The Skin Allergenic Properties of Chemicals May Depend on Contaminants – Evidence from Studies on Coumarin

Background/Aims: Positive patch tests are considered representative of a contact allergy to the tested chemical. However, contaminants and derivatives rather than the suspected chemical itself could be responsible for the allergic skin reactions. Here, we tested the importance of contaminants in the sensitizing and allergenic properties of coumarin in mice and humans. Coumarin, an ingredient in cosmetics and fragrances, was chosen as the reference chemical since conflicting results have been obtained regarding its ability to induce contact allergy. In some chemical preparations, this could be explained by the presence of coumarin derivatives endowed with allergenic properties. Methods: In mice, three different coumarin preparations were tested in the local lymph node assay. In humans, we assessed the irritant and allergenic properties of highly pure coumarin in nonallergic and fragrance-allergic patients. Results: Pure coumarin did not exhibit irritant or sensitizing properties in the local lymph node assay. In contrast, two other commercially available coumarins and three contaminants that were detected in these coumarin preparations were identified as weak and moderate sensitizers, respectively. In humans, pure coumarin was extremely well tolerated since only 1 out of 512 patients exhibited a positive patch test to the chemical. Conclusions: These results indicate that coumarin cannot be considered as a common contact allergen and further emphasize that purity of chemicals is mandatory for the assessment of their allergenicity.

[1]  G. Patlewicz,et al.  Investigation of the skin sensitizing activity of linalool , 2002, Contact dermatitis.

[2]  K. Malten,et al.  Reactions in selected patients to 22 fragrance materials , 1984, Contact dermatitis.

[3]  P. Askenase,et al.  Molecular mechanisms of CD8+ T cell-mediated delayed hypersensitivity: implications for allergies, asthma, and autoimmunity. , 1999, The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology.

[4]  D. Bruynzeel,et al.  The rôle of coumarin in patch testing , 1998, Contact dermatitis.

[5]  I Kimber,et al.  Investigation of lymph node cell proliferation as a possible immunological correlate of contact sensitizing potential. , 1991, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[6]  Ian Kimber,et al.  The suitability of hexyl cinnamic aldehyde as a calibrant for the murine local lymph node assay , 2001, Contact dermatitis.

[7]  Contact allergy to impurities in surfactants: amount, chemical structure and carrier effect in reactions to 3‐dimethylaminopropylamine , 1996, Contact dermatitis.

[8]  D. Belsito,et al.  The diagnostic evaluation, treatment, and prevention of allergic contact dermatitis in the new millennium. , 2000, The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology.

[9]  B M Hausen,et al.  The sensitizing capacity of coumarins (II) , 1986, Contact dermatitis.

[10]  J. Johansen,et al.  Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985–86 and 1997–98, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies , 2000, The British journal of dermatology.

[11]  F. Bérard,et al.  The role of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in contact hypersensitivity and allergic contact dermatitis. , 2004, European journal of dermatology : EJD.

[12]  J. S. Taylor,et al.  North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. , 1998, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[13]  A. Blauvelt,et al.  11. Allergic and immunologic diseases of the skin. , 2003, The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology.

[14]  A. Karlberg,et al.  Contact allergy to oxidized d‐limonene among dermatitis patients , 1997, Contact dermatitis.

[15]  P. Elsner,et al.  Fragrance contact dermatitis: a worldwide multicenter investigation (Part I). , 1996, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

[16]  P. Frosch,et al.  Identification of coumarin as the sensitizer in a patient sensitive to her own perfume but negative to the fragrance mix , 1999, Contact dermatitis.

[17]  J. W. Weyland,et al.  The allergens in cosmetics. , 1988, Archives of dermatology.

[18]  B. Meade,et al.  Comparison of mouse strains using the local lymph node assay. , 2000, Toxicology.

[19]  P. Frosch,et al.  Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances , 2002, Contact dermatitis.

[20]  G Frank Gerberick,et al.  Allergic Contact Dermatitis , 1998, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[21]  S. Devos,et al.  Epicutaneous patch testing. , 2002, European journal of dermatology : EJD.

[22]  W Uter,et al.  Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. The information network of departments of dermatology (IVDK) in Germany. , 1998, European journal of dermatology : EJD.

[23]  Ian Kimber,et al.  A chemical dataset for evaluation of alternative approaches to skin‐sensitization testing , 2004, Contact dermatitis.

[24]  J. Lepoittevin,et al.  Hapten-peptide-T cell receptor interactions: molecular basisfor the recognition of haptens by T lymphocytes , 2000 .

[25]  I Kimber,et al.  Classification of contact allergens according to potency: proposals. , 2003, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[26]  J. V. D. Hoek,et al.  S multaneous allergy to perfume ingredients , 1985 .

[27]  A. Karlberg,et al.  Studies on the autoxidation and sensitizing capacity of the fragrance chemical linalool, identifying a linalool hydroperoxide , 2002, Contact dermatitis.

[28]  P. Frosch,et al.  Further important sensitizers in patients sensitive to fragrances* , 2002, Contact dermatitis.

[29]  N. Balato,et al.  Acne and allergic contact dermatitis , 1996, Contact dermatitis.