Irritation from surfactants contained in detergents is a frequent adverse reaction to cosmetics. Sensitization to surfactants is also possible. In the literature, comparative studies about irritant and sensitizing potential of different surfactants are heterogeneous and inconclusive about the best molecules to use.
Objectives:
We compared the irritant and sensitizing potential of some surfactants that are usual components in marketed synthetic detergents (syndets) to obtain practical information regarding commonly used detergents.
Methods:
We patch-tested eight surfactants of the different types (anionic, cationic, amphoteric, and non-ionic) in 105 patients. Assessment of allergic reactions of tested surfactants was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group; assessment of irritant power followed the amended Draize classification.
Results:
None of the eight surfactants in our series gave positive allergic reactions. Only cocamidopropyl betaine from the Italian standard (Societa Italiana di Dermatologia Allergologica, Professionale e Ambientale [SIDAPA]) series gave five positive reactions among 105 patients. None of the eight studied surfactants induced skin irritation. The most tolerated are two new mild anionics (sodium cocoyl glutamate and sodium lauroyl oat amino acids) and an amphoteric agent (disodium cocoamphodiacetate).
Conclusion:
From this study, we deduce that cosmetic companies' efforts to search for and market new products with very mild surfactants have been generally successful.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KuehlBL, FyfeKS, ShearNH. Cutaneous cleansers. Skin Therapy Lett, 2003; 8:1-4.
AnanthapadmanabhanKP, MooreDJ, SubramanyanK, et al.Cleansing without compromise: the impact of cleansers on the skin barrier and the technology of mild cleansing. Dermatol Ther, 2004; 17:16-25.
4.
BárányE, LindbergM, LodénM. Biophysical characterization of skin damage and recovery after exposure to different surfactants. Contact Dermatitis, 1999; 40:98-103.
5.
LodénM, BuraczewskaI, EdlundF. The irritation potential and reservoir effect of mild soaps. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 49:91-6.
6.
FotiC, MastrandreaV, ConservaA, et al.Dermatite da contatto da detergenti. Ann Ital Dermatol Allergol, 2003; 57:1-7.
7.
LodénM, BuraczewskaI, EdlundF. Irritation potential of bath and shower oils before and after use: a double-blind randomized study. Br J Dermatol, 2004; 150:1142-7.
8.
TupkerRA, BunteEE, FidlerV, et al.Irritancy ranking of anionic detergents using one-time occlusive, repeated occlusive and repeated open tests. Contact Dermatitis, 1999; 40:316-22.
9.
AngeliniG, RiganoL.Dermatite da contatto da cosmetici. In: AngeliniG, VenaGA, editors. Dermatologia professionale ed ambientale. Brescia, Italy: ISED; 1997. p. 703-6.
10.
DraizeJH, WoodardG, CalveryHO. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther, 1944; 82:377-90.
11.
The European Cosmetics Association, COLIPA guidelines. Product test guidelines for the assessment of human skin compatibility. 1997. Available at: http://www.colipa.eu/publications.html (accessed March2009).
12.
LöfflerH, HappleR. Profile of irritant patch testing with detergents: sodium lauryl sulphate, sodium laureth sulphate and alkyl polyglucoside. Contact Dermatitis, 2003; 48:26-32.
13.
WilhelmK-P, FreitagG, WolffHH. Surfactant-induced skin irritation and skin repair. Evaluation of the acute human irritation model by noninvasive techniques. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1994; 30: 944-9.
14.
WilliamsHC.Atopic dermatitis. N Engl J Med, 2005; 352:2314-24.
15.
WilliamsHC.Is the prevalence of atopic dermatitis increasing?. Clin Exp Dermatol, 1992; 17:385-91.
16.
KayJ, GawkrodgerDJ, MortimerMJ, JaronAG. The prevalence of childhood atopic eczema in a general population. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1994; 30:35-9.
ZemtsovA, FettD. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis to sodium lauroyl sarcosinate in the liquid soap. Contact Dermatitis, 2005; 52:166-7.
19.
De GrootAC, WeijlandJW. Contact allergy to disodium cocoamphodipropionate. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 35:248-9.
20.
FotiC, BonamonteD, MascoloG, et al.Aminoethylethanolamine: a new allergen in cosmetics?. Contact Dermatitis, 2001; 45:129-33.
21.
PinolaA, EstlanderT, JolankiR, et al.Occupational allergic contact dermatitis due to coconut diethanolamide (cocamide DEA). Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 29:262-5.
22.
FowlerJF.Allergy to cocamide DEA. Am J Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 9:40-1.
23.
De GrootA, De WitFS, BosJD, WeylandJW. Contact allergy to cocamide DEA and lauramide DEA in shampoos. Contact Dermatitis, 1987; 16:117-8.
24.
MowadCM.Cocamidopropyl betaine allergy. Am J Contact Dermat, 2001; 12:223-4.
25.
De GrootAC, Vad Der WalleHB, WeylandJW. Contact allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 33: 419-22.
26.
FowlerJF, FowlerLM, HunterJE. Allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine may be due to amidoamine: a patch test and product use test study. Contact Dermatitis, 1997; 37:276-81.
27.
AngeliniG, FotiC, RiganoL, VenaGA. 3-Dimethylaminopropylamine: a key substance in contact allergy to cocamidopropylbetaine?. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 32:96-9.
28.
EffendyI, MaibachHI. Detergent and skin irritation. Clin Dermatol, 1996; 14:15-21.
29.
RietschelRL, FowlerJFJr, editors. Fisher's contact dermatitis. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1995. p. 198-9, 349-51.
30.
BerardescaE.La detersione. In: CaputoR, MontiM, editors. Manuale di dermocosmetologia medica. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore; 1995. p. 83-9.
31.
Yu-Yun LeeJ, WangB Jr. Contact dermatitis caused by cetrimide in antiseptics. Contact Dermatitis, 1995; 33:168-71.
32.
Final report on the safety assessment of cocamide DEAlauramide DEALinoleamide DEAoleamide DEA, J Am Coll Toxicol, 1986;5: 415-54.
33.
HarveryD, HardyC. N-Nitrosammine in cosmetic products. Cosm Toil, 1994; 109:53-61.
34.
“Cosmetics Directive” 76/768/EEC Annex III no. 60.
35.
LaniganRS.Final report on the safety assessment of cocoyl sarcosine, lauroyl sarcosine, myristoyl sarcosine, oleoyl sarcosine, stearoyl sarcosine, sodium cocoyl sarcosinate, sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, sodium myristoyl sarcosinate, ammonium cocoyl sarcosinate and ammonium lauroyl sarcosinate. Int J Toxicol, 2001; 20:1-14.
