α-Cyclohexylidenebenzeneacetonitrilealpha-Cyclohexylidene-benzeneacetonitrile (REACH); ∆1αPhenyl-α-Cyclohexaneacetonitrile;
2-Cyclohexylidene-2phenylacetonitrile; NSC 408284; Peonile (REACH)
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

CYCLOPENTADECANONECAS # 502-72-7
170

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

EC # 207-951-2
Cyclopentadecanone
CPE 218; Exaltone; NSC 63900; Normuscon; Normuscone
Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
In the Larsen 2001 study, n=3, i.e., 1.7% positive reactions were observed to thecompound, tested 5% pet., in 178 pateints with known contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients (19).
Additional information: …

DAMASCENONEROSE KETONE-4 (Not officially an INCI Name but
Perfuming Name; Damascenone as such is not listed in
CosIng)CAS # 23696-85-7
EC # 245-833-2
1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-yl)-2-buten1-one
1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadienyl)-2-buten-1-one; 1Crotonoyl-2,6,6-trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadiene;
2,6,6Trimethyl-1-(2-butenoyl)-1,3-cyclohexadiene;
2,6,6Trimethyl-1-crotonyl-1,3-cyclohexadiene; Rose ketone # 4
Current regulation: Annex III, part1, n° 160 (max. conc. 0.02%)
Clinical data: /Additional information:
RIFM reviews are available (93, 94), quoting 1 negative, and 2 positive (2 of 37, 1 of 50
volunteers) HRIPTs with damascenone based on 2 LLNA, the EC3 values were calculated
as 1.24% and 1.22%, respectively (94).

171

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

alpha-DAMASCONE (TMCHB)
CAS # 43052-87-5 / 23726-94-5
EC # x / 245-845-8
1-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)but-2-enone(43052-87-5); (2Z)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen1-yl)-2-buten-1-one (23726-94-5)
43052-87-5: 2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-crotonyl-2-cyclohexene; αDamascone

43052-875

23726-94-5

23726-94-5: (Z)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2buten-1-one; (Z)-α-Damascone; cis-α-Damascone
Current regulation: Annex III, part1, n° 157 (max. conc. 0.02%)
Clinicaldata:
In the Frosch 2002 b study, n=8 (0.5%) mostly strong positive PT reactions toconsecutive patients were noted using a mixture of alpha and beta damascene, 0.1%
pet. each (17). In human sensitisation experiments, after epicutaneous induction with30% 1-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)but-2-enone (TMCHB, CAS # 43052-87-5)
with adjuvant, to enhance response to this weak sensitiser, 8 of 30 patients wereelicited by a challenge with 3% TMCHB 2 weeks later (95).
Additional information:
The former CAS # refers to alpha-Damascone or 1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)2-Buten-1-one. The latter CAS # refers to the identified ingredient cis-alpha-Damasconeor (Z)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one, the content of which is
restricted (SCCS-opinion 0392/00).
A RIFM review is available on alpha-damascone (96), quoting a number of partly
positive HRIPT and other human studies, as well as different animal experiments. In 1
LLNA reported, an EC3 value of 3.3% was found. Another RIFM review is available forcis-alpha-damascone (97), supplying, however, no data on sensitisation.

cis-beta-DAMASCONE
CAS # 23726-92-3
EC # 245-843-7(2Z)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten1-one(Z)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one;(Z)-β-Damascone
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 162 (max. conc. 0.02%)
Clinical
Regarding results of the Frosch 2002 b study, see under alpha-damascone.

data:

Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (98), citing several negative and one positive HRIPTs, and anumber of – mostly positive – animal experiments.

172

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

trans-beta-DAMASCONE
CAS # 23726-91-2
EC # 245-842-1(2E)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten1-one(E)-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one;(E)-β-Damascone; Damascone beta; trans-2,6,6-Trimethyl1-crotonylcyclohex-1-ene;
trans-β-Damascone;
βDamascone
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 158 (max. conc. 0.02%)
Clinical data: /Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (99), citing 2 negative HRIPT and 1 negative maximisation
test, and a number of positive animal experiments (the EC3 value, based on 1 LLNA,
was found to be 2.4%).

delta-DAMASCONE
CAS # 57378-68-4
EC # 260-709-8
1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-3-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one
δ-Damascone
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 161 (max. conc. 0.02%)
Clinical data: /Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (100), citing several positive HRIPT and 1 negative HRIPT.
Cross sensitisation to alpha- and beta-damascone was demonstrated in 3 sensitised
subjects. 2 LLNA studies are reported on, yielding EC3 values of 5.19% and 9.6%, resp.

trans-trans-delta-DAMASCONE
CAS # 71048-82-3
EC # 275-156-8(2E)-rel-1-[(1R,2S)-2,6,6-Trimethyl-3-cyclohexen-1yl]- 2-buten-1-one[1α(E),2β]-1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-3-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten1-one; trans-δ-Damascone; δ-Damascone; trans, trans-δDamascone
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 165 (max. conc. 0.02%)
Clinical data: /173

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (101), citing 1 positive HRIPT (2/15 with 1%).

gamma-DAMASCONE
CAS # 35087-49-1
EC # 481-910-9
1-(2,2-Dimethyl-6-methylenecyclohexyl)-2-buten-1one
γ-Damascone
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (102), citing 1 positive Buehler test and 1 LLNA study yielding
an EC3 value of 4.6%

DECANAL
CAS # 112-31-2
EC # 203-957-4
n-Decanal
Capraldehyde; Capric aldehyde; Caprinaldehyde; Caprinic
aldehyde; Decaldehyde; Decanaldehyde; Decyl aldehyde;
Decylic aldehyde; NSC 6087; n-Decaldehyde; n-Decyl
aldehyde
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

DIETHYL MALEATE
CAS # 141-05-9
EC # 205-451-9(2Z)-Diethyl but-2-enedioate
2-Butenedioic acid (2Z)-, diethyl ester; 2-Butenedioic acid(Z)-, diethyl ester; Maleic acid, diethyl ester; (2Z)-2Butenedioic acid diethyl ester; Diethyl (Z)-2-butenedioate;
Ethyl maleate; Staflex DEM
Current regulation: Annex II, n° 426
Clinical

data:
174

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________In the Malten 1984 study, 3.2% of 182 patients displayed a positive PT reaction todiethyl maleate 0.1% pet. (24). In this study, it has been noted that “in the max. test
and clinically this is a strong sensitiser having caused patch test sensitisation (42%)”
Additional information: /DIHYDROCOUMARIN
CAS # 119-84-6
EC # 204-354-9
3,4-Dihydro-2H-1-benzopyran-2-one
Hydrocoumarin; Hydrocinnamic acid, o-hydroxy-, δ-lactone;
2-Chromanone; 3,4-Dihydro-1H-benzopyran-2-one; 3,4Dihydrocoumarin; Dihydrocoumarin; Melilotin; Melilotin(coumarin); Melilotol
Current regulation: Annex II, n° 427
Clinical data:
In the Malten 1984 study, 3.7% of 182 patients displayed a positive PT reaction to
dihydrocoumarine 5% pet. (24).
Additional information: /175

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________DIHYDROMYRCENOL
CAS # 18479-58-8
EC # 242-362-4(±)-2,6-Dimethyloct-7-en-2-ol
1,1,5-Trimethyl-6-heptenol; 2,6-Dimethyl-7-octen-2-ol; 3,7Dimethyl-1-octen-7-ol; 2,6-Dimethyl-7-octen-2-ol (INCI)
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (103), listing 2 negative HRIPTs and 1 negative humanmaximisation test.
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

2,3-DIHYDRO-2,2,6-TRIMETHYLBENZALDEHYDE
CAS # 116-26-7
EC # 204-133-7
2,6,6-Trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadiene-1-carboxaldehyde
2,2,6-Trimethyl-4,6-cyclohexadien-1-aldehyde;
Trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadiene-1-aldehyde; Safranal

2,6,6-

Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
A RIFM review quotes one positive HRIPT (5 of 53) and one negative HRIPT (0 of 54)(93).

DIMETHYLBENZYL CARBINYL ACETATE (DMBCA)
CAS # 151-05-3
EC # 205-781-3
2-Methyl-1-phenylpropyl acetate
Benzeneethanol, α,α-dimethyl-, acetate; Phenethyl alcohol,
α,α-dimethyl-, acetate; 1,1-Dimethyl-2-phenylethyl acetate;
2-Methyl-1-phenyl-2-propyl
acetate;2-Methyl-1phenylpropan-2-yl acetate; Benzyldimethylcarbinol acetate;
Benzyldimethylcarbinyl
acetate;Dimethylbenzylcarbinol
acetate; Dimethylbenzylcarbonyl acetate; NSC 46123; α,αDimethylphenethyl acetate
Current regulation: /176

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Clinicaldata:
In the Frosch 2002 a study, 0.2% positive PT reactions to consecutive patients werenoted (16). In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% andone to 5% DMBCA in pet., tested in 313 consecutive patients in Bordeaux and London,
were observed (15).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

177

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________DIMETHYL CITRACONATEOOZCAS # 617-54-9

O

O

EC #
(2Z)-Diethyl-2-metyl-but-2-enedioate(2Z)-2-methyl-2-Butenedioic acid, dimethyl ester; 2Butenedioic acid, 2-methyl-, dimethyl ester, (Z)-; Citraconic
acid, dimethyl ester; Dimethyl methylmaleate; Methylmaleic
acid, dimethyl ester
Current regulation: Annex II, n° 431
Clinical data:
In the Malten 1984 study, 3.7% of 182 patients displayed a positive PT reaction todimethylcitraconate 12% pet. (24). In this paper, a human maximisation test positive in“4/44” is quoted.
Additional information: …

2,4-DIMETHYL-3-CYCLOHEXEN-1-CARBOXALDEHYDE
CAS # 68039-49-6
EC # 268-264-1
2,4-Dimethyl-cyclohex-3-ene-1-carboxaldehyde(Z)-VertocitralC;
2,4-Dimethyl-3-cyclohexene-1carboxaldehyde;
2,4-Dimethyl-3cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde;
2,4-Dimethyl-3cyclohexenylcarbaldehyde; Cyclal C; Ligustral; Tricyclal;
Triplal; Tripral; Zestover
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

3,7-DIMETHYL-1,6-NONADIEN-3-OL
CAS # 10339-55-6
EC # 233-732-6(7Z)-3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-nonadien-3-ol
Ethyl linalool; Methyllinalool
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
178

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). A RIFM review is available (104),
citing 1 negative human maximisation test (n=25).

179

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________DIMETHYLTETRAHYDRO BENZALDEHYDE
CAS # 68737-61-1
EC # 272-113-5
2,4-Dimethyl-cyclohex-3-ene-1-carboxaldehyde
3,5-Dimethyl-cyclohex-3-ene-1-carboxaldehyde

2,4-

3,5-

Hivertal; Vertocitral
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Larsen 2001 study, 2.3% positive PT reactions were observed with the isomer
mixture, tested 5% pet., in 178 patients with known contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients (19).
Additional information: /DIPHENYL ETHER
CAS # 101-84-8
EC # 202-981-2
Phenyl ether
1,1'-oxybis-Benzene; Barrel Therm 330; Benzene, phenoxy-;
Biphenyl oxide; Chemcryl JK-EB; Diphenyl ether; Diphenyloxide; NSC 19311; Oxybisbenzene; Phenoxybenzene; Phenyloxide
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

ETHYL ACRYLATE
CAS # 140-88-5
EC # 205-438-8
Ethyl 2-propenoate
Acrylic acid ethyl ester (6CI,8CI); 2-Propenoic acid ethyl
ester; Ethyl 2-propenoate; Ethyl acrylate; Ethyl acrylic ester;
Ethyl propenoate; NSC 8263
Current regulation: Annex II, n° 435
Clinical data:
In the Malten 1984 study, n=1 (0.5%) of 182 patients displayed a positive PT reaction
to ethyl acrylate 1% pet. (24). In the NACDG 2009 multicentre study, 0.9% of
180

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

consecutive patients (n=4428) had a positive PT reaction (21).
Additional information: /ETHYL 2-METHYLBUTYRATE
CAS # 7452-79-1
EC # 231-225-4
Ethyl 2-methylbutyrate
Butyric acid, 2-methyl-, ethyl ester (6CI,7CI,8CI); (±)-Ethyl
2-methylbutanoate; 2-Methylbutanoic acid ethyl ester; 2Methylbutyric acid ethyl ester; Ethyl 2-methylbutanoate;
Ethyl 2-methylbutyrate; Ethyl α-methylbutyrate; NSC 1103
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

ETHYLENE DODECANEDIOATECAS # 54982-83-1
EC # 259-423-6
1,4-Dioxacyclohexadecane-5,16-dione
Cyclic ethylene dodecanedioate; Ethylene dodecanedioate;
Musk 144; Musk C-14
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Larsen 2002 c study on 218 patients with known contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients, this compound caused 0.9% positive PT reactions at 5% pet. (1).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

6-ETHYLIDENEOCTAHYDRO-5,8-METHANO-2H-BENZO1-PYRAN
CAS # 93939-86-7
EC # 300-376-9
6-Ethylideneoctahydro-5,8-methano-2H-1-benzopyran

Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
In the Larsen 2001 study, no positive PT reactions were observed with this compound,tested 5% pet., in 178 patients with known contact allergy to fragrance ingredients (19).
181

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional information: /2-ETHYL-4-(2,2,3-TRIMETHYL-3-CYCLOPENTEN-1-YL)2-BUTEN-1-OL
CAS # 28219-61-6
EC # 248-908-8
2-Ethyl-4-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1-yl)-2buten-1-ol
2-Ethyl-4-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1-yl)-2-buten-1-ol;
2-Ethyl-4-(2',2',3-trimethylcyclopent-3'-enyl)but-2-enol;
Bacdanol;Bangalol;
Radjanol; Sanjinol

Dartanol;Finanol;

Levosandol;

Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

182

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________ETHYL VANILLIN
CAS # 121-32-4
EC # 204-464-7
3-Ethoxy-4-hydroxybenzaldehyde
2-Ethoxy-4-formylphenol;
3-Ethoxy-4hydroxybenzaldehyde;
3-Ethylvanillin;
4-Hydroxy-3ethoxybenzaldehyde; Arovanillon; Bourbonal; Ethavan;
Ethovan; Ethylprotal; Ethylvanillin; NSC 1803; NSC 67240;
Protocatechuic
aldehyde
ethyl
ether;
Quantrovanil;
Rhodiarome; Vanillal; Vanirom
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The case of a 28-year-old metal grinder with allergic contact dermatitis to a “cutting oil
reodorant” has been reported, who tested positively not only to the cutting fluid, thereodorant, but also to several ingredients of the latter product, including “Vanillal S
10026”, 5% pet. (105).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

ETHYLENE BRASSYLATE
CAS # 105-95-3
EC # 203-347-8
1,4-Dioxacycloheptadecane-5,17-dione
Tridecanedioic acid, cyclic ethylene ester; Ethylene glycol,
cyclic tridecanedioate; Astratone; Cyclic ethylene glycol
tridecanedioate;
Cyclicethylene
tridecanedioate;
Emeressence 1150; Ethylene brassylate; Musk T; NSC
46155
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

EUCALYPTOLCAS # 470-82-6
EC # 207-431-5
1,3,3-Trimethyl-2-Oxabicyclo[2.2.2]octane
1,8-Epoxy-p-menthane;
1,3,3-Trimethyl-2oxabicyclo[2.2.2]octane; 1,8-Cineol; 1,8-Cineole; 1,8Epoxy-p-menthane;
2-Oxa-1,3,3trimethylbicyclo[2.2.2]octane; Cajeputol; Cineol; Cineole;
Eucalyptol; Eucalyptole; Eucalytol; Eucapur; Eukalyptol; NSC
183

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

6171; Terpan; p-Cineole
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).
See also EUCALYPTUS SPP. LEAF OIL; eucalyptol is the major ingredient there (up to85%), but found in significant quantities also in a number of other essential oils (see
3.2).

184

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________EUGENOL
CAS # 97-53-0
EC # 202-589-1
2-Methoxy-4-(2-propen-1-yl)-phenol
Other
names:
4-Allyl-2-methoxy-phenol;
1-Allyl-4-hydroxy-3methoxybenzene; 2-Hydroxy-5-allylanisole; 2-Methoxy-1hydroxy-4-allylbenzene;
2-Methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)phenol;
2-Methoxy-4-(2'-propenyl)phenol;
2-Methoxy-4-[2allyl]phenol;
2-Methoxy-4-allylphenol;
3-(3-Methoxy-4hydroxyphenyl)propene; 3-(4-Hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl)-1propene; 4-Allyl-1-hydroxy-2-methoxybenzene; 4-Allyl-2methoxyphenol;
4-Allylguaiacol;
4-Hydroxy-3methoxyallylbenzene; Allylguaiacol; Bioxeda; Caryophyllicacid; Dentogum; Eugenic acid; Eugenol; NSC 209525; NSC
8895; p-Allylguaiacol; p-Eugenol
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 71
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the previous opinion (33), eugenol, one of
the 8 components of the FM I, is classified as frequent allergen, causing allergic
reactions in about 1.2% in consecutive PT patients and accounting for 4 to 16% ofreactions to the FM I. Allergic reactions had been observed in 0.7 – 20% of patients witheczema from cosmetic products (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded 0.5% (95% CI: 0.3– 1.0%) positive reactions in 2065 consecutively PTed patients (4). In the Groningen2009 study, 1.3% (95% CI: 0.3 – 3.2%) had positive reactions to eugenol, tested at 2%
pet., i.e., twice the commonly used concentration (6). F. Giusti et al. examined 1754
consecutive patients tested with eugenol 1% pet. in addition to the baseline series,
09/1998 - 01/2000. 21 patients (1.2%) reacted positively to eugenol (106). In the An2005 study, 8 of 422 consecutive patients, i.e., 1.9%, had positive reaction (13) (testconcentration 2%). In the Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact
allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded 2.5% positive reactions (22). The IVDK 2010
study, 0.44% (95% CI: 0.04 – 0.84%) of 1214 consecutively tested patients reacted tothe compound, while 1.57% (95% CI: 1.19 – 1.95%) of 4801 of patients tested in amore aimed manner, partly as break-down testing to the FM I, had a positive PT
reaction (7). In a study from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patients were patch tested
with an extended fragrance series; n=12 reacted positively to eugenol (48).
Moreover, eugenol is capable of inducing immediate type reactions of the airways, as
illustrated by the well-documented case of a 30 year old hairdresser who developed
severe occupational bronchial asthma due to eugenol (107). A case of urticaria after
dental treatment with eugenol-containing material was reported from India (108);
however, occasional cases are also reported from Europe (109). Occupational exposure
to eugenol / zinc oxide type dental restorative material, which is apparently lessfrequently used nowadays, may lead to occupational sensitisation to eugenol, as
illustrated by a case report (110).
Additional information:
Eugenol is the main component (80-95%) of clove oil, but also found in citronella oil,pimento leaf oil and cinnamon bark oil (see section 3.2).
185

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

It is a “top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

186

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________FARNESOL
CAS # 4602-84-0
EC # 225-004-1
3,7,11-Trimethyl-2,6,10-Dodecatrien-1-ol
Farnesol; 3,7,11-Trimethyl-2,6,10-dodecen-1-ol; FCI 119a;
Farnesyl alcohol; NSC 60597; Nikkosome
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 82
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, farnesol is classified as“less frequently reported allergen”; in 1 study of patients with cosmetic dermatitis 2cases with contact allergy to farnesol had been reported; in other studies, positive
reactions were seen in patients with positive PT reactions to MPR (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, farnesol is used not only for its scent, but also
for its (slight) antimicrobial activity, useful, for instance, in deodorants. Thus, axillarydermatitis is a relatively typical presentation (111). In a multicentre study based on
1997/98 PT data, 0.5% positive reactions in consecutive patients were noted (Frosch2002 a (16)). Farnesol is included in the FM II. In the original publication on single
constituents of the FM II, 6 of 1701 consecutive patients reacted positively to farnesol
5%, ie., 0.35% (95% CI: 0.13 – 0.77%) (10). In a study on consecutive patients tested
in 2003, 38 of 4238 patients had positive reactions to farnesol 5% pet. (0.9%, 95% CI:
0.6 – 1.2%) (4)(IVDK 2007). (A paper on farnesol previously published by the IVDK(112) presents results included in this later analysis.) In a series from Nagoya, Japan,
1.1% positive reactions in 1483 patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis wereobserved (tested at 5% pet.) (14). In the Groningen 2009 study, 0.9% (95% CI: 0.2 –2.7%) had positive reactions (6).
Additional information:“Farnesol is an acyclic primary sesquiterpene alcohol found in essential oils such aslemongrass, citronella, tuberose blossom, sandalwood and orange blossom” (23). A
RIFM review is available (113).

GERANIOL
CAS # 106-24-1
EC # 203-377-1(2E)-3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-ol(E)-3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-ol; (E)-Geraniol; (E)-Nerol;
3,7-Dimethyl-trans-2,6-octadien-1-ol;
Geraniol;
Geranylalcohol; Lemonol; MosquitoSafe; NSC 9279; trans-3,7Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-ol; trans-Geraniol; β-Geraniol
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 78
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the previous opinion (33), geraniol, one of
the 8 components of the FM I, is classified as frequent allergen, causing allergic
reactions in about 0.4% in consecutive PT patients and accounting for 3 to 7% ofreactions to the FM I. Allergic reactions had been observed in 1.2 – 30% of patients with187

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

eczema from cosmetic products (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded 0.5% (95% CI: 0.2– 0.9%) positive reactions in 2063 consecutively PTed patients (4). In the Groningen2009 study, 0.6% (95% CI: 0.1 – 2.2%) had positive reactions to this allergen, tested
at 2%, i.e. twice the usual concentration (6). In a series from Nagoya, Japan, 0.3%
positive reactions in 1483 patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis were observed(tested at the unusually high concentration of 5% pet.) (14). In the Wöhrl 2001 study,
PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded n=7(0.9%) positive reactions (22). The IVDK 2010 study, 0.39% (95% CI: 0.10 – 0.69%)
of 1214 consecutively tested patients reacted to the compound, while 0.87% (95% CI:
0.63 – 1.10%) of 5695 of patients tested in a more aimed manner, partly as breakdown testing to the FM I, had a positive PT reaction (7). In a study from Alicante, Spain,
86 selected patients were patch tested with an extended fragrance series; n=17 reacted
positively to geraniol (48).
The fact that geraniol also occurs in food flavourings, and can elicit signs and symptoms
of manifest contact sensitisation, is illustrated by the case of a 19 year old Japanese
woman with cheilitis due to geraniol, improving after avoidance of respective foodstuff(114). A 20 year old Japanese woman with urticaria at the site of application of
cosmetics with generalisation (contact urticaria syndrome grade 2), which A. Yamamoto
et al. diagnosed as immediate type hypersensitivity to geraniol (without CA) (115).
Additional information:
Geraniol is a component of Palmarosa oil (CYMBOPOGON MARTINI see below), geraniumoil (about 40%), citronella oil (30-40%), rose oil, lavender oil, and jasmine oil. It issensitive to heat which induces autooxidation and isomeric with linalool (53).
Geraniol forms oxidation product with increased sensitizing capacity both via
spontaneous autoxidization at air exposure and via metabolic oxidation. Geranial andneral together with hydroperoxide have been identified as oxidation products whengeraniol autoxidizes (84). Geranial and neral were also identified as metabolites ofgeraniol (85). This explains the simultaneous reactions to geraniol and citral seen by(4).
A review is available by Hostynek and Maibach (116) and by RIFM (117). It is a “top100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

GERANYL ACETATEO

CAS # 105-87-3

O

EC # 203-341-5(2E)-1-Acetate-3,7-dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-ol(E)-Acetat-3,7-dimethyl-2,6-Octadien-1-ol;
Geraniolacetate; (E)-3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-ol acetate; (E)3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadienyl acetate; Acetic acid (2E)-3,7dimethyl-2,6-octadienyl ester; Acetic acid geraniol ester;
Bay pine (oyster) oil; Geranyl acetate; Geranyl ethanoate;
NSC 2584; trans-1-Acetoxy-3,7-dimethyl-2,6-octadiene;trans-3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-yl acetate; trans-Geranyl
acetate; β-Geranyl acetate
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /188

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

HELIOTROPINE
CAS # 120-57-0
EC # 204-409-7
1,3-Benzodioxole-5-carboxaldehyde
Piperonal; 2H-Benzo[3,4-d]-1,3-dioxolan-5-ylformaldehyde;
3,4-(Methylenedioxy)benzaldehyde;
3,4Dihydroxybenzaldehyde
methylene
ketal;
3,4Dimethylenedioxybenzaldehyde;
5-Formyl-1,3benzodioxolane;
5-Formyl-1,3-benzodioxole;
5Formylbenzodioxole;
Benzo[1,3]dioxole-5-carbaldehyde;
Benzo[d][1,3]dioxole-5-carboxaldehyde;
Geliotropin;
Heliotropin; Heliotropine; NSC 26826; Piperonaldehyde;
Piperonylaldehyde; Protocatechuic aldehyde methylene ether
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 b study, n=2 (0.2%) positive reactions to “piperonal” (1% pet.) andn=6 (0.4%) to “piperonal” (5% pet.), respectively, in 1606 consecutive were observed(17). In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5%
heliotropine in pet., tested in 106 consecutive patients in Barcelona, were observed(15).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

HEXADECANOLACTONE
CAS # 109-29-5
EC # 203-662-0
Oxacycloheptadecan-2-one
o-Lactone-16-hydroxy-hexadecanoicacid;1,16Hexadecanolide;
16-Hexadecanolactone;
Cyclohexadecanolide; Dihydroambrettolide; Hexadecanoicacid,
16-Hydroxy-,ο-lactone;
Hexadecanolactone;
Hexadecanolide; Juniperic acid lactone; NSC 33546
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Larsen 2001 study, 1 of 178 patients with previously diagnosed contact allergy to
fragrance ingredients had a positive PT reaction to this compound, tested 5% pet. (19).
In the An 2005 study, 6 of 422 consecutive patients, i.e., 1.4%, had positive reactions
to 5% “hexadecanolide” (13).
Additional information: /189

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________HEXAHYDROCOUMARIN
CAS # 700-82-3
EC # 211-851-4
3,4,5,6,7,8-Hexahydro-2H-1-benzopyran-2-one
3,4,5,6,7,8-Hexahydro-coumarin;
δ-Lactone-2-hydroxy-1cyclohexene-1-propanoic
acid;
3,4,5,6,7,8Hexahydrocoumarin;
Hexahydrocoumarin;∆-1,6-2Oxabicyclo(4.4.0)decen-3-one
Current regulation: Annex II, n° 1135
Clinical data: /Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (93), p. S115 ff, citing a number of positive humansensitisation experiments.

3α,4,5,6,7,7α-HEXAHYDRO-4,7-METHANO-1H-INDEN5(OR 6)-YL ACETATE
CAS # 54830-99-8
EC # 259-367-2
3α,4,5,6,7,7α-Hexahydro-4,7-methano-1H-indenol
AcetateAcetoxydihydrodicyclopentadiene; Cyclacet; Dicyclopentenyl
acetate; Dicylat; Tricyclo[5.2.1.02,6]dec-3-enyl acetate;
Tricyclodecenyl acetate
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 1 to 5%“Cyclacet ®” in pet., tested in 313 consecutive patients in Bordeaux and London, wereobserved (15).
Additional information:
Produced
by
IFF
under
the
brand
name
“Cyclacet”
last(http://www.iff.com/Ingredients.nsf/0/1C9F2CB39EB1EF6480256993002FBC14,
accessed 2010-07-08).

HEXAHYDRO-METHANOINDENYL PROPIONATE
CAS # 68912-13-0
EC # 272-805-7
3α,4,5,6,7,7α-Hexahydro-4,7-methano-1H-indenol
propanoate
190

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

3α,4,5,6,7,7α-Hexahydro-4,7-methano-1H-indenyl
propionate(MixtureofIsomers);
Dicyclopentadiene
propionate;
tricyclodecenyl
propionate;
Tricyclo[5.2.1.02,6]dec-3-enyl propionate; Verdyl propionate
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

HEXAMETHYLINDANOPYRAN
CAS # 1222-05-5
EC # 214-946-9
1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta[γ]-2-benzopyran
1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8hexamethylcyclopenta[γ]-2-benzopyrane;
1,3,4,6,7,8Hexahydro-4,6,6,8,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta-2benzopyran; Abbalide; Galaxolide; Galaxolide 50; Galaxolide
50BB; Galaxolide 50IPM; Galaxolide White; HHCB; Pearlide
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 a study, n=3 (0.2%) had positive reactions to the compound, tested
10% in isopropyl myristate (with 1 patient reacting positively to the diluent) (16). The
Larsen 2001 study, testing with HHCB 7% pet., found 3.4% positive reactions in 178
patients with known contact allergy to fragrance ingredients (19). In the An 2005 study,
5 of 422 consecutive patients, i.e., 1.2%, had a positive reaction to “Galaxolide 50”,
tested at 5% (13) (test concentration 2% pet.). The DeGroot 1985 study identified 3(1.7%) positive reactions among 179 patients using a 25% PT preparation of HHCB
(25). In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5%“Galaxolide 50 ®” in pet., tested in 100 consecutive patients in Stockholm, wereobserved (15).
Additional information:
0403/00(HHCB)-

Opinionconcerning

Hexahydro-hexamethyl-cyclopenta(γ)-2-benzopyran

0610/02 - Opinion on Hexahydro-hexamethyl-Cyclopenta (y)-2-Benzopyran (HHCB) (norestrictions) It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

HEXYL ACETATEO

CAS # 142-92-7

O

EC # 205-572-7
Hexyl ethanoate
Acetic acid, hexyl ester, Hexyl alcohol, acetate; 1-Hexyl
acetate; Exceed 600; Hexyl acetate; Hexyl ester acetic
191

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

acid;; NSC 7323; n-Hexyl acetate; n-Hexyl ethanoate
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

HEXYL CINNAMALO

CAS # 101-86-0
EC # 202-983-3
α-Hexyl-cinnamaldehyde2-(Phenylmethylene)octanal; 2-Hexyl-3-phenyl-2-propenal;
2-Hexylcinnamaldehyde; Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde; NSC
406799;NSC
46150;
α-Hexylcinnamaldehyde;
αHexylcinnamic aldehyde; α-Hexylcinnamyl aldehyde; α-nHexyl-β-phenylacrolein; α-n-Hexylcinnamaldehyde
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 87
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, hexyl cinnamal(synonymous: alpha-hexyl cinnamal, AHCA) is classified as “less frequently reported
allergen”; 2 studies with 1 case and 1 study with 7 cases of contact allergy to thiscompound in patients with eczema from cosmetic products were found (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, in the Frosch 2002 a study, 0.3% positive PT
reactions to consecutive patients were noted (16). In the subsequent EU 2005 study, 2of 1701 patients had positive reactions to AHCA, and n=16 doubtful or irritant to AHCA
at 10% in pet. (10). The IVDK 2007 study yielded n=3, i.e, 0.2% (95% CI: 0.03 –0.4%) positive reactions in 2019 consecutively PTed patients, using 10% pet. as test
concentration (4). In the Groningen 2009 study, 0.6% (95% CI: 0.1 – 2.2%) had
positive reactions to this allergen, using a lower test concentration of 5% pet. (6).
Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).
Hexyl cinnamal is regarded as “a recommended positive control for skin sensitization
testing“, e.g., in the context of the LLNA (118).

HEXYL SALICYLATE
CAS # 6259-76-3
EC # 228-408-6
Hexyl-2-hydroxybenzoate
Salicylic acid, hexyl ester;
salicylate; n-Hexyl salicylate

1-Hexylsalicylate;Current regulation: /Clinical data:
192

Hexyl

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

None of the 218 patients with known contact allergy to fragrance ingredients reacted
positively to this compound (tested at 5% in pet.) in the Larsen 2002 c study (1).
Additional information:
In a RIFM review, 2 human sensitisation experiments are mentioned which yielded noevidence of sensitising potential (HRIPT, n=103, maximisation test, n=22) (119). It is a
“top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

HIBISCOLIDE
CAS # 6707-60-4
EC # 229-755-6
1,6-Dioxacycloheptadecan-7-one
Undecanoic acid, 11-(4-hydroxybutoxy)-, ο-lactone; 12-Oxa1,16-hexadecanolide; Cervolide; Musk 781; NSC 34741;
12-Oxahexadecan-16-olide
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
None of the 178 patients with known contact allergy to fragrance ingredients reacted
positively to "12-oxahexadecanolide" (tested at 5% in pet.) in the Larsen 2001 study(19).
Additional information: /HYDROABIETYL ALCOHOL, when used as a fragrance
ingredient
CAS # 13393-93-6
EC # 236-476-3(1R,4αR,4βS,10αR)-Tetradecahydro-1,4α-dimethyl-7(1-methylethyl)-1-Phenanthrenemethanol
Tetradecahydro-1,4a-dimethyl-7-(1-methylethyl)henanthrenemethanol; Tetrahydroabietyl alcohol

1-Current regulation: AnnexII, n° 440
Clinical data:
In the deGroot 2000 study, 17 of 1825 consecutively tested patients had positive
reactions to hydroabietyl alcohol (10% pet.) (12).
Additional information:
Commercial hydroabietyl alcohol consists of di- and tetrahydroabitetyl alcohol together
with non-modified colophony (120)HYDROXYISOHEXYL

3-CYCLOHEXENE
193

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________CARBOXALDEHYDE (HICC) regioisomers
CAS # 31906-04-4 / 51414-25-6
EC # 250-863-4 / 257-187-9
4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1carboxaldehyde (31906-04-4)
3-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-3-cyclohexene-1carboxaldehyde (51414-25-6)

51414-25-6

31906-04-4:
4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl)-3cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde;
4-(4-Methyl-4hydroxyamyl)cyclohex-3-ene carboxaldehyde; Lyral
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 79
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the previous opinion (33) HICC is classified
as frequent allergen, causing allergic reactions in about 2.8% in consecutive PT patients,
two thirds of these being relevant (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, in the Frosch 2002 a study, 2.7% of the 1855
consecutive patients reacted positively to HICC (5% pet.) (16). In the EU 2005 study,
28 of 1701 patients (1.7%, 95% CI: 1.1 – 2.4%) reacted positively to 5% HICC in pet.
(10). In 21325 patients PTed consecutively in the IVDK 2007 study, 2.4% (95% CI: 2.2– 2.6%) positive reactions were noted to 5% HICC in pet. (4). Similar to other studies,
HICC was the most common single fragrance allergen among 320 patients tested in the
Groningen 2009 study, with 3.1% (95% CI: 1.5 – 5.7%) positive reactions despite
testing with a lower concentration of 2% pet. (6). In the An 2005 study, 7 of 422
consecutive patients, i.e., 1.7%, had positive reaction (13). The Belsito 2006 study (20)yielded a relatively low prevalence of 0.4% (7 of 1603; exact 95% CI (recalculated):
0.17 – 0.90%) positive reactions with 5% HICC in pet. and even less with lower test
concentrations; possible reasons for the much lower prevalence were discussed. The
IVDK 2010 study, 2.36% (95% CI: 2.19 - 2.53%) of 37270 consecutively tested
patients reacted to HICC (7). In a study from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patients werepatch tested with an extended fragrance series; n=8 reacted positively to HICC (48).
Further clinical data with a focus on quantitative dose-response (see also section 4.3), is
discussed in (121).
Among the early case reports, S.A. Hendriks reported the case of a 20 year old patientdeveloping axillary dermatitis after 5 months use of a deodorant containing HICC (122).
Additional information: /HYDROXYCITRONELLAL
CAS # 107-75-5
EC # 203-518-7
7-Hydroxy-3,7-dimethyl-octanal(±)-Hydroxycitronellal; 3,7-Dimethyl-7-hydroxyoctanal; 7Hydroxy-3,7-dimethyloctanal;
7-Hydroxycitronellal;
Citronellal hydrate; Citronellal, hydroxy-; Cyclalia; Cyclosia;
Cyclosia base; Fixol; Hydroxycitronellal; Laurine; Lilyl
aldehyde; Muguet synthetic; Muguettine principle; NSC
194

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

406740; Phixia
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 72
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the previous opinion (33), hydroxycitronellal,
one of the 8 components of the FM I, is classified as frequent allergen, causing allergic
reactions in about 0.75% in consecutive PT patients and accounting for 6 to 16% ofreactions to the FM I. Allergic reactions had been observed in 10 – 45% of patients witheczema from cosmetic products (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded 1.3% (95% CI: 0.9– 1.9%) positive reactions in 2063 consecutively PTed patients (4). In the Groningen2009 study, 2.2% (95% CI: 0.9 – 4.5%) had positive reactions to this compound, tested
at 2% pet., i.e., twice the commonly used concentration (6). The Sugiura 2000 study
observed 1% positive PT reactions (test concentration 5% pet.) in 1483 patients tested
for suspected cosmetic dermatitis (14). In the Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing 747 patientswith suspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded 1.5% positive reactions(22). The IVDK 2010 study, 1.17% (95% CI: 0.48 – 1.85%) of 1214 consecutively
tested patients reacted to the compound, while 2.95% (95% CI: 2.43 – 3.47%) of 4359
of patients tested in a more aimed manner, partly as break-down testing to the FM I,
had a positive PT reaction (7). In a study from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patients were
tested with hydroxycitronellal, yielding 6 positive reactions (48).
Additional information:
Hydroxycitronellal is a synthetic fragrance, which only recently has been found in a few
essential oils, e.g., of a Narcissus species and in essential oils of pepper (53)HYDROXYCITRONELLOL
CAS # 107-74-4
EC # 203-517-1
3,7-Dimethyl-7-octanediol
2,6-Dimethyl-2,8-octanediol;
3,7-Dimethyl-1,7-octanediol;
3,7-Dimethyloctan-1,7-diol;
Citronellol,hydroxy-;
Hydroxyciol; Hydroxycitronellol; NSC 406140; NSC 67886
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
This compound elicited 6.0% positive PT reactions in 218 fragrance sensitive individuals(Larsen 2002 c, (1)).
Additional information:
A RIFM review is available, reporting results of a human induction study (maximisationtest) in 25 volunteers, yielding no evidence of sensitisation (123).

IONONE isomeric mixture

O

CAS # 8013-90-9
EC # 232-396-8
195

O

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

IononeIrisone, mixture of alpha- and beta ionone
Current regulation: /Clinical data: / (see single isomers)
Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance, further specified with “mixed isomers” (IFRA, pers.
comm.2010).
INCI: “MIXED IONONES”, with CAS # 14901-07-6 / 6901-97-9 / 8013-909 (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.deta
ils&id=35383, last accessed 2010-07-13).
A RIFM review is available on “ionone” (124), quoting negative human andexperimental results.

alpha-IONONE
CAS # 127-41-3
EC # 204-841-6(3E)-4-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3-Buten2-one(E)-4-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3-Buten-2-one;(5E)-Ionone; (E)-4-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3buten-2-one; (E)-α-Ionone; (±)-trans-α-Ionone; (±)-αIonone;
4-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3-buten-2one;
4-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexenyl)-3-buten-2-one;trans-α-Ionone; α-Cyclocitrylideneacetone; α-Ionone
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5% alphaionone in pet., tested in 205 consecutive patients, were observed (15).
Additional information: A RIFM review is available (125).

beta-IONONE
CAS # 79-77-6
EC # 201-224-3(3E)-4-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3-buten2-one(E)-4-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3-buten-2-one;(E)-β-Ionone; Ionone beta; trans-β-Ionone; β-Ionone
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 1995 dose finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5% beta196

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

ionone in pet., tested in 205 consecutive patients, were observed (15).
Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). A RIFM review is available (126).

ISOAMYL ACETATE
CAS # 123-92-2
EC # 204-662-3
3-Methylbutyl acetate
1-Butanol, 3-methyl-, acetate; Acetic acid, isoamyl
ester; Isopentyl alcohol, acetate; 3-Methyl-1-butanol
acetate;3-Methyl-1-butyl
acetate;3-Methylbutyl
acetate; 3-Methylbutyl ethanoate; Acetic acid 3-methyl1-butyl ester; Acetic acid 3-methylbutyl ester; Acetic
acid isopentyl ester; Banana oil; Isoamyl acetate;Isoamyl alcohol acetate; Isoamyl ethanoate; Isopentyl
acetate; Isopentyl ethanoate; NSC 9260; Pear oil; iAmyl acetate; iso-Amyl acetate; iso-Pentyl acetate
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).
In
CosIng,itislistedas“solvent”(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=76810,
last accessed 2010-07-13)

197

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________ISOAMYL SALICYLATE
CAS # 87-20-7
EC # 201-730-4
3-Methylbutyl-2hydroxybenzoate
Isopentyl 2-Hydroxybenzoate; Isopentyl salicylate; Salicylicacid, isopentyl ester (6CI,8CI); Isopentyl alcohol, salicylate;
3-Methylbutyl
salicylate;Isoamylo-hydroxybenzoate;
Isoamyl salicylate; Isopentyl salicylate; NSC 7952
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The DeGroot 1985 study identified 1 (0.6%) positive reactions among 179 patients using
a 50% PT preparation of this compound – this reaction may have been due to an“excited back syndrome” and is thus a limited evidence (25). In the Frosch 1995 dose
finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5% isoamyl salicylate in pet., tested
in 95 consecutive patients, were observed (15).
Additional information: A RIFM review is available (127).

ISOBERGAMATE
CAS # 68683-20-5
EC # 272-066-0
4-(Isopropyl)cyclohexadiene-1-ethyl formate
Structureisincompletly
defined4-(1-Methylethyl)-1,?-cyclohexadiene-1-ethyl formate
4-(Isopropyl)cyclohexadiene-1-ethyl
methanoate;menthadienyl formate; Menthadiene-7-methyl formate
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 170
Clinical data: /Additional information: A RIFM review is available (128).

ISOBORNYL ACETATE
CAS # 125-12-2
EC # 204-727-6(1R,2R,4R)-1,7,7-trimethyl-Bicyclo[2.2.1]hept-2-yl
acetateBicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-ol,
1,7,7-Trimethyl-,acetate,(1R,2R,4R)-rel- ; Bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-ol, 1,7,7-trimethyl, acetate, exo-; Isoborneol, acetate; (±)-Isobornyl acetate;
Isobornyl acetate; NSC 62486; Pichtosin; Pichtosine; exoBornyl acetate
198

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5% isobornyl
acetate in pet., tested in 107 consecutive patients in High Wycombe, were observed(15).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

199

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________ISOEUGENOL
CAS # 97-54-1
EC # 202-590-7
2-Methoxy-4-(1-propen-1-yl)-phenol
Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)- ; Phenol, 2-methoxy-4propenyl-; 1-(3-Methoxy-4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-propene; 2Methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)phenol;
2-Methoxy-4propenylphenol; 3-Methoxy-4-hydroxy-1-propenylbenzene;
4-Hydroxy-3-methoxy-1-propenylbenzene;
4-Hydroxy-3methoxy-β-methylstyrene; 4-Propenylguaiacol; Isoeugenol;
NSC 6769
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 73
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the previous opinion (33), isoeugenol, one of
the 8 components of the FM I, is classified as frequent allergen, causing allergic
reactions in about 1.9% in consecutive PT patients and accounting for 6 to 22% ofreactions to the FM I. Allergic reactions had been observed in 2 – 25% of patients witheczema from cosmetic products (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded 1.3% (95% CI: 0.8– 1.8%) positive reactions in 2063 consecutively PTed patients (4). In the Groningen2009 study, 1.3% (95% CI: 0.3 – 3.2%) had positive reactions to isoeugenol, tested at
2% pet., i.e., twice the commonly used concentration (6). In the Wöhrl 2001 study,
PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded 5.4%
positive reactions (22). At St Johns Institute of Dermatology in London 3636 subjects
were patch tested with isoeugenol 2001-2005, 97 of whom were positive. Year-on-year
incidence showed an increasing trend, with an overall incidence of 2.67% (129). The
IVDK 2010 study, 1.62% (95% CI: 0.87 – 2.38%) of 1214 consecutively tested patients
reacted to the compound, while 3.41% (95% CI: 2.90 – 3.92%) of 5747 of patients
tested in a more aimed manner, partly as break-down testing to the FM I, had a positive
PT reaction (7). In a study from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patients were patch tested
with an extended fragrance series; n=11 reacted positively to isoeugenol (48).
Additional information:
Isoeugenol occurs in a cis- (CAS 5912-86-7) and a trans-isomers (CAS 5932-68-3), thelatter dominating in trade products (82-88%) (53).
Isoeugenyl methyl ether caused 7.3% positive reactions in the Larsen 2002 c study (1).
A number of derivatives of isoeugenol, such as isoeugenyl acetate, transisoeugenol,
isoeugenyl benzoate, isoeugenyl phenylacetate, isoeugenyl methyl ether and benzyl
isoeugenyl have been examined in 2261 consecutive patients; a varying proportion of
positive patch test reactions and a varying proportion of concomitant reactions with
isoeugenol have been observed (130). In an earlier study, 5 of 7 patients positive to
isoeugenol also displayed positive reactions to isoeugenol acetate (1.2% eth.) (131)(see also section 5 and 6).

ISOLONGIFOLENEKETONEO

CAS # 33407-62-4
200

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

EC # 245-890-3
1,3,4,6,7,8a-Hexahydro-1,1,5,5-tetramethyl-2H-2,4amethanonaphthalen-8(5H)-oneHexahydro-1,1,5,5-tetramethyl-2H-2,4amethanonaphthalen-8(5H)-one
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Larsen 2001 study idenfied 1 in 178 patients with known contact allergy to
fragrance ingredients who reacted positively in the PT (5% pet.) (19).
Additional information:
Not listed in CosIng under this CAS #. Other CAS # reported in RIFM review 13:•••

29461-14-1 CosIng: INCI name “ISOLONGIFOLENE KETONE EXO”;
23787-90-8 CosIng: INCI name “ISOLONGIFOLANONE”;
29461-13-0: CosIng: INCI name “HEXAHYDROTETRAMETHYLMETHANONAPHTHALEN-8-ONE”.

alpha-ISOMETHYL IONONE
CAS 127-51-5
EC 204-846-3
3-Methyl-4-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3buten-2-one
4-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3-methyl-3-buten-2one; Cetone Alpha; Isomethyl-α-ionone; NSC 66432; αCetone
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 90

gamma-Methylionone
CAS 7388-22-9
EC /According to CosIng, “alpha-ISOMETHYL IONONE” (CAS # 127-51-5) and “gammaMethylionone” (CAS # 7388-22-99) are synonyms, with one CAS number, and one
preferred chemical name. The substance(s) are accordingly treated in the 1999 opinion(33) as one. As this treatment is also found in the literature, both substances arereviewed together.

13

Opdyke, D. L. J.; Letizia, C.
Monographs on fragrance raw materials.
Isolongifolanone. Food and Chemical Toxicology (1983), 21(6), 859
201

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, “gamma-methylionone” isclassified as “less frequently reported allergen”; 1 study with 2 cases and 2 studies with
1 case were found among patients with eczema from cosmetic products (33).
The IVDK 2007 study yielded n=1, i.e, 0.1% (95% CI: 0.00 – 0.2%) positive reactionsin 2004 consecutively PTed patients (4). In the subsequent period (2005-2008), n=986
patients were tested in the IVDK 2010 study, with no positive reactions (7). In the
Groningen 2009 study, n=2, i.e. 0.6% (95% CI: 0.1 – 2.2%) had positive reactions tothis allergen, tested at only 1% pet. (6).In a Korean study with 422 consecutive
patients, 2.1% reacted positively to “alpha isomethyl ionone (gamma-methylionone),
CAS # 127-51-5”, tested 5% pet. (13)Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010) under the label of “alphaISOMETHYL IONONE (CAS # 127-51-5)”.
A RIFM review is available, listing 4 human sensitisation experiments employing
different study protocols – all yielding negative results (132). Another review is available
by Hostynek and Maibach (133), both referring to “alpha-ISOMETHYL IONONE (CAS #127-51-5)”.

202

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________(DL)-LIMONENE
CAS # 138-86-3
EC # 231-732-0
1-Methyl-4-(1-methylethenyl)-cyclohexene
p-Mentha-1,8-diene; (±)-Dipentene; (±)-Limonene; (±)-αLimonene;
1,8-p-Menthadiene;
1-Methyl-4-(1methylethenyl)cyclohexene;
1-Methyl-4-isopropenyl-1cyclohexene; 1-Methyl-4-isopropenylcyclohexene; 1-Methyl-pisopropenyl-1-cyclohexene;
4-Isopropenyl-1-methyl-1cyclohexene; 4-Isopropenyl-1-methylcyclohexene; Cajeputen;
Cajeputene; Cinen; Cinene; DL-Limonene; Dipenten; Dipentene;
Eulimen; Flavor orange; Goldflush II; Kautschin; Limonen;
Limonene; NSC 21446; NSC 844; Nesol; Orange X; Orange
flavor; PC 560; Roti-Histol; SF 001; dl-Limonene; α-Limonene
Current regulation: Annex III, part1, n° 88, 167, 168
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, d-limonene (CAS 5989-27-5) isclassified as “less frequently reported allergen in relation to cosmetic exposure”; with contact
allergy to oxidised limonene not infrequently reported in the literature (33).
Since 1999, several studies have been performed using limonene where the oxidation state is
not given, but intended to be low. In one study, 0.6% positive reactions to limonene (3%pet.) were observed in 1606 consecutive patients (17). The IVDK 2007 study yielded n=3, i.e.
0.1% (95% CI: 0.03 – 0.4%) positive reactions in 2396 patients consecutively PTed withlimonene (2% pet.) (4). The IVDK 2010 study, 0.28% (95% CI: 0 – 0.57%; percentages
standardised for age and sex) of 1241 patients PTed with dipentene reacted to the compound(7). In the Groningen 2009 study, no positive reactions to this allergen, tested at 2% pet.,were observed in 320 patients (6).
Regarding selected case reports, a case of a 40 year old citrus fruit picker with work related
hand dermatitis and bronchial asthma has been described, who tested extreme positive to DLlimonene (2% pet.), and, less extremely, to citronellol and to the biocide dichlorophene(134). Moreover, limonene is used as a solvent in technical applications and cleaning and canlead to allergic contact dermatitis (e.g., a histopathology technicians (135, 136) or a painterand decorator (137)). In “water-free” hand cleansers it is reported to be used inconcentrations around 10 – 20% (137). Wax polishes may contain dipentene and have caused
one reported case of occupational ACD in a car mechanic (138). Another case of occupational
ACD from dipentene in honing oil has been reported (139). In a case series from Sweden, 2 of
105 car mechanics patch tested for occupational contact dermatitis had positive reactions tooxidised d-limonene (5% pet.) (140).
Additional information:
Limonene is a monocyclic monoterpene existing in two enantiomers: (R)-(+)-limonene (CAS5989-27-5) and (S)-(–)-limonene (CAS 5989-54-8). Racemic limonene is known as
dipentene.
The allergenicity of limonene is closely related to oxidation (71, 72, 141, 142). It has been
demonstrated that both enantiomers, R-(+)- and S-(-)-limonene sponateously autoxidize, andthat the primary oxidation products formed, the hydroperoxides, are strong and clinically
relevant contact allergens. Among 2411 consecutive patients in a multi-centre European
study, 63 (2.6 % [95%CI: 2.0-3.3]) reacted to oxidised (R)-(+)-and/or (S)-(–)-limonene(3.0% pet.) (72). In other multi-studies also, a considerable proportion of patients showed
203

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

positive patch test reactions to oxidised R-(+)- limonene, e.g.,•

between 0.3% and 5.1% of subgroups of 2800 patients in Stockholm and Leuven,
depending on test concentration, oxidation state and department(141),• between 0.3% and 6.5% in 4 different departments in altogether 2273 patients (72,143).
The primary oxidation products are the major allergens forming specific antigens (BråredChristensson J, Matura M, Bäcktorp C, Börje A, Nilsson JLG, Karlberg A-T. Hydroperoxides
form specific antigens in contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 55: 230-237.).
Current IFRA standards emphasise “a peroxide value of less than 20 millimoles peroxides per
litre,
determinedaccording
to
the
FMA
method”(http://www.ifraorg.org/Home/Code,+Standards+Compliance/IFRA+Standards/page.aspx/56,
last accessed 2009-11-11). For a more general discussion see section 5.
There is no scientific rational for the difference in peroxide value allowed for limonene (20millimoles peroxides per litre) compared to linalool (10 millimoles peroxides per litre). Specificvalues for hydroperoxides, which are allergens, would be desirable.

LINALOOL
CAS # 78-70-6 (isomeric mixture)
EC # 201-134-4; 245-083-6
See:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=27933
3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-ol(±)-Linalool; 2,6-Dimethyl-2,7-octadien-6-ol; 2-Methyl-1prenyl-3-buten-2-ol; 3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadiene-3-ol; 3,7Dimethyl-3-hydroxy-1,6-octadiene; L 260-2; Linalol; Linalool;
Linalyl alcohol; Linanool; NSC 3789; dl-Linalool; β-Linalool
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 84
Clinicaldata:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, linalool in non-oxidized
form is classified as “less frequently reported allergen”; with 4 cases of contact allergy
reported in 2 studies on patients with eczema from cosmetic products (33).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, studies have been performed on contact allergy
to linalool, oxidation state not given, but intended to be low. In the Larsen 2002 c study,
none of the 218 patients with known contact allergy to fragrance ingredients had apositive reaction to linalool 5% pet., as prepared specially for this study (1). The IVDK2007 study yielded 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1 – 0.6%) positive reactions in 2401 patientsconsecutively tested with stabilised linalool (10% pet.) (4). The IVDK 2010 study, 1patient had a weak, and another a ++ reaction among the n=985 patients tested with
10% linalool (stabilised) in pet. (7). In the Groningen 2009 study, n=2, i.e. 0.6% (95%
CI: 0.1 – 2.2%) had positive reactions to this allergen (6). The deGroot 2000 study with1825 consecutively tested patients yielded 3 positive reactions to linalool (12). The
DeGroot 1985 study found no positive reactions among 179 patients using a 30 % PT
preparation of linalool (25).
Additional information:
The allergenicity of linalool is closely related to oxidation and the primary oxidation
products, the hydroperoxides, are the main allergens (144). In a clinical study 2002204

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

2003 in 6 European centres including 1511 consecutive patients, 1.3% showed a positive
reaction to oxidized linalool (2.0% pet.) and 1.1% to the hydroperoxide fraction (65). A
recent dose-response study in Sweden including 3400 patients in two test centres
showed a positive reaction in 5.3% of the 1725 patients tested with oxidized linalool 6%
pet. (145).
A review by RIFM is available both regarding linalool (146) and linalool “and related
esters” (147). Another review is available by Hostynek and Maibach (148).
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).
Additional CAS numbers exist for the single isomers: CAS # 126-90-9 (S-isomer), CAS #126-91-0 (R-isomer); however, in the studies reviewed the isomeric mixture has beenused throughout.

LINALYL ACETATE
CAS # 115-95-7
EC # 204-116-4
3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-yl acetat
1,6-Octadien-3-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, acetate; Linalool acetate
K; (±)-Linaloyl acetate; (±)-Linalyl acetate; 1,5-Dimethyl-1vinyl-4-hexenyl
acetate;
3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadien-3-yl
acetate; 3-Acetoxy-3,7-dimethyl-1,6-octadiene; Acetic acidlinalool ester; Bergamiol; Bergamol; Bergamot mint oil;
Linalyl acetate; NSC 2138; dl-Linalool acetate
Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
In 100 patients tested in Odense, DK, in the early 90s, no positive reactions wereobserved with 1 and 5% linalyl acetate in pet. (15). In the Frosch 2002 a study, testingwith linalyl acetate (10% pet.), 0.2% positive PT reactions to consecutive patients werenoted (16). Similarly, the RIFM review mentioned quotes a number of studies where noallergic reactions to this compound had been observed, with the exception of one
positive reaction in a Dutch study in 1988(149).
Additional information:
This is the main component of lavender oil (30%), also part of bergamot oil, neroli oil,peppermint oil, lemon oil and jasmine oil (53).
Linalyl acetate autoxidizes spontaneously at air exposure and the major allergens, thehydoperoxides, are the primary oxidation products (150). The pattern of autoxidation issimilar to that for linalool and as the acetate can be be metabolically hydrolysed to thecorresponding alcohol cross reactions to allergens from oxidized linalool should bepossible. This was indicated in a study of lavender oil and oxidised linalyl acetate which
elicited positive PT reactions in some patients with known contact allergy to oxidised
linalool (n=3) (151).
A RIFM review is available reporting 7 human sensitisation experiments yielding few orno cases of sensitisation (152).
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

205

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Longifolene
CAS # 475-20-7
EC # 207-491-2(1S,3aR,4S,8aS)-Decahydro-4,8,8-trimethyl-9methylene-1,4-methanoazulene
1,4-Methanoazulene,
decahydro-4,8,8-trimethyl-9methylene-, (1S,3aR,4S,8aS)-(+)-; 1,4-Methanoazulene,
decahydro-4,8,8-trimethyl-9-methylene-,[1S(1α,3aβ,4α,8aβ)]-; (+)-Longifolene; Junipen; Junipene;
Kuromatsuen; Kuromatsuene; Longifolen; NSC 150808;
d-Longifolene; α-Longifolene
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
It is a “top 200” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010)
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details_v2&id=77412
This substance is listed in the Register of Flavouring Substances pursuant to Article 3(1) ofRegulation EC No. 2232/96 (28 Oct 1996) that lays down a procedure for flavouring substances used
or intended for use in or on foodstuffs. Adopted February 23, 1999.
A RIFM review is available citing one negative human maximisation test (n=25) with 10% pet.
(153).

MENTHOL
CAS # 1490-04-6 / 89-78-1 / 2216-51-5
EC # 216-074-4 / 239-388-3 / 218-690-9

OH

5-Methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-cyclohexanol (1490-04-6)

1490-04-6(1R,2S,5R)-rel-5-Methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)cyclohexanol (89-78-1)(1R,2S,5R)-5-Methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-cyclohexanol(2216-51-5)
Other names:
1490-04-6: Menthol; 1-Methyl-4-isopropyl-3-cyclohexanol;
2-Isopropyl-5-methylcyclohexan-1-ol;
2-Isopropyl-5methylcyclohexanol; 3-Hydroxy-p-menthane; 5-Methyl-2-(1methylethyl)cyclohexanol;
5-Methyl-2isopropylcyclohexanol; Menthyl alcohol; p-Menthan-3-ol
89-78-1:(1α,2β,5α)-5-Methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)cyclohexanol;
cis-1,3,trans-1,4-Menthol;dl-Menthol;(1R,2S,5R)-rel-5-Methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)cyclohexanol;(±)-Menthol; DL-Menthol; Fisherman's Friend Lozenges;
Hexahydrothymol;
Menthacamphor;Menthol;Menthomenthol;
NSC
2603;
Peppermint
camphor;Racementhol; Therapeutic Mineral Ice; Thymomenthol; racMenthol
206

89-78-1

2216-51-5

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

2216-51-5:(1R,2S,5R)-5-Methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)cyclohexanol; [1R-(1α,2β,5α)]-5-Methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)cyclohexanol; (1R,3R,4S)-(-)-Menthol; (-)-Menthol; (-)Menthyl alcohol; (-)-trans-p-Methan-cis-3-ol; (1R)-(-)Menthol; (1R,2S,5R)-(-)-Menthol; (1R,2S,5R)-2-Isopropyl-5methylcyclohexan-1-ol;(1R,2S,5R)-2-Isopropyl-5methylcyclohexanol;(R)-(-)-Menthol;
1R-Menthol;
LMenthol; L-Mentholum; Levomenthol; NSC 62788; l-(-)Menthol; l-Menthol
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
Among 512 patients referred from a dental department for diagnostic work-up of various
intraoral symptoms and complaints within 4 years, 10 patients had positive (+ to +++)PT reactions to menthol 5% pet. at D4, mostly reporting dramatic improvement after
cessation of use of peppermint-containing oral products (154). In 63 patients positive to
the FM I, 1 had a positive PT reaction to menthol, 5% pet., in the Santucci 1987 study(28). The IVDK 2010 study, 1 of 1147 patients tested with 1% menthol in pet. had aweak positive reaction to menthol (7).
A case of contact allergy to “peppermint and menthol” in a transdermal therapeutic
system with flurbiprofen for lumbar pain has been described (155).Moreover, a case ofrhinitis caused by different menthol-containing products, diagnostically proven byrepeatedly positive urticarial reactions after application of 2% menthol in pet. or 5%
peppermint oil in pet., has been reported (156). “A case of asthma due to menthol isreported in a 40-year-old woman with no history of asthma or any other allergy. During
the last two years, the patient had presented dyspnoea, wheezing and nasal symptoms
when exposed to mentholated products such as toothpaste and candies. The aetiology
was suggested by the history of exposure and diagnosis was established by skin tests
and bronchial challenge with menthol. The patient achieved control of symptoms by
avoiding menthol and its derivatives.“ (157).
Additional information:
Menthol is an ingredient of several essential oils, like peppermint oil, and has been
identified as causative allergen in case reports listed above.
Four stereoisomeric forms are known. Natural menthol occurs as L-form (CAS 2216-515), trade products are DL-menthol (CAS 1490-04-6). D-form: CAS 89-78-1, racemic:
CAS 15356-70-4. Sensitive to light, air and heat (53).
L-menthol and menthol (isomer not specified) are “top 100” substances (IFRA, pers.
comm.2010). RIFM reviews are available regarding “menthol” (158), D-menthol (159),
L-menthol (160), DL-menthol (161) and menthol, racemic (162). A CIR expert panel
review is available (163).

METHOXYCITRONELLAL
CAS # 3613-30-7
EC # 222-784-5
7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyl-octanal
7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyloctanal;
7-Methoxy-6,7dihydrocitronellal; 7-Methoxycitronellal; Methoxycitronellal;
Methoxydihydrocitronellal
207

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
Nakayama et al. found 1974 (after (29)) 12 “strong positive” and 10 “weak positive”
reactions to methoxycitronellal (unknown test concentration), with cross-reactions tohydroxycitronellal (proportion not given), in 183 patients.
Additional information: /METHOXYTRIMETHYLHEPTANOLCAS # 41890-92-0
EC # 255-574-7
7-Methoxy-3,7-dimethyl-2-octanol
3,7-Dimethyl-7-methoxy-2-octanol; Dihydromethoxyelgenol;
Elesant; Osyrol
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Larsen 2002 c study, 0.9% of the patients with known contact allergy to
fragrance ingredients had a positive PT reaction to this ingredient not reported asallergen previously (1).
Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (128) citing 1 negative maximisation test (n=27).

METHYL p-ANISATE
CAS # 121-98-2
EC # 204-513-2
Methyl-4-methoxybenzoate
p-Anisic acid, methyl ester; 4-(Methoxycarbonyl)anisole; 4Methoxybenzoic acid methyl ester; Methyl p-anisate; Methyl
p-methoxybenzoate; NSC 7324; p-Methoxybenzoic acidmethyl ester
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Malten 1984 study, n=1 (0.5%) of 182 patients displayed a positive PT reaction
to methyl anisate 4% pet. (24).
Additional information: /METHYL ANTHRANILATE
CAS # 134-20-3
208

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

EC # 205-132-4
Methyl 2-aminobenzoate
Anthranilic acid, methyl ester; 2-(Methoxycarbonyl)aniline;
2-Aminobenzoic acid methyl ester; 2-Carbomethoxyaniline;
Bird Shield; Grain 96-1; Methyl 2-aminobenzoate; Methyl 6aminobenzoate;
Methylanthranilate;
Methyloaminobenzoate; NSC 3109; ReJex-iT; Rejex-iT AP 50; RejexiTTP
40;
Sunarome
UVA;[2(Methoxycarbonyl)phenyl]amine;o(Methoxycarbonyl)aniline; o-Aminobenzoic acid methyl
ester; o-Carbomethoxyaniline
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In 91 Israeli patients with a positive or doubtful reaction to FM I or MP methyl
anthranilate was tested (conc. not given), with a negative result (164).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

METHYLENEDIOXYPHENYL METHYLPROPANAL
CAS # 1205-17-0
EC # 214-881-6
3-(1,3-Benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-methylpropanal
Hydrocinnamaldehyde, α-methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)-; 2Methyl-3-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)propanal; 2-Methyl-3(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)propionaldehyde;
3-(3,4Methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-methylpropanal;
Heliobouquet;
Heliofresh; Heliogan; Helional; Helipropanal; NSC 22282;
Tropional; α-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole-5-propanal; α-Methyl3,4-(methylenedioxy)hydrocinnamaldehyde
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

METHYLBENZYL ACETATE
CAS # 93-92-5
EC # 202-288-5
1-Phenylethyl acetate
Benzenemethanol, α-methyl-, acetate ; Benzyl alcohol, αmethyl-, acetate ; (±)-Styrallyl acetate; (±)-α-Methylbenzyl
acetate;(±)-α-Phenethyl
acetate;1-Acetoxy-1phenylethane;
1-Phenylethyl
acetate;Gardeniol
II;
Gardenol;
Methylphenylcarbinylacetate;Methylphenylcarbinol acetate; NSC 2397; Styrallyl acetate;
209

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Styrylallyl acetate; dl-1-Phenylethyl acetate; sec-Phenethyl
acetate; sec-Phenylethyl acetate; α-Methylbenzenemethanol
acetate; α-Methylbenzyl acetate; α-Methylbenzyl alcohol,
acetate; α-Phenethyl acetate; α-Phenylethyl acetate
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

METHYL CINNAMATE
CAS # 103-26-4
EC # 203-093-8
Methyl 3-phenylprop-2-enoate
3-Phenyl-2-propenoic acid methyl ester;
Cinnamic acid,methyl ester; 3-Phenyl-2-propenoic acid methyl ester; 3Phenylacrylic acid methyl ester; Methyl 3-phenyl-2propenoate;
Methyl3-phenylacrylate;
Methyl3phenylpropenoate; Methyl cinnamate; Methyl cinnamylate;
NSC 9411; SemaSORB 9815
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
Patch tests with some components of Peru balsam were carried out at 8 worldwide
centers in 142 patients who had previously reacted to 25% MP. Reactions to methyl
cinnamate (dose and vehicle not reported) were observed in 6 of 142 patients (nofurther details reported) (165).
Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (166), reviewing, e.g., a number of animal studies withconflicting results. See also under Myroxylon pereirae.

6-METHYL COUMARIN
CAS # 92-48-8
EC # 202-158-8
6-Methylchromen-2-one
Coumarin, 6-methyl-; 6-MC; 6-Methyl-2H-1-benzopyran-2one; 6-Methyl-2H-chromen-2-one; 6-Methylbenzopyrone; 6Methylcoumarin; 6-Methylcoumarinic anhydride; NSC 5870;
Toncarine
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 46
Clinical data:
Two of 24 white volunteers developed a photoallergic reaction after single epicutaneous
exposure with 5% methyl coumarin in ethanol and UV-A radiation (16 J/cm²). After a
photomaximisation test, 6 of 10 subjects developed photocontact allergic reactions
210

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________(167). Cardoso et al. report on 2 photoallergic patch test reactions to this substance,
which were apparently clinically relevant, in 83 Portugese patients tested (168). Similar
results (2 of 76 patients with positive photopatchtest) were reported from New York(169).
Additional information: /METHYL DECENOL
CAS # 81782-77-6
EC # 279-815-0
4-Methyl-3-decen-5-ol

Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (170), reporting 1 negative HRIPT (n=50). It is a “top 100”
substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

METHYL DIHYDROJASMONATE
CAS # 24851-98-7
EC # 246-495-9
Methyl 2-(3-oxo-2-pentyl cyclopentyl) acetate
Cyclopentaneacetic acid, 3-oxo-2-pentyl-, methyl ester;
Kharismal; MDJ; Methyl (3-oxo-2-pentylcyclopentyl)acetate;
Methyl 3-oxo-2-pentylcyclopentane ethanoate; Hedione
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 b study, 3 of 1606 consecutive patients (0.2%) showed positive
reactions to hedione (5% pet.) (17). In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no
positive reaction to 1% and 5% hedione in pet., tested in 100 consecutive patients in
Belfast, were observed (15).
Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). An older RIFM review exists (128)
citing 1 negative human maximisation test (n=25).

METHYL IONONE (mixture of isomers)
CAS # 1335-46-2
EC # 215-635-0

211

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

1-(2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)pent-1-en-3-one
6-Methylionone
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
See METHYLIONANTHEME for one clinical case report. Regarding methyl ionone gamma,
the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study found no positive reaction to 1% and 5% of thissubstance in pet., tested in 100 consecutive patients in Belfast (15).
Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). A RIFM review is available (171).

METHYL OCTINE CARBONATE
CAS # 111-80-8
EC #Methyl 2-octynoate
Methyl 2-Nonynoate, MOC
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n°173
Clinical data:
English and Rycroft reported a case of a 19-year-old laboratory technician working in thefragrance industry, who developed hand dermatitis after contact with methyl heptine andmethyl octane carbonates; patch testing was strongly positive to both compounds at 1%
in MEK (172).
Additional information: /METHYL 2-OCTYNOATE
CAS # 111-12-6
EC # 203-836-6
Methyl oct-2-ynoate
M2O; Methyl heptin carbonate; Folione; Methyl hept-1-yne1-carboxylate; Methyl pentylacetylenecarboxylate; NSC
72098; Vert de violette artificial
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 89
Clinical data:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, methyl 2-octynoate isclassified as “less frequently reported allergen”; with only single cases of reported
contact allergy, but the observation of this compound being a strong sensitizer according
to IFRA (33), as also reported by Hostynek and Maibach (173)
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, the IVDK 2007 study yielded 0.3% (95% CI: 0.1– 0.49%) positive reactions in 2401 consecutively PTed patients (1% pet.) (4). The
IVDK 2010 study, n=1 weak positive reaction was observed in 988 patients tested withthe compound (7). In the Groningen 2009 study, n=1, i.e. 0.3% (95% CI: 0.01 – 1.7%)
212

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

had positive reactions to this allergen, tested at only 2% pet. (6). In a previous casereport of a fragrance laboratory assistant with work-related ACD both methyl heptin andmethyl octin carbonate had been found sensitisers – probably due to their very similar
chemical structure (172). In a recent bi-centric study with 350 eczema patients who
were consecutively tested with 1% and 2% M2O in pet.; 0.8% positive reactions wereobserved. However, in 3 additional cases active sensitisation, with first reactions
appearing 2 to 4 weeks after the patch test, and prompt reactions in the 2 cases repeatpatch tested, was observed (174).
Additional information: /METHYL EUGENOL
CAS # 93-15-2
EC # 202-223-0
1,2-Dimethoxy-4-(prop-2-enyl)benzene
4-Allylveratrole;
Eugenylmethylether
extra;
1,2Dimethoxy-4-allylbenzene; 1,3,4-Eugenol methyl ether; 1(3,4-Dimethoxyphenyl)-2-propene;
1-Allyl-3,4dimethoxybenzene; 3,4-Dimethoxy-1-(2-propenyl)benzene;
3,4-Dimethoxyallylbenzene;
3-(3,4Dimethoxyphenyl)propene; 4-Allyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene;
Benzene, 4-allyl-1,2-dimethoxy-; Chavibetol methyl ether;Ent 21040; Eugenol methyl ether; Eugenyl methyl ether;
Methyleugenolether;
Methyleugenylether;
Methylchavibetol;
NSC
209528;NSC
8900;
OMethyleugenol; Veratrole methyl ether; Veratrole, 4-allylCurrent regulation: Annex II, 451
Clinical data:
In a previous study by Larsen et al (2002 c), 1.8% of patients with contact allergy to
fragrance ingredients reacted positively to this compound (1).
Additional information:
Quote from the SCCS-opinion 0373/00: “Methyleugenol should not be intentionallyadded as a cosmetic ingredient. However, when fragrance compounds containing
methyleugenol naturally present in essential oils are used as components in cosmetic
products, the highest concentration of methyleugenol in the finished products must notexceed 0.01 % in fine fragrance, 0.004 % in eau de toilette, 0.002 % in a fragrance
cream, 0.0002 % in other leave-on products and in oral hygiene products, and 0.001%
in rinse-off products.” (The reason is genotoxicity and carcinogenicity).

METHYLIONANTHEME
CAS # 55599-63-8
EC #(1E)-2-Methyl-1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-1penten-3-one
mixt.
with
(3E)-3-methyl-4-(2,6,6trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3-buten-2-one
213

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

8-Methyl-α-ionone-10-methyl-α-ionone mixt.; Iralia Mixture

Current regulation: …
ClinicalOne case of ACD has been reported, caused by an E.d.C. (175).

data:

Additional information:
Patented by GIVAUDAN SA 1933, is composed of isomeric n-methylionones and isomethylionones. Methylionone has CAS # 1335-94-0 (not in CosIng) and 1335-46-2(METHYL
alpha-IONONEISOMERS);othernames:
Methyl-alphacyclocitrilydenacetone;
Iralia;Isoaldeine(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=41456, last accessed 2010-07-14).

5-METHYL-alpha-IONONE
CAS # 79-69-6
EC # 201-219-6
4-(2,5,6,6-Tetramethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-3-buten-2one
Methyl-α-Ionone; 6-Methyl-α-ionone; α-Irone
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 b study, 5 of 1606 consecutive patients (0.3%) showed positive
reactions to alpha-irone (10% pet.) (17).
Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (176), citing a (negative) human maximisation test and thestudy results quoted.

METHYL beta-NAPHTHYL ETHER
CAS # 93-04-9
EC # 202-213-6
2-Methoxynaphthalene
beta-Naphthyl methyl ether; methyl 2-naphthyl ether;
Nerolin (old); NSC 4171; Yara yara; β-Methoxynaphthalene;
β-Naphthol methyl ether; β-Naphthyl methyl ether; 2Methoxynaphthalene; Methyl β-naphthyl ether; 2-Naphthol
methyl ether; 2-Naphthyl methyl ether; 6-Methoxy-2naphthalene
Current regulation: /214

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

METHYL SALICYLATE
CAS # 119-36-8
EC # 204-317-7
Methyl 2-hydroxybenzoate
Other names:
Salicylic acid, methyl ester; 2-(Methoxycarbonyl)phenol; 2Carbomethoxyphenol; 2-Hydroxybenzoic acid methyl ester;Analgit; Anthrapole ND; Ben Gay; Exagien; Flucarmit;
Methyl ester of 2-hydroxy benzoic acid; Methyl ohydroxybenzoate; Methyl salicylate; NSC 8204; Wintergreen
oil; o-Hydroxybenzoic acid methyl ester; “Oil of wintergreen”
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The deGroot 2000 study yielded 7 positive reactions to methyl salicylate (2% pet.) in
1825 consecutive patients (12).
A case of ACD following the application of a compress bandage containing methyl
salicylate has been reported, using 2% “o.o.” as PT concentration; the dose per area of
methyl salicylate in the occlusive bandage was not reported (177). A similar case wasreported in 1977, positive to 2% methyl salicylate in olive oil, with elicitation of pruritus
and erythema after oral ingestion of acetyl salicylic acid (178).
Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (179) providing an overview on 3 human sensitisation
experiments (e.g., the HRIPT) which were all negative, and clinical data. In a number ofolder PT studies, positive test results were seen in 6 of 4600, 3 of 183, 3 of 241, 17 of585, 1 of 70, all employing a test concentration of 2%, usually in pet., according toabove review. Methyl salicylate may occur in topical analgesic (OTC) medications, inGermany, for instance, in ”Camphopin® Salbe“ („Rote Liste 2010“).

3-METHYL-5-(2,2,3-TRIMETHYL-3CYCLOPENTENYL)PENT-4-EN-2-OL
CAS # 67801-20-1
EC # 267-140-4
3-Methyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-1-cyclopent-3-enyl)pent4-en-2-ol
3-Methyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1-yl)-4-penten2-ol;
3-Methyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethylcyclopent-3-enyl)pent-4en-2-ol; Ebanol
Current regulation: /215

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Clinical data:
In the Larsen 2001 study, 1 of 178 patients with known contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients exhibited a positive PT reaction to "MTCP", tested 5% pet. (19). In the An2005 study, 12 of 422 consecutive patients, i.e., 2.8%, had positive reactions to“ebanol”, tested at 5% (13).
Additional information: /METHYLUNDECANAL
CAS # 110-41-8
EC # 203-765-0
2-Methylundecanal
Aldehyde c-12 mna; undecenal, 2-methyl-; 2-Methyl-1undecanal; Aldehyde M.N.A.; Methyl n-nonyl acetaldehyde;
Methylnonylacetaldehyde; NSC 46127
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

MYRCENE
CAS # 123-35-3
EC # 204-622-5
7-Methyl-3-methylideneocta-1,6-diene
2-Methyl-6-methylene-2,7-octadiene;
7-Methyl-3methylene-1,6-octadiene; NSC 406264; β-Geraniolene; βMyrcene
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In a clinical study in 6 European centres, including 1511 consecutive patients, 1 patient
had a positive reaction to oxidized myrcene (65).
Additional information:
Myrcene autoxidizes spontaneously and rapidly at air exposure. In experimental studies
on beta-myrcene an EC3 value of 4.3% was seen for a sample air-exposed 10 weeks(Sköld M. Contact allergy to autoxidized fragrance terpenes (180).

MYRTENOL
CAS # 515-00-4
EC # 208-193-5

216

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________(7,7-Dimethyl-4-bicyclo[3.1.1]hept-3-enyl)methanol(-)-Pin-2-ene-10-ol;
2-Pinen-10-ol;(6,6Dimethylbicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-en-2-yl)methanol;(±)Myrtenol;
6,6-Dimethyl-2(hydroxymethyl)bicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-ene; NSC 408846; αPinene-10-ol
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
A RIFM review exists (181), citing 2 of 3 HRIPT studies with 1 case of sensitisation to
myrtenol each.

NEROL
CAS # 106-25-2
EC # 203-378-7(2Z)-3,7-Dimethylocta-2,6-dien-1-ol
2,6-Octadien-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, (Z)-; (Z)-3,7-Dimethyl2,6-octadien-1-ol;(Z)-Geraniol;(Z)-Nerol;2-cis-3,7Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-ol; 3,7-Dimethyl-cis-2,6-octadien1-ol; Nerol 900; Neryl alcohol; cis-3,7-Dimethyl-2,6octadien-1-ol; cis-Geraniol; β-Nerol; cis-geraniol – i.e.,
isomeric to geraniol
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Larsen 2002 c study, 6.0% of the fragrance sensitive patients reacted positively
to 5% in pet. (1).
Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (182) citing (negative) human sensitisation experiments, anolder study from Japan and the Larsen 2002 c study (see above).
Regarding autoxidation studies – see geraniol.

Nerolidol (isomer not specified)
CAS # 7212-44-4
EC # 230-597-5
3,7,11-Trimethyl-1,6,10-odecatrien-3-ol
Nerolidol; (±)-Nerolidol; FCI 119b; Nerodilol
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
217

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________RIFM review is available (183) citing the occurrence of “3 positive reactions in 2273
patients”. Another RIFM review is available on cis-nerolidol (184), mentioning that nodata on this compound are available.

NOPYL ACETATE
CAS # 128-51-8
EC # 204-891-9
2-(7,7-Dimethyl-4-bicyclo[3.1.1]hept-3-enyl)ethyl
acetate2-Norpinene-2-ethanol,
6,6-Dimethyl-,acetate;Bicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-ene-2-ethanol, 6,6-dimethyl-, acetate;
2-(6,6-Dimethylbicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-en-2-yl)ethyl acetate;
7,7-Dimethylbicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-ene-2-ethanol
acetate;Citroviol; NSC 1286; NSC 404963; Nopol acetate; Nopyl
acetateCurrent regulation: /Clinical data:
The DeGroot 1985 study identified 2 (1.1%) positive reactions among 179 patients using
a 25% PT preparation of this compound – reactions may have at least partly been due
to an “excited back syndrome” and thus a limited evidence (25).
Additional information: /OXACYCLOHEXADECENONE
CAS # 34902-57-3

EC # 609-040-9(3E)-Oxacyclohexadec-3-en-2-one
Globalide; Oxacyclohexadecen-2-one
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

OXALIDECAS # 1725-01-5
EC # 217-033-3
1,8-Dioxacycloheptadecan-9-one
Nonanoic acid, 9-[(6-hydroxyhexyl)oxy]-, ο-lactone; 10Oxa-16-hexadecanolide; Oxalide; Oxalide T
Current regulation: /218

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Clinical data:
In the Larsen 2001 study, none of 178 patients with known contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients exhibited a positive PT reaction to "10-oxahexadecanolide", tested 5% pet.
(19).
Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (128), citing a negative maximisation test (n=29).

PENTADECALACTONE
CAS # 106-02-5
EC # 203-354-6
1-Oxacyclohexadecan-2-one
Pentadecanoic
acid,
15-hydroxy-,ξ-lactone;
1,15Pentadecanolide; 15-Hydroxypentadecanoic acid lactone;
15-Pentadecanolide;
15-Pentadodecanolactone;
2Pentadecalone; CPE 215; Cyclopentadecanolide; Exaltolide;
Macrolide
Supra;
Muskalactone;
NSC
36763;
Pentadecalactone; Pentadecanolactone; Pentadecanolide;
Pentalide; Thibetolide; cpd Supra; ω-Pentadecalactone;angelica lactone; hexaltolide
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). The substance has been used forclinical olfactory testing in the 60ies under the name of exaltolide.

PHENETHYL ACETATE
CAS # 103-45-7
EC # 203-113-5
2-Phenylethyl acetate
Acetic acid, phenethyl ester ; Phenethyl alcohol, acetate; 2Phenethyl acetate; 2-Phenylethyl acetate; Benzylcarbinyl
acetate; NSC 71927; Phenethyl acetate; Phenylethyl
ethanoate; β-Phenethyl acetate; β-Phenylethanol acetate; βPhenylethyl acetate
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). Exposure via plants (Tanacetumparthenium) is possible (185).

219

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

PHENETHYL ALCOHOL
CAS # 60-12-8
EC # 200-456-2
2-Phenylethanol
Phenethylalcohol;(2-Hydroxyethyl)benzene;
2Phenethanol; 2-Phenethyl alcohol; 2-Phenyl-1-ethanol; 2Phenylethyl alcohol; Benzyl carbinol; Ethanol, 2-phenyl-;NSC406252;PEA;
Phenethanol;
Phenethylol;
Phenylethanol;
Phenylethyl
alcohol;β(Hydroxyethyl)benzene; β-PEA; β-Phenethanol; β-Phenethyl
alcohol; β-Phenethylol; β-Phenylethanol; β-Phenylethyl
alcohol
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The DeGroot 1985 study identified 1 (0.6%) positive reactions among 179 patients using
a 25% PT preparation of phenylethyl alcohol (25). In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot
study, no positive reaction to this compound, tested 1% pet. in 100 consecutive patientsin Odense, DK, was observed (15).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

PHENETHYL SALICYLATE
CAS # 87-22-9
EC # 201-732-5
2-Phenylethyl 2-hydroxybenzoate
Salicylic acid, phenethyl ester; 2-Phenylethyl salicylate;
Benzylcarbinyl salicylate; NSC 72035; Phenethyl salicylate
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
A RIFM review exists (186), quoting a negative human maximisation test and a numberof animal experiments, including cross-sensitisation experiments with benzyl salicylate.
One LLNA study is reported yielding an EC3 value of 2.1%.

PHENOXYETHYL ISOBUTYRATE
CAS # 103-60-6
EC # 203-127-1
2-Phenoxyethyl 2-methylpropanoate
Isobutyric acid, 2-phenoxyethyl ester; Ethanol, 2-phenoxy-,isobutyrate; 2-Phenoxyethyl isobutyrate; NSC 227210; NSC
220

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

406209;Phenoxyethyl
isobutyrate

isobutyrate;

β-Phenoxyethyl

Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

PHENYLACETALDEHYDE
CAS # 122-78-1
EC # 204-574-5
2-Phenylacetaldehyde
Benzylcarboxaldehyde;
Hyacinthin;
NSC
406309;Phenacetaldehyde;
Phenylacetaldehyde;
Phenylacetic
aldehyde;
Phenylethanal;
α-Phenylacetaldehyde;
αTolualdehyde; α-Toluic aldehyde
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Malten 1984 study, 1.1% of 182 patients displayed a positive PT reaction tophenylacetaldehyde 2% pet. (24). In a case report, Sanchez-Politta et al. describe a 26year-old worker in a perfume factory, who suffered from a spill of purephenylacetaldehyde and became sensitised, as proven by positive patch tests with
0.5%, 1% and 2% (10 healthy controls negative) (187).
Additional information:
SCCS opinion: 1153/08 - Opinion on "Dermal Sensitization Quantitative Risk Assesment" (QRA: Citral, farnesol and phenylacetaldehyde)

PHENYLISOHEXANOLCAS # 55066-48-3
EC # 259-461-3
3-Methyl-5-phenylpentan-1-ol
3-Methyl-5-phenyl-1-pentanol; 3-Methyl-5-phenylpentanol;
5-Phenyl-3-methylpentanol; Mefrosol; Phenoxanol
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

PHENYLPROPANOL221

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

CAS # 122-97-4
EC # 204-587-6
3-Phenylpropan-1-ol(3-Hydroxypropyl)benzene; 1-Hydroxy-3-phenylpropane; 3Benzenepropanol; 3-Hydroxy-1-phenylpropane; 3-Phenyl-1propanol;
3-Phenyl-n-propanol;
3-Phenylpropanol;
3Phenylpropyl
alcohol;
Dihydrocinnamyl
alcohol;Hydrocinnamic alcohol; Hydrocinnamyl alcohol; NSC 16942;
γ-Phenylpropanol;
γ-Phenylpropyl
alcohol;
Phenethyl
CarbinolCurrent regulation: /Clinical data:
The Larsen 2002 c study yielded 0.9% positive reactions in 218 patients with contact
allergy to fragrance ingredients (1).
Additional information: …

PHYTOL
CAS # 150-86-7
EC # 205-776-6(E,7R,11R)-3,7,11,15-tetramethylhexadec-2-en1-ol
Phytol; (7R,11R,2E)-Phytol; (E)-Phytol; (E,R,R)-Phytol;
3,7,11,15-Tetramethylhexadec-2-en-1-ol; trans-Phytol
Current regulation: /Clinical/data:

Additional information:
Phytol is a main constituent of Jasmin abs. with 7.4% reported content (17). In a humanmaximization study involving 25 subjects, there was one case of contact sensitization to
10% phytol (6900 µg/cm²), applied in petrolatum, as reported in a RIFM review (188).

alpha-PINENE and beta-PINENE
CAS # 80-56-8 (alpha-Pinene); CAS # 127-91-3 (betaPinene)

80-56-8

EC # 201-291-9 (alpha-Pinene; according to CAS service:219-445-9); EC # 204-872-5 (beta-Pinene; according to
CAS service: 245-424-9)
2,6,6-Trimethylbicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-ene (80-56-8)
6,6-Dimethyl- 2-methylenebicyclo[3.1.1]heptane (12791-3)
222

127-91-3

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

80-56-8: 2-Pinene; (±)-2-Pinene; (±)-α-Pinene; Acintene
A; NSC 7727; PC 500; PC 500 (terpene); Sylvapine A; αPinene
127-91-3: 2(10)-Pinene ; (±)-2(10)-Pinene; (±)-6,6Dimethyl-2-methylenebicyclo[3.1.1]heptane; (±)-β-Pinene;
6,6-Dimethyl-2-methylenebicyclo[3.1.1]heptane;
NSC
21447; NSC 406265; NSC 59190; Nopinen; Nopinene; PC
600; PC 600 (pesticide); Pseudopinen; Pseudopinene;
Terebenthene; β-Pinene
Current
regulation:
Annex
III,
(Peroxide value less than 10 mmoles/L in substance)

part

1,

n°

130

Clinical data:
In 63 patients positive to the FM I, 2 had a positive PT reaction to beta-pinene (andnone to alpha-pinene 5% pet.), 1% pet., in the Santucci 1987 study (28). A clinicalseries from Portugal, addressing contact allergy to oil of turpentine diagnosed in 30
patients, used a series with pure terpenes. A total of 17 of 30 patients reacted positively
to alpha-pinene, and 2 to beta-pinene (189). In a series of 24 patients with occupational
contact dermatitis from the pottery industry, Lear at al. found 14 to be sensitised to“Indonesian oil of turpentine” and 8 to alpha-pinene (190).
A case report from Zacher and Ippen on 2 patients with allergic contact dermatitis due
to bergamot oil (191) describes positive patch test reactions to alpha-pinene and betapinene in one, a worker in a perfume factory.
Additional information: /PROPYLIDENE PHTHALIDE
CAS # 17369-59-4
EC # 241-402-8
3-Propylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one
3-Propylidene-1(3H)-isobenzofuranone;
Propylidenephthalide; Celeriax; Propylidenephthalide

3-

Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 175
Clinical data:
In the Malten 1984 study, 2.6% of 182 patients displayed a positive PT reaction to ethyl
acrylate 1% pet. (24). In this paper, “3/25” positive results in human maximisation tests
are listed.
Additional information: /RHODINOL
CAS # 6812-78-8
EC # 229-887-4(3S)-3,7-Dimethyloct-7-en-1-ol
Rhodinol; (-)-Rhodinol; α-citronellol; (-)-α-Citronellol; (S)223SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

α-Citronellol
Current regulation: /Clinical data: / (see below)
Additional information:
A RIFM review exists citing a positive HRIPT with several cases of sensitisation, 5 ofthese proven upon re-challenge, and a negative human maximisation test (192).In a
previous RIFM review (128), a Japanese clinical study (source not accessible) is cited: “Inpatch tests using cosmetics ingredients and fragrance materials on patients with eczemaand dermatitis, 5% rhodinol (vehicle not specified) produced one sensitization reaction in
202 patients (Itoh et al., 198814)“trans-ROSE KETONE-5
CAS # 39872-57-6
EC # 254-663-8(2E)-1-(2,4,4-Trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)but-2-en1-one
alpha-Isodamascone;trans-2,4,4-Trimethyl-1-crotonyl-2cyclohexene; (E)-1-(2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2buten-1-one
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 159 (max. conc. 0.02%)
Clinical data: /Additional information:
A RIFM review is available (193) quoting 2 HRIPT studies: one with 0.2% concentrationin DEP in 103 volunteers, and negative result, one with 2% concentration, sensitising 2
of 22 volunteers.

SALICYLALDEHYDE
CAS # 90-02-8
EC # 201-961-0
2-Hydroxybenzaldehyde
Salicylaldehyde; 2-Formylphenol; NSC 112278; NSC 49178;
NSC 83559; NSC 83560; NSC 83561; NSC 83562; NSC
97202; Salicylal; Salicylic aldehyde; o-Formylphenol; oHydroxybenzaldehyde
Current regulation: /Clinical

data:

14

Itoh M., Hosono K., Kantoh H., Kinoshita M., Yamada K., Kurosaka R. and Nishimura
M. (1988) Patch test results with cosmetic ingredients conducted between 1978-1986.
Nippon Koshohen Kagakkaishi 12 (1), 27-41.
224

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________In a series of 40 of 744 consecutive patients PTed with an extended fragrance series(Sheffield 1999), 1 positive reaction to salicylaldehyde was observed (3). In the Wöhrl
2001 study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredientsyielded n=1 (0.1%) positive reaction to salicylaldehyde 2% pet. (22). The IVDK 2010
study, 0.48% (95% CI: 0.18 – 0.79%; percentages standardised for age and sex) of
2729 patients PTed reacted to the compound (7). An earlier study by Bruze andZimerson points to possible cross-reactivity between salicylaldehyde and “simple
methylol phenols” occurring in synthetic resins based on phenol and formaldehyde(194). Among 24 patients sensitised to resorcinol by application of a wart remover, 2
positive reactions to salicylaldehyde were observed (195).
Additional information: Along with other derivates of salicylic acid, salicylaldehyde isfound in the bark of several trees, such as willow or aspen, and can cause allergic
contact dermatitis by this exposure (196).

alpha-SANTALOLCAS # 115-71-9
EC # 204-102-8(R Z)- 5-(2,3-dimethyltricyclo[2.2.1.02,6]hept-3-yl)2-methylPent-2-en-1-ol
2-Penten-1-ol, 5-(2,3-dimethyltricyclo[2.2.1.02,6]hept-3yl)-2-methyl-,[R(Z)]-;
2-Penten-1-ol,
5-(2,3dimethyltricyclo[2.2.1.02,6]hept-3-yl)-2-methyl-,
stereoisomer; α-Santalol; Tricyclo[2.2.1.02,6]heptane, 2penten-1-ol deriv.; (+)-(Z)-α-Santalol; (+)-α-Santalol;(Z)-α-Santalol; Sandal; Santalol a; cis-α-Santalol; d-αSantalol
Current regulation: /Clinical data: / (see beta-santalol)
Additional
information:
Following a precautionary principle, both isoforms – often not differentiated in reports– are considered as one and considered as established contact allergen in humans.

beta-SANTALOLCAS # 77-42-9
EC # 201-027-2(2Z)-2-Methyl-5-[(1S,2R,4R)-2-methyl-3methylenebicyclo[2.2.1]hept-2-yl]pent-2-en-1-ol
2-Methyl-5-(2-methyl-3-methylene-2-norbornyl)-2penten-1-ol; [1S-[1α,2α(Z),4α]]-2-Methyl-5-(2-methyl3-methylenebicyclo[2.2.1]hept-2-yl)-2-penten-1-ol; βSantalol; (-)-(Z)-β-Santalol; (-)-β-Santalol; Santalol b;
cis-β-Santalol
Current regulation: /Clinical

data:
225

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________A RIFM review is available for alpha-santalol (197) and on “santalol” (CAS #11031-45-1 (198). The former review cites a Japanese study: “Between April 1979
and August 1990, a total of 3123 male and female patients were patch tested to
2% santalol (.alpha. or .beta. not specified) in petrolatum. Reactions wereobserved in 47/3123 (1.5%) of the patients. The incidence of positive reactions
from 1979 to 1990 was 1.5%. The rate of reactions observed was higher during theearlier period of the patch testing than the later stage (Utsumi et al., 1992)15.” Inanother Japanese study cited by the RIFM review “... patch tests were conductedwith 0.05–0.5% santalol (specified as santalol 1) in a base cream or in 99%
ethanol. Patches consisted of a piece of 1 cm2 lint with a 2 cm2 cellophane discplaced on the lint and then covered with a 4 cm2 plaster. Patches were applied tothe back, the forearm, and the inside of the upper arm for 24–48 h. Reactions wereobserved in 15 patients and questionable reactions were observed in 10 patientsout of the total 427 participating. A second sample of santalol (specified as santalol2) was tested on 214 patients. Reactions were observed in three patients andquestionable reactions were observed in six patients (Takenaka et al., 1986)16.”
Moreover, “The Mid-Japan Contact Dermatitis Research group (MJDCRG) conducted
a 6-year (1976–1981) patch test study on facial dermatoses patients with various
fragrance materials. During the year 1979, a total of 327 patients were tested witha mixture of .alpha. and .beta. santalol at concentrations of 10%, 2%, and 1% inwhite petrolatum. Reactions were observed in 1.5%, 0.6% and 0.6% of the 327
patients tested at concentrations 10%, 2%, and 1%, respectively (MJCDRG,
1984)17.”
The Goossens 1997 study found 5 of 111 patients positive to “santalol 10% pet.”(isoform not specified) – all sensitised to other fragrance allergens as well (23). In
the Larsen 2001 study, patch testing with “2-methyl-5-(2,3-dimethyl
tricyclo[2.2.1.0(2,6)]hept-3-yl-2
pentenol(.alpha.-form)
and2-methyl-5-(2methyl-3-methylenebicyclo[2.2.1]hept-3-yl-2-penten-1-ol(beta-form) 5% pet.” (noCAS numbers given) yielded a total of 2 positive reactions among the 178 patientswith known contact allergy to fragrance ingredients (19).
Additional information: “There is no one CAS number for the mixture. The alphaform has a CAS No. 115-71-9 and the beta form is 37172-32-0 (this # is trans.beta.-santalol). There was no reported use of these materials in the last two IFRA
Surveys (8 years total)” (A.M. Api, pers. comm., 2010).
Following a precautionary principle, both isoforms – often not differentiated inreports – are considered as one and considered as established contact allergen inhumans15

Utsumi, M., Sugai, T., Shoji, A., Watanabe, K., Asoh, S., Hashimoto, Y., 1992.
Incidence of positive reactions to sandalwood oil and its related fragrance materials inpatch tests and a case of contact allergy to natural and synthetic sandalwood oil in a
museum worker. Skin Research 34, 209–213

16

Takenaka, T., Hasegawa, E., Takenaka, U., Saito, F., Odaka, T., 1986. Fundamental
studies of safe compound perfumes for cosmetics Part 1. The primary irritation ofcompound materials to the skin. Unknown Source, 313–329.

17

Mid-Japan Contact Dermatitis Research Group, 1984. Determination of suitableconcentrations for patch testing of various fragrance materials. A summary of groupstudy conducted over a 6-year period. Journal of Dermatology, 11(1), 31–35.
226

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________SCLAREOL
CAS # 515-03-7
EC # 208-194-0(1R,2R,8αS)-1-[(3R)-3-Hydroxy-3-methylpent-4enyl]-2,5,5,8a-tetramethyl-3,4,4α,6,7,8-hexahydro1H-naphthalen-2-ol(αR,1R,2R,4aS,8aS)-α-Ethenyldecahydro-2-hydroxyα,2,5,5,8a-pentamethyl-1-naphthalenepropanol;[1R[1α(R*),2β,4aβ,8aα]]α-ethenyldecahydro-2-hydroxyα,2,5,5,8a-pentamethyl-1
Naphthalenepropanol;(13R)Labd-14-ene-8,13-diol;
Sclareol;(-)-Sclareol;[1R[1.alpha.(R*),2.beta.,4a.beta.,8a.alpha.]]-2-hydroxy.alpha.,2,5,5,8a-pentamethyl-.alpha.vinyldecahydronaphthalene-1-propan-1-ol
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
An older RIFM review exists (128), reporting several human maximisation tests withdifferent samples of sclareol, yielding partly positive, partly negative results. A more
recent RIFM review is available (199), citing no clincial data, but several maximisation
studies, one of which was positive in a few volunteers, which was apparently due to an
impurity.
0986/06
Opinionon
Sclareol(sensitisation(http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_056.pdf)

only)

TERPINEOL
CAS # 8000-41-7
EC # 232-268-1
Mixtures of isomers
Terpineol 318, mixture of terpineol isomers alfa, beta,
gamma

alfa
gamma

beta

Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
A RIFM review is available (200), citing negative human induction studies and one clinicalstudy “Takenaka 1986”, finding 4 of 312 patients with 0.05% to 0.5% terpineol in acream base and in ethanol, resp., and 2 negative clinical studies of limited size. In the
Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5% terpineol inpet., tested in 100 consecutive patients in Belfast, were observed (15).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010).

227

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

alpha-TERPINEOL
CAS # 10482-56-1 / 98-55-5
EC # 233-986-8 / 202-680-6
2-[(1S)-4-Methyl-1-cyclohex-3-enyl]propan-2-ol(10482-56-1)

10482-56-1

2-(4-Methyl- 1-cyclohex-3-enyl)propan-2-ol (98-55-5)
10482-56-1:(S)-(-)-p-Menth-1-en-8-ol;(-)-α-Terpineol;(S)-(-)-Terpineol; (S)-(-)-α-Terpineol; (S)-α-Terpineol; l-αTerpineol
98-55-5:
p-Menth-1-en-8-ol;(±)-α-Terpineol;
1,1Dimethyl-1-(4-methylcyclohex-3-enyl)methanol;
1-pMenthen-8-ol; 2-(4-Methyl-3-cyclohexenyl)-2-propanol; 4(2-Hydroxy-2-propyl)-1-methylcyclohexene;
8-Hydroxy-pmenth-1-ene; NSC 21449; NSC 403665; PC 593; Pine Oil
593; Terpineol 350; dl-α-Terpineol; α,α,4-Trimethyl-3cyclohexene-1-methanol; α-Terpineol

98-55-5

Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
A RIFM review is available (201) specifically on (-)-alpha-terpineol stating that “no data
is available” regarding skin sensitisation. Another RIFM review is available on alphaterpineol (202). In the Frosch 2002 b study, 1 of 1606 consecutive patients showed apositive reaction, but 11 patients doubtful reactions to alpha-terpineol (5% pet.) (17).
The DeGroot 1985 study identified no positive reactions among 179 patients using a
15% PT preparation of terpineol (mixed isomers) (25). In 63 patients positive to the FM
I, 2 had a positive PT reaction to alpha terpineol, 5% pet., in the Santucci 1987 study(28). A clinical series from Portugal, addressing contact allergy to oil of turpentine
diagnosed in 30 patients, used a series with pure terpenes. A total of 3 of 30 patients
reacted positively to alpha-terpineol (189)
Additional information: see also terpineol (mixture of isomers). Comments on turpentine
under pinene.

Terpinolene
CAS # 586-62-9
EC # 209-578-0
1-Methyl-4-propan-2-ylidenecyclohexene
p-Mentha-1,4(8)-diene;
1-Methyl-4-(1-methylethylidene)cyclohexene;
4-Isopropylidene-1-methylcyclohexene;
Isoterpinene; Nofmer TP; Terpinolen; Terpinolene; αTerpinolene; δ-Terpinene
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 133 (Peroxide value less than 10 mmoles/L in
substance)
Clinicaldata:
A 49-year-old machine cleaner developed occupational contact dermatitis due to thecleaner, which gave a positive patch test result at 1:10 000 in water. Of the ingredients
identified by chromatography, only .delta.-3-carene and terpinolene, tested 5% pet.,228

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

gave a positive result (negative in 10 controls) (203). Eleven patients sensitised to tea
tree oil showed positive reactions to alpha-terpinene, terpinolene and ascaridol (204).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010)229

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________TERPINEOL ACETATE (Isomer mixture)
CAS # 8007-35-0
EC # 232-357-5
4-Methyl-1-propan-2-yl-1-cyclohex-2-enyl acetate
Terpinyl acetate
Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5% terpinyl
acetate in pet., tested in 106 consecutive patients in Barcelona, were observed (15)Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010)alpha-TERPINYL ACETATE
CAS # 80-26-2
EC # 201-265-7
2-(4-Methyl-1-cyclohex-3-enyl)propan-2-yl acetate
3-Cyclohexene-1-methanol, α,α,4-trimethyl-, acetate; pMenth-1-en-8-ol, acetate; (±)-α-Terpineol acetate; (±)-αTerpinyl acetate; 2-(4-Methyl-3-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-propyl
acetate; Terpinyl acetate; α-Terpineol acetate; p-Menth-1en-8-yl acetate; 1-Methyl-1-(4-methylcyclohex-3-enyl)ethyl
ethanoate; (±)-.alpha.,.alpha.,4-trimethylcyclohex-3-ene-1methyl acetate
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The DeGroot 1985 study identified no positive reactions among 179 patients using a
10% PT preparation of “terpinyl acetate” (25).
Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010)

Tetrahydrolinalool

OH

CAS # 78-69-3
EC # 201-133-9
3,7-Dimethyloctan-3-ol
2,6-Dimethyl-6-octanol; 3,7-Dimethyloctan-3-ol;
tetrahydride; NSC 128151; Tetrahydrolinalool

Linalool

Current regulation: /Clinical/data:

Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010). A RIFM
230

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

review is available (205) quoting 1 negative human maximisation test.

TETRAHYDRO-METHYL-METHYLPROPYL)-PYRAN-4-OL
CAS # 63500-71-0
EC # 405-040-6
4- Methyl-2-(2-methylpropyl)tetrahydro-2H-4-pyranol
2-(2-Methylpropyl)-4-hydroxy-4-methyltetrahydropyran; 2Isobutyl-4-hydroxy-4-methyltetrahydropyran; 2-Isobutyl-4methyltetrahydropyran-4-ol;
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-(2methylpropyl)tetrahydropyran; Florosa; Rozanol
Current regulation: /Clinical/data:

Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

TETRAMETHYL ACETYLOCTAHYDRONAPHTHALENES
CAS # 54464-57-2 / 54464-59-4 / 68155-66-8 / 6815567-9
EC # 259-174-3 / 259-175-9 / 268-978-3 / 268-979-954464-57-2

1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl2-naphthalenyl)-ethanone (54464-57-2)
1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-Octahydro-2,3,5,5-tetramethyl2-naphthalenyl)-ethanone (54464-59-4)

54464-59-4

1-(1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl2-naphthalenyl)-ethanone (68155-66-8)
1-(1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8a-Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl2-naphthalenyl)-ethanone (68155-67-9)68155-66-8

54464-57-2:
1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-Octahydro-2,3,8,8tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)ethanone;
1',2',3',4',5',6',7',8'-Octahydro-2',3',8',8'-tetramethyl-2'acetonaphthone;
7-Acetyl-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro1,1,6,7-tetramethylnaphthalene; Amberonne; Ambralux;
Iso Ambois Super; Iso-E Super; Isocyclemone E; OTNE;
Orbitone

68155-67-9

Current regulation: /Clinicaldata:
In the Frosch 2002 a study, 0.2% of 1855 consecutive patients reacted to thecompound (brand name mentioned: „Iso E. Super“, 5% pet.) (16). In the Frosch 1995
dose-finding pilot study, 1 positive reaction both to 1% and 5% “Iso E Super ®” in pet.,tested in 313 consecutive patients in Bordeaux and London, were observed (15). The
Larsen 2001 study yielded 1.7% positive reactions (5% pet.) in 178 patients with known
contact allergy to fragrance ingredients (19).
231

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional information: According to CosIng: “Mixture of isomers: 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8Octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthyl)ethan-1-one; 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-Octahydro2,3,5,5-tetramethyl-2-naphthyl)ethan-1-one;
1-(1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-Octahydro-2,3,8,8tetramethyl-2-naphthyl)ethan-1-one(68155-67-9);
1-(1,2,3,4,6,7,8,8a-Octahydro2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthyl)ethan-1-one(68155-66-8)„(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=40504, last accessed 2009-11-11).
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010)

TRICHLOROMETHYL PHENYL CARBINYL ACETATE
CAS # 90-17-5
EC # 201-972-0
2,2,2-Trichloro-1-phenylethyl acetate
Benzenemethanol, α-(trichloromethyl)-, acetate; Benzyl
alcohol,
α-(trichloromethyl)-,acetate(Trichloromethyl)phenylcarbinyl
acetate;(±)-α(Trichloromethyl)benzyl acetate; 2-Acetoxy-1,1,1-trichloro2-phenylethane; Crystal rose; NSC 165582; Rosacetol;
Rosephenone; Rosetone; Rosone; α-(Trichloromethyl)benzyl
acetateCurrent regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010)

TRICYCLODECENYL PROPIONATE
CAS # 17511-60-3
EC # 241-514-7
3α,4,5,6,7,7α-Hexahydro-4,7-methano-1H-inden-6-yl
propionate
4,7-Methano-1H-inden-6-ol,
3a,4,5,6,7,7a-Hexahydro-,propanoate;
4,7-Methanoinden-6-ol,
3a,4,5,6,7,7aHexahydro-, propionate; Cyclaprop; Florocyclene; Greenyl
propionate;
Tricyclo(5.2.1.02,6)dec-3-en-8-yl propionate.
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010).

3-(5,5,6-TRIMETHYLBICYCLO[2.2.1]HEPT-2-YL)CYCLOHEXAN-1-OL
232

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

CAS # 3407-42-9
EC # 222-294-1
3-(5,5,6-Trimethyl-6bicyclo[2.2.1]heptanyl)cyclohexan-1-ol
3-(5,5,6-Trimethyl-2-norbornyl)-cyclohexanol;
Trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]hept-2-yl)cyclohexan-1-ol;
Hydroxy-1-(5-isocamphyl)cyclohexane; Sandela

3-(5,5,63-

Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information: part of “synthetic sandalwood oil”.

TRIMETHYL-BENZENEPROPANOL (Majantol)
OH

CAS # 103694-68-4
EC # 403-140-4
2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-methylphenyl)propan-1-ol
2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-tolyl)propan-1-ol;hydroxypropyl)toluene

3-(2,2-Dimethyl-3-

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Larsen 2002 c study, majantol (conc. not given, elsewhere reported as 5% pet.)caused positive PT reactions in 3.2% of patients with known contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients. In a later study by the IVDK, 0.5% (95% CI: 0.3 – 0.7%) consecutive
patients displayed a positive reaction to majantol 5% pet. (206). In the IVDK 2010
study, majantol was tested both in n=2189 consecutive patients, yielding 0.36 % (95%
CI: 0.12—0.60%) positive reactions, and in the context in a special series, applied in an
aimed fashion to n=4972 patients, yielding 0.76% (95% CI: 0.49—1.03%)(standardised) positive reactions (7). In a recent study from Copenhagen, DK, 6 of 722
patients tested with this compound were found positive, 2 of these to material usedearlier provided by Symrise, 4 to material by Allmiral/Hermal/Trolab used later instead.
There was no significant difference between these proportions obtained with batches ofmajantol from different production processes (207).
Additional information: /TRIMETHYLHEXYL ACETATE
CAS # 58430-94-7
EC # 261-245-9
3,5,5-Trimethylhexyl acetate
1-Hexanol,
acetate

3,5,5-trimethyl-,acetate;Vanoris;Current regulation: /233

neononyl

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Clinical data: /Additional information: It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010)

TRIMETHYL-PROPYLCYCLOHEXANEPROPANOL (TMCH)
CAS # 70788-30-6
EC # 274-892-7
1-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)hexan-3-ol
Othernames:
2,2,6-Trimethyl-alpha-propylcyclohexanepropanol (REACH,
EINECS);.alpha.-Propyl-2,2,6-trimethylcyclohexanepropanol;
6-(2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexyl)-4hexanol; Finotimber; Timberol
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Larsen 2001 study, none of 178 patients with contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients reacted positively to this ingredient, PTed at 5% pet. (19).
Additional information: /gamma-UNDECALACTONE
CAS # 104-67-6
EC # 203-225-4
5-Heptyltetrahydrofuran-2-one
Undecanoic
acid,
4-hydroxy-,γ-lactone;(RS)-γUndecalactone; (±)-γ-Undecalactone; 4-Hydroxyundecanoic
acid lactone; 4-Undecanolide; 5-Heptyldihydro-2(3H)furanone; NSC 406421; NSC 46118; NSC 76413;
Neutralizing agent 350120-1; Peach lactone; Peche Pure;
Persicol;γ-(n-Heptyl)-γ-butyrolactone;
γ-Heptyl-γbutyrolactone; γ-Heptylbutyrolactone; γ-Undecalactone; γUndecanolactone; γ-Undecanolide; γ-n-Heptylbutyrolactone
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010)

VANILLIN
CAS # 121-33-5
EC # 204-465-2
234

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde
2-Methoxy-4-formylphenol;
3-Methoxy-4hydroxybenzaldehyde;
4-Formyl-2-methoxyphenol;
4Hydroxy-5-methoxybenzaldehyde;
4-Hydroxy-manisaldehyde; H 0264; Lioxin; NSC 15351; NSC 403658;
NSC 48383; Rhovanil; Vanillaldehyde; Vanillic aldehyde;
Vanillum; m-Methoxy-p-hydroxybenzaldehyde; p-Hydroxym-methoxybenzaldehyde; p-Vanillin
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In a series of 40 of 744 consecutive patients PTed with an extended fragrance series(Sheffield 1999), 1 positive reaction to vanillin was observed (3). In the Wöhrl 2001
study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded
n=1 (0.1%) positive reaction to vanillin 10 % pet. (22). The IVDK 2010 study, n=10,
i.e., 0.19% (95% CI: 0.07 – 0.32%; percentages standardised for age and sex) of 4377
patients PTed reacted to the compound, tested 10% pet. (7). In n=102 patients with apositive reaction to MPR, 19 compounds of this natural mixture were tested, among
these, vanillin, to which none reacted positively (208). In 21 patients with contact
allergy to propolis, 2 also reacted to vanillin (10% pet.) (209).
A 13-year-old girl with recurrent (peri-)cheilitis after application of a vanilla lip salve
tested strongly positive to this salve (as is), “Vanilla 10% pet.” (unclear, whether
natural extract or vanillin) and MPR (210). Trattner/David identified 1 / 641 consecutive
patients with positive reaction to vanillin (31).
Additional information:
Naturally occurring in the fruit of Vanilla planifolia after a fermentation process, instyrax, clove oil, potatoes, wood, including Myroxylon pereirae resin, and other material(53). Nowadays, vanillin is synthesised from eugenol, guajakol and lignin residues frompaper production, however, not fully achieving the subtle scent and taste of the natural
material (53). It is a “top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.
2010).

VERDYL ACETATE
CAS # 2500-83-6/ 5413-60-5
EC # 219-700-4 / 226-501-6
3α,4,5,6,7,7α-Hexahydro-4,7-methanoinden-6-yl
acetat (2500-83-6)

2500-83-6

3α,4,5,6,7,7α-Hexahydro-4,7-methano-1H-inden-5yl acetat (5413-60-5)
2500-83-6: 4,7-Methano-1H-inden-5-ol, 3a,4,5,6,7,7ahexahydro-,acetate;
4,7-Methanoinden-5-ol,
3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-, acetate; NSC 142428; NSC
94573
5413-60-5: 4,7-Methano-1H-inden-6-ol, 3a,4,5,6,7,7ahexahydro-,acetate;
4,7-Methanoinden-6-ol,
3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-,acetate;
4,7-Methano3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydroinden-6-yl
acetate;8Acetoxytricyclo[5.2.1.02,6]dec-3-ene; Greenyl acetate;235

5413-60-5

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Herbaflorat; Jasmacyclene; NSC 6598
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
In CosIng, both above CAS numbers are listed under “verdyl acetate”(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=41289, last accessed 2010-07-19).
In the CAS, there are 2 separate entries; moreover, there are 2 separate RIFM
reviews:••# 2500-83-6: Other names: Tricyclo[5.2.1.02,6]dec-4-en-8-yl acetate (REACH,
EINECS, INCI Name according to CAS); 3a,4,5,6,7,7a-Hexahydro-4,7methanoinden-6-yl Acetate; Tricyclodecen-4-yl 8-Acetate. It is a “top 100”
substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010). A RIFM review is available, stating that“no data is available” regarding the skin sensitising properties of the substance(211).
# 5413-60-5: Other names: 3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-4,7-methanoinden-6-yl
acetate (REACH, EINECS, INCI Name according to CAS), 4,7-Methano3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydroinden-6-yl acetate; 4,7-Methanoinden-6-ol,
3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-, acetate; 8-Acetoxytricyclo[5.2.1.02,6]dec-3-ene;
Tricyclodecenyl acetate; Greenyl acetate; Herbaflorat; Jasmacyclene; NSC
6598; Verdyl acetate. It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010). A
RIFM review is available (212), citing 2 negative human maximisation tests and1 negative HRIPT.

236

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________Natural extracts / essential oils
Natural raw materials in terms of extracts are used in the fragrance and flavour industry
for various reasons. Most importantly, several naturally occurring mixtures have a very
complex composition and sensory nature which cannot (fully) be achieved by synthetic
material. Moreover, several compounds cannot be synthesised at a competitive price,and the demand for perfumes based on natural materials is considerable (34).
The three main methods used to concentrate plant fragrance substances as essential oils
comprise steam distillation, mechanical processes from the epicarp of Citrus fruits(“pressing”) and dry distillation.A Essential oil is „obtained by steam distillation withaddition of water in the still (hydrodistillation) or without addition of water in the still(directly by steam“)(213). Essenctial oil of fruit juice is „obtained by from a fruit juice
during its concntration or during UHT (flash pasteurization) treatment“ (213). Coldpressed essential oil is „obtained by mechanical processes from the epicarp of the fruit ofa Citrus, at ambient temperature“(213). Citrus peel oils, apart from distilled Citrus oils,
are produced with varous methods (214). The oil consists of a high volume of volatileterpenes, mostly monoterpenes but also contains small amounts of non-volatilecompounds such as dyes, waxes and furocoumarines.
The method of solvent extraction is generally applied in the separation of heat-labilematerials or if an essential oil can only be obtained in very low yield, e.g. from blossoms.
It is also used if the non-volatile components are desired for their fixative properties, e.g.
in the preparation of resinoids from exudates. The most important extracts are termed:(i) concrete: an extract „obtained from a fresh plant natural raw material by extraction
with a solvant“18, containing not only volatile, but also a large proportion of non- volatile
substances such as waxes; and (ii) absolute: „product, obtained by extraction withethanol from a concrete, a floral pomade, a resinoid or a supercritical fluid extract. The
ethanolic solution is generally cooled down and filtered in order to eliminate the«waxes»; the ethanol is then eliminated by distillation“19. Resinoids, used for their
fixative properties, are „obtained from a dry plant natural raw material by extraction witha sovant“20. The products are usually highly viscous and thus might sometimes bediluted, e.g. with phthalates or benzyl benzoate. Oleoresins are extracts „of spice oraromatic herb“ by „treating a natural raw material with a solvent, then, after filtration if
necessary, the solvent is elimitated“21.

Regarding clinical data in terms of contact allergy to fragrance ingredients, the main
focus of case report or clinical studies regarding essential oils and natural extracts,
respectively, is on general dermatological patients with complaints related to use ofcosmetics etc. However, series of cases with occupational exposure to essential oils withoccupational allergic contact dermatitis have also been reported (e.g., masseurs,
18

ISO/DIS 9235

19

ISO/DIS 9235

20

ISO/DIS 9235

21

ISO/DIS 9235
237

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

physiotherapists (215, 216), aromatherapists (217-221), beauticians doing massages(222); for further details, e.g., PT results with various essential oils, see original casereports. “Current Regulation” refers to the EU Cometics Directive only.

Catalogue of natural extracts / essential oils evaluated

ACORUS CALAMUS ROOT OIL

CAS 84775-39-3; EC 283-869-0

Calamus Oil; "Sweet Flag Oil"(Acorusname)calamus,

ext.

=

INCI

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found no positive reaction in 200 patients to “calamus” essential
oil, 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=7(8.1%) positive reactions to “calamus” essential oil 2% pet. (27).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Acorus calamus L. (sweet flag calamus). Acorus Calamus
Root Oil is an essential oil obtained from the rhizomes of the calamus, Acorus calamus
L., Araceae. It contains beta-asarone (up to 96%, depending on ploidy, and with this,origin (34)), calamene (about 4%), calamol (about 3%) alpha-asarone (about 1%),
camphene(about1%)
andsomebeta-pinene
andasaronaldehyde(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=41330, last accessed 2010-01-29. Use is restricted due to potenial toxicity of betaasarone (34).

CANANGA ODORATA and Ylang-ylang oil
Ylang-ylang and cananga oils are essential oils that are obtained from two subspecies of
the cananga tree (34). In the INCI nomenclature, both are not differentiated.
CANANGA ODORATA FLOWER EXTRACT

CAS
83863-30-3;EC
281-092-1(ylang-ylang,
ext.)
INCI
name:
CANANGA ODORATA EXTRACTCANANGA ODORATA FLOWER OIL

CAS 8006-81-3, 68606-83-7; EC / (oils,
ylang-ylang) INCI name: CANANGAODORATA OIL

Current regulation: …
Clinical data:
Ylang-ylang oil
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook. f. et Thomson forma
238

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

genuina)
In the Larsen 2002 c study, “synthetic ylang-ylang oil” caused 6.4% positive reactions in
218 patients with known contact allergy to fragrance ingredients (1). In a Japanesestudy, M. Sugawara et al. noted a significant decline of the proportion of patients
reacting positively to “ylang-ylang oil 5% pet.” from 1971 to 1989, the overall number
in patients with cosmetic dermatitis amounting to 176 of 1438 (12.2%, 95% CI: 10.6 –
14.0%) (223). In the Frosch 2002 b study, two fractions of Ylang-Ylang oil (I and II)
were separately tested, each at 10% pet. Fraction I yielded 2.6%, fraction II 2.5%
positive test reactions (no data on concomitant reactivity given) (17). The deGroot 2000
study, with 1825 consecutively tested patients, found 18 positive PT reactions to "ylangylang oil", tested at 4% in pet. (12). The Sugiura 2000 study with 1483 patients withsuspected cosmetic dermatitis observed 0.8% positive PT reactions with ylang-ylang oil(5% pet.) (14). The Coimbra 2000 study found in 67 patients with positive reaction to
the FM I who were tested with ylang-ylang oil (2% pet.) 13.4% positive reactions (9).
The Belsito 2006 study (20) yielded 0.6% positive reactions to ylang-ylang oil. The
subsequent NACDG 2009 study identified 1.5% positive reactions in 4434 patients PTed
with 2% “ylang-ylang oil” (21). The IVDK 2010c study found 2.5% positive reactions in
3175 consecutively tested patients, and 3.9% in 2155 patients tested in the context of a
special series (30). In a study from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patients were patch
tested with an extended fragrance series; n=12 reacted positively to ylang-ylang oil and
3 to “cananga oil” (48).
Cananga oil
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook. f. et Thomson forma
macrophylla. For Oil of cananga (Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook. f. et Thomson, forma
macrophylla) an ISO standard exists: ISO 3523:2002. Cananga oil is produced by steam
distillation of the flowers of Cananga odorata (DC.) Hook f. et Thomson subsp.
macrophylla (Annonaceae). The composition resembles that of “ylang-ylang III”, butwith a higher content of caryophyllene (30-40%). Cananga oil originates almost
exclusively in Java; annual production about 50 t. The oil is used mainly in perfuming
soaps where it is more stable than ylang-ylang oils due to its lower ester content (34).
Sugiura et al. (2000) found 1.1% positive reactions to "cananga oil", tested 5% pet.
(14). Cananga oil (2% pet.) mentioned in the same Portugese study already cited (9)yielded 10.4% positive reactions. In the An 2005 study, 5 of 422 consecutive patients,
i.e., 1.2%, had positive reactions to cananga odorata oil tested at 2% concentration(13).
Studies with both oils
The Goossens 1997 study found 3 of 111 patients positive to “ylang-ylang oil 5% pet.”,and 4 to “cananga oil 15% pet.” – all sensitised to other fragrance allergens (23). The
Rudzki 1976 study found 1 positive reaction in 200 patients to “cananga” and 4 to“ylang-ylang” essential oil, both tested 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86
FM I positive patients found n=10 (11.6%) positive reactions to “cananga” and n=8(9.3%) to “ylang-ylang” essential oils, each tested at 2% pet. (27). Nakayama et al.
found 1974 (after (29)) 11 “strong positive” and 15 “weak positive” reactions to“Cananga oil” and 9 and 16, resp., to “Ylang-ylang oil” (unknown test concentration) in
183 patients.
A number of case reports highlight the possibility of occupational contact andsensitisation, e.g. (222, 224).
Additional information:

239

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Ylang-ylang oil
The composition of this essential oil is defined by a standard: ISO 3063:2004. Ylangylang oils are obtained by steam distillation of freshly picked blossoms of Cananga
odorata (DC.) Hook f. et Thomson subsp. genuina (Annonaceae). The oil is produced
mainly in Madagascar and the Comoro islands. Four fractions are collected at
progressively longer distillation times and are know as “extra”, “I”, “II” and “III”. The
composition of the various oil fractions depends on the duration of distillation. The first
fraction has the highest content of strongly odiferous constituents such as p-cresyl
methyl ether (5-16%), methyl benzoate (4-9%), (-)-linalool (7-24%), benzyl
acetate (5.5-17.5%), and geranyl acetate (2.5-14%). The other fractions contain
increasing amounts of sesquiterpene hydrocarbons such as caryophyllene, germacreneD, and (E,E)-alpha-farnesene (> 70% in “ylang-ylang III”). Components such as pcresol, eugenol and isoeugenol are important for odour, although they are present only
in low concentration (34). According to (30) the maximum observed concentration inylang-ylang I and II are (in %): germacrene-D (28); (E,E)-alpha-farnesene (21);caryophyllene (17); linalool (I: 19.0; II: 9.5); benzyl benzoate (8.0); farnesol (4.0);
benzyl salicylate (4.0); (E,E)-farnesyl acetate (3.5); geraniol (2.5); isoeugenol (0.8);
benzyl alcohol (0.5); eugenol (0.5); p-cresyl methyl ether (I: 5.0; II 3.5); methyl
benzoate (I: 5.5; II: 3.5); benzyl acetate (I: 10.0; II: 5.0); geranyl acetate (I: 15.0; II:12.0).

CEDRUS ATLANTICA BARK OIL

CAS 92201-55-3; EC 295-985-9(Cedrus atlantica, ext. = INCI) /8000-27-9;
EC/ (Oils,
cedarwood) INCI name: CEDRUSATLANTICA OIL

Cedarwood oil
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients yielded n=5 (0.7%) positive reactions to cedarwood oil 10% pet. (22). (Theexact origin of “cedarwood oil” in this study is not clear.) The IVDK 2010 c study
identified 0.8% positive reactions in 6223 patients tested in the context of a special
series with a cedarwood oil tagged with CAS # 8000-27-9 (30).
Additional information:
Cedrus Atlantica Bark Oil is the volatile oil obtained from the bark of Cedrus atlantica,
Pinaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=55309, last accessed 2010-01-05). The main odiferous component is alphaatlantone [32207-08-2] (39)
Nomenclature also used: Cedrus atlantica wood oil (Cedrus atlantica (Endl.) G.Manetti ex Carrière )22
See also Juniperus virginiana.

22

ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature
240

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________CEDRUS DEODARA WOOD OIL

CAS

91771-47-0;EC

294-939-

5 (Cedrus deodara, ext.)

Cedarwood oil
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found 3 positive reactions in 200 patients to “cedarwood”
essential oil 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patientsfound n=3 (3.5%) positive reactions to “Himalayan cedarwood” essential oil 2% pet.
(27). (The labelling in the latter report points to Cedrus deodara as source of“cedarwood oil” in these 2 Polish studies.)
Additional information:
Cedrus Deodara Wood Oil, Himalayan cedarwood oil (Cedrus deodara (Roxb. ex D.Don)
G. Don) 23, is the volatile oil obtained by steam distillation of the stumps of the Deodar
Cedar,
Cedrusdeodara,Pinaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=searc
h.details&id=55311, last accessed 2010-01-29).
Several other conifer species are called cedars, and the corresponding oils varyconsiderably in composition. These include Cedar leaf oil (Thuja oil) produced by steam
distillation of fresh leaves and branch ends of Thuja occidentalis L. (Cupressaceae) from
North America, containing a minimum of 60% thujone [8007-20-3] [90131-58-1] (34).
Texas cedarwood oil is produced by steam distillation of chopped wood of Juniperus
mexicana Schiede (Cupressaceae), containing alpha-cedrene (15-25%), thujopsene(25-35%), cedrol 20% minimum [8000-27-9] [91722-61-1] (34). Chinese cedarwood
oil is similar to Texas cedarwood oil, obtained by steam distillation of Cupressus funebris
Endl., Cupressaceae (Chamaecyparis funebirs (Endl.) France), which is a weeping
cypress [8000-27-9] [85085-29-6] (34).

CINNAMOMUM CASSIA LEAF OIL

94961-46-6 [invalid] / 8007-805; EC / (Oils, cassia) INCI name:
CINNAMONUM CASSIA OIL

Cassia Oil; Cassia leaf Oil; Cinnamon Oil Chinense
CINNAMOMUM ZEYLANICUM BARK OIL

CAS 84649-98-9; EC 284-6350 (Cinnamonum zeylanicum, ext.
= INCI)

Cimmamon Bark Oil Ceylon; Cinnamon Oil Ceylon
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found 2 positive reactions in 200 patients to “cassia” essential
oil, 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=24
23

ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature
241

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________(27.9%) positive reactions to “cassia” essential oil 2% pet. (27).
A 32 year old Spanish physiotherapists developed vesicular hand dermatitis after usinga "balsam from ash extract" cream. PTing revealed positive reactions to this cream, theFM I, eugenol, and 2 components of the cream: "cinnamon oil" (0.5% pet.) and clove oil(1% pet.) (225).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Cinnamomum tsumu Helms, syn. Cinnamomum cassia auct. andCinnamomum zeylanicum Blume syn. Cinnamomum verum J. Presl, respectively. Cassia oil (Chinese
cinnamon oil) is obtained by steam distillation of the leaves, twigs, and bark of
Cinnamonum aromaticum Nees (C. cassia Blume, Lauraceae). In contrast to
cinnamonum bark oil (see below), cassia oil contains a considerable amount of 2methoxycinnamal (3-15%), in addition to its main constituent, cinnamal (70-88%).
Cassia oil is predominantly used in flavouring soft drinks, with an annual production of afew hundred tons (34). For Oil of cassia, Chinese type (Cinnamomum aromaticum Nees,
syn. Cinnamomum cassia Nees ex Blume) an ISO standard exists: ISO 3216:1997
Cinnamomum Zeylanicum Bark Oil is the volatile oil expressed from the bark of the
Ceylon Cinnamon, Cinnamomum zeylanicum, Lauraceae. It contains mainly
cinnamaldehyde (34), e.g. 50-60%, and lesser quantities of eugenol (4-8%),phellandrene(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=75370, last accessed 2009-11-16). For Oil of cinnamon leaf, Sri Lanka type
(Cinnamomum zeylanicum Blume) an ISO standard exists: ISO 3524:2003
Cinnamomum Cassia Leaf Oil is the volatile oil obtained by steam distillation from theleaves and twigs of the Chinese Cinnamom, Cinnamomum cassia (L.), Lauraceae. It
contains
80%
eugenol(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=75368, last accessed 2009-11-16). The cinnamon leaf oil produced by steam
distillation of the leaves of Cinnamonum zeylanicum Blume (C. verum J.S. Presl)similarly has a content of 70-83% eugenol (34).
Considering the content of well-known allergenic compounds, the essential oil isconsidered an Established contact allergen in humans,

CITRUS AURANTIUM AMARA FLOWER OIL

CAS 8016-38-4, 68916-04-1; EC /(Oils, neroli) /Neroli oil
CITRUSAURANTIUM
EXPRESSED

AMARA

PEEL

OIL

72968-50-4; EC 277-143-2 (Orange,sour, ext.)"Bitter Orange Oil"
INCI names: CITRUS AURANTIUM
AMARA …
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Coimbra 2000 study found in 67 patients with positive reaction to the FM I whowere tested with "neroli oil" (2% pet.) 6.6% positive reactions (9). The Rudzki 1976
study found 3 positive reactions in 200 patients to “bitter orange” essential oil 2% pet.
(26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=2 (2.3%)
242

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

positive reactions to “bitter orange” essential oil 2% pet. (27). The IVDK 2010 c study
identified 0.7% positive reactions in 6220 patients tested in the context of a special
series (30)Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Citrus aurantium L., syn. Citrus amara Link, syn. Citrus
bigaradia Loisel, syn. Citrus vulgaris Risso. For Oil of neroli (Citrus aurantium L. spp.
aurantium, syn. Citrus aurantium L. spp. amara var. pumilia) an ISO standard exists:
ISO 3517:2002. Citrus Aurantium Peel Oil Expressed is an essential oil expressed fromthe fresh epicarps of the Sour Orange, Citrus aurantium, Rutaceae. It contains Dlimonene (about 90%), citral, decanaldehyde, methyl anthranilate, linalool,
terpineol (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=searc
h.details&id=41394, last accessed 2010-01-29. The aldehyde content is lower and theester content (e.g., linalyl and geranyl acetate) is higher than in sweet orange oil (34).
It is predominantly used for flavouring alcoholic beverages. According to (30) the
maximum observed concentration in neroli oil are (in %): linalool (44); limonene (18);β-pinene (17); linalyl acetate (15); trans-β-ocimene (8); geranyl acetate (5); transnerolidol (5); (E,E)-farnesol (4); myrcene (4); farnesol (4,0); geraniol (3,5); citral (0,3)(30).

CITRUS AURANTIUM AMARA LEAF OIL

72968-50-4; EC 277-143-2 (Orange,sour, ext.)

Petitgrain oil Paraguay / … bigarade
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found 1 positive reaction in 200 patients to “Petitgrain bigarade”
and “Petitgrain Paraguay” essential oil each, both tested at 2% pet. (26). The later
Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=7 (8.1%) positive reactions to“Petitgrain bigarade” and n=4 (4.6%) to “Petitgrain Paraguay” essential oil each, bothtested at 2% pet. (27).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Citrus sinensis L. Pers. X Citrus aurantium L. ssp. amara
var. pumilia. Petitgrain oils in general are steam distilled from the leaves of citrus trees.
Citrus Aurantium Leaf Oil is an essential oil obtained from the leaves of the Sour
Orange,Citrusaurantium,
Rutaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear
ch.details&id=41392, last accessed 2010-02-10). Petitgrain oil Paraguay is obtained
from an acclimatised variety of the bitter orange tree. Main constituents are linalool (1530%) and linalyl acetate (40-60%). A number of trace constituents contribute
essentially to the odour (34). Petitgrain oil bigarade is derived from the same species oftree grown in France, Italy, Spain and North Africa (34). For Oil of bitter orange
petitgrain, cultivated (Citrus aurantium L.) an ISO standard exists: ISO 8901:2003.
Considering the content of well-known allergenic compounds, the essential oil isregarded as an established contact allergen in humans

CITRUS BERGAMIA PEEL OIL EXPRESSED243

CAS 89957-91-5, 8007-75-8; EC

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

289-612-9 (Bergamot, ext.)

Bergamot Oil, Bergamot Orange Oil

INCI:CITRUSAURANTIUM
BERGAMIA EXTRACT

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found 3 positive reactions in 200 patients to “Bergamot”
essential oil 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patientsfound no positive reaction to “Bergamot” essential oil 2% pet. (27). In 63 patients
positive to the FM I, 2 had a positive PT reaction to bergamot oil, 2% pet., in theSantucci 1987 study (28). A case report from Zacher and Ippen describes 2 patientswith allergic contact dermatitis due to bergamot oil (191), one a worker in a perfume
factory, the other sensitised by non-occupational use of cosmetics.
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Citrus bergamia (Risso et Poit.), syn. Citrus aurantium L.
subsp. bergamia (Wight et Arnott) Engler. Citrus Bergamia Peel Oil Expressed is an
essential oil expressed from the epicarps of the Bergamot, Citrus bergamia risso,
Rutaceae. It contains 35-45% L-linalyl acetate, about 6% linalool, D-limonene, DLlimonene
andbergaptene (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=41398, last accessed 2009-11-27). According to Surburg/Panten: linalyl
acetate 22-36%, linalool 3-15%, geranial 0.25-0.5%, citral 1%, with a relatively low
terpene content of 25-50% (34, 39). Bergaptene content by HPLC is 0.18-0.38% (34).
Annual production from Italy, Brazil, Spain and Ivory Coast is 100 to 150 t. For Oil of
bergamot [Citrus aurantium L. subsp. bergamia (Wight et Arnott) Engler], Italian typean ISO standard exists: ISO 3520:1998.

CITRUS LIMONUM PEEL OIL EXPRESSEDCAS 84929-31-7, 8008-56-8; EC
284-515-8 (Lemon, ext.)

Lemon oil

INCI names:
LIMONUM …

CITRUSMEDICA

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Coimbra 2000 study found in 67 patients with positive reaction to the FM I who were
tested with "lemon oil" (2% pet.) 4.5% positive reactions (9). In the Wöhrl 2001 study,
PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded n=2(0.3%) positive reactions to “lemon oil” 2% pet. (22).
The Rudzki 1976 study found 1 positive reaction in 200 patients to “lemon” essential oil
2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=2 (2.3%)
positive reactions to “lemon” essential oil 2% pet. (27). The IVDK 2010 c study identified
0.3% positive reactions in 6467 patients tested in the context of a special series (30).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f. According to (30) the maximum
observed concentration in lemon oil are (in %): limonene (80); ß-pinene (16.5);
γ-terpinene (12); citral (3.0); geranial (2.0); neral (1.2); β-bisabolene (0.9); geranyl
244

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

acetate (0.7); neryl acetate (0.6); linalool (0,3); geraniol (0,2) (30). An ISO standard
exists for Oil of lemon [Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.], obtained by expression: ISO
855:2003. The composition of lemon oil depends on the variety of lemon an the countryof origin, see table from (34).

CITRUS PARADISI PEEL OIL

CAS 8016-20-4 ; EC /Grapefruit oil, expressed

INCI: CITRUS GRANDIS OIL

Current regulation: II/358 R1
Clinical data: /Additional information:
Citrus Paradisi Peel Oil is the volatile oil expressed from the peel of the Grapefruit,Citrusparadisi,
Rutaceae
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details_
v2&id=55434
It is a “top 200” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010)

CITRUS SINENSIS (syn.: AURANTIUM DULCIS)PEEL OIL EXPRESSED245

CAS 97766-30-8, 8008-57-9, EC
307-891-8(Orange,sweet,

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Valencia, ext. = INCI) / 8028-486; EC 232-433-8 (Orange, sweet,
ext.)(Sweet) Orange oil

INCI names: CITRUS AURANTIUMDULCIS …

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Coimbra 2000 study found in 67 patients with positive reaction to the FM I whowere tested with "orange oil" (2% pet.) 4.5% positive reactions (9). In the Wöhrl 2001
study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded
n=1 (0.1%) positive reactions to orange oil 2% pet. (22). The Rudzki 1976 study found
1 positive reaction in 200 patients to “sweet orange” essential oil, 2% pet. (26). The
later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=3 (3.5%) positive reactions
to “sweet orange” essential oil 2% pet. (27). In the Frosch 1995 dose-finding pilot
study, neither positive nor irritant reaction to 1% and 5% “orange oil Bras.” in pet.,tested in 205 consecutive patients in Dortmund and Göttingen, were observed (15). The
IVDK 2010 c study identified 0.2% positive reactions in 6246 patients tested in thecontext of a special series (30).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck. For Oil of sweet orange (Citrus
sinensis (L.) Osbeck), CAS 8008-57-9, obtained by mechanical treatment, an ISO norm
exists: ISO 3140:2005. The oils have a high terpene hydrocarbon content (> 90%,
mainly (+)-limonene. Important for aroma are aldehydes, mainly decanal and citral, andaliphatic and terpenoid esters. The sesquiterpene aldehydes alpha-sinensal [17909-772] and beta-sinensal [6066-88-8] contribute particularly to the special sweet aroma(34). According to (30) the maximum observed concentration in sweet orange oil are (in%): limonene (95.0); linalool (0.7); n-decanal (0.7); citral (0.3); alpha-sinensal (0.05);
beta-sinensal (0.06) (30). Worldwide production is more than 30000 tons / year. Main
uses comprise the flavouring of beverages and confectioneries and perfuming E.d.C,
soaps and household products.
For the latter uses relevant here, both “Orange peel oil, sweet (Citrus sinensis (L.)
Osbeck) (8008-57-9)“, “Orange peel, sweet, extract (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck) (802848-6)“ and “Orange, sweet, Valencia, ext. (97766-30-8)” are among the top 100 usedfragrance materials and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm. 2010).
ORANGE OIL TERPENES (CAS # 68647-72-3) are a “top 100 mixture of substances andclassified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010). Other names: ORANGE, SWEET, TERPENES(REACH); Terpenes and Terpenoids, sweet orange-oil (REACH). The CAS entry refers toa group of substances “Terpenes and Terpenoids, sweet orange-oil“ (REACH).

CITRUS TANGERINA …

CAS 223748-44-5; EC /Oil of tangerine[no info in CAS database]

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In a 17 year old girl, the perfume used for 3 months caused ACD due to the ingredient“oil of tangerine”, with a strong positive PT reaction (to 2% or 10% in pet.; 50 controls
246

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

negative) (226).
Additional information:
Citrus Tangerina Peel Oil is the volatile oil expressed from the peel of the ripe fruit the
Tangerine,
CitrusTangerina,
Rutaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear
ch.details&id=55441, last accessed 2010-01-29); (Citrus tangerina Tanaka).

CORIANDRUM SATIVUM HERB OIL

CAS 84775-50-8;(Coriander, ext.)

EC

Coriander oil

INCI: CORIANDRUM
EXTRACT

283-880-0

SATIVUM

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found 2 positive reactions in 200 patients to “coriander”
essential oil, 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patientsfound n=3 (3.5%) positive reactions to “coriander” essential oil 2% pet. (27).
Additional information:
Coriander Sativum Herb Oil is an essential oil obtained from the herbs of the Coriander,
Coriandrum
sativum
L.,
Umbelliferae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=39388, last accessed 2010-01-29). The main component of coriander oil is linalool(by GC: 65-78%) and mono- and polyunsaturated fatty aldehydes contributing to theparticular aroma. In contrast to the seed oil, coriander leaf oil contains these aldehydes
as main constituents, e.g. 2-deccanal and 2-dodecanal (34). For Oil of coriander fruits(Coriandrum sativum L.) an ISO standard exists: ISO 3516:1997.

CYMBOPOGON OILS
Cymbopogon oils are produced from several aromatic grasses that belong to the genus
Cymbopogon Speng. (Poaceae). The oils are obtained by steam distillation of the aerial
parts of the plants (34).
The composition of the essential oil derived from Cymbopogon flexuosus (Nees ex
Steudel) J.F. Watson is defined by a standard: ISO 4718:2004, as is the oil derived from
Cymbopogon citratus: 3217:1974.
CYMBOPOGON CITRATUS LEAF OIL

CAS 89998-14-1; EC 289-752-0(Cymbopogon citratus, ext. =
INCI)

24

Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf.

24

ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature
247

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Lemon Grass Oil; Indian Verbena Oil; Indian Melissa
Oil
CYMBOPOGON SCHOENANTHUS OIL
Cymbopogon flexuosus (Nees ex Steudel) J.F. Watson

25

CAS 8007-02-1; EC 289-754-1 (oils,
lemongrass) / 89998-16-3; EC
289-752-0(Cymbopogon
Schoenanthus, ext. = INCI)

Lemon Grass Oil
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Frosch 2002 b study on 1606 consecutive patients reported 1.6% positive reactions
to “lemongrass oil (East India), CAS 8007-02-1”, PTed at 2% pet. (17). In a series of 40
of 744 consecutive patients PTed with an extended fragrance series (Sheffield 1999), 3
positive reactions to lemongrass oil were observed (3). In the Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing
747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded n=6 (0.8%)
positive reactions to lemongrass oil 2% pet. (22). The IVDK 2010 c study identified
0.6% positive reactions in 2435 consecutively tested patients and 2.3% positive
reactions in 8445 patients tested in the context of a special series (30).
Additional information:
Cymbopogon Citratus Leaf Oil is an essential oil obtained from the leaves of the Lemon
Grass, Cymbopogon citratus (DC., ex Nees), Poaceae. It contains citral (75-85%),
methylheptenone,
citronellal,geraniol,limonene(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=39457, last accessed 2009-11-12). According to Surburg/Panten, by GC: neral (3140%), geranial (40-50%) (34).
Indian lemongrass oil is obtained by the so-called Indian variety of lemongrass,
Cymbopogon flexosus (Nees ex Steud.) Stapf. Content by GC: 25-35% neral, 35-47%
geranial (34).
Cymbopogon Schoenanthus Oil is the volatile oil obtained by the steam distillation of
fresh
Lemon
Grass,
Cymbopogonschoenanthus(L.),
Poaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=75419, last accessed 2009-11-12). According to (30) the maximum observed
concentration in lemongrass oil are (in %):citral (85.0); geraniol (7.0); limonene (4.0);
geranyl acetate (2.2); caryophyllene (1.6); trans-isocitral (1.4); 6-methyl 5-hepten-2one (1.3); caryophyllene oxide (1.2); 4-nonanone (1); citronellol (0.8); eugenol (0.3);
linalool (0.2) (also according to (227))
In a LLNA study by RIFM, the lemongrass oil as used was reported to contain 68.8%
citral, 6.7% limonene, 6.1% geraniol, 2.2% geranyl acetate, 1.6% caryophyllene, 1.4%trans-isocitral, 1.3% 6-methyl 5-hepten-2-one, 1.2% caryophyllene oxide and 1% 4nonanone, according to analyses of the supplier. The EC3 value was calculated to be
6.5% (227).

CYMBOPOGON MARTINI HERB EXTRACT

CAS

84649-81-0; EC 283-461Martini,ext)

2 (Cymbopogon

25

ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature
248

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

INCI: CYMBOPOGON MARTINI OIL
Palmarosa oil
Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) Will. Watson var. motia
and var. sofia. Cymbopogon Martini Herb Extract is an extract obtained from the herbsoftheplant,
Cymbopogonmartini,
Gramineae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=39460, last accessed 2009-11-24), namely, by steam distillation of wild or
cultivated Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) J.F. Wats., collected when in blossom (34).The
main constituent is geraniol (72-94%) (34).
In a LLNA study by RIFM, the palmarosa oil as used was reported to contain 79.4%
geraniol, 9.4% geranyl acetate and 1.9% caryophyllene, according to analyses of the
supplier. The EC3 value was calculated to be 9.6% (227).

CYMBOPOGON NARDUS HERB OIL

CAS

89998-15-2; EC 289-753nardus, ext. =6 (Cymbopogon

INCI)
Citronella Oil (Sri Lanka)
CYMBOPOGON WINTERIANUS HERB OIL

CAS 91771-61-8; EC 294-9547 (Cymbopogon Winterianus, ext.
= INCI)

Citronella Oil (Java)
Current regulation: …
Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found 5 positive reactions in 200 patients to “citronella” essential
oil 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=1(1.1%) positive reactions to “citronella” essential oil 2% pet. (27).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Cymbopogon nardus (L.) W. Watson var. lenabatu Stapf.
and Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt, respectively. Cymbopogon Nardus Herb Oil is an
essential oil obtained from the herbs of the plant, Cymbopogon (syn: Andropogon)
nardus (L.), Gramineae. The Ceylon citronella oil contains geraniol (about 60%),
citronellal (about 15%), camphene, limonene, linalool, borneol. According toSurburg/Panten, the Sri Lankan oil contains citronellal (3-6%), borneol (4-7%),
citronellol (3-8.5%), geraniol 15-23%) and methyl isoeugenol (7.11%) (34).
The
Java
citronellaoilcontains
25-50%
citronellal,
25-45%
geraniol (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=searc
h.details&id=39469, last accessed 2009-11-24). Cymbopogon Winterianus Herb Oil as asynonym for Java citronella oil is obtained from the herbs of the plant, Cymbopogon
winterianus,
Gramineae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=sea
249

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

rch.details&id=39472, last accessed 2009-11-24). This oil, produced in Taiwan andJava, contains citronellal (31-40%), geraniol (20-25%), citronellol (8.5-14%), geranyl
acetate (2.5-5.5%), citronellyl acetate (2-4%) and many minor components. Annual
worldwide production is currently at around 1000 t (34). For Oil of citronella, Sri Lankan
type (Cymbopogon nardus (L.) W. Watson var. lenabatu Stapf.) an ISO standard exists:
ISO 3849:2003, for Oil of citronella, Java type the ISO 3848:2001.
In a LLNA study by RIFM, the citronella oil as used was reported to contain 36.6%
citronellal, 20.6% geraniol, 4.1% limonene, 3.7% geranyl acetate, 3.0% citronellyl
acetate, 2.6% elemol, 2.2% beta-bourbonene, 1.9% delta-cadiene, 1.6% isopugenol I,
1.4% germacrene D and eugenol and linallol at < 1%, according to analyses of the
supplier. The EC3 value was calculated as > 50 % (227).
Considering the content of well-known allergenic compounds, this essential oil isregarded as established contact allergen in humans.

EUCALYPTUS SPP. LEAF OIL

CAS 92502-70-0; EC 296-357-7(Eucalyptus, ext. = INCI)

Eucalyptus Oil

CAS 8000-48-4; EC / (Oils,
eucalyptus) INCI: EUCALYPTUS
GLOBULUS OIL

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In a study with 218 fragrance sensitive patients, 1.8% reacted positively to 10%
eucalyptus oil (pet.) (1). In a series of 40 of 744 consecutive patients PTed with anextended fragrance series (Sheffield 1999), 1 positive reaction to "eucalyptus oil" wasobserved (3). In the Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact
allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded n=4 (0.6%) positive reactions to eucalyptus oil
2% pet. (22). The Rudzki 1976 study found 3 positive reactions in 200 patients to“eucalyptus” essential oil 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive
patients found n=1 (1.1%) positive reactions to “Eucalyptus” essential oil 2% pet. (27).
The IVDK 2010 c study identified 0.2% positive reactions in 6680 patients tested in thecontext of a special series (30).
In a professional athlete, the use of an "analgesic and anti-inflammatory cream" over 2
years lead to ACD, which was attributed to eucalyptol (eucalyptus oil, 1% pet., 25
controls negative), the sole ingredient of the cream eliciting a positive PT reaction (228)250

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Eucalyptus globulus Labill. Eucalyptus oils are produced fromplants belonging to the genus Eucalyptus (Myrtaceae), which includes about 500 species
in Australia, the country of origin, alone. At present, few of the oils, which are used tocharacterise species, are commercially important (34). Some species are rich in 1,8cineole (80-85% content). Other species contain less cineole, but 10-22% alpha-pinene.
E. citriodora predominantly contains citronellal (min. 75% by GC), with some citronellol
and isopulegol (5-10% each) (34). E. dives contains (-)-piperitone and 15-25% alphaphellandrene (34). According to (30) the maximum observed concentration in
eucalyptus oil are (in %): 1,8-cineole (58; 70-80 after rectification); α-pinene (22);limonene (8); para-cymene (5); trans-pinocarveol (5); aromadendrene (10); globulol(2.5) [the latter 2 components only traces after rectification] (30).
For Crude or rectified oils of Eucalyptus globulus (Eucalyptus globulus Labill.) an ISO
standard exists: ISO 770:2002.
It is a “top 100” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

EUGENIA CARYOPHYLLUS LEAF / FLOWER OIL

CAS 8000-34-8; EC / (Oils, clove)

Clove oil

INCI:
OIL

EUGENIACARYOPHYLLUS

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Larsen 2002 c study, 19.3% of patients with known contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients reacted positively to “clove bud oil” (10 % pet.) (1). In a series of 40 of 744
consecutive patients PTed with an extended fragrance series (Sheffield 1999), 2 positive
reactions to "clove oil" were observed (3). The Coimbra 2000 study found in 67 patientswith positive reaction to the FM I who were tested with clove oil (2% pet.) 13.4%
positive reactions (9). In the Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing 747 patients with suspectedcontact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded 1.6% positive reactions 2% pet. (22).
The Rudzki 1976 study found 2 positive reactions in 200 patients to “clove” essential oil,
2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=12(13.3%) positive reactions to “clove” essential oil 2% pet. (27). The IVDK 2010 c study
identified 1.5% positive reactions 6893 patients tested in the context of a special series(30).
A 32 year old Spanish physiotherapists developed vesicular hand dermatitis after using a"balsam from ash extract" cream. PTing revealed positive reactions to this cream, theFM I, eugenol, and 2 components of the cream: cinnamon oil (0.5% pet.) and clove oil(1% pet.) (225).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & L. M. Perry syn. Eugenia
caryophyllus (Spreng.) Bullock & S. G. Harrison. Standards regarding the composition of clove oil
are available: ISO 3141:1997, ISO 3142:1997, ISO 3143:1997. Clove oils are produced
from the clove tree Szyigium aromaticum (L.) Merr. et L.M. Perry [Eugenia caryophyllus(Speng.) Bullock ex S.G. Harrison. The content of clove bud, clove leaf and clove stem
oil has, with little variation, been determined by GC as 75-92% eugenol, 2-17%
caryophyllene and 0.2-15% eugenyl acetate – the latter compound found in particularlyhigh concentration in bud oil (34). According to another source, the following maximum
content (%) has been observed regarding the constituents listed: eugenol (92,0);251

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

caryophyllene (17); eugenyl acetate (15); isoeugenol (0.5) (30).
In a LLNA study by RIFM, the clove leaf oil as used was reported to contain 85.3%
eugenol, 9.9% caryophyllene and 2.2% alpha humulene, according to analyses of the
supplier. The EC3 value was calculated to be 7.1% (227).

EVERNIA FURFURACEA LICHEN EXTRACT

CAS 90028-67-4; EC 289-860-8(Evernia furfuracea, ext. = INCI)

Tree moss extract
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Larsen 1977 study in 20 “perfume-sensitive patients” yielded n=6 positive reactions
with “treemoss abs. in benzyl benzoate, 5% petrolatum” (18). In the IVDK 2007 study,
2.7% (95% CI: 2.0 – 3.6%) of 1658 consecutive patients had a positive reaction to“tree moss absolute” (4). In the Groningen 2009 study, 2.5% (95% CI: 1.1 – 4.9%) had
positive reactions to the allergen, tested at 2%., i.e., twice the commonly usedconcentration, and not in pet., but in diethylphthalate (6). The IVDK 2010 study, 6.02%(95% CI: 4.90 – 7.14%; percentages standardised for age and sex) of 1947 patients
PTed reacted to the compound (7).
Additional information:
Syn.: Pseudoevernia furfuracea (L.) Zopf (53). The lichen grows on the bark of pine andfir trees. The extraction process with carbohydrate solvents yields a “concrete” (2-5%
yield) which, in a next step eliminating waxy compounds, is extracted with warm alcoholand subsequent cooling, yielding an “absolute” (40-60% yield) (53).

EVERNIA PRUNASTRICAS 90028-68-5; EC 289-861-3(Evernia prunastri, ext. = INCI)Oak moss abs.
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 91
Clinicaldata:
In the “background information” section of the 1999 opinion, oak moss exctract isclassified as “most frequently reported allergen”; in consecutive PT patients, about 2.8%
positive reactions had been reported (33). ´The German MAK commission has labelled
oak moss extract as ‘sensitising to the skin’ (229).
Since the last SCCNFP-opinion of 1999, a “polymer based method” was developed toreduce the natural content of these two compounds from around 1 - several percent to< 75 ppm for atranol and < 25 ppm for chloratranol. However, PTing 14 subjects withprevious positive PT reactions to the “oak moss” allergen preparation with the modified
Evernia prunastri material still elicited positive reactions in 8/14 subjects; thus, thereduction in allergen content was deemed unsafe for the consumer (230). In a study of
885 consecutive eczema patients tested in Gentofte, Denmark, 3.2% had a positive or
follicular patch test response to oak moss absolute. Two types of oak moss absolutewere tested, one contaminated by resin acids and one without any detectable resin
acids. There was no difference in reactivity between the two types of oak moss absolute252

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________(231). The IVDK 2007 study yielded 2.2% (95% CI: 1.6 – 3-0%) positive reactions in
2063 consecutively tested patients (4). In the Groningen 2009 study, 1.9% (95% CI:
0.7 – 4.0%) had positive reactions to oak moss, tested at 2% pet., i.e., twice thecommonly used concentration (6). In the An 2005 study, 6 of 422 consecutive patients,
i.e., 1.4%, had positive reaction (13) (test concentration 2% pet.). In the Wöhrl 2001
study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded
5.0% positive reactions (22). The IVDK 2010 study, 1.81% (95% CI: 1.07 – 2.56%) of
1213 consecutively tested patients reacted to the compound, while 5.59% (95% CI:
4.90 – 6.27%) of 4482 of patients tested in a more aimed manner, partly as breakdown testing to the FM I, had a positive PT reaction (7). In a study from Alicante, Spain,
86 selected patients were tested with E. prunastri extract, yielding 2 positive reactions(48).
L. Kanerva et al. report on a 41 year old female hairdresser in whom oak moss abs.
contained in a perming solution (concentration in the product unknown) was
unequivocally identified as allergen causing (i) occupational hand dermatitis and (ii)scalp dermatitis after application to the own hair (232). Another case of occupational
hand dermatitis in a grinding engineer was, at least partly, attributable to contact
sensitisation to "oak moss resin" contained in a soluble oil (233).
Additional information:
Source: Evernia prunastri (Oak moss) (Evernia prunastri var. prunastri L. Ach). Oak moss is extracted
as described above. Chloratranol and atranol are the degradation products ofchloratranorin and atranorin, resp., which are recognised as the main sensitisers inEvernia prunastri extracts.

ILLICIUM VERUM FRUIT OIL

CAS 84650-59-9, 8007-70-3; EC
283-518-1"Anise Oil", Star anise oil(Star anise, Illicium verum, ext. =INCI)Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In a study involving 100 consecutive patients, Rudzki and Grzywa found (i) a relatively
high frequency of active sensitisation to star anise oil (n=5) tested with 0.5, 1 and 2%
concentration (most likely in yellow petrolatum, as the other allergens in this series).
Later patch testing with constituents of this essential oil (1%) in 3 patients yielded
positive results to anethole in 3 cases, and to alpha-pinene and safrole in the 1 casetested to these substances. 34% of the consecutive patients reacted positively to staranise oil at 1%, which was considered as (marginally) non-irritating PT concentration(234).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Illicium verum Hook. f. Illicium Verum Fruit Oil is an
essential oil distilled from the fruits of the Star Anise, Illicium verum,
Illiciaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear
ch.details&id=40297, last accessed 2010-01-29). The main component is trans-anethole(86-93%), which can be purified from star anise oil. Main uses are alcoholic beverages,
food flavouring and oral care products (34, 39). For Oil of star anise, Chinese type
(Illicium verum Hook. f.) an ISO standard exists: ISO 11016:1999.

253

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________JASMINUM GRANDIFLORUM FLOWER EXTRACT

CAS 84776-64-7; EC 283-993-5(Jasmine,
Jasminum
grandiflorum, ext. = INCI)

Jasmine abs.
JASMINUM OFFICINALE FLOWER OIL

CAS

90045-94-6; EC 289-960Jasminum officinale,ext. = INCI)

1 (Jasmine,

JASMINUM OFFICINALE OIL

CAS 8022-96-6; EC / (Oils,
jasmine)INCI:JASMINUM
OFFICINALE OIL

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 b study, a total of 1.2% of 1606 consecutive patients had a positive
PT to “jasmine absolute”, tested 5% in pet. (17). The deGroot 2000 study yielded 13
positive reactions to "jasmine, synthetic" in 1825 consecutively tested patients (12). In
the early Larsen 1977 study, 18 of 20 “perfume sensitive patients” reacted to “Jasmin
synthetic” 10% pet. (18), while 7 reacted to “Jasmin absolute” (10% pet.) – all of these
also positive to the synthetic fragrance. The Sugiura 2000 study set in Nagoya, Japan,
yielded 1% positive PT reactions in 1483 patients PTed for suspected cosmetic
dermatitis, using 5% pet. as test concentration (14). The Larsen 2001 study in 178
patients with known contact allergy to fragrance ingredients found 16.9% positive
reactions to jasmine absolute (10% pet.) (19). In the An 2005 study, 5 of 422
consecutive patients, i.e., 1.2%, had a positive reaction to Jasmine officinale oil(Jasmine absolute, Egyptian), tested at 2% (13). In the NACDG 2009 study, 1.1% of4447 patients tested with “Jasmine absolute 2% pet.” were found PT-positive (21). The
Belsito 2006 study (20) yielded 0.4% positive reactions to “jasmine absolute”. The
Goossens 1997 study found 5 of 111 patients positive to “jasmine absolute” (10%pet.)– all sensitised to other fragrance allergens (23). In 63 patients positive to the FM
I, 13 had positive PT reactions to “jasmine absolute”, 2% pet., and 12 to “jasmine
synthetic”, 2% pet. in the Santucci 1987 study – the amount of concomitant reactivity
was not examined (28). Nakayama et al. found 1974 (after (29)) 19 “strong positive”
and 25 “weak positive” reactions to “jasmin oil” (unknown test concentration) in 183
patients. The IVDK 2010 c study identified 1.5% positive reactions in 3668
consecutively tested patients and 1.2% positive reactions in 982 patients tested in thecontext of a special series (30). In a study from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patientswere tested with jasmine absolute, yielding 3 positive reactions, and with “Jasmine
synthetic”, also resulting in 3 positive reactions (48).
Additional information:
Jasminum Grandiflorum Flower Extract is an extract obtained from the flowers of the
SpanishJasmine,Jasminum
grandiflorum
L.,
Oleaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=39752, last accessed 2009-11-12).
Jasminum Officinale Flower Oil is an essential oil obtained by molecular distillation of theflowersfromtheJasmine,Jasminum
officinale
L.,
Oleaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=39754, last accessed 2009-11-25).
Jasminum Officinale Oil is the volatile oil obtained from the flowers of the Jasmine,
Jasminium
officinale
L.,
Oleaceae254

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=34776, last accessed 2010-01-05); this latter extract is used by
Almirall/Hermal/Trolab for the preparation of a PT allergen.
Jasmine absolute is obtained by solvent extraction, via concrete, from the flowers of J.
grandiflorum (L.) Aiton from China and India. The main volatile compound is benzyl
acetate, however, minor compounds such as indole [120-72-9], cis-jasmone [488-10-8]
and methyl jasmonate [1211-29-6] contribute to the typical jasmine fragrance (34).
Reported compounds include the following (maximum observed concentration given inparentheses): benzyl acetate (28); benzyl benzoate (24.0); phytyl acetate (9);isophytol (8.5); phytol (7.4); linalool (7.0); eugenol (4.0); squalene (4); indole (3.5);
benzyl alcohol (2.5); cis-jasmone (2.5); methyl linolenate (2.0); methyl palmitate(1.4); p-cresol (1.0); cis-3-hexenyl benzoate (1.0); benzyl salicylate (0.4); jasmin
lactone (0.9); methyl jasmonate (0.7); isoeugenol (0.4) ((30), also according to (17))

JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA OIL

CAS 8000-27-9; EC / (Oils,
cedarwood) [this also refers to
Cedrus atlantica …) / 85085-41-2;
EC 285-370-3 (Juniper, Juniperus
virginiana, ext. = INCI)JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA WOOD OIL

CAS 85085-41-2; EC 285-370-3

Cedar Wood Oil (Virginian)Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 b study, a total of 0.6% of 1606 consecutive patients had a positive
PT to “cedarwood oil (Moroccan and Chinese 1:1)”, tested 10% in pet. (17). Afterapplication of Penaten-baby™ oil as immersion oil for dermatoscopy a patient developed
multiple patches of eczema at the application sites. Investigation revealed that the oil
was kept in a bottle previously used for Juniperus virginiana oil, to which contact
sensitisation was verified by patch testing (235).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Juniperus virginiana L.. Juniperus Virginiana Oil is thevolatile oil obtained from the fruits and leaves of the Red Cedar, Juniperus virginiana L.,
Cupressaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=
search.details&id=78070, last accessed 2010-01-05)
Juniperus Virginiana Wood Oil is an essential oil obtained from the wood and twigs of
the Red Cedar, Juniperus virginiana L., Cupressaceae. It contains chiefly (alpha andbeta) cedrene and cedral (cedar camphor), cuparene, thujopsene, widdrol(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=39767, last accessed 2009-11-12)(235). According to Surburg/Panten by GC:
alpha-cedrene 22-35%, thujopsene 10-25%, cedrol 16-25% (34).
See also Cedrus atlantica. According to (30) the maximum observed concentration in
cedar wood oil are (in %): α-cedrene (32); thujopsene (25); cedrol (25); β-cedrene(6); widdrol (5) and cuparene (traces) (30).
For Oil of cedarwood, Virginian (Juniperus virginiana L.) an ISO standard is available:
ISO 4724:2004. For Oil of cedarwood, Texas (Juniperus mexicana Schiede) an ISO
standard exists: ISO 4725:2004.
255

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________LAURUS NOBILIS OIL

CAS 8002-41-3; EC / (Oils, laurel)
INCI: LAURUS NOBILIS OIL /8007-48-5; EC / (Oils, sweetbay)/ 84603-73-6; EC 283-272-5(Laurusnobilis,
ext.)
INCI:
LAURUS NOBILIS EXTRACT

Laurel oil
Current regulation: Annex II, n° 359 (seed oil)
Clinical data:
In the Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing 747 patients with suspected contact allergy to fragrance
ingredients yielded n=4 (0.6%) positive reactions to “laurel oil” 2% pet. (22).
After sensitisation by a one-time occlusive application a 36 year old Turkish patientdeveloped widespread allergic contact dermatitis 3 days after massage with olive oil
containing Laurus nobilis oil; sensitisation was proven by a strong positive reaction to
the commercial test preparation and the massage oil previously used (236). Topicalapplication of laurel oil for knee arthropathy led to an erythema exudativum multiformelike rash on the legs of a 63 year old patient; interestingly, laurel oil yielded a “targetlike” strongly positive PT reaction in this case (237). In an earlier Turkish case with asimilar history, the EEM-like appearance was lacking; however, a very intense,edematous reaction was noted (238). In a series of 40 of 744 consecutive patients PTed
with an extended fragrance series (Sheffield 1999), 2 positive reactions to "laurel oil"
were observed (3). The IVDK 2010 c study identified 1.0% positive reactions in 6297
patients tested in the context of a special series (30).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Laurus nobilis L. Laurel leaf oil is obtained by steam
distillation of leaves from Laurus nobilis L. (Lauraceae), an evergreen cultivatedprimarily in the Mediterranean countries. The main components are 1,8-cineole (3070%), linalool (about 10%) and eugenol (34). According to (30) the maximum observed
concentration in laurel oil are (in %): 1,8-cineole (70); ß-caryophyllene (11); linalool(11); limonene (5.0); eugenol (2.0); geraniol (0.3) (30).

LAVANDULA HYBRIDA HERB OIL

CAS 91722-69-9; EC(Lavender, Lavandula
ext. = INCI)

294-470-6

hybrida,Lavandin Oil
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found 1 positive reaction in 200 patients to “lavandin” essential
oil, 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=4(4.6%) positive reactions to “lavandin” essential oil 2% pet. (27). In the Frosch 1995
dose-finding pilot study, no positive reaction to 1% and 5% lavandin oil in pet., tested
in 205 consecutive patients in Dortmund and Göttingen, and just 1 irritant reaction to256

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

the higher concentration, were observed (15).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Lavandula angustifolia Mill. x Lavandula latifolia Medik.
Lavandula Hybrida Herb Oil is an essential oil distilled from the flowering herbs of theLavendin,
Lavandula
hybrida,Labiatae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=searc
h.details&id=39789,
last
accessed
2010-01-29.
NomenclatureaccordingtoSurburg/Panten: Lavandula x intermedia Lois, which is a hybrid of lavender and spike(see below) (34). The oils from the most important variants, abrial and grosso, contain
linalool (24-38%), linalyl acetate (20-38%) as well as 1,8-cineole (4-11%), andcamphor (6-11%) (34). A third variant is called super because of its high concentrationof linalyl acetate (35-47%), more closely resembling lavender oil (34). For Oil oflavandin Grosso (Lavandula angustifolia Mill. x Lavandula latifolia Medik.), French typean ISO standard exists: ISO 8902:2009, for Oil of lavandin Abrial (Lavandula
angustifolia Miller x Lavandula latifolia Medikus), French type a different ISO standard:
ISO 3054:2001.
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010)
Considering the content of well-known allergenic compounds, this essential oil isregarded as established contact allergen in humans.

LAVANDULA OFFICINALIS FLOWER OIL

CAS 84776-65-8, 8000-28-0; EC(Lavender, Lavandula
angustifolia angustifolia, ext. =INCI)
283-994-0

Lavender oil
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In a large series from Nagoya, Japan, 1483 patients were tested with lavender oil 20%
in pet., with overall 3.7% positive reactions from 1990 to 1998. However, within thisperiod, a sharp increase was noted in 1997 and 1998, which as attributed to changed
exposure by M. Sugiura et al. (14). On the individual level, relevance of positive
reactions remained unclear in about half of the cases. The Coimbra 2000 study found in
67 patients with positive reaction to the FM I who were tested with "lavender absolute"(2% pet.) 6.6% positive reactions (9). In the An 2005 study, 5 of 422 consecutive
patients, i.e., 1.2%, had positive reactions to “Lavendula augustifolia oil” (Lavenderabsolute) 2% (13). The Goossens 1997 study found 4 of 111 patients positive to“lavender oil 20% pet.”)– all of them sensitised to other fragrance allergens (23). The
Rudzki 1976 study found no positive reaction in 200 patients to “lavender” essential oil,
2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=3(3.5%) positive reactions to “lavender” essential oil 2% pet. (27). Nakayama et al.
found 1974 (after (29)) 6 “strong positive” reactions to “Lavender oil” (unknown test
concentration) in 183 patients. In a study from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patientswere tested with “lavender absolute”, yielding 2 positive reactions (48).
R. Goiriz et al. report on a case of photo contact allergy (10 controls negative) in a 45
year old woman developing after application of a ketoprofen-containing topical gel(“Fastum”)(239). A physiotherapist developed acute, recurrent dermatitis after use of“Difflam® gel”, scented with lavender oil. Both the gel and lavender oil (2% pet.) tested
positive; avoidance resulted in clearing (240). In a study on 218 patients with known
257

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

contact allergy to fragrance ingredients, Larsen (2002 c) found positive reactions to
10% lavender oil (pet.) in 2.8% of these (1). A case of vulvovaginitis with spread andaffecting the dominant hand applying various tea tree and lavender oil creams wasreported by S. Varma; the PT with 10% lavender oil abs. in pet. (50 controls negative)
was positive (241). In two cases, facial “pillow dermatitis” due to lavender oil, applied tothe pillows, developed, confirmed by positive PT to lavender abs. (2% pet.) (242).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Lavandula angustifolia Mill. Lavandula officinalis Flower
Oil is an essential oil obtained from the fresh flowering tops of the Lavender, Lavandula
officinalis (syn: L. vera), Labiatae. It contains 30-40% esters calculated as linalyl
acetate,linalool,pinene,limonene,
geraniol,some
eucalyptol(cineol)(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=40370, last accessed 2009-11-09). According to Surburg/Panten, lavender oil is
obtained by steam distillation of freshly cut flowering tops of Lavandula angustifolia Mill.
(Lamiaceae). Main constituents according to GC are linalyl acetate (25-45%), cisocimene (4-10%), trans-ocimene (1.5-6%), 1,8-cineole (≤ 1%) camphor (≤ 0.5%),
linalool (25-38%), 1-terpinen-4-ol (2-6%) and lavandulyl acetate [25905-14-0] (≥ 2%)(34).
In addition to distillation, both Lavandula officinalis and Lavandin are also solvent
extracted, yielding concretes and, after ethanol extraction, absolutes, which are said tohave a longer-lasting odour (34).
For Oil of lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill.) an ISO standard exists: ISO
3515:2002.

LAVANDULA SPICA HERB OIL

CAS 97722-12-8; EC 307-762-6(Lavender, Lavandula spica, ext.
= INCI"Spike Oil"
Current regulation: …
Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found 1 positive reaction in 200 patients to “spike” essential oil,
2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=8(9.3%) positive reactions to “spike” essential oil 2% pet. (27).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Lavandula latifolia Medik. Lavandula Spica Herb Oil is an
essential oil distilled from the flowering herbs of the Spikenard, Lavandula spica (syn:Lavandula latifolia), Labiatae. It contains eucalyptol (35%), camphor, linalool, borneol,
terpineol,
D-campheneandsesquiterpenes (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=40372, last accessed 2010-01-29). According to Surburg/Panten,
Spanish spike lavender oil is steam distilled from the flowering tops of Lavandula
latifolia Medik.. The main components are linalool (34-50%), 1,8-cineole (16-39%) andcamphor (8-16%) (34). For Oil of spike lavender (Lavandula latifolia (L.f.) Medikus),
Spanish type an ISO standard exists: ISO 4719:1999
Considering the content of well-known allergenic compounds, this essential oil isregarded as established contact allergen in humans.
258

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

LITSEA CUBEBA FRUIT EXTRACT

CAS 90063-59-5, 68855-99-2; EC
cubeba,ext.)
INCI: LITSEA CUBEBA OIL
290-018-7 (Litsea

Current regulation: …
Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found 3 positive reaction in 200 patients to “Litsea cubeba”
essential oil 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patientsfound n=7 (8.1%) positive reactions to this essential oil 2% pet. (27).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Litsea cubeba (Lour) Pers. Litsea Cubeba Fruit Extract isanextract
obtainedfromthefruitsoftheplant,
Litseacubeba,Lauraceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=sea
rch.details&id=40036, last accessed 2009-11-24. The content by GC is: neral (25-33%),
geranial (38-45%) – i.e. about ¾ citral, for which the extract had previously served as araw material (34); direct use for perfuming is limited to household products (39). For Oilof Litsea cubeba (Litsea cubeba Pers.) an ISO standard exists: ISO 3214:2000.
In a LLNA study by RIFM, the “Litsea cubeba oil” as used was reported to contain 85.7%
citral, 2.9% limonene, 1.7% linalool, 1.4% citronellal and < 1% caryophyllene andmethyl heptanone, according to analyses of the supplier. The EC3 value was calculated
as 8.4 % (227).
Considering the content of well-known allergenic compounds, this essential oil isregarded as established contact allergen in humans.

MENTHA ARVENSIS LEAF OIL

CAS 68917-18-0 ; EC /Cornmint oil

INCI: MENTHA ARVENSIS OIL

Current regulation: /Clinical data: /Additional information:
Mentha Arvensis Leaf Oil is the oil derived from the leaves of the Horse Mint, Mentha
arvensis
L.,
Labiatae
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details_
v2&id=57860
It is a “top 200” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010)

MENTHA PIPERITA OIL

CAS 8006-90-4; EC
peppermint)
INCI:
259

/ (Oils,
MENTHASCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________PIPERITA OIL / 84082-70-2; EC
282-015-4 (Peppermint, ext.) INCI
names: MENTHA PIPERITA …
Peppermint oil
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 b study, 0.6% of 1606 consecutive patients reacted positively to“peppermint oil (American)”, tested 2% in pet. (17). In a series of 40 of 744 consecutive
patients PTed with an extended fragrance series (Sheffield 1999), 2 positive reactions to"peppermint oil" were observed (3). In the Wöhrl 2001 study, PTing 747 patients withsuspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients yielded n=1 (0.1%) positive reactions
to peppermint oil 2% pet. (22). Among 512 patients referred from a dental department
for diagnostic work-up of various intraoral symptoms and complaints within 4 years, 6
patients had positive (+ to +++) PT reactions to “peppermint oil” 1% pet. at D4, mostly
combined with positive reactions to menthol (see above) and reporting dramatic
improvement after cessation of use of peppermint-containing oral products (154). The
Rudzki 1976 study found 1 positive reaction in 200 patients to “Peppermint” essential
oil, 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=6(6.9%) positive reactions to “peppermint” essential oil 2% pet. (27). In 63 patients
positive to the FM I, 3 had positive PT reactions to peppermint oil, 2% pet., in theSantucci 1987 study (28). The IVDK 2010 c study identified 0.6% positive reactions in
6546 patients tested in the context of a special series (30).
An unusual case of “baboon-like” allergic contact dermatitis of the vulva after drinking
excessive amounts of a herbal tea containing, among other ingredients, peppermint.
While the PT reaction to peppermint oil was only weak to doubtful, dramatic
improvement after cessation and prompt relapse after repeat ingestion proved the
diagnosis (243). Recurrent foot and lower leg dermatitis after the application of a “footspray” (containing peppermint oil) was diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis due tothis ingredient in a 59 year old golf player (244). In another case, ACD after applicationof a transdermal system for the treatment of lumbar pain was attributed to CA topeppermint oil (2% pet.) and its main ingredient menthol (1% pet.) (155). In a patientwith toothpaste-induced cheilitis, not only M. piperita, but also M. arvensis, but not M.
spicata or cardica extracts (all tested 1% pet.), as well as natural and synthetic menthol
caused positive PT reactions (245).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Mentha x piperita L. A standard by ISO exists for Oil of
peppermint (Mentha x piperita L.): ISO 856:2006. A review by the Cosmetic Ingredient
Review Expert Panel, Washington, DC on the “Final report on the safety assessment ofMentha Piperita (Peppermint) Oil, Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Leaf Extract, Mentha
Piperita (Peppermint) Leaf, and Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Leaf Water“ is available(163), stating that “Peppermint Oil is used at a concentration of < or = 3% in rinse-off
formulations and < or = 0.2% in leave-on formulations. Peppermint Oil is composed
primarily of menthol and menthone. Other possible constituents include pulegone,
menthofuran, and limone. According to Surburg/Panten: (-)-menthol (34-46%), (-)menthone (15-27%), (-)-menthyl acetate (2.5-7%) and menthofuran [17957-94-7](0.5-6%) (34). According to (30) the maximum observed concentration in peppermint
oil are (in %): (-)-menthol (49); (-)-menthone (28); (-)-menthyl acetate (8);mentofuran (8); isomenthone (8); neo menthol (6); pulegone (3.5); limonene (3.0);
linalool (0.4) (30). Most of the safety test data concern Peppermint Oil. The oil isconsidered to present the "worst case scenario" because of its many constituents, sodata on the oil were considered relevant to the entire group of ingredients. … Repeated260

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

intradermal dosing with Peppermint Oil produced moderate and severe reactions in
rabbits ….” concluding that “with the limitation that the concentration of pulegone inthese ingredients should not exceed 1%, it was concluded that Mentha Piperita(Peppermint) Oil, Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Extract, Mentha Piperita (Peppermint)
Leaves, Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Water are safe as used in cosmetic formulations”.

MENTHA SPICATA HERB OIL

CAS 84696-51-5, 8008-79-5; EC
283-656-2 (Spearmint, ext.)

Spearmint oil

INCI: MENTHA VIRIDIS EXTRACT

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 b study, 0.8% of 1606 consecutive patients reacted positively to“spearmint oil (American)”, tested 2% in pet. (17). The CAS # quoted (8008-79-5)
refers, according to CosIng, to MENTHA VIRIDIS LEAF OIL, the volatile oil obtained fromthe dried tops and leaves of the Garden Mint, Mentha viridis L., Labiatae. The Larsen
2001 study diagnosed 5.0% positive reactions in 178 patients with known contact
allergy to fragrance ingredients, using this oil at 5% pet. test concentration (19). In the
An 2005 study, 6 of 422 consecutive patients, i.e., 1.4%, had positive reactions to“Mentha viridis oil” 5% (13). PT results with toothpaste ingredients were positive in 7
patients, of whom 4 had strong positive reactions to spearmint (246).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Mentha spicata L. Mentha Spicata Oil is an essential oil
obtained from the herbs of the Spearmint, Mentha spicata L., Labiatae (syn: Mentha
viridis L., Labiatae). It contains carvone (more than 50%), limonene, pinene(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=40394, last accessed 2009-11-11). According to Surburg/Panten, the content islimonene (9-16.5%), (-)-carvone (60-70%), menthone (0-0.2%) and viridiflorol (00.5%) (34). Exposure by toothpastes, and subsequent contact allergic reaction of thelips or the oral mucosa, have been reported (e.g., (247, 248)). L-Carvone is acomponent of the oil from Mentha spicata (spearmint) (53) and had been tested withpositive results in “toothpaste cases”, even at a concentration as low as 0.067% (68).
For Oil of spearmint -- Part 1: Native type (Mentha spicata L.) an ISO standard exists:
ISO 3033-1:2005, for Oil of spearmint -- Part 2: Chinese type (80 % and 60 %)(Mentha viridis L. var. crispa Benth.), redistilled oil: ISO 3033-2:2005, for Oil ofspearmint -- Part 3: Indian type (Mentha spicata L.), redistilled oil: ISO 3033-3:2005
and for Oil of spearmint -- Part 4: Scotch variety (Mentha x gracilis Sole): ISO 30334:2005.

MYROXYLON PEREIRAE RESIN

CAS 8007-00-9;(Balsams, Peru)

Balsam of Peru

INCI: MYROXYLON PEREIRAE /Balsams, Peru

Current regulation: Annex III, part1, n° 154
261

EC

232-352-8

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Clinical data:
This natural mixture has been employed as screening agent in Baseline series worldwide
for many decades. Hence, a wealth of data is available; table 3.2 – 1 summarises resultsof the past 10 years.
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Myroxylon pereirae (Royle) Klotzsch, syn. Myroxylon
balsamum var. pereirae (Royle) Harms. Myroxylon pereirae resin (MPR, Balsamum
peruvianium) is harvested from the balsam of Peru tree, Myroxylon balsamicum (L.)
HARMS var. pereirae (ROYLE) HARMS, synonymous Myroxylon pereirae (ROYLE) KLOTZSCH(249) after thermal stress, almost exclusively in El Salvador. Main constituents of thepleasantly, vanilla-like smelling dark brown liquid are benzyl esters of cinnamic andbenzoic acid (35 – 75%), up to 30% cinnamic acid, up to about 10% benzoic acid,approximately 5% alpha- and beta-nerolidol, benzyl alcohol and mostly less than 1%
cinnamyl alcohol, benzyl ferulate and -isoferulate, cinnamic acid amyl ester, coniferyl
alcohol, coniferyl benzoate, eugenol, isoeugenol, farnesol, vanillin, and several trace
constituents (250-253). The composition of MPR varies with the origin and other factors;
moreover, MPR is sometimes blended with other natural mixtures such as turpentine,
styrax or colophonium (249).
MPR can be used to improve taste or smell in gargling solutions, cosmetic products suchas soaps, shampoo or lipsticks, as well as sweets, tobacco and beverages (249, 254).
According to EU legislation and IFRA guidelines MPR should not be used in products
intended for skin contact; however, extracts and distillates of MPR may be used in aconcentration of < 0,4% (IFRA-Guidelines, www.ifraorg.org (255)). E. Temesvári et al.
report on the interesting case of severe ACD with subsequent hypopigmentation after a“temporary henna tattoo”, which was, unexpectedly, not due to p-phenylene diamine,
but to the oil used to disperse the pigment, which presumably contained allergens also
included in the FM I and MPR, both of which were extreme positive on a later PT (256).
In addition to delayed type hypersensitivity reactions, MPR (and some of his constituents
such as benzoic acid (257)) are capable of eliciting (non-immunological) urticarial
immediate reactions (258-260). In one case, the immediate reaction to MPR (and to FMI) at the test site spread systemically in terms of a generalised urticaria, while nodelayed type reactions were observed to the PT (261). Generally, there is apparently no
association of immediate reactions to MPR (and cinnamal or cinnamyl alcohol) andcontact sensitisation to these compounds (262). In animal experiments the sensitisingpotency of MPR was clearly established (250), with coniferyl benzoate identified as
single compound with the most marked potency (252). However, due to the limited
chemical stability of this compound is is unclear whether other, more stable compounds
are, in fact, more important allergens, such as cinnamic acid and (iso-) ferulic acid
esters or oxidised constituents of the resin fraction (263).
Table 3.2.2 – 1: Results with contact allergy to fragrance ingredients screening agents
reported since 1999 in patients patch tested for suspected allergic contact dermatitis:
Myroxylon pereirae resin (Balsam of Peru) 1). If not given in the publication, theconfidence interval (CI) was calculated from the absolute numbers by the reviewers.
Country
Tel Aviv,(264) #

IsraelSouth Korea (13)Population

Years

No.
testedCrude % positive(95% CI) §Consecutive
patients

1999-2000

943

6.6(5.1 – 8.4) §Consecutive
patients

04/200206/2003422

7.3%(5.1 – 10:3%) §

262

–

%

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________Tel Aviv,(265)

IsraelConsecutive
patients

1998-2004

2156

3.6
(2.9 – 4.5) §Manipal,
(266)

India

Dermatitis
patients

1989-1998

1780

n=17

Tehran, Iran (267)Consecutive
patients

2002-2004

250

2.4(0.9 – 5.2) §%Sevilla,
(268)

Spain

Consecutive
patients

2002-2004

863

5.8(4.3 – 7.6) §%Ankara,(269)

TurkeyConsecutive
patients

1992-2004

1038

2.1
(1.3 – 3.2) §%Vienna,(22)

Austria

Consecutive
patients of one
clinic1997-2000

2660

5.4%
(4.6 – 6.3%) §

Czech
(270)

Republic

Consecutive
patients

1997-2001

12058

7.3%
(6.8 – 7.8) §Copenhagen,Denmark (271)Consecutive
patients

1985-2007

16173

3.9
(3.6 – 4.2) §Sweden (272)Consecutive
patients

2000

3790

6.5%

9
Europeancountries (273) $Consecutive
patients

2002-2003

9672

6.1 %

Germany, 3 Swiss+ 1 Austrian Dept.
(7)

Consecutive
patients

2005-2008

36919

8.0%
(7.7 – 8.3%)

10 depts. From 7
EUcountries(274) *

Consecutive
patients

1996-2000

26210

6.0 %

(Canada)Probably
consecutive
patients

2003

1603

6.6%

NACDG 2009 (21)Consecutive
patients

2005-2006

4449

11.9%

USA
(20)

§

Calculated by reviewers, where possible (if actual numbers were given)#

Probably included in (265)$> 5-fold difference between departments*

About 4-fold difference between departments

NARCISSUS SPP. EXTRACT / OIL

CAS: diverse

Narcissus abs.
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
263

%

%

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________In the Frosch 2002 b study, 1.3% positive reactions to “narcissus absolute” (2% pet.)were observed in 1606 consecutive (17). The extract used by the PT allergen provider
Almirall/Hermal/Trolab has the CAS number 90064-25-8. The IVDK 2010 c study
identified 0.5% positive reactions in 2445 consecutively tested patients and 0.6%
positive reactions in 809 patients tested in the context of a special series (30).
Additional information:
Commonly used: Narcissus poeticus L. According to (30) the maximum observed
concentration in Narcissus abs. are (in %): α-terpineol (23.7); trans-Isoeugenol methyl
ether (20); benzyl benzoate (20); coumarin (5.7); benzyl alcohol (4.0); ∆³-carene(3.4); cinnamyl alcohol (2.5); phenylethyl alcohol (2.2); ethyl palmitate (2.2);
phenylpropyl acetate (1.7); 1,8-cineole (1.5); caryophyllene (1.0); benzyl acetate (0.7);
isoeugenol (0.5); farnesol (0.3) (also according to (17)) (30).

OCIMUM BASILICUM HERB OIL

CAS

84775-71-3; EC 283-900basilicum, ext. =8 (Ocimum

INCI)
Basil Oil (sweet)
Current regulation: /Clinical data:/
Additional information:

ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Ocimum basilicum L. For Oil of basil, methyl chavicol
type (Ocimum basilicum L.) an ISO standard exists: ISO 11043:1998. Ocimum
Basilicum Herb Oil is an essential oil obtained from the herbs of the Sweet Basil,
Ocimumbasilicum
L.,
Labiatae.
(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=40474, last accessed 2009-11-24). The chemical composition varies greatly withthe origin (34):•

Basil oil of the methylchavicol type (Réunion type) is extracted from flowering
tops or whole plants from Réunion, Comores, Madagascar, but also othercountries such as Egypt. Mainly used for seasoning food. Content by GC:
methylchavicol 75-87%, linalool 0.5-3%• Basil oil, linalool type is produced mainly in the Mediterranean aera. Content by
GC: Linalool 45-62%, methylchavicol trace to 30%, eugenol 2-15%• Indian Basil oil is produced exclusively in India. Content by GC: methylchavicol
trace to 70%, linalool 25%.
In a LLNA study by RIFM, the basil oil as used was reported to contain 51% linalool,
10.4% eugenol, 7.7% cineol, 3.7% bergamotene, 2.7% germacrene D, 2.7% cadinol
and 1.3% cadinene, according to analyses of the supplier. The EC3 value was calculated
to be < 2.5% (227).

PELARGONIUM GRAVEOLENS FLOWER OIL

264

CAS 90082-51-2; EC 290-140-0(Pelargonium graveolens, ext. =INCI) / 8000-46-2; EC / (Oils,
geranium) INCI: GERANIUMSCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Geranium Oil Bourbon
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Coimbra 2000 study found in 67 patients with positive reaction to the FM I whowere tested with "geranium oil Bourbon" (2% pet.) 7.4% positive reactions (9). In the
Larsen 2001 study, 8.4% positive reactions were observed in 178 patients with known
contact allergy to fragrance ingredients ("geranium oil Bourbon", 10% pet.) (19). The
Goossens 1997 study found 3 of 111 patients positive to “geranium oil 20% pet.” – allsensitised to other fragrance allergens (23). The Rudzki 1976 study found 3 positive
reactions in 200 patients to “geranium” essential oil 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki
1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=2 (2.3%) positive reactions to“geranium” essential oil 2% pet. (27). Nakayama et al. found 1974 (after (29)) 3“strong positive” reactions to “Geranium oil” (unknown test concentration) in 183
patients, Trattner/David 1 / 641 consecutive patients positive to “Geranium oil” (31). Ina study from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patients were patch tested with an extended
fragrance series; n=8 reacted positively to geranium oil bourbon (48).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Pelargonium x ssp. For Oil of geranium (Pelargonium X ssp.)
an ISO standard exists: ISO 4731:2006 Pelargonium Graveolens Flower Oil is thevolatile oil obtained from the flowers of the Bourbon Geranium, Pelargonium graveolens
L. Hér. Ex Aiton, P. roseum Willdenow (and other nondefined hybrids that havedevelopedindifferent
regionsoftheworld)
Geraniaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=57527, last accessed 2009-11-16)(34). The Bourbon type (Réunion, Madagascar) is
more valuable than the North African and Chinese products, and differs in characteristic
components: (-)-6,9-guaiadiene [36577-33-0] 5-9% in the Bourbon type, and 10-epigamma-eudesmol [15051-81-7] 3-6% in the African type, in addition to the main
components (-)-citronellol, isomenthone, formates and tiglates. Chinese oil is similar to
Bourbon oil, however, it contains more citronellol (32-43%) and lower amounts oflinalool (2-4.5%) and geraniol (5-12%) (34).
In a LLNA study by RIFM, the geranium oil as used was reported to contain 41.1%
citronellol, 9.8% 2,6-guiadine, 6.2% isomethone, 4.9% geraniol, 2.2% cis-rose oxide,
2.1% linalool, 1.5% geranyl formate, 1.3% phenyl ethyl tiglate, 1.0% trans-rose oxide,and geranyl tiglate and alpha-pinene at < 1%, according to analyses of the supplier.
The EC3 value was calculated to be > 50% (227).

PELARGONIUM ROSEUM LEAF OIL

CAS 90082-55-6; EC(Pelargonium roseum,
INCI)

290-144-2

ext.

=

Geranium Oil; Rose Geranium Oil
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Sugiura 2000 study, among 1483 patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis,
2.1% positive PT reactions to "geranium oil" (tested 20% in pet.) were observed (14).
Additional information:
265

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Pelargonium Roseum Leaf Oil is an essential oil obtained from the leaves of the plant,
Pelargonium
roseum,Geraniaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=40565, last accessed 2009-11-16.

PIMENTA RACEMOSA LEAF/FRUIT OIL

CAS 85085-61-6; EC 285-385-5

Bay oil (34)
Current regulation: /Clinical/data:

Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Pimenta racemosa (Mill.) J.W. Moore. For Oil of bay[Pimenta racemosa (Mill.) J.W. Moore] an ISO standard exists: ISO 3045:2004 Pimenta
Racemosa Leaf/Fruit Oil is an essential oil obtained from the fruits of the plant, Pimenta
racemosa,
Myrtaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=sea
rch.details&id=41014, last accessed 2010-02-10).
Steam distillation of the leaves of Pimenta racemosa (Mill.) J.W. Moore (Myrtaceae)
yields bay oil, which consists of myrcene (20-30%), eugenol (42-56%) and chavicol (813%) (34).
Considering the content of well-known allergenic compounds, this essential oil isregarded as established contact allergen in humans.

Pinus mugo leaf and twig oil and extract

CAS 90082-72-7, 8000-26-8; EC
290-163-6

Dwarf
pine
(German: Latschenkiefernöl)

needleoil

Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, 109
Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 b study, 0.7% positive reactions to dwarf pine needle oil (2% pet.)were observed in 1606 consecutive (17). The Rudzki 1976 study found 4 positive
reactions in 200 patients to “Pine needle” essential oil, 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki
1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=3 (3.5%) positive reactions to “pineneedle” essential oil 2% pet. (27).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Pinus mugo Turra syn. Pinus montana Mill.) Pinus Mugo Twig Oilis an essential obtained from the twigs of the Pine, Pinus mugo,
Pinaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=searc
h.details&id=41476&back=1, last accessed 2010-03-09). Pinus Mugo Twig Leaf Extract
is an extract obtained from the twigs leaves of the Pine, Pinus mugo,
Pinaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=searc
266

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

h.details&id=41473&back=1, last accessed 2010-03-09).
Dwarf pine needle oil is obtained from Pinus mugo Turra subsp. mugo and subsp.
pumilio (Haenke) Franco (34). For Oil of dwarf pine (Pinus mugo Turra) an ISO standard
exists: ISO 21093:2003. American pine oils contain almost no 3-carene or camphene(34).

PINUS PUMILA TWIG LEAF EXTRACT / OIL

CAS 97676-05-6; EC 307-681-6(Pine, Pinus pumila, ext. = INCI)

Dwarf pine needle oil
Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, 114
Clinical data: /Additional information:
Pinus Pumila Twig Leaf Extract obtained from the twigs leaves of the Pine, Pinus pumila,
Pinaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=41483&back=1, last accessed 2009-11-12), Pinus Pumila Twig Leaf Oil is theessential oil obtained from the twigs leaves of the Pine, Pinus pumila, Pinaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=41484&back=1, last accessed 2009-11-12). Main constituents are alpha-pinene(60-70%) and beta-pinene (20-25%). (34) Occurrence from Siberia to Japan, classified
as Endangered Species
Considering the content of well-known allergenic compounds, this essential oil isregarded as established contact allergen in humans.

POGOSTEMON CABLIN OIL

CAS 8014-09-3; EC / (Oils,
patchouli) / 84238-39-1; EC 282493-4 (Patchouli, ext.)

Patchouli oil

INCI: POGOSTEMONPatchouli, ext.

CABLIN/

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Frosch 2002 b study, 0.8% positive reactions to patchouli oil (10% pet.) in 1606
consecutive were observed (17). Nakayama et al. found 1974 (after (29)) 3 “strong
positive” and 8 “weak positive” reactions to “Patchouli oil” (unknown test concentration)in 183 patients. The IVDK 2010 c study identified 0.6% positive reactions in 2446
consecutively tested patients and 1.4% positive reactions in 828 patients tested in thecontext of a special series (30).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Pogostemon cablin (Blanco) Benth. syn. Mentha cablin
Blanco. An ISO standard is available for Oil of patchouli (Pogostemon cablin (Blanco)
Benth.): ISO 3757:2002. Pogostemon Cablin Leaf Oil is an essential oil obtained fromthe fermented leaves of the Patchouli, Pogostemon cablin (syn: Pogostemon patchouli),
267

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Labiatae (Lamiaceae (34)). It contains patchouli alcohol, beta-patchoulene, azulene,
eugenol,sesquiterpenes(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=40927, last accessed 2009-11-12). Although the sesquiterpene alcohol (-)patchoulol [5986-55-0] is the main component of patchouli oil (27-35%), the compoundlargely contributing to the characteristic odour is norpatchoulenol [41429-52-1] (0.351%). Other constituents include (+)-alpha-bulnesene [6391-11-0] (13-21%), (-)-alphaguajene [3691-12-1] (11-16%), (-)-ß-patchoulene [514-51-2] (1.8-3.5%) and (-)seychellene [20085-93-2] (1-3%) (34). According to (30) the maximum observed
concentration in patchouli oil are (in %): (-)-patchoulol (35); (+)-alpha-lulnesene (21);(-)-alpha-guajene (16); β-pinene (6); (-)-ß-patchoulene (3.5); (-)-seychellene (3);pogostol (2.5); α-pinene (2.5); norpatchoulenol (1) (30).
It is a “top 100” substance (IFRA, pers. comm.2010).

ROSE FLOWER OIL (ROSA SPP.)

CAS 8007-01-0; EC / (Oils, rose)

ROSA ALBA FLOWER EXTRACT

CAS 93334-48-6; EC 297-122-1(Rose, Rosa alba, ext. = INCI)ROSA CANINA FLOWER OIL

CAS 84696-47-9; EC 283-652-0(Rose, Rosa canina, ext.) INCI:ROSA CANINAROSA CENTIFOLIA FLOWER OIL

CAS 84604-12-6, EC 283-289-8(Rose, Rosa centifolia, ext.) INCI:ROSA CENTIFOLIA / Rose, Rosa
centifolia, ext.

ROSA DAMASCENA FLOWER OIL

CAS 90106-38-0; EC 290-260-3(Rose, Rosa Damascena, ext. =INCI)ROSA GALLICA FLOWER OIL

CAS 84604-13-7; EC 283-290-3(Rose, Rosa Gallica, ext.) INCI:ROSA GALLICAROSA MOSCHATA OIL--

ROSA RUGOSA FLOWER OIL

CAS 92347-25-6; EC 296-213-3(Rose, Rosa rugosa, ext.)

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Sugiura 2000 study, 1483 patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis were PTed
with "rose oil Bulgaria" (2% pet.), yielding 0.4% positive reactions (14); Trattner/David
found 2 / 641 consecutive patients positive to “Rose oil (Bulgarian)” (31). The
Bulgarian rose oil usually corresponds to Rosa Damascena Flower Oil(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_oil, last accessed 2009-11-16). The Coimbra 2000
study found in 67 patients with positive reaction to the FM I who were tested with "rose
Bulgarian oil" (2% pet.) 4.5% positive reactions (9). One case of contact allergy to“Bulgarian rose oil (2 % pet.)” – and geraniol – in a 48-year-old female with ACD after
application of “Eau de Rochas” E.d.C. was diagnosed, among 326 patients withsuspected contact allergy to fragrance ingredients had tested negative (275). However,other rose oils are also used (and capable of eliciting ACD) as illustrated by the case of a
27 year old woman who developed ACD after using “Rose Absolute Eau ® eau de268

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

parfum”, a “non-scented” body lotion and a number of other topicals. PTing revealed anumber of (previously) relevant reaction, including “Rose centifolia” (5% alc.) and “Roseoil Bulgarian” (2% pet.) essential oil preparations (276). In the An 2005 study, 5 of 422
consecutive patients, i.e., 1.2%, had positive reactions to “Rose oil Bulgarian”, tested at
2% concentration (13). Nakayama et al. found 1974 (after (29)) 4 “strong positive”
reactions to “Rose oil Bulgarian” (unknown test concentration) in 183 patients. In a
study from Alicante, Spain, 86 selected patients were tested with rose oil absolute,yielding 6 positive reactions (48).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Rosa x damascena Mill. and Rosa sertata X Rosa rugosa.
Rose Flower Oil is the volatile oil obtained from the flowers of Rosa spp. , rosaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=59362, last accessed 2009-11-16). "Rose oil, meaning either rose otto (attar ofrose, attar of roses) or rose absolute, is the essential oil extracted from the petals of
various types of rose. Rose ottos are extracted through steam distillation, while roseabsolutes are obtained through solvent extraction or supercritical carbon dioxide
extraction, with the absolute being used more commonly in perfumery"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_oil, last accessed 2009-11-17) There are several
more specifically named flower extracts used for masking or perfuming:•

Rosa Alba Flower Extract is an extract obtained from the flowers of the Rose,
Rosa alba L., Rosaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.
details&id=40969, last accessed 2009-11-16).
• Rosa Canina Flower Oil is the volatile oil obtained from the flowers of the Hip
Rose, Rosa canina L., Rosaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.
details&id=59263, last accessed 2009-11-16).
• Rosa Centifolia Flower Oil is the volatile oil obtained from the flowers of the
Cabbage Rose, Rosa centifolia (L.), Rosaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.
details&id=79757, last accessed 2009-11-16).
• Rosa Damascena Flower Oil is the volatile oil obtained from the flowers of theDamask Rose, Rosa damascena, Rosaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.
details&id=79760, last accessed 2009-11-16).
• Rosa Gallica Flower Oil is the volatile oil obtained from the flowers of the FrenchRose, Rosa gallica L., Rosaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.
details&id=59346, last accessed 2009-11-16).
• Rosa Moschata Oil is the oil obtained from the Musk Rose, Rosa moschata,
Rosaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.
details&id=79761, last accessed 2009-11-16).
• Rosa Rugosa Flower Oil is the volatile oil obtained from the flowers of the Rose,
Rosa rubiginosa L., Rosaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.
details&id=83588, last accessed 2009-11-16).
Apparently, the Rosa Damascena and the Rosa centifolia are the species mostcommonly used for extraction of essential rose oils, the former mostly grown in
Bulgaria, Turkey, Russia, India and China, the latter more commonly in Morocco, Franceand Egypt (276). Main constituents by GC are: citronellol (20-49%), geraniol (6-23%),
nerol (3-12%) and phenylethyl alcohol (up to 3.5%) (34).
For Oil of rose (Rosa x damascena Miller) an ISO standard exists: ISO 9842:2003.

269

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS FLOWER OIL

CAS 84604-14-8;(Rosemary, ext.)

EC"Rosemary Oil"

INCI: ROSMARINUM OFFICINALIS/ Rosemary, ext.

283-291-9

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found no positive reaction in 200 patients to “rosemary”
essential oil, 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patientsfound n=3 (3.5%) positive reactions to “rosemary” essential oil 2% pet. (27).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Rosmarinus officinalis L. Rosmarinus Officinalis Flower Oil
is an essential oil obtained from the leaves and fresh flowering tops of the Rosemary,Rosmarinus
officinalis
L.,
Lamiaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=sea
rch.details&id=40978, last accessed 2010-01-29). Major constituents are: 1,8-cineole(17-55%), alpha-pinene (9-26%), camphor (5-22%) and verbenone [18309-32-5] astraces in North African oils, but between 0.7 and 2.5% in Spanish oils (34). For Oil ofrosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) an ISO standard exists: ISO 1342:2000.
Considering the content of well-known allergenic compounds, this essential oil isregarded as established contact allergen in humans.

SALVIA spp. HERB OIL
Sage oil
SALVIA OFFICINALIS LAVANDULIFOLIA HERBOILCAS 97952-71-1; EC 308-365-0(Sage,
Salviaofficinalis
lavandulifolia, ext. = INCI)SALVIA LAVANDULIFOLIA HERB OIL

CAS 90106-49-3; EC 290-272-9(Sage, Salvia lavandulifolia, ext.
= INCI)SALVIA SCLAREA FLOWER OIL

CAS 84775-83-7; EC 283-911-8(Sage, Salvia sclarea, ext.) INCI:SALVIA SCLAREA / Sage, Salvia
sclarea, ext.

SALVIA HISPANICA HERB OIL

CAS 93384-40-8; EC 297-250-8(Sage, Salvia hispanica, ext. =INCI)Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found 1 positive reaction in 200 patients to “Clary sage”, 2%
pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=4 (4.6%)
positive reactions to “clary sage” essential oil 2% pet. (27).
270

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Salvia officinalis L. Salvia Officinalis Lavandulifolia Herb
Oil is an essential oil obtained from the herbs of the Sage, Salvia officinalis L. spp.
lavandulifolia,
Lamiaceae,
Syn.
Dalmatiansage (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=41084, last accessed 2010-01-29).
Salvia Lavandulifolia Herb Oil is an essential oil obtained from the herbs of the Sage,
Salvialavandulifolia,
Lamiaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=sea
rch.details&id=40987, last accessed 2010-01-29).
Salvia Sclarea Flower Oil is an essential oil obtained from the flowers and foliage of the
Clary
Sage,
SalviasclareaL.,
Lamiaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=sea
rch.details&id=41086, last accessed 2010-01-29).
Salvia Hispanica Herb Oil is an essential oil obtained from the herbs of the Spanish
Sage,
Salviahispanica
L.,
Lamiaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=sea
rch.details&id=40985, last accessed 2010-01-29).
Clary sage oil is obtained by steam distillation of flowering tops and foliage of cultivatedSalvia sclarea L. (Lamiaceae). Main constituents are linalyl acetate (56-78%) andlinalool (6.5-24%) (34). Dalmatian sage oil is steam distilled from partially dried leavesof S. officinalis L. (Lamiaceae). The content by GC is: alpha-thujone (18-43%), betathujone (3-8.5%), 1,8-cineole (5.5-13%), camphor (3-8.5%) as main constituents (34).
Spanish sage oil does not contain thujone, but mainly camphor (15-36%) and 1,8cineole (11-30%), and is used mainly in pharmaceutical preparations and technicalperfumery (34). For Oil of sage, Spanish (Salvia lavandulifolia Vahl) an ISO standard
exists: ISO 3526:2005, for Oil of Dalmatian sage (Salvia officinalis L.): ISO 9909:1997.
Considering the content of well-known allergenic compounds, this essential oil isregarded as established contact allergen in humans.

SANTALUM ALBUM WOOD OIL

CAS 84787-70-2; EC 284-111-1(Sandalwood,
ext.)
INCI:
SANTALUM ALBUM / Sandalwood,ext.

Sandalwood oil ([East] India)
SANTALUM ALBUM OIL

CAS 8006-87-9;
sandalwood)

EC/(Oils,

Sandalwood oil ([East] India)
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In the Sugiura 2000 study, 1483 patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis were PTed
with "sandalwood oil" (2% pet.), yielding 0.8% positive reactions (14). In the Frosch2002 b study, “sandalwood oil (East India)” is mentioned with a CAS # 8015-65-4,
which, however, is attributed to AMYRIS BALSAMIFERA BARK OIL, see above. Assumingthat this CAS # is erroneous, study results are considered to be valid for S. album woodoil, tested at 2% and 10% concentration, yielding 0.4% and 0.9% positive reactions,
271

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

respectively (17). Out of 6 of 15 patients with a positive reaction to the higher
concentration no clinical relevance was found, compared to 2 of 7 patients positive tothe lower concentration (17). The Coimbra 2000 study found in 67 patients with positive
reaction to the FM I who were tested with "sandalwood oil" (2% pet.) 6.6% positive
reactions (9). In the An 2005 study, 10 of 422 consecutive patients, i.e., 2.4%, had
positive reactions to “Santalum album oil” 2% (13). The Goossens 1997 study found 4of 111 patients positive to “sandalwood oil 10% pet.” – all sensitised to other fragrance
allergens (23). The Rudzki 1976 study found no positive reaction in 200 patients to“sandalwood”, 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patientsfound n=2 (2.3%) positive reactions to “sandalwood” essential oil 2% pet. (27). In 63
patients positive to the FM I, 1 had a positive PT reaction to sandalwood oil, 2% pet., in
the Santucci 1987 study (28). Nakayama et al. found 1974 (after (29)) 6 “strong
positive” and 8 “weak positive” reactions to “Sandalwood oil” (unknown test
concentration) in 183 patients. The IVDK 2010 c study identified 1.3% positive reactionsin 3671 consecutively tested patients and 1.8% positive reactions in 1002 patients
tested in the context of a special series (30). In a study from Alicante, Spain, 86
selected patients were tested with sandalwood oil, yielding 2 positive reactions (48).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Santalum album L. Santalum Album Oil is the volatile oil
obtained from the heartwood of the Sandalwood, Santalum album L.,
Santalaceae (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=80209, last accessed 2009-11-26).
Santalum Album Wood Oil is an essential oil obtained from the wood of the Sandalwood,
Santalum
album
L.,
Santalaceae.
It
contains
75%
santalol
isomers(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=41092, last accessed 2009-11-12), typically up to 55% .alpha.-santalol and up to
24% .beta.-santalol (30). East Indian sandalwood oil consists almost exclusively ofclosely related sesquiterpenoids; by far the main constituents are the alcohols alphasantalol [115-71-9] (41-55%) and cis-beta-santalol [77-42-9] (16-24%), the latterbeing mainly responsible for the specific odour (34, 39).
An ISO standard regarding the composition of “Santalum album oil” is available: ISO
3518:2002. “Sandalwoods” are labelled as Amyris balsamifera, Eremophila mitchelli,
Fusanusacuminatus(=
Santalumacuminatum),Santalumalbum,
S.
austrocaledonicum, S. latifolium, S. spicatum and S. yasi. The majority of currently
available trade oils, reportedly from S. album, contained approximately 50-70%
santalols (Z-alpha and Z-beta), as analysed with gas chromatography-mass
spectrometry (GC-MS) (277). A review on the toxicological properties of “Santalum
album oil” is available (278).
AMYRIS BALSAMIFERA BARK OIL (Sandalwood oil (Carribean)), CAS 8015-65-4; EC /(Oils, amyris) / 90320-49-3; EC 90320-49-3 (Amyris balsamifera, ext. = INCI name) isused as a cheap substitute for East Indian Sandalwood in perfumes and cosmetics.
Originally cultivated primarily in Haiti where it was known as 'candle wood' and used asa torch by locals due to the tree's high oil content (http://www.amphoraretail.com/sandalwood-amyris-essential-10ml-p-107.html, last accessed 2009-11-12).
The major components are sesquiterpenoids such as valerianol, elemol, ß-eudesmol andepi-gamma-eudesmol (39). For Oil of amyris (Amyris balsamifera L.) an ISO standard
exists: ISO 3525:2008. Amyris Balsamifera Bark Oil is the volatile oil distilled from the
bark
of
the
tree,
Amyrisbalsamifera,
Rutaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=74455, last accessed 2009-11-12).

272

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________SANTALUM SPICATA WOOD OIL

CAS 8024-35-9; EC(Sandalwood
oil,Australia)

296-618-5

Western

Sandalwood oil (Australia)
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In clinical studies, mostly S. album wood oil had been used (see above); in a number ofstudies this is not clear.
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Santalum spicatum (R.Br.) A. DC, syn. Eucarya spicata(R.Br.) Sprag & Summ. For Oil of Australian sandalwood (Santalum spicatum (R.Br.)
A.DC.) an ISO standard exists: ISO 22769:2009. Santalum Spicata Wood Oil is an
essential oil obtained from the wood of the Australian Sandalwood, Santalum spicata,Santalaceae.
It
contains
75%
santalols
and10%
farnesol(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=41093, last accessed 2009-11-12). This oil also contains santalols as main
constituents but differs somewhat in the remaining composition. Today, it makes up aconsiderable part of the sandalwood oil market (34).
Considering the content of well-known allergenic compounds (santalols), this essential
oil is regarded as established contact allergen in humans.

TAGETES PATULA FLOWER OIL

CAS 91722-29-1; EC 294-431-3(Tagetes patula, ext. = INCI)"Marigold Oil; Tagetes Oil"
Current regulation: /Clinical data:
In an aromatherapist, an essential oil solvent-extracted from Tagetes patula, patch
tested at 1.5% in grapeseed oil (vehicle negative, 7 controls negative to essential oils)
resulted in a +++ reaction, in accordance with a work-related bilateral hand dermatitis(217).
Additional information:
Tagetes Patula Flower Oil is an essential oil obtained by hydrodistillation of the flowersof the Tagetes, Tagetes patula L., Compositae. It contains mainly D-limonene,
ocimene,2,6-dimethyloct-7-en-4one (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.d
etails&id=41506, last accessed 2010-01-28). According to Surburg/Panten, tagetes oil
is steam distilled from the flowering plants of Tagetes minuta L. (T. glandulifera
Schrank., Asteraceae). Main components comprise cis-ocimene, dihydrotagetone,
tagetone, and cis- and trans-ocimenone (34, 39).

THYMUS spp. HERB OIL
273

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________THYMUS VULGARIS HERB OIL

CAS 84929-51-1, 8007-46-3; EC(Thyme,Thymusvulgaris, ext.)
284-535-7"Thyme oil"

INCI:
THYMUSVULGARIS
Thyme, Thymus vulgaris, ext.

/

Current regulation: /Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found no positive reaction in 200 patients to “thyme” essential
oil, 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=4(4.6%) positive reactions to “thyme” essential oil 2% pet. (27). In 63 patients positive
to the FM I, none had a positive PT reaction to thymol, 1% pet., in the Santucci 1987
study (28).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Thymus vulgaris L. Thymus vulgaris Herb Oil is an
essential oil obtained from the herbs of the Thyme, Thymus vulgaris L., Lamiaceae. It
contains 20-40% thymol and carvacrol, cymene, pinene, linalool, bornyl acetate(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=41133, last accessed 2010-01-29).
Other species are used for extraction, e.g., Thymus Mastichina (CAS 84837-14-9 ),Thymus Serpillum (CAS 84776-98-7 ), Thymus Zygis (CAS 85085-75-2), according to
CosIng. The main constituent is thymol (37-56%) (34). For Oil of thyme containing
thymol, Spanish type [Thymus zygis (Loefl.) L.] an ISO standard exists: ISO
14715:2010, for Oil of Spanish wild marjoram (Thymus mastichina L.): ISO 4728:2003.

TURPENTINE (oil)CAS 8006-64-2 / 9005-90-7 /8052-14-0; EC 232-350-7 / 232688-5 / -Current regulation: III/124 ; III/125 ; III/126
Clinical data:
Oil of turpentine has been patch tested in a number of baseline series, i.e., inconsecutive patients, although not included in the European Baseline series.
In a series of 24 patients with occupational contact dermatitis from the pottery industry,
Lear at al. found 14 to be sensitised to “Indonesian oil of turpentine” and 8 to alphapinene (190)
Table 3.2.2 – 2: Overview of results with Oil of turpentine in patients patch tested
for suspected allergic contact dermatitis. If not given in the publication, the confidence
interval (CI) was calculated from the absolute numbers by the SCCS.
Country

Population

Years

274

No.
testedCrude % positive(95% CI) §SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Lisbon,Portugal(189); virtually no.delta.-3-carene

Consecutive
patients

Birmingham,(190)

Potters
occup.
dermatitis

UK

with
hand

1979-1983

4316

2.3
(1.9 – 2.8) §%6months;prior to 199624

14 / 24 pos.
“Indonesianturpentine”

to%Austria/Germany(IVDK) (279)Consecutive
patients

1992-1995

27658

0.47
(0.39 – 0.55) §Austria/Germany(IVDK) (280)Consecutive
patients

1996-2002

59478

Annual prevalences
1.6 to 4.4 %Augsburg/Germany (281)

Population
sample

1998

1141

1.2%
(on
population level!)

Europe(273)

Consecutive
patients

2002/03

3767

1.6 %

Consecutive
patients

2005-2008

37163

1.8 %

(ESSCA)

Austria/Germany/
Switzerland(IVDK) (7)Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature:
Pinus pinaster Aiton and Pinus massoniana Lamb.
Turpentine, oil: Any of the volatile predominately terpenic fractions or distillates
resulting from the solvent extraction of, gum collection from, or pulping of softwoods.
Turpentine is a mixture of terpene hydrocarbons obtained from various species ofPinus http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details_v2&id=41521
The composition of oil of turpentine varies with its origin, in particular, the content of.delta.-3-carene, one of its main allergenic compounds (189, 279). Similarly, theperoxide degree may vary. The main constituents are .alpha.-pinene (50-72%), .beta.pinene (6-15%), carenes (< 0.1-17%), camphene (up to 1%), dipentene (0.5-5%),along with a number of other substances (279).
It is a “top 200” substance and classified as R43 (IFRA, pers. comm.2010)

Verbena absolute (Lippia citriodora Kunth.)

CAS 8024-12-2, 84961-67-1; EC/)

Current regulation: Annex III, part 1, n° 206
Clinical data: /Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Aloysia citriodora Palau syn. Lippia citriodora Kunth syn. Aloysia
triphylla (L‘ Hér.) Kuntze. An older RIFM review is available citing several positive humanmaximisation studies both with “Verbena absolute” and “Verbena oil” (128).

275

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________VETIVERIA ZIZANOIDES ROOT OIL

CAS 8016-96-4; EC / (Oils,
vetiver) / 84238-29-9; EC 282-4908 (Vetiveria zizanioides, ext. =INCI)"Vetiver oil; khas khas oil"
Current regulation: …
Clinical data:
The Rudzki 1976 study found 1 positive reaction in 200 patients to “vetiver” essential
oil, 2% pet. (26). The later Rudzki 1986 study in 86 FM I positive patients found n=9(10.4%) positive reactions to “vetiver” essential oil 2% pet. (27).
Additional information:
ISO 4720:2009 nomenclature: Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash. Vetiveria Zizanoides
Root Oil is an essential oil distilled from the dried roots of the grass Vetiveria zizanoides
(L.)
Nash
Poaceae(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.details&id=41293, last accessed 2010-01-29). Vetiver oil has a high sesquiterpene content.
The ketones alpha-vetivone [15764-04-2] (6-12%) and beta-vetivone [18444-79-6] (410%), which usually form more than 10% of the oil, as well as khusimol [16223-63-5](24-36%) and isovelencenol [22387-74-2] (12-24%) are the main constituents (inBourbon oil, i.e., from Réunion) (34). For Oil of vetiver (Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash)an ISO standard exists: ISO 4716:2002.

Acknowledgement: We thank Erich Schmidt for critically reviewing the nomenclature ofnatural extracts and for providing ISO terminology.

276

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

References
1.

Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch P, Burrows D, Jordan W, Shaw
S, Wilkinson J, Marks J, Sugawara M, Nethercott M, Nethercott J. Fragrance
contact dermatitis - a worldwide multicenter investigation (Part III). Contact
Dermatitis 2002: 46: 141-144.

2.

Hendriks S A, van Ginkel C J. Evaluation of the fragrance mix in the European
standard series. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 161-162.

3.

Katsarma G, Gawkrodger D J. Suspected fragrance allergy requires extended
patch testing to individual fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 193197.

4.

Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Frosch P J. Sensitization to 26
fragrances to be labelled according to current European regulation. Results of the
IVDK and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 1-10.

5.

Temesvari E, Nemeth I, Balo-Banga M J, Husz S, Kohanka V, Somos Z, Judak R,
Remenyik E V, Szegedi A, Nebenfuhrer L, Meszaros C, Horvath A. Multicentre
study of fragrance allergy in Hungary. Immediate and late type reactions. Contact
Dermatitis 2002: 46: 325-330.

6.

van Oosten E J, Schuttelaar M L, Coenraads P J. Clinical relevance of positive
patch test reactions to the 26 EU-labelled fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 2009:
61: 217-223.

7.

Uter W, Geier J, Frosch P J, Schnuch A. Contact allergy to fragrances: current
patch test results (2005 to 2008) from the IVDK network. Contact Dermatitis
2010: 63: 254-261.

8.

Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch P J. Another look on allergies to fragrances:frequencies of sensitisation to the fragrance mix and its constituents. Results fromthe IVDK. Exog Dermatol 2002: 1: 231-237.

9.

Brites M M, Goncalo M, Figueiredo A. Contact allergy to fragrance mix--a 10-year
study. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 181-182.

10.

Frosch P J, Rastogi S C, Pirker C, Brinkmeier T, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Svedman
C, Goossens A, White I R, Uter W, Arnau E G, Lepoittevin J P, Johansen J D,
Menne T. Patch testing with a new fragrance mix - reactivity to the individual
constituents and chemical detection in relevant cosmetic products. Contact
Dermatitis 2005: 52: 216-225.

11.

Krautheim A, Uter W, Frosch P, Schnuch A, Geier J. Patch testing with fragrance
mix II: results of the IVDK 2005-2008. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 63: 262-269.

12.

deGroot A C, Coenraads P J, Bruynzeel D P, Jagtman B A, van_Ginkel C J W, Noz
K, van_der_Valk P G M, Pavel S, Vink J, Weyland J W. Routine patch testing withfragrance chemicals in The Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 184-185.

13.

An S, Lee A Y, Lee C H, Kim D W, Hahm J H, Kim K J, Moon K C, Won Y H, Ro Y S,
Eun H C. Fragrance contact dermatitis in Korea: a joint study. Contact Dermatitis
2005: 53: 320-323.

14.

Sugiura M, Hayakawa R, Kato Y, Sugiura K, Hashimoto R. Results of patch testingwith lavender oil in Japan. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 157-160.

15.

Frosch P J, Pilz B, Andersen K E, Burrows D, Camarasa J G, et al. Patch testingwith fragrances: results of a multicenter study of the European Environmental andContact Dermatitis Research Group with 48 frequently used constituents ofperfumes. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 33: 333-342.
277

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

16.

Frosch P J, Johansen J D, Menne T, Pirker C, Rastogi S C, Andersen K E, Bruze M,
Goossens A, Lepoittevin J P, White I R. Further important sensitizers in patients
sensitive to fragrances. I. Reactivity to 14 frequently used chemicals. Contact
Dermatitis 2002: 47: 78-85.

17.

Frosch P J, Johansen J D, Menne T, Pirker C, Rastogi S C, Andersen K E, Bruze M,
Goossens A, Lepoittevin J P, White I R. Further important sensitizers in patients
sensitive to fragrances. II. Reactivity to essential oils. Contact Dermatitis 2002:
47: 279-287.

18.

Larsen W G. Perfume Dermatitis. A Study of 20 Patients. Arch Dermatol 1977:
113: 623-626.

19.

Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch P, Burrows D, Jordan W, Shaw
S, Wilkinson J, Marks J, Jr., Sugawara M, Nethercott M, Nethercott J. Fragrance
contact dermatitis: a worldwide multicenter investigation (Part II). Contact
Dermatitis 2001: 44: 344-346.

20.

Belsito D V, Fowler J F, Jr., Sasseville D, Marks J G, Jr., De Leo V A, Storrs F J.
Delayed-type hypersensitivity to fragrance materials in a select North American
population. Dermatitis 2006: 17: 23-28.

21.

Zug K A, Warshaw E M, Fowler J F, Jr., Maibach H I, Belsito D L, Pratt M D,
Sasseville D, Storrs F J, Taylor J S, Mathias C G, Deleo V A, Rietschel R L, Marks
J. Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006.
Dermatitis 2009: 20: 149-160.

22.

Wöhrl S, Hemmer W, Focke M, Götz M, Jarisch R. The significance of fragrance
mix, balsam of Peru, colophony and propolis as screening tools in the detection offragrance allergy. Br J Dermatol 2001: 145: 268-273.

23.

Goossens A, Merckx L. Allergic Contact Dermatitis from farnesol in a deodorant.
Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 179-180.

24.

Malten K E, van Ketel W G, Nater J P, Liem D H. Reactions in selected patients to22 fragrance materials. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 11: 1-10.

25.

de Groot A C, Liem D H, Nater J P, van Ketel W G. Patch tests with fragrance
materials and preservatives. Contact Dermatitis 1985: 12: 87-92.

26.

Rudzki E, Grzywa Z, Bruo W S. Sensitivity to 35 essential oils. Contact Dermatitis
1976: 2: 196-200.

27.

Rudzki E, Grzywa Z. Allergy to perfume mixture. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 15:
115-116.

28.

Santucci B, Cristaudo A, Cannistraci C,
Picardo M. Contact dermatitis to
fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 1987: 16: 93-95.

29.

Mitchell J C. Contact hypersensitivity to some perfume materials. Contact
Dermatitis 1975: 1: 196-199.

30.

Uter W, Schmidt E, Geier J, Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Frosch P J. Contact allergy
to essential oils: current patch test results (2000-2008) from the IVDK network.
Contact Dermatitis 2010: 63: 277-283.

31.

Trattner A,
David M. Patch testing with fine fragrances: comparison withfragrance mix, balsam of Peru and a fragrance series. Contact Dermatitis 2003:
49: 287-289.

32.

Handley J, Burrows D. Allergic contact dermatitis from the synthetic fragrances
Lyral and acetyl cedrene in separate underarm deodorant preparations. Contact
Dermatitis 1994: 31: 288-290.

278

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

33.

SCCNFP. The Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products
intended for Consumers: Opinion concerning Fragrance Allergy in Consumers. A
Review of the Problem. Analysis of the Need for appropriate Consumer
Information and Identification of Consumer Allergens, adopted 8 December 1999.
SCCNFP/0017/98 Final 1999:

34.

Surburg H, Panten J. Common fragrance and flavor materials: preparation,
properties and uses. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2006.

35.

Bhatia S P, Wellington G A, Cocchiara J, Lalko J, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on alpha-amylcinnamyl alcohol. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45
Suppl 1: S32-39.

36.

Lapczynski A, McGinty D, Jones L, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on pentyl salicylate. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S460466.

37.

Franks A. Contact allergy to anethole in toothpaste associated with loss of taste.
Contact Dermatitis 1998: 38: 354-355.

38.

Garcia-Bravo B, Perez Bernal A, Garcia-Hernandez M J, Camacho F. Occupational
contact dermatitis from anethole in food handlers. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37:
38.

39.

Fahlbusch K-G, Hammerschmidt F-J, Panten J, Pickenhagen W, Schatkowski D,
Bauer K, Garbe D, Surburg H. Flavors and Fragrances. In: Wiley-VCH, eds.
Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2002:

40.

Hostynek J J, Maibach H I. Is there evidence that anisyl alcohol causes allergic
contact dermatitis? Exog Dermatol 2003: 2: 230-233.

40a.

Bruze M, Svedman C, Andersen KE, Bruynzeel D, Goossens A, Johansen JD,
Matura M, Orton D, Vigan M; ESCD. Patch test concentrations (doses in mg/cm2 )for the 12 non-mix fragrance substances regulated by European legislation.
Contact Dermatitis 2012: 66: 131-136

41.

Andersen A. Final report on the safety assessment of benzaldehyde. Int J Toxicol
2006: 25 Suppl 1: 11-27.

42.

Seite-Bellezza D, el Sayed F, Bazex J. Contact urticaria from cinnamic aldehyde
and benzaldehyde in a confectioner. Contact Dermatitis 1994: 31: 272-273.

43.

Opdyke D L, Letizia C. Monographs on fragrance raw materials. Food Chem
Toxicol 1983: 21: 645-667.

44.

Nair B. Final report on the safety assessment of Benzyl Alcohol, Benzoic Acid, andSodium Benzoate. Int J Toxicol 2001: 20 Suppl 3: 23-50.

45.

Sestini S, Mori M, Francalanci S. Allergic contact dermatitis from benzyl alcohol in
multiple medicaments. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 316-317.

46.

Podda M, Zollner T, Grundmann-Kollmann M, Kaufmann R, Boehncke W H.
Allergic contact dermatitis from benzyl alcohol during topical antimycotictreatment. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 302-303.

47.

Shoji A. Allergic reaction to benzyl alcohol in an antimycotic preparation. Contact
Dermatitis 1983: 9: 510.

48.

Cuesta L, Silvestre J F, Toledo F, Lucas A, Perez-Crespo M, Ballester I. Fragrance
contact allergy: a 4-year retrospective study. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 63: 7784.

49.

Guin J D, Goodman J. Contact urticaria from benzyl alcohol presenting as
intolerance to saline soaks. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 45: 182-183.
279

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

50.

Fisher A A. Allergic paraben and benzyl alcohol hypersensitivity relationship of the"delayed" and "immediate" varieties. Contact Dermatitis 1975: 1: 281-284.

51.

Shaw D W. Allergic contact dermatitis to benzyl alcohol in a hearing aid
impression material. Am J Contact Dermat 1999: 10: 228-232.

52.

Jacob S E, Barron G S. Benzyl alcohol: a covert fragrance. Dermatitis 2007: 18:
232-233.

53.

Hausen B M, Brinkmann J, Dohn W. Lexikon der Kontaktallergene (6. Erg.Lieferung). Landsberg am Lech: Ecomed, 1998.

54.

Corazza M, Manovani L, Maranini C, Virgili A. Allergic Contact Dermatitis frombenzyl alcohol. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 74.

55.

Buffet M, Dupin N. Current treatments for scabies. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2003:
17: 217-225.

56.

Bhatia S P, Wellington G A, Cocchiara J, Lalko J, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on benzyl cinnamate. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S4048.

57.

Lapczynski A, McGinty D, Jones L, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on benzyl salicylate. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S362380.

58.

Bhatia S P, Jones L, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on 2-tertbutylcyclohexyl acetate. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 12: S44-47.

59.

Bhatia S P, Jones L, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on 4-tertbutylcyclohexyl acetate. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 12: S36-41.

60.

Arnau E G, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Frosch P J, Johansen J D, Menne T, Rastogi S
C, White I R, Lepoittevin J P. Identification of Lilial as a fragrance sensitizer in a
perfume by bioassay-guided chemical fractionation and structure-activity
relationships. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 351-358.

61.

Stevenson O E, Finch T M. Allergic contact dermatitis from rectified camphor oil in
Earex ear drops. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 51.

62.

Vilaplana J, Romaguera C,
Campderros L. [Contact dermatitis by camphor
present in a flushing solution]. Actas Dermosifiliogr 2007: 98: 345-346.

63.

Noiles K., M. P. Contact dermatitis to Vicks VapoRub. Dermatitis 2010: 21: 167169.

64.

Sköld M, Karlberg A T, Matura M, Börje A. The fragrance chemical betacaryophyllene-air oxidation and skin sensitization. Food Chem Toxicol 2006: 44:538-545.

65.

Matura M, Skold M, Borje A, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Frosch P, Goossens A,
Johansen J D, Svedman C, White I R, Karlberg A T. Selected oxidized fragrance
terpenes are common contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 320-328.

66.

Andersen A. Final report on the safety assessment of sodium p-chloro-m-cresol,p-chloro-m-cresol, chlorothymol, mixed cresols, m-cresol, o-cresol, p-cresol,
isopropyl cresols, thymol, o-cymen-5-ol, and carvacrol. Int J Toxicol 2006: 25
Suppl 1: 29-127.

67.

Corazza M, Levratti A, Virgili A. Allergic contact cheilitis due to carvone in
toothpastes. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 366-367.

68.

Worm M, Jeep S, Sterry W, Zuberbier T. Perioral contact dermatitis caused by Lcarvone in toothpaste. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 38: 338.

69.

Hausen B M. Zahnpasta-Allergie. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1984: 109: 300-302.
280

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

70.

Paulsen E, Andersen K E, Carlsen L, et al. Carvone: an overlooked contact
allergen cross-reacting with sesquiterpene lactones? Contact Dermatitis 1993: 29:
138-143.

71.

Karlberg A T, Magnusson K, Nilsson U. Air oxidation of d-limonene (the citrus
solvent) creates potent allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 26: 332-340.

72.

Matura M, Goossens A, Bordalo O, Garcia-Bravo B, Magnusson K, Wrangsjo K,
Karlberg A T. Patch testing with oxidized R-(+)-limonene and its hydroperoxide
fraction. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 15-21.

73.

Nilsson A M, Gafvert E, Salvador L, Luthman K, Bruze M, Gruvberger B, Nilsson J
L, Karlberg A T. Mechanism of the antigen formation of carvone and relatedalpha, beta-unsaturated ketones. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 347-356.

74.

Nguyen S H, Dang T P, MacPherson C, Maibach H, Maibach H I. Prevalence ofpatch test results from 1970 to 2002 in a multi-centre population in North
America (NACDG). Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 101-106.

75.

Diba V C, Statham B N. Contact urticaria from cinnamal leading to anaphylaxis.
Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 119.

76.

Decapite T J, Anderson B E. Allergic contact dermatitis from cinnamic aldehyde
found in an industrial odour-masking agent. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 51: 312313.

77.

Cocchiara J, Letizia C S, Lalko J, Lapczynski A, Api A M. Fragrance material
review on cinnamaldehyde. Food Chem Toxicol 2005: 43: 867-923.

78.

Bickers D, Calow P, Greim H, Hanifin J M, Rogers A E, Saurat J H, Sipes I G, Smith
R L, Tagami H. A toxicologic and dermatologic assessment of cinnamyl alcohol,
cinnamaldehyde and cinnamic acid when used as fragrance ingredients. Food
Chem Toxicol 2005: 43: 799-836.

79.

Buckley D A, Basketter D A, Smith Pease C K, Rycroft R J, White I R, McFadden J
P. Simultaneous sensitivity to fragrances. Br J Dermatol 2006: 154: 885-888.

80.

Elahi E N, Wright Z, Hinselwood D, Hotchkiss S A, Basketter D A, Pease C K.
Protein binding and metabolism influence the relative skin sensitization potentialof cinnamic compounds. Chem Res Toxicol 2004: 17: 301-310.

81.

Letizia C S, Cocchiara J, Lalko J, Lapczynski A, Api A M. Fragrance material
review on cinnamyl alcohol. Food Chem Toxicol 2005: 43: 837-866.

82.

Heydorn S, Menne T, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Svedman C, White I R, Basketter D
A. Citral a fragrance allergen and irritant. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 32-36.

83.

Hindle E, Ashworth J, Beck M H. Chelitis from contact allergy to citral in lip salve.
Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 125-126.

84.

Hagvall L, Backtorp C, Svensson S, Nyman G, Borje A, Karlberg A T. Fragrancecompound geraniol forms contact allergens on air exposure. Identification andquantification of oxidation products and effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res
Toxicol 2007: 20: 807-814.

85.

Hagvall L, Baron J M, Borje A, Weidolf L, Merk H, Karlberg A T. Cytochrome P450mediated activation of the fragrance compound geraniol forms potent contact
allergens. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2008: 233: 308-313.

86.

Lapczynski A, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on lcitronellol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S110-113.

87.

Lapczynski A, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on (+)-(R)citronellol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S114-116.
281

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

88.

Lapczynski A, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on dlcitronellol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S103-109.

89.

Hostynek J J, Maibach H I. Sensitization Potential of Citronellol. Exog Dermatol
2004: 3: 307-312.

90.

Mutterer V, Gimenez Arnau E, Lepoittevin J P, Johansen J D, Frosch P J, Menne T,
Andersen K E, Bruze M, Rastogi S C, White I R. Identification of coumarin as thesensitizer in a patient sensitive to her own perfume but negative to the fragrance
mix. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 40: 196-199.

91.

Vocanson M, Goujon C, Chabeau G, Castelain M, Valeyrie M, Floc'h F, Maliverney
C, Gard A, Nicolas J F. The skin allergenic properties of chemicals may depend on
contaminants--evidence from studies on coumarin. Int Arch Allergy Immunol
2006: 140: 231-238.

92.

Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on cyclohexyl acetate.
Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 12: S52-55.

93.

Letizia C S, Cocchiara J, Wellington G A, Funk C, Api A M. Food and chemical
toxicology. Food Chem Toxicol 2000: 38 Suppl 3: S1-236.

94.

Lapczynski A, Lalko J, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on damascenone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S172178.

95.

Takanami I, Nakayama H. TMCHB: a possible alternative to DNCB in skin testingfor immune competence. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 19: 81-83.

96.

Lapczynski A, Lalko J, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on alpha-damascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1:
S179-187.

97.

Lapczynski A, Lalko J, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on cis-alpha-damascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1:
S188-191.

98.

Lalko J, Lapczynski A, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on cisbeta-damascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S192-198.

99.

Lapczynski A, Lalko J, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on trans-beta-damascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1:
S199-204.

100.

Lalko J, Lapczynski A, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on delta-damascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S205210.

101.

Lapczynski A, Lalko J, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on trans,trans-delta-damascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45
Suppl 1: S211-215.

102.

Lalko J, Lapczynski A, McGinty D, Bhatiaa S, Letiziaa C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on gamma-damascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 (Suppl. 1):
S216-S220.

103.

McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on dihydromyrcenol.
Food Chem Toxicol 2010: 48 Suppl 3: S70-75.

104.

McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on 3,7-dimethyl-1,6nonadien-3-ol. Food Chem Toxicol 2010: 48 Suppl 3: S52-55.

105.

Mitchell D M, Beck M H. Contact allergy to benzyl alcohol in a cutting oil
reodorant. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 301-302.
282

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

106.

Giusti F, Porcaro V, Seidenari S. Evaluation of eugenol allergy in a patch-test
population. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 37-38.

107.

Quirce S, Fernandez-Nieto M, del Pozo V, Sastre B, Sastre J. Occupational asthma
and rhinitis caused by eugenol in a hairdresser. Allergy 2008: 63: 137-138.

108.

Bhalla M,
158.

109.

Sarrami N, Pemberton M N, Thornhill M H, Theaker E D. Adverse reactions
associated with the use of eugenol in dentistry. Br Dent J 2002: 193: 257-259.

110.

Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R. Dental nurse's occupational allergic contact
dermatitis from eugenol used as a restorative dental material withpolymethylmethacrylate. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 38: 339-340.

111.

Hemmer W, Focke M, Leitner B, Gotz M, Jarisch R. Axillary dermatitis fromfarnesol in a deodorant. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 168-169.

112.

Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Frosch P J. Contact allergy to farnesolin 2021 consecutively patch tested patients. Results of the IVDK. Contact
Dermatitis 2004: 50: 117-121.

113.

Lapczynski A, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review onfarnesol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S149-156.

114.

Tamagawa-Mineoka R, Katoh N, Kishimoto S. Allergic contact cheilitis due togeraniol in food. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 242-243.

115.

Yamamoto A, Morita A, Tsuji T, Suzuki K, Matsunaga K. Contact urticaria from
geraniol. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 52.

116.

Hostynek J J, Maibach H I. Is there evidence that geraniol causes allergic contact
dermatitis? Exog Dermatol 2004: 3: 318-331.

117.

Lapczynski A, Bhatia S P, Foxenberg R J, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material
review on geraniol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S160-170.

118.

Dearman R J, Wright Z M, Basketter D A, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. The
suitability of hexyl cinnamic aldehyde as a calibrant for the murine local lymph
node assay. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 357-361.

119.

Lapczynski A, Jones L, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on hexyl salicylate. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S410417.

120.

Karlberg A T. Contact allergy to colophony. Chemical identifications of allergens,sensitization experiments and clinical experiences. Acta Dermatol Venerol(Stockh) Suppl 1988: 139: 1-43.

121.

Schnuch A, Uter W, Dickel H, Szliska C, Schliemann S, Eben R, Rueff F, GimenezArnau A, Loffler H, Aberer W, Frambach Y, Worm M, Niebuhr M, Hillen U, Martin V,
Jappe U, Frosch P J, Mahler V. Quantitative patch and repeated open application
testing in hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde sensitive-patients.
Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 152-162.

122.

Hendriks S A, Bousema M T, van Ginkel C J. Allergic contact dermatitis from thefragrance ingredient Lyral in underarm deodorant. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41:
119.

123.

Lapczynski A, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review onhydroxycitronellol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S179-181.

124.

Lalko J, Lapczynski A, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on ionone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S251-257.

Thami G P. Acute urticaria due to dental eugenol. Allergy 2003: 58:

283

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

125.

Lalko J, Lapczynski A, Politano V T, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M.
Fragrance material review on alpha-ionone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1:
S235-240.

126.

Lalko J, Lapczynski A, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on beta-ionone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S241-247.

127.

Lapczynski A, Jones L, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on isoamyl salicylate. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1:
S418-423.

128.

Ford R A, Api A M, Letizia C S. Monographs on fragrance raw materials. Food
Chem Toxicol 1992: 30 Suppl: 1S-138S.

129.

White J M, White I R, Glendinning A, Fleming J, Jefferies D, Basketter D A,
McFadden J P, Buckley D A. Frequency of allergic contact dermatitis to isoeugenol
is increasing: a review of 3636 patients tested from 2001 to 2005. Br J Dermatol
2007: 157: 580-582.

130.

Tanaka S, Royds C, Buckley D, Basketter D A, Goossens A, Bruze M, Svedman C,
Menne T, Johansen J D, White I R, McFadden J P. Contact allergy to isoeugenol
and its derivatives: problems with allergen substitution. Contact Dermatitis 2004:
51: 288-291.

131.

White I R, Johansen J D, Arnau E G, Lepoittevin J P, Rastogi S, Bruze M, Andersen
K E, Frosch P J, Goossens A, Menne T. Isoeugenol is an important contact
allergen: can it be safely replaced with isoeugenyl acetate? Contact Dermatitis
1999: 41: 272-275.

132.

Lapczynski A, Lalko J, Politano V T, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M.
Fragrance material review on alpha-iso-methylionone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007:
45 Suppl 1: S280-289.

133.

Hostynek J J, Maibach H I. Is there evidence that alpha-isomethylionone causes
allergic contact dermatitis? Exog Dermatol 2004: 3: 121-125.

134.

Guarneri F, Barbuzza O, Vaccaro M, Galtieri G. Allergic contact dermatitis andasthma caused by limonene in a labourer handling citrus fruits. Contact Dermatitis
2008: 58: 315-316.

135.

Foti C, Zambonin C G, Conserva A, Casulli C, D'Accolti L, Angelini G. Occupational
contact dermatitis to a limonene-based solvent in a histopathology technician.
Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 109-112.

136.

Wakelin S H, McFadden J P, Leonard J N, Rycroft R J. Allergic contact dermatitis
from d-limonene in a laboratory technician. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 38: 164165.

137.

Topham E J, Wakelin S H. D-Limonene contact dermatitis from hand cleansers.
Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 108-109.

138.

Martins C, Goncalo M, Goncalo S. Allergic contact dermatitis from dipentene in
wax polish. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 33: 126-127.

139.

Rycroft R J. Allergic contact dermatitis from dipentene in honing oil. Contact
Dermatitis 1980: 6: 325-329.

140.

Meding B, Barregard L, Marcus K. Hand eczema in car mechanics. Contact
Dermatitis 1994: 30: 129-134.

141.

Karlberg A T, Dooms-Gossens A. Contact allergy to oxidized d-limonene among
dermatitis patients. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 201-206.

142.

Matura M, Skold M, Borje A, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Frosch P, Goossens A,
Johansen J D, Svedman C, White I R, Karlberg A T. Not only oxidized R-(+)- but
284

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

also S-(-)-limonene is a common cause of contact allergy in dermatitis patients in
Europe. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 55: 274-279.
143.

Matura M, Goossens A, Bordalo O, Garcia-Bravo B, Magnusson K, Wrangsjo K,
Karlberg A T. Oxidized citrus oil (R-limonene): a frequent skin sensitizer inEurope. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002: 47: 709-714.

144.

Sköld M, Börje A, Harambasic E, Karlberg A T. Contact allergens formed on air
exposure of linalool. Identification and quantification of primary and secondaryoxidation products and the effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol 2004:
17: 1697-1705.

145.

Christensson J B, Matura M, Gruvberger B, Bruze M, Karlberg A T. Linalool--asignificant contact sensitizer after air exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 62: 3241.

146.

Letizia C S, Cocchiara J, Lalko J, Api A M. Fragrance material review on linalool.
Food Chem Toxicol 2003: 41: 943-964.

147.

Bickers D, Calow P, Greim H, Hanifin J M, Rogers A E, Saurat J H, Sipes I G, Smith
R L, Tagami H. A toxicologic and dermatologic assessment of linalool and related
esters when used as fragrance ingredients. Food Chem Toxicol 2003: 41: 919942.

148.

Hostynek J J, Maibach H I. Is there evidence that linalool causes allergic contact
dermatitis? Exog Dermatol 2003: 2: 223-229.

149.

de Groot A C, Bruynzeel D P, Bos J D, der Meeren H L v, van Joost T, Jagtman B
A, Weyland J W. The allergens in cosmetics. Arch Dermatol 1988: 124: 15251529.

150.

Sköld M, Hagvall L, Karlberg A T. Autoxidation of linalyl acetate, the main
component of lavender oil, creates potent contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis
2008: 58: 9-14.

151.

Hagvall L, Skold M, Brared-Christensson J, Borje A, Karlberg A T. Lavender oillacks natural protection against autoxidation, forming strong contact allergens on
air exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 143-150.

152.

Letizia C S, Cocchiara J, Lalko J, Api A M. Fragrance material review on linalyl
acetate. Food Chem Toxicol 2003: 41: 965-976.

153.

Ford R A, Letizia C S, Api A M. Longifolene. Food Chem Tox 1992: 30(Suppl.):67S-68S.

154.

Morton C A, Garioch J, Todd P, et al. Contact sensitivity to menthol andpeppermint in patients with intra-oral symptoms. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 32:
281-284.

155.

Foti C, Conserva A, Antelmi A, Lospalluti L, Angelini G. Contact dermatitis frompeppermint and menthol in a local action transcutaneous patch. Contact
Dermatitis 2003: 49: 312-313.

156.

Andersson M, Hindsen M. Rhinitis because of toothpaste and other mentholcontaining products. Allergy 2007: 62: 336-337.

157.

dos Santos M A, Santos Galvao C E, Morato Castro F. Menthol-induced asthma: acase report. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2001: 11: 56-58.

158.

Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review onmenthol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S209-214.

159.

Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on dmenthol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S215-217.
285

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

160.

Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on lmenthol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S218-223.

161.

Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on d,lmenthol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S224-227.

162.

Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review onmenthol racemic. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S228-233.

163.

Nair B. Final report on the safety assessment of Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Oil,
Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Leaf Extract, Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Leaf,and Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Leaf Water. Int J Toxicol 2001: 20 Suppl 3: 6173.

164.

Trattner A,
David M. Patch testing with fine fragrances: comparison withfragrance mix, balsam of Peru and a fragrance series. Contact Dermatitis 2003:
49: 287-289.

165.

Mitchell J C, Calnan C D, Clendenning W E, Cronin E, Hjorth N, Magnusson B,
Maibach H I, Meneghini C L, Wilkinson D S. Patch testing with some components
of balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 1976: 2: 57-58.

166.

Bhatia S P, Wellington G A, Cocchiara J, Lalko J, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on methyl cinnamate. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1:
S113-119.

167.

Kaidbey K H, Kligman A M. Photocontact allergy to 6-methylcoumarin. Contact
Dermatitis 1978: 4: 277-282.

168.

Cardoso J C, Canelas M M, Goncalo M, Figueiredo A. Photopatch testing with anextended series of photoallergens: a 5-year study. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 60:
325-329.

169.

Victor F C, Cohen D E, Soter N A. A 20-year analysis of previous and emerging
allergens that elicit photoallergic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010:
62: 605-610.

170.

McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on 4-methyl-3-decen5-ol. Food Chem Toxicol 2010: 48 Suppl 3: S93-96.

171.

Lalko J, Lapczynski A, McGinty D, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on methyl ionone (mixture of isomers). Food Chem Toxicol 2007:
45 Suppl 1: S300-307.

172.

English J S, Rycroft R J. Allergic contact dermatitis from methyl heptine andmethyl octine carbonates. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 174-175.

173.

Hostynek J J, Maibach H I. Is there evidence that methyl heptine carbonate
causes allergic contact dermatitis? Cutan Ocul Toxicol 2006: 25: 259-271.

174.

Heisterberg M V, Vigan M, Johansen J D. Active sensitization and contact allergy
to methyl 2-octynoate. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 62: 97-101.

175.

Bernaola G, Escayol P, Fernandez E, de Corres L F. Contact dermatitis frommethylionone fragrance. Contact Dermatitis 1989: 20: 71-72.

176.

Lalko J, Lapczynski A, McGinty D, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on alpha-irone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S272-275.

177.

Oiso N, Fukai K, Ishii M. Allergic contact dermatitis due to methyl salicylate in acompress. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 51: 34-35.

178.

Hindson C. Contact eczema from methyl salicylate reproduced by oral aspirin(acetyl salicylic acid). Contact Dermatitis 1977: 3: 348-349.

286

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

179.

Lapczynski A, Jones L, McGinty D, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on methyl salicylate. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1: S428452.

180.

Sköld M. Contact allergy to autoxidized fragrance terpenes. Thesis University ofGothenburg 2005.

181.

Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on
myrtenol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S237-240.

182.

Lapczynski A, Foxenberg R J, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material
review on nerol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S241-244.

183.

Lapczynski A, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review onnerolidol (isomer unspecified). Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S247-250.

184.

Lapczynski A, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on cis-nerolidol.
Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S245-246.

185.

Christensen L P, Jakobsen H B, Paulsen E, Hodal L, Andersen K E. Airborne
Compositae dermatitis: monoterpenes and no parthenolide are released fromflowering Tanacetum parthenium (feverfew) plants. Arch Dermatol Res 1999:
291: 425-431.

186.

Lapczynski A, McGinty D, Jones L, Bhatia S, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on phenethyl salicylate. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1:
S467-471.

187.

Sanchez-Politta S, Campanelli A, Pashe-Koo F, Saurat J H, Piletta P. Allergic
contact dermatitis to phenylacetaldehyde: a forgotten allergen? Contact
Dermatitis 2007: 56: 171-172.

188.

McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on phytol. Food Chem
Toxicol 2010: 48 Suppl 3: S59-63.

189.

Cachao P, Menezes Brandao F, Carmo M, Frazao S, Silva M. Allergy to oil ofturpentine in Portugal. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 14: 205-208.

190.

Lear J T, Heagerty A H M, Tan B B, et al. Transient re-emergence of oil ofturpentine allergy in the pottery industry. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 169-172.

191.

Zacher K D, Ippen H. Kontaktekzem durch Bergamottöl. Derm Beruf Umwelt
1984: 32: 95-97.

192.

Lapczynski A, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review onrhodinol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S259-262.

193.

Lapczynski A, Lalko J, McGinty D, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance
material review on alpha-isodamascone. Food Chem Toxicol 2007: 45 Suppl 1:
S267-271.

194.

Bruze M, Zimerson E. Cross-reaction patterns in patients with contact allergy tosimple methylol phenols. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 82-86.

195.

Barbaud A, Reichert-Penetrat S, Trechot P, Granel F, Schmutz J L. [Sensitization
to resorcinol in a prescription verrucide preparation: unusual systemic clinicalfeatures and prevalence]. Ann Dermatol Venereol 2001: 128: 615-618.

196.

Aalto-Korte K, Valimaa J, Henriks-Eckerman M L, Jolanki R. Allergic contact
dermatitis from salicyl alcohol and salicylaldehyde in aspen bark (Populus
tremula). Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 93-95.

197.

Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on alphasantalol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S267-269.

287

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

198.

Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on
santalol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S263-266.

199.

Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review onsclareol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S270-274.

200.

Bhatia S P, McGinty D, Foxenberg R J, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material
review on terpineol. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S275-279.

201.

Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on (-)-alpha-terpineol.
Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S204-205.

202.

Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on alpha-terpineol.
Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S280-285.

203.

Castelain P Y, Camoin J P, Jouglard J. Contact dermatitis to terpene derivatives ina machine cleaner. Contact Dermatitis 1980: 6: 358-360.

204.

Hausen B M, Reichling J, Harkenthal M. Degradation products of monoterpenes
are the sensitizing agents in tea tree oil. Am J Contact Dermat 1999: 10: 68-77.

205.

Lapczynski A, Foxenberg R J, Bhatia S P, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material
review on tetrahydrolinalool. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 11: S286-288.

206.

Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch P J. Majantol--a new important fragrance
allergen. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 48-50.

207.

Heisterberg M V, Johansen J D. Contact allergy to trimethyl-benzenepropanol(Majantol). Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 360-361.

208.

Hausen B M. Contact allergy to balsam of Peru. II. Patch test results in 102
patients with selected balsam of Peru constituents. Am J Contact Dermat 2001:
12: 93-102.

209.

Rudzki E, Grzywa Z. Dermatitis from propolis. Contact Dermatitis 1983: 9: 4045.

210.

Ferguson J E, Beck M H. Contact sensitivity to vanilla in a lip salve. Contact
Dermatitis 1995: 33: 352.

211.

Bhatia S P, Letizia C S,
Api A M. Fragrance material review on
tricyclo[5.2.1.02,6]dec-4-en-8-yl acetate. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 12:
S100-101.

212.

Bhatia S P, Jones L, Letizia C S, Api A M. Fragrance material review on
tricyclodecenyl acetate. Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46 Suppl 12: S93-96.

213.

Anonymous. ISO/DIS 9235 Aromatic raw materials - vocabulary. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Standardisation Organisation, 2010.

214.

Schmidt E. Production of Essential Oils. In: Husnu Can Baser K, Buchbauer G, eds.
Handbook of Essential Oils - Science, Technology, and Applications. Boca Raton:
CRC Press, 2010: 88-95.

215.

Trattner A, David M, Lazarov A. Occupational contact dermatitis due to essential
oils. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 58: 282-284.

216.

Jung P, Sesztak-Greinecker G, Wantke F, Gotz M, Jarisch R,
Hemmer W.
Mechanical irritation triggering allergic contact dermatitis from essential oils in a
masseur. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 297-299.

217.

Bilsland D, Strong A. Allergic contact dermatitis from the essential oil of Frenchmarigold (Tagetes patula) in an aromatherapist. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 23: 5556.

218.

Cockayne S E,
Gawkrodger D J. Occupational contact dermatitis in anaromatherapist. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 306-307.
288

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

219.

Boonchai W, Iamtharachai P,
Sunthonpalin P. Occupational allergic contact
dermatitis from essential oils in aromatherapists. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56:
181-182.

220.

Keane F M, Smith H R, White I R, Rycroft R J. Occupational allergic contact
dermatitis in two aromatherapists. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 49-51.

221.

Selvaag E, Holm J O, Thune P. Allergic contact dermatitis in an aroma therapist
with multiple sensitizations to essential oils. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 33: 354355.

222.

Romaguera C, Vilaplana J. Occupational contact dermatitis from ylang-ylang oil.
Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 251.

223.

Sugawara M, Nakayama H, Watanabe S. Contact hypersensitivity to ylang-ylangoil. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 23: 248-249.

224.

Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis causedby ylang-ylang oil. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 33: 198-199.

225.

Sanchez-Perez J, Garcia-Diez A. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis fromeugenol, oil of cinnamon and oil of cloves in a physiotherapist. Contact Dermatitis
1999: 41: 346-347.

226.

Vilaplana J, Romaguera C. Contact dermatitis from the essential oil of tangerinein fragrance. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 108.

227.

Lalko J, Api A M. Investigation of the dermal sensitization potential of various
essential oils in the local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2006: 44: 739746.

228.

Vilaplana J, Romaguera C. Allergic contact dermatitis due to eucalyptol in an antiinflammatory cream. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 118.

229.

Commission M. List of MAK and BAT Values 2010 (Report No. 46). Weinheim:
Wiley-VCH, 2011.

230.

Nardelli A, Gimenez-Arnau E, Bernard G, Lepoittevin J P, Goossens A. Is a low
content in atranol/chloroatranol safe in oak moss-sensitized individuals? Contact
Dermatitis 2009: 60: 91-95.

231.

Johansen J D, Heydorn S, Menne T. Oak moss extracts in the diagnosis offragrance contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 157-161.

232.

Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T. Hairdresser's dermatitis caused by oak moss inpermanent waving solution. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 55-56.

233.

Owen C M, August P J, Beck M H. Contact allergy to oak moss resin in a solubleoil. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 112.

234.

Rudzki E, Grzywa Z. Sensitizing and irritating properties of star anise oil. Contact
Dermatitis 1976: 2: 305-308.

235.

Franz H, Frank R, Rytter M, Haustein U F. Allergic contact dermatitis due tocedarwood oil after dermatoscopy. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 38: 182-183.

236.

Adisen E, Önder M. Allergic contact dermatitis from Laurus nobilis oil induced bymassage. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 360-361.

237.

Athanasiadis G I, Pfab F, Klein A, Braun-Falco M, Ring J, Ollert M. Erythemamultiforme due to contact with laurel oil. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 116-118.

238.

Özden M G, Öztas P, Öztas M O, Önder M. Allergic contact dermatitis from Laurus
nobilis (laurel) oil. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 45: 178.

289

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

239.

Goiriz R, Delgado-Jimenez Y, Sanchez-Perez J, Garcia-Diez A. Photoallergic
contact dermatitis from lavender oil in topical ketoprofen. Contact Dermatitis
2007: 57: 381-382.

240.

Rademaker M. Allergic contact dermatitis from lavender fragrance in Difflam gel.
Contact Dermatitis 1994: 31:

241.

Varma S, Blackford S, Statham B N, Blackwell A. Combined contact allergy to tea
tree oil and lavender oil complicating chronic vulvovaginitis. Contact Dermatitis
2000: 42: 309-310.

242.

Coulson I H, Khan A S. Facial 'pillow' dermatitis due to lavender oil allergy.
Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 111.

243.

Vermaat H, van Meurs T, Rustemeyer T, Bruynzeel D P, Kirtschig G. Vulval
allergic contact dermatitis due to peppermint oil in herbal tea. Contact Dermatitis
2008: 58: 364-365.

244.

Kalavala M, Hughes T M, Goodwin R G, Anstey A V, Stone N M. Allergic contact
dermatitis to peppermint foot spray. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 57: 57-58.

245.

Wilkinson S M, Beck M H. Allergic contact dermatitis from menthol in peppermint.
Contact Dermatitis 1994: 30: 42.

246.

Andersen K E. Contact allergy to toothpaste flavors. Contact Dermatitis 1978: 4:
195-198.

247.

Clayton R, Orton D. Contact allergy to spearmint oil in a patient with oral lichen
planus. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 51: 314-315.

248.

Skrebova N, Brocks K, Karlsmark T. Allergic contact cheilitis from spearmint oil.
Contact Dermatitis 1998: 39: 35.

249.

Hänsel R, Keller K, Rimpler H,
Schneider G. Hagers Handbuch
pharmazeutischen Praxis. Drogen E - O. Berlin, 894-902: Springer, 1993.

250.

Hausen B M, Wollenweber E. Propolis allergy. (III). Sensitization studies withminor constituents. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 19: 296-303.

251.

Hausen, M B, Evers, P, Stüwe, T H, et al. Propolis allergy (IV) Studies withfurther sensitizers from propolis and constituents common to propolis, poplar buds
and balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 26: 34-44.

252.

Hausen B M, Simatupang T, Bruhn G, Evers P, König W A. Identification of newallergenic constituents and proof of evidence for coniferyl benzoate in Balsam of
Peru. Am J Contact Dermat 1995: 6: 199-208.

253.

Hjorth N. Eczematous allergy to balsams, allied perfumes and flavouring agents.
Acta Derm Venereol 1961: 41 (Suppl. 46): 1-216.

254.

Wurm G. Hagers Handbuch der pharmazeutischen Praxis. Waren und Dienste.
Berlin, 644-689: Springer, 1990.

255.

Api A M. Only Peru Balsam extracts or distillates are used in perfumery. Contact
Dermatitis 2006: 54: 179.

256.

Temesvari E, Podanyi B, Ponyai G, Nemeth I. Fragrance sensitization caused bytemporary henna tattoo. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 240.

257.

Lammintausta K, Maibach H I, Wilson D. Mechanisms of subjective (sensory)
irritation. Propensity to non- immunologic contact urticaria and objective irritationin stingers. Derm Beruf Umwelt 1988: 36: 45-49.

258.

Forsbeck M, Skog E. Immediate reactions to patch tests with balsam of Peru.
Contact Dermatitis 1977: 3: 201-205.
290

der

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

259.

Katsarou A, Armenaka M, Ale I, Koufou V, Kalogeromitros D. Frequency of
immediate reactions to the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 1999:
41: 276-279.

260.

Temesvari E, Soos G, Podanyi B, Kovacs I, Nemeth I. Contact urticaria provokedby balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 1978: 4: 65-68.

261.

Cancian M, Fortina A B, Peserico A. Contact urticaria syndrome from constituentsof balsam of Peru and fragrance mix in a patient with chronic urticaria. Contact
Dermatitis 1999: 41: 300.

262.

Tanaka S, Matsumoto Y, Dlova N, Ostlere L S, Goldsmith P C, Rycroft R J,
Basketter D A, White I R, Banerjee P, McFadden J P. Immediate contact reactions
to fragrance mix constituents and Myroxylon pereirae resin. Contact Dermatitis
2004: 51: 20-21.

263.

Uter W, Lessmann H. Kontaktallergene. In: Schulze-Werninghaus G, Fuchs T,
Bachert C, Wahn U, eds. Manuale allergologicum. Deisenhofen: Dustri, 2008: 237308.

264.

Freireich-Astman M, David M, Trattner A. Standard patch test results in patientswith contact dermatitis in Israel: age and sex differences. Contact Dermatitis
2007: 56: 103-107.

265.

Lazarov A. European Standard Series patch test results from a contact dermatitis
clinic in Israel during the 7-year period from 1998 to 2004. Contact Dermatitis
2006: 55: 73-76.

266.

Gupta N, Shenoi S D, Balachandran C. Fragrance sensitivity in allergic contact
dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 40: 53-54.

267.

Kashani M N, Gorouhi F, Behnia F, Nazemi M J, Dowlati Y, Firooz A. Allergic
contact dermatitis in Iran. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 154-158.

268.

Avalos-Peralta P, Garcia-Bravo B, Camacho F M. Sensitivity to Myroxylon pereirae
resin (balsam of Peru). A study of 50 cases. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 304306.

269.

Akyol A, Boyvat A, Peksari Y, Gurgey E. Contact sensitivity to standard series
allergens in 1038 patients with contact dermatitis in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis
2005: 52: 333-337.

270.

Machovcova A, Dastychova E, Kostalova D, Vojtechovska A, Reslova J,
Smejkalova D, Vaneckova J, Vocilkova A. Common contact sensitizers in the
Czech Republic. Patch test results in 12,058 patients with suspected contact
dermatitis*. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 162-166.

271.

Thyssen J P, Carlsen B C, Menne T, Johansen J D. Trends of contact allergy to
fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae among Danish eczema patients tested
between 1985 and 2007. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 238-244.

272.

Lindberg M, Edman B, Fischer T, Stenberg B. Time trends in Swedish patch test
data from 1992 to 2000. A multi-centre study based on age- and sex-adjusted
results of the Swedish standard series. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 205-210.

273.

Uter W, Hegewald J, Aberer W, Ayala F, Bircher A J, Brasch J, Coenraads P J,
Schuttelaar M L, Elsner P, Fartasch M, Mahler V, Belloni Fortina A, Frosch P J,
Fuchs T, Johansen J D, Menne T, Jolanki R, Krecisz B, Kiec-Swierczynska M,
Larese F, Orton D, Peserico A, Rantanen T, Schnuch A. The European standard
series in 9 European countries, 2002/2003 - First results of the European
Surveillance System on Contact Allergies. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 136-145.

274.

Bruynzeel D P, Diepgen T L, Andersen K E, Brandao F M, Bruze M, Frosch P J,
Goossens A, Lahti A, Mahler V, Maibach H I, Menne T, Wilkinson J D. Monitoring
291

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

the European standard series in 10 centres 1996-2000. Contact Dermatitis 2005:
53: 146-149.
275.

Vilaplana J, Romaguera C,
Grimalt F. Contact dermatitis from geraniol in
Bulgarian rose oil. Contact Dermatitis 1991: 24: 301.

276.

Nardelli A, Thijs L, Janssen K, Goossens A. Rosa centifolia in a 'non-scented'
moisturizing body lotion as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact
Dermatitis 2009: 61: 306-309.

277.

Howes M J, Simmonds M S, Kite G C. Evaluation of the quality of sandalwood
essential oils by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 2004:
1028: 307-312.

278.

Burdock G A, Carabin I G. Safety assessment of sandalwood oil (Santalum albumL.). Food Chem Toxicol 2008: 46: 421-432.

279.

Treudler R, Richter G, Geier J, Schnuch A, Orfanos C E, Tebbe B. Increase insensitization to oil of turpentine: recent data from a multicenter study on 45,005
patients from the German-Austrian Information Network of Departments of
Dermatology (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 68-73.

280.

Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, Frosch P J, Uter W. Contact allergy to
fragrances: frequencies of sensitization from 1996 to 2002. Results of the IVDK*.
Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 65-76.

281.

Schäfer T, Böhler E, Ruhdorfer S, Weigl L, Wessner D, Filipiak B, Wichmann H E,
Ring J. Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy 2001: 56: 1192-1196.

292

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II - Animal Data
Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)
Substance

INCI name (other name)

EC3 value *

CAS
no.

Vehicle(AOO=acetone:olive
oil; DEP=diethyl
phthalate;
DMF=dimethyl
formamide;
DMSO=dimethyl
sulphoxide;
EtOH=ethanol;
MEK=methyl ethyl
ketone)Conc. invehicle (%,generally w/v)

No.
animals
per
dose
group

%

µg/cm²M

lowest forthesubstance(%)

Comment (deviationfrom OECD 429 etc)

Reference

Allyl phenoxyacetate

749374-5

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

4

3.1

775

0.16

3.1

RIFM,
2007a

Amyl cinnamal

122-407

1:3 EtOH:DEP

1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

7.6

1900

0.38

7.6

RIFM,
2006a

Amyl cinnamal

122-407

4:1 AOO

-

4

293

10.6

2650

0.52

Elahi gives ref toBasketter et al 1999,
but no data on thesubstance is found. It is
not known if Elahi,
Aptula and Roberts
quote the same
experiment

Elahi et al.,2004

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)

Amyl cinnamal

122-407

-

-

-

11

2750

0.54

Aptula gives ref toKimber et al 2003, but
no LLNA data on thesubstance is found. It is
not known if Elahi,
Aptula and Roberts
quote the same
experiment; originalreference is not given.

Amyl cinnamal

122-407

-

-

-

11

2750

0.54

Original ref not given.

Roberts etal., 2007

Amylcinnamyl alcohol

101-859

1:3 EtOH:DEP

1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

> 25

>6250

>1.22

> 25

Should have beentested at higher
concentrations

RIFM,
2004a

Anise alcohol

105-135

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

5.9

1475

0.43

5.9

Benzaldehyde

100-527

-

-

-

-

-

-

Benzaldehyde

100-527---

Benzyl alcohol

100-516

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

294

-

> 50

-

>12500

Aptula etal., 2007

RIFM,
2005a

No data in the refRoberts etal., 2007-

No data in the ref(poster abstract)

Basketteret al., 2003

>4.62

Should have beentested at higher
concentrations

RIFM,
2005b

> 50

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)

Benzyl benzoate

120-514

Benzyl cinnamate

Should have beentested at higher
concentrations

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

> 50

>12500

>2.36

> 50

103-413

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

18.4

4600

0.77

18.4

RIFM,
2005d

Benzyl salicylate

118-581

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

2.9

725

0.13

2.9

RIFM,
2005e

p-tert-Butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde

1812701-0

1:3 EtOH:DEP

1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

4.3

1075

0.23

4.3

RIFM,
2007b

Butylphenyl methylpropional(BMHCA)

80-54-6

EtOH

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

2.9

725

0.14

2.9

RIFM,
2001a

Butylphenyl methylpropional(BMHCA)

80-54-6

DEP

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

4.1

1025

0.20

RIFM,
2001b

Butylphenyl methylpropional(BMHCA)

80-54-6

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0, 30.0

4

13.9

3475

0.68

RIFM,
2001c

Butylphenyl methylpropional(BMHCA)

80-54-6

1:3 DEP:EtOH

0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0, 30.0

4

8.8

2200

0.43

RIFM,
2001d

Butylphenyl methylpropional(BMHCA)

80-54-6

4:1 AOO

1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

16.8

4200

0.82

RIFM,
2001e

295

RIFM,
2005c

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)
Butylphenyl methylpropional(BMHCA)

80-54-6

Camellia sinensis leaf Tea
Leaf Absolute

4

1, 2.5, 10, 25, 50

8465060-2

DMF

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

4

> 5.0

>1250

N/a

> 5.0

Cananga odorata leaf /flower oil Ylang Ylang Extra

800681-3

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

4

6.8

1700

N/a

6.8

Carvone648540-1

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

10.7

2675

0.71

Carvone648540-1

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

5.7

1425

0.38

Carvone648540-1

4:1 AOO

6.0, 12, 20

4

13

3250

0.86

Cinnamal

104-552

3:1 EtOH:DEP

0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0

4

0.2

50

0.015

Cinnamal

104-552

0.1% α-tocopherol in
3:1 EtOH:DEP

0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0

4

0.2

50

0.015

RIFM,
2003b

Cinnamal

104-552

2.0% α-tocopherol in
3:1 EtOH:DEP

0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0

4

0.6

150

0.045

RIFM,
2003c

Cinnamal

104-552

0.3% antioxidant mix(equal parts BHT,
tocopherol andeugenol) in 3:1

0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0

4

0.7

175

0.053

RIFM,
2003d

296

18.7

4675

Basketteret al., 2001

4:1 AOO

0.92

Should have beentested at higher
concentrations

RIFM,
2005m

RIFM,
2007f

RIFM,
2007c
5.7

RIFM,
2007d
Nilsson etal., 2005

0.2

RIFM,
2003a

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)
EtOH:DEP

Cinnamal

104-552

0.1% Trolox C in 3:1
EtOH:DEP

0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0

4

0.7

175

0.053

RIFM,
2003e

Cinnamal

104-552

2.0% α-tocopherol in
3:1 EtOH:DEP

0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0

4

0.8

200

0.060

RIFM,
2003f

Cinnamal

104-552

3:1 EtOH:DEP

0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0

4

0.9

225

0.068

RIFM,
2003g

Cinnamal

104-552

0.1% α-tocopherol in
3:1 EtOH:DEP

0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0

4

1.1

275

0.083

RIFM,
2003h

Cinnamal

104-552

0.3% antioxidant mix(equal parts BHT,
tocopherol andeugenol) in 3:1
EtOH:DEP

0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0

4

1.3

325

0.098

RIFM,
2003i

Cinnamal

104-552

0.1% Trolox C in 3:1
EtOH:DEP

0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0

4

1.4

350

0.11

RIFM,
2003j

Cinnamal

104-552

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cinnamal

104-552

4:1 AOO

0.5, 1, 2.5, 5, 10

4

3.1

775

0.23

Basketteret al., 2001

Cinnamal

104-552

4:1 AOO

-

4

1.3

325

0.10

Elahi et al.,
2004

Cinnamal

104-552

4:1 AOO

1, 2.5

-

1.4

348

0.11

Cinnamal

104-552

4:1 AOO

1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

1.7

425

0.13

297

No data in the ref(poster abstract)

Too few concentrations
tested; few details
given in ref

Basketteret al., 2002

Smith andHotchkiss,
2001
Wright etal., 1995

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)
MEK

1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

1.1

275

0.083

Wright etal., 1996

Cinnamal

104-552

DMF

0.1, 0.25, 0.5,
1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

0.5

125

0.038

Wright etal., 1997

Cinnamal

104-552

propylene glycol

1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

1.4

350

0.11

Wright etal., 1998

Cinnamal

104-552

DMSO

0.1, 0.25, 0.5,
1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

0.9

225

0.068

Wright etal., 1999

Cinnamal

104-552

90:10 EtOH:water

1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

1.6

400

0.12

Wright etal., 2000

Cinnamal

104-552

50:50 EtOH:water

1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

1.2

300

0.091

Wright etal., 2001

Cinnamyl alcohol

104-541

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cinnamal

104-552

Cinnamyl nitrile

188538-7

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

> 10

>2500

>0.77

> 10

Citral539240-5

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.4, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0,
20.0

4

1.2

300

0.079

1.2

Citral539240-5

0.1% α-tocopherol in
3:1 EtOH:DEP

0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0, 30.0

4

1.5

375

0.099

298

No data in the ref(poster abstract)

Basketteret al., 2002

Report: systemic
toxicity at 25% and50%. Should havebeen tested at higher
concentrations

RIFM,
2005f

RIFM,
2004b
RIFM,
2003k

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)

Citral539240-5

0.3% antioxidant mix(equal parts BHT,
tocopherol andeugenol) in 3:1
EtOH:DEP

Citral539240-5

0.1% Trolox C in 3:1
EtOH:DEP

0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0, 30.0

4

3.7

925

0.24

RIFM,
2003m

Citral539240-5

3:1 EtOH:DEP

0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0, 30.0

4

4.6

1150

0.30

RIFM,
2003n

Citral539240-5

0.3% antioxidant mix(equal parts BHT,
tocopherol andeugenol) in 3:1
EtOH:DEP

0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0, 30.0

4

4.6

1150

0.30

RIFM,
2003o

Citral539240-5

3:1 EtOH:DEP

0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0, 30.0

4

5.3

1325

0.35

RIFM,
2003p

Citral539240-5

0.1% Trolox C in 3:1
EtOH:DEP

0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0, 30.0

4

5.8

1400

0.38

RIFM,
2003q

Citral539240-5

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

6.3

1575

0.41

RIFM,
2003r

Citral539240-5

0.1% α-tocopherol in
3:1 EtOH:DEP

0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0, 30.0

4

6.8

1700

0.44

RIFM,
2003s

Citral539240-5

-

-

-

-

-

-

Citronellol

106-229

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

43.5

10875

2.78

0.3, 1.0, 3.0,
10.0, 30.0

4

2.1

525

0.14

RIFM,
2003l

299

No data in the ref(poster abstract)

43.5

Basketteret al., 2002

RIFM,
2004c

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)
Should have beentested at higher
concentrations

Vocansonet al., 2006

Coumarin

91-64-5

DMF

10, 25, 50

4>50>12500>3.42>50

Dibenzyl ether

103-504

1:3 EtOH:DEP

1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

6.3

1575

0.32

6.3

RIFM,
2007e

Eugenol

97-53-0

3:1 EtOH:DEP

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

5.3

1325

0.32

5.3

RIFM,
2001f

Eugenol

97-53-0

1:3 EtOH:DEP

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

10.5

2625

0.64

RIFM,
2001g

Eugenol

97-53-0

EtOH

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

10.7

2675

0.65

RIFM,
2001h

Eugenol

97-53-0DEP

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

15.1

3775

0.92

RIFM,
2001i

Eugenol

97-53-0

4:1 AOO

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

-

11.9

2975

0.72

Basketteret al., 1999

Eugenol

97-53-0

-

-

-

-

-

-

No data in the ref(poster abstract)

Basketteret al., 2003

Evernia furfuracea extract
Treemoss absolute

9002867-4

1:3 EtOH:DEP

5.0, 10.0, 20

4

> 20

>5000

N/a

Should have beentested at higher
concentrations

RIFM,
2004k

Evernia furfuracea extract
Treemoss absolute

9002867-4

1:3 EtOH:DEP

10.0, 25.0

4

> 25

>6250

N/a

Too few concentrations
tested

RIFM,
2004d

300

> 20

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)
2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

Evernia prunastri extract
Oakmoss

9002868-5

Farnesol

460284-0

Farnesol

460284-0

4:1 AOO

5.0, 10.0, 25.0

4

4.1

Geraniol

106-241

EtOH

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4Geraniol

106-241

3:1 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

Geraniol

106-241

DEP

Geraniol

106-241

Geraniol

1:3 EtOH:DEP

4

3.88

970

N/a

RIFM,
2004j

3.88

0.25

Should also have beentested at lower
concentrations

RIFM,
2004d

1025

0.18

4.1

Should also have beentested at lower
concentrations

RIFM,
2004d

5.6

1400

0.36

5.6

4

11.4

2850

0.74

RIFM,
2003t

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

11.8

2950

0.76

RIFM,
2001k

1:3 EtOH:DEP

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

20.4

5100

1.32

RIFM,
2001l

106-241

3:1 EtOH:DEP

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

25.8

6450

1.67

RIFM,
2001m

Geraniol

106-241

-

-

-

26

6500

1.69

Roberts etal., 2007trans-2-Hexenal

672826-3

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5,
10

4

2.6

650

0.26

trans-2-Hexenal

672826-3

-

-

-

5.5

1375

0.56

4:1 AOO

5.0, 10.0, 25.0

4

301

5.5

1375

2.6

RIFM,
2001j

RIFM,
2005g
Roberts etal., 2007

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)-O162

5.314.713253675

0.250.68

5.3"numerous
accounts intheliterature"

0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.5,
5.0

5

2.4

600

0.14

2.4

RIFM,
2008a

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.05, 0.25, 0.5,
1.0, 2.5

4

0.18

45

0.008

0.18

RIFM,
2006b

107-755

1:3 EtOH:DEP

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

19.3

4825

1.12

19.3

RIFM,
2001n

Hydroxycitronellal

107-755

DEP

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

19.7

4925

1.14

RIFM,
2001o

Hydroxycitronellal

107-755

3:1 EtOH:DEP

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

22.2

5550

1.29

RIFM,
2001p

Hydroxycitronellal

107-755

EtOH

1.0, 3.0, 10.0,
30.0, 50.0

4

26.4

6600

1.53

RIFM,
2001q

Hydroxycitronellal

107-755

AOO

25, 50, 100

-

-

-

-

Hydroxycitronellal

107-755

4:1 AOO

2.5, 5, 10, 25, 50

4

33.0

8250

1.92

Hydroxycitronellal

107-755

-

-

-

-

-

-

Hydroxycitronellal

107-755

-

-

-

25.25

6313

1.47

Hexyl cinnamal

101-860

generally 4:1 AOO

2-Hexylidene
cyclopentanone

1737389-6

1:3 EtOH:DEP

Hexyl salicylate

625976-3

Hydroxycitronellal

302

EC3 value not given

Ashby etal., 1995
Basketteret al., 2001

No data in the ref(poster abstract)

Basketteret al., 2002
Estrada etal., 2003

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)
Too few concentrations
tested; few details
given in ref

Smith andHotchkiss,
2001

Hydroxycitronellal

107-755

4:1 AOO

10, 25

-

23

5750

1.34

Hydroxyisohexyl 3cyclohexene carboxaldehyde

3190604-4

4:1 AOO

1.0, 2.5, 5, 10,25, 50

4

17.1

4275

0.81

p-Isobutyl-α-methylhydrocinnamaldehdye

665848-6

70% EtOH

10.0, 25.0, 50.0,
100.0

4

9.5

2375

0.46

9.5

Isocyclocitral

133566-6

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.5 , 1.0 , 2.5 ,
5.0, 10.0

4

7.3

1825

0.48

7.3

Isocyclogeraniol

6852777-5

1:3 EtOH:DEP

5.0, 10.0, 25.0,
50.0

4

> 25

>6250

>1.62

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.5, 5.0

6

0.54

145

0.033

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.5, 1.0, 5.0

5

0.6

150

0.037

RIFM,
2002a

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.5, 1.0, 5.0

5

0.76

191

0.046

RIFM,
2002b

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.5, 1.0, 5.0

5

0.79

199

0.048

RIFM,
2002c

303

RIFM,
2001r

17.1

Should also have beentested at lower
concentrations

RIFM,
2001w

RIFM,
2006c

> 25

Should have beentested at higher
concentrations

RIFM,
2005h

0.54

Too few concentrations
tested

RIFM,
2001s

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)
Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.5, 1.0, 5.0

5

1.19

296

0.072

RIFM,
2001t

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.5, 1.0, 5.0

5

1.28

320

0.078

RIFM,
2004e

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.25, 0.5, 1.0,
2.5, 5.0

6

1.54

385

0.094

RIFM,
2001u

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.5, 1.0, 5.0

5

1.95

488

0.119

RIFM,
2001v

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.25, 0.5, 1.0,
2.5, 5.0

3.3

825

0.20

Basketteret al., 1999

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

-

-

-

-

-

-

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.25, 0.5, 1.0,
2.5, 5.0

4 or 5

1.3

325

0.079

Loveless etal., 1996

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.25, 0.5, 1.0,
2.5, 5.0

4 or 5

3.3

825

0.20

Loveless etal., 1996

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.25, 0.5, 1.0,
2.5, 5.0

4 or 5

1.8

450

0.11

Loveless etal., 1996

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.25, 0.5, 1.0,
2.5, 5.0

4 or 5

3.1

775

0.19

Loveless etal., 1996

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

4:1 AOO

0.25, 0.5, 1.0,
2.5, 5.0

4 or 5

1.6

400

0.097

Loveless etal., 1996

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

AOO

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

4

1.0

250

0.061

Wright etal., 2001

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

MEK

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

4

1.0

250

0.061

Wright etal., 2001

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

DMF

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

4

1.4

350

0.085

Wright etal., 2001

304

No data in the ref(poster abstract)

Basketteret al., 2002

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)
Isoeugenol

97-54-1

propylene glycol

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

4

2.5

625

0.15

Wright etal., 2001

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

DMSO

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

4

0.9

225

0.055

Wright etal., 2001

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

90:10 EtOH:water

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

4

1.8

450

0.11

Wright etal., 2001

Isoeugenol

97-54-1

50:50 EtOH:water

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

4

4.9

1225

0.30

Wright etal., 2001

Jasmine absolute(Grandiflorum)

802296-6

1:3 EtOH:DEP

1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0, 25.0

4

5.9

1475

N/a

5.9

RIFM,
2006d

Jasminum Sambac Flower
CERA / Extract / Water

9177014-8

1:3 EtOH:DEP

10.0, 25.0, 50.0,
75.0, 100.0

4

35.4

9100

N/a

35.4

RIFM,
2006e

d-Limonene**

598927-5

EtOH

10.0, 20.0, 50.0,
75.0, 100.0

4

< 10

< 250

<0.73

d-Limonene**

598927-5

3:1 EtOH:DEP

10.0, 20.0, 50.0,
75.0, 100.0

4

22.0

5500

1.61

RIFM,
2004m

d-Limonene**

598927-5

1:3 EtOH:DEP

10.0, 20.0, 50.0,
75.0, 100.0

4

38.0

9500

2.79

RIFM,
2004n

d-Limonene**

598927-5

DEP

10.0, 20.0, 50.0,
75.0, 100.0

4

63.0

15.75

4.62

RIFM,
2004o

d-Limonene**

598927-5

4:1 AOO

25, 50, 100

4

68.5

17125

5.03

Warbrick etal., 2001

305

< 10

Should also have beentested at lower
concentrations

RIFM,
2004l

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)
Linalool**

78-70-6

Menthadiene-7-methyl
formate-No data in the ref(poster abstract)

Basketteret al., 2002

> 2500

>0.51

> 10

Should have beentested at higher
concentrations

RIFM,
2008c

23.6

5900

1.32

23.63

RIFM,
2004f

-

4.5

1125

0.31

4.5

Roberts etal., 2007

4

16.4

4100

0.85

16.4

RIFM,
2005i

-

-

-

6868320-5

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

5

> 10

4-Methoxy-α-methyl
benzenpropanal

546206-6

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

5α-Methyl cinnamic aldehyde

101-393--

Methylenedioxyphenyl
methylpropanal

120517-0

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

6-Methyl-3,5-heptadien-2one

160428-0

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

5

>5

> 1250>0.40>5α-iso-Methylionone

127-515

1:3 EtOH:DEP

10.0, 25.0, 50.0,
75.0, 100.0

4

21.8

5450

1.06

21.8

RIFM,
2005j

Methyl octine carbonate

111-808

-

-

-

2.5

635

0.15

2.5

Roberts etal., 2007

306

-

-

Should have beentested at higher
concentrations

RIFM,
2008d

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0,
10.0

4

< 0.5

< 125

<0.032

< 0.5

-

-

-

5.8

1450

0.42

5.8

Should also have beentested at lower
concentrations

Methyl 2-octynoate

111-126

2-Methoxy-4-methylphenol

93-51-6

1-Octen-3-yl acetate

244210-6

1:3 EtOH:DEP

7.5, 15.0, 30.0

5

> 30

> 7500>1.76

Perillaldehyde p-Mentha-1,8dien-7-al

211175-3

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0,
10.0

5

9.3

2325

0.62

Perillaldehyde p-Mentha-1,8dien-7-al

211175-3

-

-

-

8.1

2025

0.54

8.1

Roberts etal., 2007

Balsam oil, Peru (Myroxylon
pereirae Klotzsch)

800700-9

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

3.95

987

N/a

3.95

RIFM,
2004h

Peru balsam absolute

800700-9

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

4

2.5

625

N/a

2.5

RIFM,
2004i

Peru balsam absolute

800700-9

1:3 EtOH:DEP

0.5, 1.0, 2.5

4

>2.5

>625

N/a

Phenylacetaldehyde

122-781

4:1 AOO

2.5, 5, 10, 25, 50

4

3.0

750

0.25

307

> 30

RIFM,
2005k

Roberts etal., 2007

Should have beentested at higher
concentrations

RIFM,
2004g

RIFM,
2008b

RIFM,
2004i

3.0

Basketteret al., 2001

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex II . Local lymph node assay (LLNA) data on 59 fragrance substances, based on a summary report submitted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials,
Inc. (RIFM, 2009)
Phenylacetaldehyde

122-7813-Propylidenephthalide

1736959-4

4:1 AOO

5, 10, 20

Tetramethyl
acetyloctahydronaphthalenes(OTNE)

5446457-2

1:3 EtOH:DEP

2.5, 5.0, 10.0,
25.0, 50.0

Trimethylbenzenepropanol
Majantol

10369468-4

4:1 AOO

3.0, 10.0, 30.0

4

~30

~7500

~1.68

30

Vanillin

121-335

4:1 AOO

2.5, 5, 10, 25, 50

4

>50.0

>1250

>3.3

>50.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 or 5

3.7

925

0.21

3.7

4

25.14

6285

1.07

25.14

No data in the ref(poster abstract)

Basketteret al., 2003

Should also have beentested at lower
concentrations

Gerbericket al., 2004

RIFM,
2005l

Should have beentested at higher
concentrations* source of EC3 value value: % given in the RIFM report or references; µg/cm2 given in the RIFM report and RIFM poster; M calculated by SCCS working group**material with low levels of oxidation according to RIFM, 2009
- = no data given; A216

308

RIFM,
2002d

Basketteret al., 2001

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

References
Aptula, N., Roberts, D.W., Schultz, T.W., Pease, C., 2007. Reactivity assays for nonanimal based prediction of skin sensitisation potential. Toxicology, 231(2-3), 117-118
Ashby J, Basketter D.A., Patton, D., Kimber I. 1995. Structure activity relationships inskin sensitization using the murine local lymph node assay. Toxicology 103:177-194
Basketter, D.A., Gilmour, N., Dearman, R.J., Kimber, I., Ryan, C.A., Gerberick, F., 2003.
Classification of skin sensitisation potency using the Local Lymph Node Assay. The
Toxicologist, 72(S-1), 101
Basketter, D. A., Lea, L. J., Dickens, A., Briggs, D., Pate, I., Dearman, R. J., Kimber, I.,
1999. A comparison of statistical approaches to the derivation of EC3 values from local
lymph node assay dose responses. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 19(4), 261-266
Basketter, D.A., Wright, Z., Gilmour, N.J., Ryan, C.A., Gerberick, G.F., Robinson, M.K.,
Dearman, R.J., Kimber, I., 2002. Prediction of human sensitization potency using local
lymph node assay EC3 values. The Toxicologist, 66(1-S), 240
Basketter, D. A., Wright, Z. M., Warbrick, E. V., Dearman, R. J., Kimber, I., Ryan, C. A.,
Gerberick, G. F., White, I. R., 2001. Human potency predictions for aldehydes using the
local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis, 45(2), 89-94
Elahi, E.N., Wright, Z., Hinselwood, D., Hotchkiss, S.A.M., Basketter, D.A., Smith Pease,
C.K., 2004. Protein binding and metabolism influence the relative skin sensitization
potential of cinnamic compounds. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 17(3), 301-310
Estrada, E., Patlewicz, G., Chamberlain, M., Basketter, D., Larbey, S., 2003. Computer
aided Knowledge Generation for Understanding Skin Sensitization Mechanisms: The
TOPS-MODE Approach. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 16, 1226-1235
Gerberick, G.F., Ryan, C.A, . Kern, P.S., Dearman, R.J., Kimber, I., Patlewicz, G.Y.,
Basketter, D.A. 2004. A chemical dataset for evaluation of alternative approaches toskin-sensitization testing. Contact Dermatitis 50, 274-288
Loveless, S. E., Ladics, G. S., Gerberick, G. F., Ryan, C. A., Basketter, D. A., Scholes, E.
W., House, R. V., Hilton, J., Dearman, R. J., Kimber, I., 1996. Further evaluation of thelocal lymph node assay in the final phase of an international collaborative trial.
Toxicology, 108(1-2), 141-152
Nilsson, A.-M., Bergstrom, M.A., Luthman, K., Nilsson, J.L.G., Karlberg, A.-T., 2005. An
alpha,beta-unsaturated oxime identified as a strong contact allergen. Indications ofantigen formation via several pathways. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 43(11), 16271636
RIFM, 2001a. Local Lymph Node Assay on p-t-Butyl-α-methyl-hydrocinnamic aldehyde in
EtOH . RIFM report number 37065 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001b. Local Lymph Node Assay on p-t-Butyl-α-methyl-hydrocinnamic aldehyde in
DEP. RIFM report number 37066 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001c. Local Lymph Node Assay on p-t-Butyl-α-methyl-hydrocinnamic aldehyde in
1:3 EtOH:DEP. RIFM report number 37067 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001d. Local Lymph Node Assay on p-t-Butyl-α-methyl-hydrocinnamic aldehyde in
1:3 DEP:EtOH. RIFM report number 37068 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001e. Local Lymph Node Assay on p-t-Butyl-α-methyl-hydrocinnamic aldehyde in
4:1 acetone:olive oil. RIFM report number 41235. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001f. Local Lymph Node Assay on eugenol. RIFM report number 37076. (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
309

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

RIFM, 2001g. Local Lymph Node Assay on eugenol. RIFM report number 37075. (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001h. Local Lymph Node Assay on eugenol. RIFM report number 37073. (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001i. Local Lymph Node Assay on eugenol. RIFM report number 37074. (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001j. Local Lymph Node Assay on geraniol in ethanol. RIFM report number 37069(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001k. Local Lymph Node Assay on geraniol in DEP. RIFM report number 37070(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001l. Local Lymph Node Assay on geraniol in 1:3 EtOH:DEP. RIFM report number
37071 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001m. Local Lymph Node Assay on geraniol in 3:1 EtOH:DEP. RIFM report
number 37072 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001n. Local Lymph Node Assay on hydroxycitronellal in 1:3 EtOH:DEP. RIFM
report number 37079 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001o. Local Lymph Node Assay on hydroxycitronellal in DEP. RIFM report number
37078 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001p. Local Lymph Node Assay on hydroxycitronellal in 3:1 EtOH:DEP. RIFM
report number 37080 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001q. Local Lymph Node Assay on hydroxycitronellal in EtOH. RIFM report
number 37080 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001r. Local Lymph Node Assay on p-t-Butyl-α-methyl-hydrocinnamic aldehyde in
4:1 acetone:olive oil. RIFM report number 41235. Unpublished report from Unilever.
(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001s. Local Lymph Node Assay on isoeugenol in 4:1 acetone:olive oil. RIFM
report number 59516. Unpublished report from Firmenich. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ,
USA)
RIFM, 2001t. Local Lymph Node Assay on isoeugenol in 4:1 acetone:olive oil. RIFM report
number 42122. Unpublished report from Firmenich. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2001u. Local Lymph Node Assay on isoeugenol in 4:1 acetone:olive oil. RIFM
report number 40676. Unpublished report from Firmenich. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ,
USA)
RIFM, 2001v. Local Lymph Node Assay on isoeugenol in 4:1 acetone:olive oil. RIFM
report number 42120. Unpublished report from Firmenich. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ,
USA)
RIFM, 2001w. Local Lymph Node Assay on p-isobutyl-α-methyl hydrocinnamaldehdye in
70% Ethanol. RIFM report number 41055. Unpublished report from Givaudan. (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2002a. Local Lymph Node Assay on isoeugenol in 4:1 acetone:olive oil. RIFM
report number 42139. Unpublished report from Firmenich. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ,
USA)
RIFM, 2002b. Local Lymph Node Assay on isoeugenol in 4:1 acetone:olive oil. RIFM
report number 42145. Unpublished report from Firmenich. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ,
USA)

310

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

RIFM, 2002c. Local Lymph Node Assay on isoeugenol in 4:1 acetone:olive oil. RIFM
report number 42123. Unpublished report from Firmenich. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ,
USA)
RIFM, 2002d. Local Lymph Node Assay on majantol in 4:1 acetone:olive oil. RIFM report
number 58693. Unpublished report from Symrise. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003a. Local Lymph Node Assay on cinnamic aldehyde in 3:1 EtOH:DEP. RIFM
report number 42032 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003b. Local Lymph Node Assay on cinnamic aldehyde in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with 0.1%
tocopherol. RIFM report number 42033 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003c. Local Lymph Node Assay on cinnamic aldehyde in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with 2.0%
tocopherol. RIFM report number 42040 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003d. Local Lymph Node Assay on cinnamic aldehyde in 3:1 EtOH:DEP withantioxidant mix. RIFM report number 42034 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003e. Local Lymph Node Assay on cinnamic aldehyde in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with 0.1%
Trolox C. RIFM report number 42036 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003f. Local Lymph Node Assay on cinnamic aldehyde in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with 2.0%
tocopherol. RIFM report number 42035 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003g. Local Lymph Node Assay on cinnamic aldehyde in 3:1 EtOH:DEP. RIFM
report number 42037 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003h. Local Lymph Node Assay on cinnamic aldehyde in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with 0.1%
tocopherol. RIFM report number 42038 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003i. Local Lymph Node Assay on cinnamic aldehyde in 3:1 EtOH:DEP withantioxidant mix. RIFM report number 42039 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003j. Local Lymph Node Assay on cinnamic aldehyde in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with 0.1%
Trolox C. RIFM report number 42041 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003k. Local Lymph Node Assay on citral in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with 0.1% tocopherol.
RIFM report number 42028 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003l. Local Lymph Node Assay on citral in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with antioxidant mix.
RIFM report number 42025 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003m. Local Lymph Node Assay on citral in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with antioxidant mix.
RIFM report number 42026 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003n. Local Lymph Node Assay on citral in 3:1 EtOH:DEP. RIFM report number
42023 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003o. Local Lymph Node Assay on citral in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with antioxidant mix.
RIFM report number 42029 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003p. Local Lymph Node Assay on citral in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with antioxidant mix.
RIFM report number 42027 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003q. Local Lymph Node Assay on citral in 3:1 EtOH:DEP with 0.1% Trolox C.
RIFM report number 42030 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003r. Local Lymph Node Assay on citral. RIFM report number 43822 (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003s. Local Lymph Node Assay on citral. RIFM report number 42024 (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2003t. Local Lymph Node Assay on geraniol in 3:1 EtOH:DEP. RIFM report number
43812 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
311

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

RIFM, 2004a. Local Lymph Node Assay on α-amylcinnamyl alcohol. RIFM report number
45128 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004b. Local Lymph Node Assay on Citral. RIFM report number 45126 (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004c. Local Lymph Node Assay on d,l-Citronellol. RIFM report number 48752(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004d. Local Lymph Node Assay on farnesol RIFM report number 47136.
Unpublished report from Symrise (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004e. Local Lymph Node Assay on isoeugenol RIFM report number 47326.
Unpublished report from Firmenich (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004f. Local Lymph Node Assay on 4-methoxy-α-methyl benzenpropanal. RIFM
report number 47809. Unpublished report from IFF (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004g. Local Lymph Node Assay on 1-Octen-3-yl acetate. RIFM report number
47809. Unpublished report from IFF (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004h. Local Lymph Node Assay on Peru Balsam Oil. RIFM report number 44372.
(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004i. Local Lymph Node Assay on Peru Balsam Absolute. RIFM report number
44371. (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004j. Oakmoss absolute: Local lymph node assay. RIFM report number 43861(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004k. Treemoss absolute: Local lymph node assay. RIFM report number 44368(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004l. d-limonene: Local lymph node assay. RIFM report number 45756 (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004m. d-limonene: Local lymph node assay. RIFM report number 45753 (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004n. d-limonene: Local lymph node assay. RIFM report number 45755 (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2004o. d-limonene: Local lymph node assay. RIFM report number 45754 (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005a. Local Lymph Node Assay on anisyl alcohol. RIFM report number 45755(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005b. Local Lymph Node Assay on benzyl alcohol. RIFM report number 47376(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005c. Local Lymph Node Assay on benzyl benzoate. RIFM report number 47377(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005d. Local Lymph Node Assay on benzyl cinnamate. RIFM report number 48751(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005e. Local Lymph Node Assay on benzyl salicylate. RIFM report number 47378(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005f. Local Lymph Node Assay on cinnamyl nitrile. RIFM report number 51626(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005g. Local Lymph Node Assay on trans-2-hexenal in 1:3 EtOH:DEP. RIFM report
number 48756 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005h. Local Lymph Node Assay on isocyclogeraniol in 1:3 EtOH:DEP. RIFM report
number 48755 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)312

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

RIFM, 2005i. Local Lymph Node Assay on α-Methyl-1,3-benzodioxole- 5-propionaldehyde
in 1:3 EtOH:DEP. RIFM report number 50886 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005j. Local Lymph Node Assay on α-iso-Methylionone in 1:3 EtOH:DEP. RIFM
report number 48749 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005k. Local Lymph Node Assay on Methyl 2-octynoate in 1:3 EtOH:DEP. RIFM
report number 48753 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005l. Local Lymph Node Assay on OTNE in 1:3 EtOH:DEP. RIFM report number
51630 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2005m. Local Lymph Node Assay on tea leaf absolute. RIFM report number 47597.
Unpublished report from Robertet (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2006a. Local Lymph Node Assay on α-amylcinnamaldehyde. RIFM report number
52888 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2006b. Local Lymph Node Assay on hexyl salicylate. RIFM report number 51636(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2006c. Local Lymph Node Assay on isocyclocitral. RIFM report number 52892(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2006d. Local Lymph Node Assay on Jasmine Absolute (Grandiflorum). RIFM report
number 53024 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2006e. Local Lymph Node Assay on Jasmine Absolute (Sambac). RIFM report
number 52885 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2007b. Local Lymph Node Assay on p-t-Butyl-dihydrocinnamaldehyde. RIFM report
number 52900 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2007c. Local Lymph Node Assay on carvone. RIFM report number 52902 (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2007d. Local Lymph Node Assay on carvone. RIFM report number 52907 (RIFM,
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2007e. Local Lymph Node Assay on dibenzyl ether. RIFM report number 52901(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2007f. Local Lymph Node Assay on Ylang Ylang Extra. RIFM report number 52903(RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2008a. Local Lymph Node Assay on 2-hexylidene cyclopentanone. RIFM report
number 55548 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2008b. Local Lymph Node Assay on p-mentha-1,8-dien-7-al. RIFM report number
54428 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2008c. Local Lymph Node Assay on menthadiene-7-methyl formate. RIFM report
number 54429 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM, 2008d. Local Lymph Node Assay on 6-methyl-3,5-heptadien-2-one. RIFM report
number 55564 (RIFM, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USA)
RIFM. 2009. Research Institute for Fragrance Materials, Inc. Local lymph node assay(LLNA) protocol summaries: Data presented at the 46th Congress of the European
Societies of Toxicology
Roberts, D.W., Patlewicz, G., Kern, P.S., Gerberick, F., Kimber, I., Dearman, R.J., Ryan,
C.A., Basketter, D.A., Aptula, A.O., 2007. Mechanistic applicability domain classificationof a local lymph node assay dataset for skin sensitization. Chemical Research in
Toxicology, 20(7), 1019-1030

313

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Smith, C.K., Hotchkiss, S.A.M., 2001. Allergic Contact Dermatitis. Taylor & Francis, NewYork
Vocanson, M., Goujon, C., Chabeau, G., Castelain, M., Valeyrie, M., Floch, F, Maliverney,C., Gard A., Nicolas, J.F 2006. The skin allergenic properties of chemicals may depend on
contaminants - evidence from studies on coumarin. International Archives of Allergy and
Immunology, 140, 231-238
Warbrick, E.V.R., Dearman J., Ashby J., Schmezer P. and Kimber I. 2001. Preliminary
assessment of the skin sensitizing activity of selected rodent carcinogens using the local
lymph node assay. Toxicology, 163(1), 63-69
Wright, Z. M., Basketter, D. A., Blaikie, L., Cooper, K. J., Warbrick, E. V., Dearman, R. J.,
Kimber, I., 2001. Vehicle effects on skin sensitization potency of four chemicals
assessment using the local lymph node assay. International Journal of Cosmetic Science,23(2), 75-83

314

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex III - Tabular summary of dose-elicitation studies in sensitised patientsContents
Chloroatranol................................................................................................... 316
Cinnamal ........................................................................................................ 318
Hydroxycitronellal ............................................................................................ 321
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde (HICC).......................................... 323
Isoeugenol ...................................................................................................... 329
References ...................................................................................................... 333

315

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Chloroatranol
Chloroatranol (allergen in oak moss absolute: Evernia prunastri) (1)Designblinded, randomised with regard to doses and controlled

Test subjects

13 patients previously identified as sensitized to chloroatranol
and oak moss absolute

Controls

10 healthy controls

Substance

Purity: >99%

Patch test

15 μl solution applied in an 8 mm Finn Chamber occlusion 48 h-dilution steps

200 ppm to 0.0063 ppm (10 steps)-control/vehicle

ethanol-definition of thresholdlowest concentration giving a visible skin reaction

ROAT

volar aspect of forearmsarea

3 x 3 cm2

applications/day

two

dose

chloroatranol in ethanol: Step 1: 5 ppm Step 2: 25 ppm

dose/application/cm2

step 1: 0.025 μg step2: 0.125 μg

control substanceethanoldefinition of positive

erythema in at least 25% and at least one papule

periodtwo weeks for each step

Results
PT ED10% (95% CI)

0.013 (0.002-0.03) ppm=0.0004 μg/cm2

PT ED50% (95% CI)

0.15 (0.077-0.295) ppm=0.0045 μg/cm2

PT
no(observed)

effect

level

/

ROAT

Cumulative responses

Step 1 (5 ppm)

12/13 (92%)

Step 2 (25 ppm)

13/13 (100%)Controls

Negative

Other information

None relevant

In a subsequent study chloroatranol and atranol, both ingredients in Evernia prunastri,were tested in equimolar concentrations in serial dilution in 10 eczema patients withknown sensitization to chloroatranol and oak moss. A positive response was defined as
any degree of reaction. Ethanol was included as the control and gave no response. No
use tests were done and no control subjects included.
316

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Results: All patients reacted to the highest concentrations of the two substances. For
both substances there was a significant dose-dependence and the estimated difference inelicitation potency of chloroatranol relative to atranol was 217%. The dose-response
curve is seen in figure 1 below (2).

317

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

CinnamalCinnamal (3)Designblinded, randomised and controlled

Test subjects

18 patients with a positive patch test to cinnamal and additional
4 with a doubtful response

Controls

20 healthy controls

Substance

Purity: >98%

Patch test

20 mg solution applied in an 8 mm Finn Chamber occlusion 48 h-dilution steps

2% to 0.01% (7 steps)-control/vehicle

petrolatum-definition of thresholdlowest concentration giving a visible skin reaction in a continuousline of responses

ROAT

outer aspect of upper arm

area

5 x 5 cm2

applications/day

two with atomizer pumpdose

Step 1: 0.02% Step 2: 0.1% Step 3: 0.8%

dose/application/cm2

Not given

control substanceethanoldefinition of positive

The response was classified as positive no matter the degree ofreaction.

periodtwo weeks for each step; total maximum 6 weeks

Results
PT ED10% (95% CI)/

PT ED50% (95% CI)

0.24%= 96 μg/cm2 (calculated from the data in the paper)PT
nolevel(observed)

effect0.01 % in pet. = 0.4 μg/cm2

ROAT

Cumulative responses

Step 1 (0.02%)

0/18

Step 2 (0.1%)

8/18 (44 %)Step 3 (0.8%)

13/18 (72 %)Controls

No eczema reactions were seen

Other information

2 patients and 2 controls developed immediate reactions to the
cinnamal solution

318

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Cinnamal (4)Designblinded, randomised doses and controlled

Test subjects

17 patients with a positive patch test to cinnamal(8 patients in part 1 and 9 in part two)

Controls

20 controls (non-sensitised dermatitis patients)

Substance

purity: /Patch test

15 μl solution applied in an 8 mm Finn Chamber occlusion 48 h-dilution steps

2 % to 0.00006 % (17 steps)-control/vehicle

ethanol-definition of thresholdlowest concentration eliciting a + reaction

ROAT

Axillaarea

10 x 10 cm2 (estimated)

applications/day

two with roll on deodorant ( 89-700 mg per application ofsolution)average cases: 263 mg/application controls: only range given

dosePart one: Step 1: 0.032% Step 2: 0.1% Step: 0.32%
Part two: Step 1: 0.01% Step 2: 0.032% Step 3: 0.1%
2

dose/application/cm

Part two estimated: step one: 0.26 μg; step two: 0.84 μg; 2.63μg

control substance

Deodorant matrix

definition of positiveeczematous reaction covering at least 25% of test area

periodPart one: one week with each concentration: maximum three
weeks
Part two: two weeks with each concentration: maximum six
weeks

Results
PT ED10% (95% CI)/

PT ED50% (95% CI)

/

PT
no
level(observed)

0.002%

effectROAT

Cumulative responses

Step 1 (0.01)

2/9 (22%)

Step 2 (0.032)

6/9 (67%)

Step 3 (0.1)

8/9 (88%)

Controls

No reactions were seen

Other information

Only reactions seen to the cinnamal-containing deodorants at
ROAT, difference to matrix axilla (p<0.001) and all control
319

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

persons negative (p<0.001)

320

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Hydroxycitronellal
Hydroxycitronellal (5)Designblinded, randomised doses and controlled

Test subjects

7 patients with a positive patch test to hydroxycitronellal

Controls

7 controls (non-sensitised dermatitis patients)

Substance

purity: /Patch test

15 μl solution applied in an 8 mm Finn Chamber occlusion 48 h-dilution steps

4% to 0.00006% (17 steps)-control/vehicle

ethanol-definition of thresholdlowest concentration eliciting + reaction

ROAT

Axillaarea

10 x 10 cm2 (estimated)

applications/day

two with roll on deodorant ( 172-591 per application of solution)
average cases: 294 mg/application controls: only range given

dose

Step 1: 0.032% Step 2: 0.1% Step: 0.32%
2

dose/application/cm

Estimated: step 1: 0.94 μg; step 2: 2.94 μg; step 3: 9.40 μg

control substance

Deodorant matrix

definition of positiveeczematous reaction covering at least 25% of test area

periodtwo weeks with each concentration: maximum six weeks

Results
PT ED10% (95% CI)/

PT ED50% (95% CI)

/

PT
no
level(observed)<0.00012 %

effectROAT

Cumulative responses

Step 1 (0.032)

4/7 (57%)

Step 2 (0.1)

5/7 (71%)

Step 3 (0.32)

7/7 (100%)Controls

No reactions were seen

Other information

Reactions were only seen to the hydroxycitronellal-containing
deodorant at ROAT, difference to matrix treated axilla (p<0.001)
and all control persons negative (p<0.001)

321

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Hydroxycitronellal (6)Designdouble blinded, randomised

Test subjects

13 patients with a positive patch test to hydroxycitronellal

Controls/

Substance

purity: unknown

Patch test

confirmatory-dilution steps-control/vehicle-definition of threshold
ROAT

finger immersion in fragrance solution in 10% ethanol

area

/

applications/day

Once per day for 10 min

dose

Step 1: 10 ppm Step 2: 250 ppm

dose/application/cm2

Not applicable

control substance

10% alcohol

definition of positive

clinical grading scale and laser doppler comparison between
active and control

periodtwo weeks with each concentration: maximum four weeks

Results
PT ED10% (95% CI)

Not relevant

PT ED50% (95% CI)

Not relevantPTnolevel(observed)

Not relevant

effectROAT

Cumulative responses

Step 1 (10 ppm)

1/13

Step 2 (250 ppm)

5/13

Vehicle control

4/13

Other information

No difference between active substance and control application
was found.

322

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde (HICC)
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde (HICC) (7)Designblinded, randomised and controlled

Test subjects

18 patients with a positive patch test to HICC

Controls

7 healthy controls

Substance

Purity: >99%

Patch test

15 μl solution applied in an 8 mm Finn Chamber occlusion 48 h-dilution steps

6% to 0.0006%-control/vehicle

ethanol-definition of thresholdlowest concentration
giving a visible skin reaction in acontinuous line of reactions

ROAT

volar aspect of lower arm

area

3 x 3 cm2

applications/day

two with droplet bottle (theoretical:30 mg per application ofsolution)

dose

Step 1: 0.5% Step 2: 3%

μg/application/cm2

Step 1: 15.3 (3.4-22.2) Step 2: 126.2 (40.5-226.2)

control substanceethanoldefinition of positive

erythema in at least 25% and at least one papule

periodtwo weeks for each step; total maximum 4 weeks

Results
0.9 μg/cm2

PT ED10% (95% CI)

29 (7-69) ppm
20 μg/cm2

PT ED50% (95% CI)

662 (350-1250)ppm
PTno(observed)

effect

level

/

ROAT

Cumulative responses

Step 1 (0.5%)

11/18 (61%)

Step 2 (3%)

16/18 (89%)

Controls

No reactions were seen

Other information

Difference between test and control group statistically significant

323

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde (HICC) (8)Designblinded, randomised and controlled

Test subjects

15 patients with a positive patch test to HICC

Controls

10 healthy controls

Substance

Purity: > 98.8%

Patch test

15 μl solution applied in an 8 mm Finn Chamber occlusion 48 h-dilution steps

6% to 0.0006% (5 steps)-control/vehicle

ethanol-definition of thresholdlowest concentration giving a visible skin reaction in a continuousline of reactions

ROAT

Axillaarea

76 cm2 (template)applications/day

two with roll on deodorant

dose

Step 1: 200 ppm Step 2: 600 ppm Step 3: 1800 ppm

dose/application/cm2

median 0.79 μg HICC

control substancedeodorant matrix

definition of positive

spotty erythema involving at least 25% of the exposed area andinfiltration represented by at least one papule.

periodtwo weeks for each step; total maximum 6 weeks

Results0.75 μg/cm2

PT ED10% (95% CI)

25 ppm (0.69-120)
18.3 μg/cm2

PT ED50% (95% CI)

610 ppm (120-2800)
PT
no(observed)

effectlevel< 0.0006%

ROAT

Cumulative responses

Step 1 (200 ppm)

9/14* (64%)

Step 2 (600 ppm)

12/14* (86%)

Step 3 (1800 ppm)

14/14* (100%)Controls

No reactions were seen

Other information*14 patients completed the use test study
Difference between HICC deodorant and matrix deodorant incases (p=0.0001).Difference between controls and patients(p=0.004).

324

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexenecarboxaldehyde (HICC) (9)Designblinded, randomised and controlled

Test subjects

17 patients with a positive patch test to HICC

Controls

15 healthy controls

Substance

IFF lot SM/8059062

Patch test

15 μl solution applied in an 8 mm Finn Chamber occlusion 48 h-dilution steps

1500 to 0.0022 μg/cm2 HICC (19 steps)-control/vehicle

ethanol-definition of thresholdlowest concentration
giving a visible skin reaction in acontinuous line of reactions to higher concentrations

ROAT

volar aspect of forearmsarea

3 x 3 cm (5 areas)applications/day

two with micropipette (20 μl per application)

dose

Simultaneous application to 5 areas, four doses each and vehicle2

μg /application/cm

Dose 1:0.0357 Dose 2: 0.357

Dose 3: 3.57

Dose 4: 35.7

control substanceethanoldefinition of positiveat least 5 points on a clinical scale, corresponding to erythema in
25% of test area and at least 1 papule

periodThree weeks.
All concentrations applied simultaneously (randomised)

Results
PT ED10% (95% CI)

0.662 μg/ cm2 (0.052-2.35)

PT ED50% (95% CI)

11.1 μg/ cm2 (3.41- 33.1)

PT
nolevel(observed)<0.0022 μg/ cm2

effectROAT

Cumulative responses

Dose 1 (0.0357)

0/16*

Dose 2 (0.357)

3/16 (19%)

Dose 3 (3.57)

12/16 (75%)

Dose 4 (35.7)

15/16 (94%)

Controls

No reactions were seen

Other information*16 patients completed the use test study
The evaporation rate of HICC was calculated to 72% over a 24-h
period. ED10% ROAT: 0.064 μg/cm2 (more info see below)
325

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

326

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC)
In a study be the German Contact Dermatitis Group, 64 persons previously diagnosed
with HICC contact allergy were exposed to increasing doses of HICC in 2 different
formulations, a hydrophilic cream and an ethanol solution, to mimic everyday exposures,
following a standardised ROAT protocol (10). The concentration of HICC tolerated by
90% of the sensitised was estimated as 1.2 µg/cm² for perfume and 4.9 µg/cm² forcream. The dose-response curve is shown in Fig. 4.3 – 1 below.
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) (10)Designrandomised and vehicle controlled

Test subjects

67 patients with a previous positive patch test to HICC

Controls

None

Substance

Provided by International Flavor & Fragrances Inc, Hilversum, NL

Patch test
-dilution steps

2.5% and 5%-control/vehicle

petrolatum-definition of thresholdlowest concentration giving a positive skin reaction
continuous line to next higher concentration.

in a

ROAT

Volar forearms (both sides)area

3 x 3 cm (4 areas: one test and one control each for alcoholic
solution and cream, respectively)

applications/day

two

dose

2.8
µg/cm²incream
5.6µg/cm²
in
cream
55.6
µg/cm²
in
cream
277.8
µg/cm²incream1388.9 µg/cm² in cream

μg /application/cm2

See above

control substance

Ethanol 96% and glyceryl stearate 15% in water, resp.

definition of positive(spotty) erythema of at least 25% of the test area along with homogeneous
infiltration or papules regardless of the number

periodTwo weeks for each step until positive reaction or end of study,
whichever occurred first

0.2µg/cm²inethanol
0.4µg/cm²inethanol
4.4µg/cm²inethanol
22.2µg/cm²inethanol
111.1 µg/cm² in ethanol

Results
PT ED10% (95% CI)

Not calculable; 52 of 60 Patients patch tested positive to 2.5%
HICC, 57 / 60 to 5% HICCPT ED50% (95% CI)

Not calculablePTno(observed)

effectlevel

Not calculable

ROAT

Cumulative responses:
Cream
2.8

µg/cm²:327

preparation:
4.7%

Ethanol
0.2

preparation:µg/cm²:1.6%

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

5.6µg/cm²:12.5%
55.6µg/cm²:42.2%
277.8µg/cm²:65.6%
1388.9 µg/cm²: 87.5%

0.4µg/cm²:4.4µg/cm²:22.2µg/cm²:111.1 µg/cm²: 82.8%

3.1%
29.7%
57.8%

Controls

No reactions to vehicle in the patients included into analysis

Other information

See figure below. Three patients were excluded from the study,
so results are based on 64 patients.

Figure 4.3 – 1: Dose-response curve of 64 patients sensitised to HICC, according to aprevious PT, regarding two preparations: perfume and cream, the rhomboid and dot
symbol, respectively, indicating the observed response. The curve was fitted by a logistic
function (10).

328

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Isoeugenol
Isoeugenol (11)Designblinded, randomised doses and controlled

Test subjects

20 patients with a positive patch test to isoeugenol

Controls

20 healthy controls

Substance

purity: 98%

Patch test

20 mg solution applied in an 8 mm Finn Chamber occlusion 48 h-dilution steps

2% to 0.01% (8 steps)-control/vehicle

petrolatum-definition of thresholdlowest concentration giving a visible skin reaction in a continuous
line

ROAT

outer aspect of upper arms

area

5 x 5 cm (2 areas: one test and one control)

applications/day

two with roll-on

dose

0.2% in ethanol2

μg /application/cm

Doses measured to
0.14 -0.13 mg/application the first 14 days = 5.6 μg/cm2

control substanceethanoldefinition of positive

any degree of reaction

periodTwo weeks at upper arm and if negative another two weeks
including application to base of neck

Results
PT ED10% (95% CI)/

PT ED50% (95% CI)

0.08%
32 μg/cm2

PTnoeffect(observed)

level< 0.01% = 0.4 μg/cm2

ROAT
Dose: 0.2%

12/19 (63%)

Controls

No reactions were seen

Other information

329

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Isoeugenol (12)Designblinded, randomised

Test subjects

27 patients with a positive patch test to isoeugenol

Controls

20 healthy controls

Substance

purity: 98%

Patch test

15 μl solution applied in an 8 mm Finn Chamber occlusion 48 h-dilution steps

2% to 0.00006% (17 steps)-control/vehicle

ethanol-definition of thresholdlowest concentration giving a visible skin reaction in a continuousline of reactions to higher concentrations

ROAT

volar aspect of lower arm

area

3 x 3 cm (2 areas)applications/day

two with droplet bottle (30 mg per application)

dose

0.05% in ethanol and 0.2%

μg /application/cm2

Doses were calculated as mean 2.2 μg/cm2 (low conc.) and 9
μg/cm2 (high conc.)

control substanceethanoldefinition of positive

clear visible erythema

period28 daysResults
PT ED10% (95% CI)/

PT ED50% (95% CI)/

PT no effect level (observed)< 0.0005% (5 ppm)

ROAT

Cumulative responses

Dose 1: 0.05%

10/24 (42%)

Dose 2: 0.2%

16/24 (67%)

Controls

No reactions were seen

Other information

Response to the low concentration in the ROAT appeared after
median 15 days and to the high concentration after median 7
days.

330

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

Isoeugenol (13)Designblinded, randomised and controlled

Test subjects

13 patients with a positive patch test to isoeugenol
and 4 in part 1 (pre-test)

Controls

10 healthy controls (dermatitis patients)

Substance

purity: /Patch test

15 μl solution applied in an 8 mm Finn Chamber occlusion 48 h-dilution steps

2% to 0.00006% (w/v) (16 steps)-control/vehicle

ethanol-definition of thresholdlowest concentration elicitating at least + reaction

ROAT

Axillaarea

10 x 10 cm2 (estimated)

applications/day

two with roll-on deodorant ( 117-586 mg per application ofsolution)average cases: 266 mg/application controls: only range given

dosePart 1: Step 1:0.02% Step 2: 0.063% Step 3:0.2%
Part 2: Step1:0.0063% Step 2:0.02% Step 3: 0.063%

dose/application/cm2

Part 2: Step 1: 0.167 Step 2: 0.53 Step 3: 1.67 μg/application/
cm2(calculated based on data)

control substancedeodorant matrix

definition of positiveeczematous response covering 25% of test area

periodPart one: one week with each concentration: maximum three
weeks
Part two: two weeks with each concentration: maximum six
weeks

Results
PT ED10% (95% CI)/

PT ED50% (95% CI)/

PT no effect level (observed)<0.0005% (0.15 μg/cm2)

ROAT
Step 1 (0.0063%)

3/13 (23%)

Step 2 (0.02%)

9/13 (69%)

Step 3 (0.063%)

10/13 (77%)

Controls

No reactions were seen

Other information

Deodorants containing cinnamal were responsible for all
reactions in cinnamal sensitized individuals (p<0.001) and allcontrol persons were negative (p<0.001)
331

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

332

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

References1

Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Svedman C, Bruze M, Bernard G, Gimenez-Arnau E,
Rastogi S C, Lepoittevin J P, Menne T. Chloroatranol, an extremely potent allergenhidden in perfumes: a dose-response elicitation study. Contact Dermatitis 2003:
49: 180-4.

2

Johansen J D, Bernard G, Gimenez-Arnau E, Lepoittevin J P, Bruze M, Andersen K
E. Comparison of elicitation potential of chloroatranol and atranol--2 allergens in
oak moss absolute. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 192-5.

3

Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Rastogi S C, Menne T. Threshold responses incinnamic-aldehyde-sensitive subjects: results and methodological aspects.
Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 165-71.

4

Bruze M, Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Frosch P, Lepoittevin J P, Rastogi S,
Wakelin S, White I, Menne T. Deodorants: an experimental provocation study withcinnamic aldehyde. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003: 48: 194-200.

5

Svedman C, Bruze M, Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Goossens A, Frosch P J,
Lepoittevin J P, Rastogi S, White I R, Menne T. Deodorants: an experimental
provocation study with hydroxycitronellal. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 217-23.

6

Heydorn S, Menne T, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Svedman C, Basketter D, Johansen
J D. The fragrance hand immersion study - an experimental model simulating
real-life exposure for allergic contact dermatitis on the hands. Contact Dermatitis
2003: 48: 324-30.

7Johansen J D, Frosch P J, Svedman C, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Pirker C, Menne T.
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde- known as Lyral: quantitative
aspects and risk assessment of an important fragrance allergen. Contact
Dermatitis 2003: 48: 310-6.

8

Jorgensen P H, Jensen C D, Rastogi S, Andersen K E, Johansen J D. Experimental
elicitationwithhydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene
carboxaldehyde-containing
deodorants. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 146-50.

9Fischer L A, Menné T, Avnstorp C, Kasting G B, Johansen J D. Hydroxyisohexyl 3cyclohexene carboxaldehyde allergy: relationship between patch test andrepeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 2009: 161: 560-7.

10Schnuch A, Uter W, Dickel H, Szliska C, Schliemann S, Eben R, Rueff F, GimenezArnau A, Loffler H, Aberer W, Frambach Y, Worm M, Niebuhr M, Hillen U, Martin V,
Jappe U, Frosch P J, Mahler V. Quantitative patch and repeated open application
testing in hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde sensitive-patients.
Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 152-62.

11

Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Menné T. Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact
allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 414-8.

12

Andersen K E, Johansen J D, Bruze M, Frosch P J, Goossens A, Lepoittevin J P,
Rastogi S, White I, Menne T. The time-dose-response relationship for elicitation ofcontact dermatitis in isoeugenol allergic individuals. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2001:
170: 166-71.

13

Bruze M, Johansen J D, Andersen K E, Frosch P, Goossens A, Lepoittevin J P,
Rastogi S C, White I, Menne T. Deodorants: an experimental provocation study
with isoeugenol. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 260-7.
333

SCCS/1459/11
Opinion on fragrance allergens in cosmetic products_________________________________________________________________________________________

334