China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Preservative Resistance
Published in Philip A. Geis, Cosmetic Microbiology, 2020
In experiments performed by Orth and Lutes, laboratory strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Staphylococcus aureus were adapted to preservatives by exposing them in sub-inhibitory and sub-lethal concentrations of the following preservatives: methylparaben, imidazolidinyl urea, Quaternium-15, a 3:1 blend of MCIT/MIT, phenoxyethanol, DMDM hydantoin, and formaldehyde (9). In this study, E. coli and S. aureus isolates did not adapt to the presence of methylparaben whereas Ps. aeruginosa isolate was capable of this adaption to methylparaben. Although each laboratory test microorganism tested was capable of adaption and resistance to imidazolidinyl urea, Quaternium-15, DMDM hydantoin, a 3:1 blend of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone and formaldehyde. However, none of the laboratory test microorganisms were found to adapt to the presence of phenoxyethanol.
Proteins for Conditioning Hair and Skin
Published in Randy Schueller, Perry Romanowski, Conditioning Agents for Hair and Skin, 2020
Proteins are components of every living thing, attesting to the broad-based compatibility of their monomers, the amino acids. It should thus not be surprising that proteins and their hydrolyzates and derivatives are readily biodegradable. A suitable preservation system must thus be incorporated in products containing both water and protein-based material. The protein products sold as aqueous solutions utilize a variety of preservation systems. Most frequently employed are the parabens (methyl- and propylparaben, in particular). Finished products containing proteins in their native states (generally present to make use of their enzymatic activities) require preservatives which have very low reactivity toward the protein and so do not appreciably modify the conformation of the protein. A combination of parabens and phenoxyethanol at a level of up to 1% by weight of the formulation may be employed. When hydrolyzates and their derivatives are utilized, more reactive (and more cost-effective) preservatives can be utilized. Such agents may include quaternium-15, imidazolidinyl urea, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM hydantoin, and methyl[chloro]isothiazolinone, with or without parabens. Specific preservation systems are referenced by some manufacturers (16,17). Certain preservatives are incompatible with proteinaceous matter, particularly at high concentration. A striking example is the firm gel produced after overnight storage at room temperature of a solution of approximately equal proportions of 37% formaldehyde and 55% hydrolyzed collagen (2000 Da).
Common Cosmetic Ingredients: Chemistry, Actions, Safety and Products
Published in Heather A.E. Benson, Michael S. Roberts, Vânia Rodrigues Leite-Silva, Kenneth A. Walters, Cosmetic Formulation, 2019
Quaternium-15 (Q15) causes a marked frequency of positive skin reactions (Jong et al., 2007). Individuals sensitive to formaldehyde and all other formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are also likely to be sensitive to Q15.
Systemic contact dermatitis following oral neomycin therapy
Published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 2021
Jocelyn M. Carnicle, Timothy V. Tran, Sterling S. McKissack
A 70-year-old woman with previous contact dermatitis secondary to topical antibiotics was admitted to the hospital for diverticulitis. Two days after starting oral neomycin for her diverticulitis, she developed a diffuse pruritic rash that began on her arms and spread to her face, trunk, and thighs. She denied fever, malaise, headaches, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, arthralgia, weight loss, recent travel, or any other medication use. Examination revealed a diffuse exfoliative dermatitis over the face, upper extremities, and trunk (Figure 1). No bullae, mucosal involvement, facial swelling, or lymphadenopathy was noted, and the patient had a negative Nikolsky sign. Complete blood count revealed mild eosinophilia (∼400/µL), although no atypical lymphocytes were detected. Serum transaminases, renal panel, and urinalysis were within normal limits. A biopsy specimen was obtained and histopathologic examination displayed a spongiotic dermatitis with eosinophils. Systemic contact dermatitis (SCD) was diagnosed, and oral neomycin was discontinued. At follow-up, patch testing was positive to neomycin, bacitracin, and quaternium-15.
Exposures associated with making or playing with viscoelastic polymer toys known as Slime: a retrospective case series from French Poison Control Centres
Published in Clinical Toxicology, 2020
M. Labadie, J. Langrand, G. Leroux, J. Manel, P. Nisse, J. M. Sapori, C. Tournoud, S. Sinno-Tellier, C. Greillet, C. Solal
Nevertheless, the liquid glues, which is very often used for making the Slime contain formaldehyde-releasing antimicrobial preservatives (such as quaternium-15, DMDM hydantoin (1,3-dimethylol-5,5-dimethyl hydantoin), imidazolidinyl urea, etc.) or isothiazolinones. Similarly, isothiazolinones are often present in laundry detergents used in the preparation of Slime, are responsible for an important increase in cutaneous allergies in the last 10 years, especially children [6].This phenomenon being recent, and this type of exposure still unknown to most doctors, this study shows that it is sometimes difficult to quickly identity Slime as the cause of dermatitis in young patients, as well as the responsible haptens [7]. The publication by Ducharme et al. [8] showed that the child was suffering of chronic dermatitis for a year before the “pâte a prout” and the likely responsible isothiazolinones were identified as the cause.
Non-glaucoma periocular allergic, atopic, and irritant dermatitis at an academic institution: A retrospective review
Published in Orbit, 2019
Saagar A. Pandit, Lora R. Dagi Glass
Three patients underwent eyelid skin biopsies, all of which exhibited non-specific spongiotic dermatitis histopathologically. Refer to Table 3 for patient referrals. Of note, 10 patients (12.5%) were referred to an allergist, 6 patients (7.5%) were referred to a dermatologist, and 2 patients (2.5%) were referred to both. In total, 7 patients (8.75%) went for allergy testing. Skin prick test (SPT) was performed on 3 patients (3.75%), yielding reactions to ragweed in one patient; dog dander, cat dander, and dust mites in a second; and a negative test for the third. Patch testing was performed on 4 patients (5.0%), yielding reactions to a cosmetic preservative (iodopropynyl butylcarbamate) in one patient; nickel sulphate, cobalt chloride, fragrance mix I, cosmetic preservatives (quaternium-15), cosmetic products (L’dara anti-aging serum, Garnier fructis daily care shampoo 2 in 1), mercapto mix and gold in another; and negative testing for two patients.