Contact Dermatitis • Original Article COD

Contact Dermatitis

Preservatives and fragrances in selected consumer-available cosmetics

and detergents
Kerem Yazar, Stina Johnsson, Marie-Louise Lind, Anders Boman and Carola Lidén
Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2010.01828.x

Summary Background. Preservatives and fragrances are important and frequent skin sensitizers,
found in a wide range of products intended for personal and occupational use.
Objectives. To examine the use of preservatives and fragrances in certain cosmetics and
detergents on the market. The product types studied were shampoos, hair conditioners,
liquid soaps, wet tissues, washing-up liquids, and multi-purpose cleaners.
Materials/methods. Ingredient labels of 204 cosmetic products and ingredient data
sheets of 97 detergents, available on company websites, were examined.
Results. The preservatives most frequently identified were phenoxyethanol, methyl-
paraben, sodium benzoate, propylparaben, and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methyl-
isothiazolinone. Parabens were found in 44% of cosmetics and 9% of detergents;
formaldehyde-releasers in 25% of cosmetics and 8% of detergents; and isothiazolinones
in 23% of cosmetics and 28% of detergents. The fragrances most frequently identified
were linalool, limonene, hexyl cinnamal, butylphenyl methylpropional, and citronellol.
Eighty-eight per cent of the products contained fragrances, and any of the 26 fragrances
requiring labelling were found in half of the cosmetics and one-third of the detergents.
Conclusions. Several preservatives and fragrances with well-known skin-sensitizing
potential were common in the examined product types. Such products may be used
several times a day by consumers and workers.

Key words: allergic contact dermatitis; consumer product safety; cosmetics;

detergents; fragrances; preservatives.

Preservatives and fragrances are important and frequent
skin sensitizers, found in a wide range of products intended
for personal and occupational use (1, 2). Fragrances are
the most frequent causes of contact allergy to cosmetics,
including products for personal hygiene, followed by
preservatives (3, 4). It has been suggested that fragrances
account for 30–45% of allergic reactions to cosmet-
ics (5). According to the Cosmetics Directive, fragrances
must be identified by the term ‘parfum’ on the ingredient
Correspondence: Kerem Yazar, Institute of Environmental Medicine,
Karolinska Institutet, Box 210, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden. Tel: +46
8524 80042; Fax: +46 8 336981.
E-mail: kerem.yazar@ki.se
Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Funding by the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research.
Accepted for publication 22 September 2010
label. In addition, 26 fragrances that have been identified
as skin sensitizers should be listed by name on the label
of a cosmetic product if used in concentrations exceeding
10 ppm (0.001%) in leave-on products and 100 ppm
(0.01%) in rinse-off products (6). Similarly, the regulation
on detergents requires labelling of these 26 fragrance
substances if their concentration exceeds 100 ppm (7).
Several of the 26 fragrances are well-recognized skin
sensitizers, whereas some have been questioned regarding
their importance as allergens (8, 9). The list of the 26 is
currently under review by the European Commission’s
Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. In contrast
to fragrances, preservatives must always be declared by
name on the ingredient labels of cosmetics and detergents.
In the work environment, sources of preservative
allergy and dermatitis include, for example, metalworking
fluids, adhesives/glues, water-based paints and lacquers,

© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S • Contact Dermatitis, 64, 265–272 265
PRESERVATIVES AND FRAGRANCES IN PRODUCTS • YAZAR ET AL.
detergents, and pesticides, as well as cosmetics. Frequently
used rinse-off products, such as liquid soaps, can
contribute significantly to exposure to preservatives in
the work environment, and this has been well demon-
strated with regard to methyldibromo glutaronitrile
(MDBGN) (10–12). Many of the preservatives causing
contact allergy and dermatitis are present both in con-
sumer products and in occupationally used products (13),
and this contributes to difficulties in allergy prevention
and avoidance of unwanted skin exposure. Sources of
exposure to fragrance allergens in the occupational set-
ting include predominantly cosmetics and detergents;
moreover, spices and flavours used by chefs and bakers
may contain fragrance allergens (14).
Information on the use of various allergens in cosmetics
and other products in Europe is scarce. Gaining more
knowledge on the exposure to allergens in products on
the market can be of great importance for prevention
and diagnostic purposes, as new allergens emerge and
exposures to known allergens change.
The present aim was to examine the presence of
preservatives and fragrances in products that come into
frequent contact with the skin of large parts of the
population. Preservatives used in large volumes or with
known skin-sensitizing properties, and 26 fragrances that
currently must be listed on the labels of cosmetics and
detergents, were investigated. The product types studied
were shampoos, hair conditioners, liquid soaps, wet
tissues, washing-up liquids, and multi-purpose cleaners.
Materials and Methods
Selection of preservatives and fragrances for assessment
A list of preservatives of concern for the present
study was created. The intention was to include large-
volume preservatives used in chemicals and cosmetics.
Preservatives with known skin-sensitizing properties were
also included. The selection of substances was based
on the following sources of information. Data were
obtained from the Swedish Chemicals Agency’s Products
Register on the 30 most frequently used preservatives
in registered chemical products. Preservatives known
as clinically relevant skin sensitizers were identified in
published reviews on preservative contact allergy (4, 15).
All preservatives in the cosmetic series for patch testing of
Chemotechnique Diagnostics AB (Vellinge, Sweden) were
included. Antioxidants were not included, although they
are sometimes considered as preservatives. In total, 57
preservatives were included in the present study.
The 26 fragrances that, according to the Cosmetics
Directive, must be listed on the label by their name were
included (14).
266
Selection of products and examination of labels
Four types of frequently used cosmetic products for per-
sonal hygiene that come into contact with the skin, includ-
ing shampoos, hair conditioners, liquid soaps, and wet
tissues, were selected. Owing to the large number of sham-
poos and hair conditioners on the market, only such prod-
ucts specified to be used for normal hair, coloured hair,
anti-dandruff purposes, men or children were included.
A total of 20 shops in Stockholm were visited between
May and June 2008. These were mainly large shops
with nationwide coverage, including department stores,
supermarkets, beauty shops, pharmacies, hairdresser
salons, and grocery stores. No data are available to
the public on sales rates of specific products. Thus, a
crude selection of products estimated to be sold in large
volume was made, on the basis of information from shop
assistants and the authors’ own perceptions, gained while
visiting the shops. A total of 206 cosmetic products were
purchased. One shampoo and one hair conditioner did
not have any ingredient declaration and were therefore
excluded, leaving 204 products for further examination:
shampoos (n = 92), hair conditioners (n = 61), liquid
soaps (n = 34), and wet tissues (n = 17). The prevalence
of the included preservatives and fragrances in the
products was studied on the basis of information provided
by their ingredient labels.
In April 2010, the same shops were visited once again
in order to add information on detergents to that on
the previous sample of cosmetic products. Two types
of product were selected, including washing-up liquids
(n = 44) and multi-purpose cleaners (n = 53), specified
either for use on nearly all washable surfaces or for
general use in the bathroom or kitchen. According to
the detergent regulations, consumer-available detergent
products must have a website address on the label where
information on chemical composition can be found.
Website addresses were recorded from the labels of all
multi-purpose cleaners and washing-up liquids that were
found in the stores. The prevalence of the included
preservatives and fragrances in the products was studied
on the basis of ingredient data sheets available on the
companies’ websites.
The selected preservatives and fragrances that were
identified were recorded in Microsoft® Excel, and their
prevalences were calculated. No chemical analyses were
performed in the present study.
Results
The results of the study are displayed in Tables 1 and 2
and in Figs. 1 and 2. Altogether, 30 of 57 preserva-
tives selected for the study and 20 of the 26 fragrances
© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S • Contact Dermatitis, 64, 265–272
 PRESERVATIVES AND FRAGRANCES IN PRODUCTS • YAZAR ET AL.

Table 1. Selected preservatives identified on the ingredient declarations of cosmetic products [shampoos (n = 92), hair conditioners (n = 61),
liquid soaps (n = 34), and wet tissues n = 17)] in May 2008, and of detergents [multi-purpose cleaners (n = 53) and washing-up liquids
(n = 44)] in April 2010, on the market in Sweden. Hazard classification as skin sensitizer (H317, former R43) is according to the EC regulation
on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) (16). Limit of content of preservatives in cosmetic products is
according to the Cosmetics Directive (6)

Products containing certain

preservatives (%)

All Classified In European

Preservative (INCI name or used products Cosmetic Detergent Limit of content in skin patch test
abbreviation) CAS no. (n = 301) (n = 204) (n = 97) cosmetics (%) sensitizer baseline series

Phenoxyethanol 122-99-6 33 39 19 1 — —
Methylparaben 99-76-3 29 41 4 0.4a — PM
Sodium benzoate 532-32-1 27 34 11 2.5b , — —
0.5c,d
Propylparaben 94-13-3 19 25 4 0.4a — PM
MCI/MI 55965-84-9 18 22 9 0.0015 x x
Ethylparaben 120-47-8 15 22 1 0.4a — PM
DMDM hydantoin 6440-58-0 13 17 4 0.6e — —
Cetrimonium chloride 112-02-7 13 19 0 0.1 — —
Butylparaben 94-26-8 9 14 0 0.4a — PM
Isobutylparaben 4247-02-3 9 13 0 0.4a — —
Benzoic acid 65-85-0 8 11 2 2.5b — —
0.5c,d
Potassium sorbate 24634-61-5 7 9 4 0.6 — —
Benzyl alcohol 100-51-6 7 9 1 1f — —
2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 52-51-7 7 6 7 0.1e — —
Sodium methylparaben 5026-62-0 7 7 5 0.4a — —
Methylisothiazolinone 2682-20-4 6 0.5 16 0.01 — —
Imidazolidinyl urea 39236-46-9 4 5 0 0.6e — —
Chlorhexidine dihydrochloride 3697-42-5 3 5 0 0.3g — —
Benzisothiazolinone 2634-33-5 3 0 9 — x —
Formic acid 64-18-6 2 2 0 0.5 — —
Sodium propylparaben 35285-69-9 2 0 5 0.4a — —
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile 35691-65-7 1 1 0 Before 23 June — x
2008:0.1% in rinse-
off products only
From 23 June 2008:
not allowed
Octylisothiazolinone 26530-20-1 1 0 3 — x —
Quaternium-15 4080-31-3 0.7 1 0 0.2e — x
Sodium salicylate 54-21-7 0.7 1 0 0.5 — —
Chlorhexidine digluconate 18472-51-0 0.3 0.5 0 0.3g — —
Chlorphenesin 104-29-0 0.3 0.5 0 0.3 — —
Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate 55406-53-6 0.3 0.5 0 0.02b , — —
0.01d
Triclosan 3380-34-5 0.3 0.5 0 0.3 — —
Glutaral 111-30-8 0.3 0 1 0.1 x —
Any formaldehyde-releaser — 19 25 8 — — —
Any isothiazolinone — 24 23 28 — — —
Any paraben — 33 44 9 — — —

MCI/MI, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone; INCI, International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients; PM, paraben mix.
a Paraben; the accumulated content of mixtures of esters is restricted to 0.8%.
b Rinse-off products.
c The accumulated content of benzoic acid and its sodium salt is restricted to these concentrations.
d Leave-on products.
e Formaldehyde-releasing preservative.
f One per cent if added as preservative. No limit to content if added for other purposes (fragrance, solvent).
g The accumulated content of chlorhexidine is restricted to 0.3%.

© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S • Contact Dermatitis, 64, 265–272 267
PRESERVATIVES AND FRAGRANCES IN PRODUCTS • YAZAR ET AL.

Table 2. Fragrances that must be listed on the label of cosmetics and consumer-available detergents by their name and that were identified
on the ingredient declarations of shampoos (n = 92), hair conditioners (n = 61), liquid soaps (n = 34) and wet tissues (n = 17) in May 2008,
and of multi-purpose cleaners (n = 53) and washing-up liquids (n = 44) in April 2010, on the market in Sweden. Hazard classification as
skin sensitizer (H317, former R43) is according to the EC regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures
(CLP) (16). Limit of content of preservatives in cosmetic products is according to the Cosmetics Directive (6)

Products containing certain

fragrances (%)

All Limit of Classified In European

products Cosmetic Detergent content in skin patch test
Fragrance (INCI name) CAS no. (n = 301) (n = 204) (n = 97) cosmetics (%) sensitizer baseline series

Linalool 78-70-6 29 38 10 — — —
Limonene 138-86-3 27 28 25 — x —
Hexyl cinnamal 101-86-0 26 32 13 — — FM II
Butylphenyl methylpropional 80-54-6 23 29 9 — — —
Citronellol 106-22-9 17 20 9 — — FM II
Benzyl salicylate 118-58-1 11 16 2 — — —
Geraniol 106-24-1 9 11 3 — — FM
α-Isomethyl ionone 127-51-5 8 11 1 — — —
Benzyl alcohol 100-51-6 7 9 1 — — —
Coumarin 91-64-5 5 6 1 — — FM II
Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene 31906-04-4 5 7 0 — — FM II and separate
carboxaldehyde
Amyl cinnamal 122-40-7 4 6 1 — — FM
Benzyl benzoate 120-51-4 3 4 1 — — —
Citral 5392-40-5 3 2 5 — x FM II
Hydroxycitronellal 107-75-5 2 2 1 1 — FM
Eugenol 97-53-0 1 2 0 — — FM
Methyl 2-octynoate 111-12-6 0.7 1 0 0.01 — —
Evernia prunastri extract 90028-68-5 0.3 0.5 0 — — FM
Farnesol 4602-84-0 0.3 0.5 0 — — FM II
Isoeugenol 97-54-1 0.3 0.5 0 0.02 — FM
Any fragrance requiring labelling — 45 50 32 — — —
Only the term parfum — 44 37 59 — — —
Perfume-free — 12 13 9 — — —
Any FM ingredient — 11 15 4 — — —
Any FM II ingredient — 30 36 16 — — —

FM, fragrance mix ingredient; FM II, fragrance mix II ingredient; INCI, International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients.

requiring labelling were identified in the ingredient
declarations of the examined products.
Cosmetic products
A total of 26 of the 57 selected preservatives were iden-
tified on the labels of the examined cosmetic prod-
ucts. Ninety-four per cent of the products were de-
clared to contain at least one of the included preser-
vatives. The most frequently identified preservatives were
methylparaben (in 41% of the products), phenoxyethanol
(39%), sodium benzoate (34%), propylparaben (25%),
and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone
(MCI/MI) (22%).
Six different parabens were identified, and 44% of
the cosmetic products contained one or more paraben.
Correspondingly, four formaldehyde-releasers and two
isothiazolinones were identified, and 25% and 23% of the
products contained at least one formaldehyde-releaser or
isothiazolinone, respectively.
Of four formaldehyde-releasers identified, DMDM
hydantoin was the most common (in 17% of the prod-
ucts), followed by 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (6%),
imidazolidinyl urea (5%), and quaternium-15 (1%). Five
hair conditioners and five shampoos contained two differ-
ent formaldehyde releasers. MDBGN was present in two
shampoos and in one liquid soap.
Twenty of the 26 fragrances were identified on the
labels of the cosmetic products. Fifty per cent of the
products were declared to contain at least 1 of the 26
fragrances. On 87%, the term ‘parfum’ was listed, indi-
cating the presence of fragrances. Thirteen per cent of the
products did not contain any fragrance according to their
ingredient labels.
The most frequently identified fragrances were
linalool (38%), hexyl cinnamal (32%), butylphenyl

268 © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S • Contact Dermatitis, 64, 265–272
 PRESERVATIVES AND FRAGRANCES IN PRODUCTS • YAZAR ET AL.
Fig. 1. The five most frequently identified preservatives in 204
cosmetic products in May 2008; and 97 detergents in April 2010,
respectively. The percentages of products containing at least one
paraben, isothiazolinone or formaldehyde-releaser are shown. The
product types studied were shampoos ( ) (n = 92), hair
conditioners ( ) (n = 61), liquid soaps ( ) (n = 34), wet tissues
( ) (n = 17), washing-up liquids ( ) (n = 44) and multi-purpose
cleaners ( ) (n = 53) on the Swedish market. MCI/MI,
methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone; MI,
methylisothiazolinone; BIT, benzisothiazolinone.
Fig. 2. The five most frequently identified fragrances in 204
cosmetic products in May 2008, and 97 detergents in April 2010,
respectively. The percentages of products containing fragrance
(parfum), any of the 26 fragrances requiring labelling and
fragrance mix or fragrance mix II ingredients are shown. The
product types studied were shampoos ( ) (n = 92), hair
conditioners ( ) (n = 61), liquid soaps ( ) (n = 34), wet tissues
( ) (n = 17), washing-up liquids ( ) (n = 44) and multi-purpose
cleaners ( ) (n = 53) on the Swedish market. FM, fragrance mix
ingredient; FM II, fragrance mix II ingredient.
© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S • Contact Dermatitis, 64, 265–272
methylpropional (29%), limonene (28%) and citronellol
(20%). Ingredients of the main indicators of fragrance
allergy in the European baseline series for patch testing,
fragrance mix and fragrance mix II, were found in 15%
and 36% of the products, respectively.
Detergents
A total of 17 of the 57 selected preservatives were identified
in the ingredient data sheets of the examined washing-up
liquids and multi-purpose cleaners. Seventy-one per cent
of the products were declared to contain at least one of the
included preservatives. The most frequently identified
preservatives were phenoxyethanol (in 19% of the
products), methylisothiazolinone (16%), sodium benzoate
(11%), benzisothiazolinone (9%), and MCI/MI (9%). Four
different isothiazolinones were identified, and 28% of
the detergents contained one or more isothiazolinones.
Correspondingly, five parabens and two formaldehyde-
releasers were identified, and 9% and 8% of the products
contained at least one paraben or formaldehyde-releaser,
respectively.
MI was the most common of four identified isoth-
iazolinones and was, with the exception of one liquid
soap, always used in combination with some other
preservative, predominantly phenoxyethanol (nine prod-
ucts) and benzisothiazolinone (seven products). Two
formaldehyde-releasers were identified, of which 2-
bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol was the most common
(7%), followed by DMDM hydantoin (4%).
Fourteen of the 26 fragrances that require labelling
were identified on the labels of the washing-up liquids
and multi-purpose cleaners. Thirty-two per cent of the
products were declared to contain at least one of the
included fragrances. On 91% of the detergents, the term
‘parfum’ was listed, and 9% of the products did not contain
any fragrance according to their ingredient data sheets.
The most frequently identified fragrances were limonene
(25%), hexyl cinnamal (13%), linalool (10%), citronellol
(9%), and butylphenyl methylpropional (9%). Ingredients
of fragrance mix and fragrance mix II were found in 4%
and 16% of the detergents, respectively.
Discussion
In this study, we have examined the presence of selected
preservatives and fragrances in consumer-available
products that are used by a large part of the population
and that frequently come into contact with the skin.
Undeclared substances or concentrations could not be
identified in this study, as ingredient labels were examined
and no chemical analyses were performed. However,
269
PRESERVATIVES AND FRAGRANCES IN PRODUCTS • YAZAR ET AL.
studies based on ingredient labelling can provide valuable
information on exposure to allergens (17).
MCI/MI was widely prevalent, especially in the cos-
metic products, indicating that a considerable proportion
of the population is frequently exposed to this extremely
potent skin sensitizer. MCI/MI was found even in wet
tissues, which should be regarded as leave-on products.
Areas wiped by moist toilet paper will be occluded, and
allergic contact dermatitis resulting from such exposure
is probably not uncommon (18, 19). In contrast to the
maximum authorized concentration of 15 ppm in cos-
metics specified by the Cosmetics Directive, MCI/MI is
limited to 7.5 ppm in leave-on products in the USA,
and is allowed only in rinse-off products (15 ppm) in
Japan (15).
MDBGN, which has been prohibited in rinse-off
products since 23 June 2008, was found in three
cosmetic products about 1 month before its prohibition
in such products. This indicates that large producers
and retailers had started phasing out this problematic
cosmetic allergen (20, 21). In Denmark, the prevalence
of MDBGN allergy has been reported to have decreased,
and this was interpreted to be a result of the regulatory
interventions in the Cosmetics Directive (22). Of interest,
but less encouraging, is that large batches of shampoo
and liquid soap containing MDBGN were discovered in
2009 by municipality environmental health inspectors
in common grocery stores with nationwide coverage in
different parts of Sweden (personal communication from
Gunnar Guzikowski, Swedish Medical Products Agency,
2010). As a result, the responsible importers and retailers
were obliged to withdraw the products from the market.
This shows that cosmetic products on the EU market still
may contain MDBGN, although it is prohibited, and that
monitoring of the market by the competent authorities is
essential for compliance with regulatory interventions.
Formaldehyde-releasers are important sources of
formaldehyde exposure and allergic contact dermatitis.
Contact allergy to the formaldehyde-releaser itself, with-
out allergy to free formaldehyde, is less frequent (23, 24).
Formaldehyde-releasers were found in one-quarter of all
cosmetic products. Our results were very similar to those
from the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Vol-
untary Cosmetic Registration Database, concerning the
presence of formaldehyde-releasers in rinse-off cosmet-
ics. Formaldehyde-releasers were found in approximately
27% of the rinse-off cosmetics, both in the present study
and in the FDA data (23). Rinse-off products containing
formaldehyde-releasers have been reported to be responsi-
ble for allergic contact dermatitis, from both occupational
and non-occupational exposure (25).
270
For the vast majority of preservatives in the present
study, maximum use concentrations are specified in the
Cosmetics Directive. There are no such limits for ben-
zisothiazolinone and octylisothiazolinone in cosmetics.
According to the European Commission database with
information on cosmetic ingredients, ‘CosIng’ (26), these
substances are regarded as antimicrobials and not as
preservatives, meaning that their function is to control
the growth of microorganisms on the skin. According
to the new regulation on classification, labelling and
packaging of chemical substances and mixtures (CLP reg-
ulation) (16), only four of 30 preservatives are classified
as skin sensitizers (H317); benzisothiazolinone, MCI/MI,
glutaral, and octylisothiazolinone. MDBGN has not yet
attained this classification, which is remarkable, consid-
ering its well-established importance as a skin sensitizer.
MDBGN is thus banned for use in cosmetics, whereas it
can be included in other products without restriction or
warning labelling.
In approximately half of the cosmetics and one-third of
the detergents examined, one or more of the 26 fragrances
requiring labelling were identified, indicating that they
are still frequently used in the examined product types.
The fragrances most frequently found in the present study
are the same as in a recent study from the UK (27). In total,
90% of the products contained fragrances according to
their ingredient labels. Fragrance mix II ingredients were
nearly twice as common in the cosmetics and four times as
common in the detergents than fragrance mix ingredients.
Wet tissues differed markedly from the other product
types, with only seven of 17 products being declared to
contain any fragrance, and only one product listing any
of the 26 fragrances requiring labelling.
Recent studies have pointed to oxidation products of
limonene and linalool as important skin sensitizers (28,
29). Both substances were widespread in the products,
linalool being the most frequently identified fragrance in
the cosmetics, and limonene in the detergents.
In contrast to the situation with preservatives,
maximum use concentrations are specified in the
Cosmetics Directive for only three of 20 identified
fragrances (hydroxycitronellal, isoeugenol, and methyl-
2-octynoate). Only citral and limonene are classified as
skin sensitizers (H317) according to the regulation on the
classification, labelling and packaging of substances and
mixtures (CLP).
European legislation for prevention of adverse health
effects of chemicals covers a wide range of product types
and exposure situations with different directives and
ordinances, based on different principles, and not always
well coordinated. Examples concerning contact allergy
are the Cosmetics Directive, including full ingredient
© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S • Contact Dermatitis, 64, 265–272
 PRESERVATIVES AND FRAGRANCES IN PRODUCTS • YAZAR ET AL.

labelling, and restrictions on content based on risk
assessment; and the regulation on detergents, requir-
ing labelling of preservatives and selected fragrances. The
new regulation on classification, labelling and packaging
of chemical substances and mixtures (CLP regulation)
is based on hazard identification. It came into force 20
January 2009, and will stepwise replace the directives on
dangerous substances and preparations. One noticeable
change is the introduction of so-called hazard statements
instead of risk phrases, with skin sensitizers being clas-
sified as H317 as a substitute for the preceding R43.
Furthermore, the limitations on nickel in certain articles
and chromate in cement have been successful legislative
measures (30). The directive on general product safety
has appeared to be useful for the protection of consumer
health, as shown by the recent EU ban of the allergenic
anti-mould agent dimethyl fumarate in articles, based on
a Commission decision in 2009.
It is concluded that several preservatives and fra-
grances with well-known skin-sensitizing potential are
common in shampoos, hair conditioners, liquid soaps,
wet tissues, washing-up liquids, and multi-purpose clean-
ers. Such products may be used several times a day by
consumers and workers, leading to repeated exposure to
some of the most important causes of contact allergy,
often in combination with other allergens and skin irri-
tants. In addition, we have elucidated some shortcomings
in the present legislation for the prevention of adverse
health effects from chemicals. No maximum use concen-
tration limits are specified in the Cosmetics Directive for
some well-known and much used skin-sensitizing preser-
vatives and fragrances. Several of the preservatives and
fragrances are not yet classified as skin sensitizers in the
CLP regulation. We suggest that this should be done
in order to better protect consumers and workers from
harmful skin exposure.
Acknowledgements
Gunnel Hagelthorn documented all product labels by
photo. The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social
Research gave financial support.

References
1 Zug K A, Warshaw E M, Fowler J F Jr et al.
Patch-test results of the North American
Contact Dermatitis Group 2005–2006.
Dermatitis 2009: 20: 149–160.
2 Uter W, Ramsch C, Aberer W et al. 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.
3 Goossens A, Beck M H, Haneke E,
McFadden J P, Nolting S, Durupt G,
Ries G. Adverse cutaneous reactions to
cosmetic allergens. Contact Dermatitis
1999: 40: 112–113.
4 White I R, de Groot A C. Cosmetics and
skin care products. In: Contact Dermatitis,
4th edition, Frosch P J, Menné T,
Lepoittevin J-P (eds): Berlin,
Springer-Verlag, 2006: pp. 493–503.
5 European Commission, Scientific
Committe on Cosmetic Products and
Non-Food Products Intended for
Consumers. Opinion concerning
fragrance allergy in consumers, 1999.
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/
ph_risk/committees/sccp/documents/
out98_en.pdf (last accessed 18 February
2010).
6 Council of the European Union. Council
Directive of 27 July 1976: on the
approximation of the laws of the member
states relating to cosmetic products
(76/768/EEC). Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=CONSLEG:1976L0768:20090507:
EN:PDF. (consolidated version). Off J Eur
Union 1976: L262: 169–200. (last
accessed 18 Febrary 2010).
7 European Parliament, Council of the
European Union. Regulation (EC) No.
648/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on
detergents. Available at: http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2004:104:0001:0035:EN:PDF.
Off J Eur Union 2004: L104: 1–35. (last
accessed 18 February 2010).
8 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.
9 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.
10 Diba V C, Chowdhury M M, Adisesh A,
Statham B N. Occupational allergic
contact dermatitis in hospital workers
caused by methyldibromo glutaronitrile in
a work soap. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48:
118–119.
11 Johansen J D, Veien N K, Laurberg G,
Kaaber K, Thormann J, Lauritzen M,
Avnstorp C. Contact allergy to
methyldibromo glutaronitrile – data from
a ‘front line’ network. Contact Dermatitis
2005: 52: 138–141.
12 Jensen C D, Johansen J D, Menné T,
Andersen K E. Methyldibromo
glutaronitrile contact allergy: effect of
single versus repeated daily exposure.
Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 88–92.
13 Flyvholm M A. Preservatives in registered
chemical products. Contact Dermatitis
2005: 53: 27–32.
14 Johansen J D, Lepoittevin J-P, Basketter D,
McFadden J, Søsted H. Allergens of special
interest. In: Contact Dermatitis, 4th
edition. Frosch P J, Menné T, Lepoittevin
J-P (eds): Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2006:
pp. 507–535.
15 Marks J G, Elsner P, DeLeo V.
Preservatives and vehicles. In: Contact and
Occupational Dermatology, 3rd edition,
Fathman L (ed.): St Louis, Mosby, 2002:
pp. 140–171.
16 European Parliament, Council of the
European Union. Regulation (EC) No.
1272/2008 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 December 2008
on classification, labelling and packaging
of substances and mixtures, amending
and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and
1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation
(EC) No. 1907/2006. Available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:353:0001:

© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S • Contact Dermatitis, 64, 265–272 271
PRESERVATIVES AND FRAGRANCES IN PRODUCTS • YAZAR ET AL.
1355:EN:PDF. Off J Eur Union 2008:
L353: 1–1355. (last accessed 24 March
2010).
17 Yazar K, Boman A, Lidén C. Potent skin
sensitizers in oxidative hair dye products
on the Swedish market. Contact Dermatitis
2009: 61: 269–275.
18 Timmermans A, De Hertog S, Gladys K,
Vanacker H, Goossens A.
‘Dermatologically tested’ baby toilet
tissues: a cause of allergic contact
dermatitis in adults. Contact Dermatitis
2007: 57: 97–99.
19 Zoli V, Tosti A, Silvani S, Vincenzi C. Moist
toilet papers as possible sensitizers: review
of the literature and evaluation of
commercial products in Italy. Contact
Dermatitis 2006: 55: 252–254.
20 Wilkinson J D, Shaw S, Andersen K E et al.
Monitoring levels of preservative
sensitivity in Europe. A 10-year overview
(1991–2000). Contact Dermatitis 2002:
46: 207–210.
21 Jensen C D, Johansen J D, Menné T,
Andersen K E.
Methyldibromoglutaronitrile in rinse-off
products causes allergic contact
272
dermatitis: an experimental study. Br
J Dermatol 2004: 150: 90–95.
22 Johansen J D, Veien N, Laurberg G et al.
Decreasing trends in methyldibromo
glutaronitrile contact allergy – following
regulatory intervention. Contact
Dermatitis 2008: 59: 48–51.
23 de Groot A C, White I R, Flyvholm M A,
Lensen G, Coenraads P J.
Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics:
relationship to formaldehyde contact
allergy. Part 1. Characterization,
frequency and relevance of sensitization,
and frequency of use in cosmetics. Contact
Dermatitis 2010: 62: 2–17.
24 de Groot A, White I R, Flyvholm M A,
Lensen G, Coenraads P J.
Formaldehyde-releasers in cosmetics:
relationship to formaldehyde contact
allergy. Part 2. Patch test relationship to
formaldehyde contact allergy,
experimental provocation tests, amount of
formaldehyde released, and assessment of
risk to consumers allergic to
formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis 2010:
62: 18–31.
© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S • Contact Dermatitis, 64, 265–272
25 Aalto-Korte K, Kuuliala O, Suuronen K,
Alanko K. Occupational contact allergy to
formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers.
Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 280–289.
26 European Commission. Database with
information on cosmetic ingredients
(CosIng). Available at: http://ec.europa.
eu/enterprise/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?
fuseaction=search.simple (last accessed
11 May 2010).
27 Buckley D A. Fragrance ingredient
labelling in products on sale in the U.K. Br
J Dermatol 2007: 157: 295–300.
28 Matura M, Sköld M, Börje A et al. 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.
29 Christensson J B, Matura M,
Gruvberger B, Bruze M, Karlberg A T.
Linalool – a significant contact sensitizer
after air exposure. Contact Dermatitis
2010: 62: 32–41.
30 Biesterbos J, Yazar K, Lidén C. Nickel on
the Swedish market: follow-up ten years
after entry into force of the Nickel
Directive. Contact Dermatitis (in press).