Research Article
No access
Published Online: 1 August 2017

Positive Patch-Test Reactions to Essential Oils in Consecutive Patients From North America and Central Europe

Publication: Dermatitis
Volume 28, Issue Number 4

Abstract

Background

Synthetic fragrances and natural essential oils (EOs) are used in perfumery and found in various cosmetics. Essential oils are also increasingly used to promote wellness. In previous studies, the sensitization potential of some EOs has been identified; however, the current prevalence of sensitivity is largely unknown.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to determine frequency of positive patch-test reactions to EOs tested in the baseline series, along with 3 fragrance markers (FMs) (fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II, and Myroxylon pereirae), in consecutive patients in the US/Canadian North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) (2009–2014) and the central European, trinational Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) (2010–2014).

Methods

This study used a retrospective analysis of patch-test results and relevant demographic/clinical data collected electronically by the networks, obtained with Santalum album 10% petrolatum (pet) (IVDK only); Cananga odorata 2% (NACDG) and 10% (IVDK) pet; Jasminum species 2% (NACDG) and 5% (IVDK) pet; Mentha piperita 2% pet; Melaleuca alternifolia, oxidized (tea tree oil), 5% pet; and Lavandula angustifolia 2% pet (latter 3 NACDG only).

Results

Overall, 62,354 patients were tested to 3 FMs and EOs (NACDG, 13,398; IVDK, 48,956); 11,568 (18.6%) reacted to at least 1 FM or EO, whereas 857 (1.4%) reacted to 1 or more EOs but none of the 3 FMs. For both the NACDG and IVDK populations, individuals who were positive to 1 or more of the 9 study allergens were significantly less likely to be male, have occupational skin disease, or have hand involvement and significantly more likely to have leg dermatitis and be 40 years and older (P’s ≤ 0.005). Prevalence rates for EOs were as follows: S. album, 1.4% IVDK; C. odorata, 1.1% NACDG and 2.4% IVDK; Jasminum species, 0.7% NACDG and 1.4% IVDK; M. piperita, 0.9% NACDG; L. angustifolia, 0.3% NACDG; and M. alternifolia, 0.3% NACDG. Of the 140 NACDG patients who reacted to 1 or more of the 5 NACDG EOs but none of the FMs, M. alternifolia yielded most positive reactions (45%); half of these reactions were strong (++ or +++, 50.8%) and of definite/probable clinical relevance (52.4%). Of the 717 IVDK patients who reacted to 1 or more of the 3 IVDK EOs but none of the 3 FMs, 38% were positive to C. odorata, 38% to S. album and 36% to Jasminum species."

Conclusions

Testing to EOs may be important for detecting sensitivity not detected by FMs alone. In North America, M. alternifolia is an important and clinically relevant sensitizer often not detected by FM. In Europe, as well as in North America, clinical relevance is often difficult to evaluate because (1) labeling of EOs when used as fragrance is not mandatory, and (2) these mixtures may indicate sensitization to 1 or more of their individual constituents from other sources, including synthetic fragrances.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

REFERENCES

1. Ernst E. Adverse effects of herbal drugs in dermatology. Br J Dermatol 2000;143:923–929.
2. Schaller M, Korting HC. Allergic airborne contact dermatitis from essential oils used in aromatherapy. Clin Exp Dermatol 1995;20:143–145.
3. Kiken DA, Cohen DE. Contact dermatitis to botanical extracts. Am J Contact Dermat 2002;13:148–152.
4. Sienkiewicz M, Kowalczyk E, Wasiela M. Recent patents regarding essential oils and the significance of their constituents in human health and treatment. Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov 2012;7(2):133–140.
5. Bedi MK, Shenefelt PD. Herbal therapy in dermatology. Arch Dermatol 2002;138:232–242.
6. Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, et al. Unconventional medicine in the United States. Prevalence, costs, and patterns of use. N Engl J Med 1993;328:246–252.
7. Barnes PM, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, et al. Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults: United States, 2002. Adv Data 2004;343:1–19.
8. Corazza M, Borghi A, Lauriola MM, et al. Use of topical herbal remedies and cosmetics: a questionnaire-based investigation in dermatology out-patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009;23(11):1298–1303.
9. De Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part I: introduction. Dermatitis 2016;27(2):39–42.
10. Mortimer S, Reeder M. Botanicals in dermatology: essential oils, botanical allergens and current regulatory practices. Dermatitis 2016;27(6):317–324.
11. Uter W, Johansen JD, Börje A, et al. Categorization of fragrance contact allergens for prioritization of preventative measures: clinical and experimental data and consideration of structure-activity relationships. Contact Dermatitis 2013;69:196–230.
12. De Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part IV: contact allergy. Dermatitis 2016;27(4):170–175.
13. Uter W, Schmidt E, Geier J, et al. Contact allergy to essential oils: current patch test results (2000–2008) from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 2010;63(5):277–283.
14. De Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part V: peppermint oil, lavender oil, and lemongrass oil. Dermatitis 2016;27(6):325–332.
15. DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis 2017;28(1):33–46.
16. Schnuch A, Geier J, Lessmann H, et al. Surveillance of contact allergies: methods and results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Allergy 2012;67(7):847–857.
17. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016.
18. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, et al. National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 1997;37:200–209.
19. Narelli A, D’Hooge E, Dreighe J, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from fragrance components in specific topical pharmaceutical products in Belgium. Contact Dermatitis 2009;60:303–313.
20. De Groot AC, Coenraads PJ, Bruynzeel DP, et al. Routine patch testing with fragrance chemicals in the Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 2000;42:184–185.
21. Frosch PJ, Johansen JD, Menné T, et al. Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 2002;47:279–287.
22. Brites MM, Gonçalo M, Figueiredo A. Contact allergy to fragrance mix—a 10-year study. Contact Dermatitis 2000;43:181–182.
23. Herro E, Jacob SE. Mentha piperita (peppermint). Dermatitis 2010;21:327–329.
24. De Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part III: chemical composition. Dermatitis 2016;27(3):161–169.
25. De Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential Oils: Contact Allergy and Chemical Composition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2016.
26. Tan LT, Lee LH, Yin WF, et al. Traditional uses, phytochemistry, and bioactivities of Cananga odorata (Ylang-ylang). Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2015;2015:896314.
27. Sugawara M, Nakayama H, Watanabe S. Contact hypersensitivity to ylang-ylang oil. Contact Dermatitis 1990;23:248–249.
28. Deza G, García-Bravo B, Silvestre JF, et al. Contact sensitization to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides in Spain: a GEIDAC* prospective study. Contact Dermatitis 2017;76(2):74–80.
29. Erligmann A. Sandalwood oils. Int J Aromather 2001;11(4):186–192.
30. De Groot AC, Schmidt E. Essential oils, part VI: sandalwood oil, ylang-ylang oil, and jasmine absolute. Dermatitis 2017;28(1):14–21.
31. De Groot AC, Schmidt E. Part II: general aspects. Dermatitis 2016;27(2): 43–49.
32. Morton CA, Garioch J, Todd P, et al. Contact sensitivity to menthol and peppermint in patients with intra-oral symptoms. Contact Dermatitis 1995;32:281–284.
33. Tran A, Pratt M, DeKoven J. Acute allergic contact dermatitis of the lips from peppermint oil in a lip balm. Dermatitis 2010;21:111–115.
34. Hausen BM, Reichling J, Harkenthal M. Degradation products of monoterpenes are the sensitizing agents in tea tree oil. Am J Contact Dermat 1999;10:68–77.
35. Wu P, James WD. Lavender. Dermatitis 2011;22(6):344–347.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Dermatitis
Dermatitis
Volume 28Issue Number 4July/August 2017
Pages: 246 - 252
PubMed: 28614106

History

Published in print: July/August 2017
Published online: 1 August 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Topics

Authors

Affiliations

Erin M. Warshaw
From the *Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis
HCMC Parkside Occupational and Contact Dermatitis Clinic, Minneapolis
Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis
Kathryn A. Zug
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH
Donald V. Belsito
Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
Joseph F. Fowler, Jr
University of Louisville, KY
Joel G. DeKoven
Division of Dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Ontario
Denis Sasseville
Division of Dermatology, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Quebec, Canada
Howard I. Maibach
Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco
C.G. Toby Mathias
Department of Dermatology, University of Cincinnati, OH
Vincent A. DeLeo
Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA
James S. Taylor
Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, OH
Anthony F. Fransway
Associates in Dermatology, Fort Myers, FL
James G. Marks, Jr
Department of Dermatology, Pennsylvania State University, State College
Melanie D. Pratt
Division of Dermatology, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Matthew J. Zirwas
Ohio State University, Columbus
Johannes Geier
Information Network of Departments of Dermatology at the University of Gottingen, Germany
Wolfgang Uter
Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany.

Notes

No reprints available.
This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. There are no other sources of funding for this work.
The contents do not represent the views of the US Department of Veterans Affairs or the US Government.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.

Society Access

If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/ePub

Full Text

View Full Text

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media

Back to Top