- Email: [email protected]
1216. Baa, baa, white sheep
130
COSMETICS, TOILETRIES AND HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS
1216. Baa, baa, white sheep Cronin, E. (1966). Lanolin dermatitis. Br. J. Derm. 78, 167. Newcomb, E. A. (1966). Lanolin allergy? J. Soc. cosmet. Chem. 17, 149. The emulsifying property of wool alcohols and the normally emollient effect of lanolin make this ovine material a valuable component of cosmetics. Despite its harmlessness to most people, lanolin gives the formulator some sleepless nights thinking of the odd woman out who will develop a contact dermatitis to it. Unfortunately, lanolin is a variable product, and changing the breed of sheep from which it is derived, or varying the process of purification, may alter its allergenic properties. Cronin (cited above) has studied test procedures in 40 lanolin-sensitive patients and has found that the most useful diagnostic preparation is 30 Yo wool alcohols in yellow soft paraffin. Hydrous ointment BP (which contains 3 ~o wool alcohols) applied under a polythene occlusive dressing is also considered to be a valid patch testing medium. Newcomb (cited above) states that only about 100 cases of lanolin sensitivity have been reported over the last 30-40 yr. Direct tests on human subjects have shown that neither lanolin nor its oil-soluble fraction can be regarded as a primary irritant. No evidence has emerged from repeated insult testing in man that either lanolin or its liquid fraction acts as a sensitizer. Can the rare allergic reaction, then, be attributed to some impurity? In a natural product having a varying composition due to seasonal and other factors, pinpointing the responsible agent(s) becomes a complex matter. The principal obstacle to progress is the rarity of the allergy, which dissuades researchers from making its investigation a priority. [And what of perfumes, which are almost invariably added to mask the slight odour of wool fat ? May they not play a part, since so many of them are known sensitizers ?] 1217. Watch that soap ! Molloy, J. F. (1966). Photosensitizers in soaps. J. Am. med. Ass. 195, 878. Epstein, S. (1966). Photosensitizers in soaps. J. Am. med. Ass. 195, 878. Epstein & Enta (Cited in F.C.T. 1966, 4, 621) have demonstrated the photosensitization potential of an antiseptic compound tribromsalan (3,4',5-tribromosalicylanilide; I), added to Lifebuoy soap. In criticism of this work, MoUoy (cited above) draws attention to the different halogenated salicylanilides added to toilet soaps. White Lifebuoy (A) contains I whereas green Lifebuoy (B) contains I plus dibromsalan (4',5-dibromosalicylanilide; II). Coral Lifebuoy is presumed to resemble B. In the Louisville area, five patients who suffered from photodermatitis after using B gave positive photopatch reactions to II but not to I. Since other brands of soap containing I had not been associated with photosensitization, the culprit was alleged to have been II. In reply, Epstein (cited above) asserts that his original work showed photosensitization to be associated with A, and that Safeguard soap, which also contains I, has provoked a similar reaction. The common factor is I; but Safeguard also contains the 3,5-dibromo isomer of II, which complicates matters. Cross-sensitivity would explain reactions to II, the more potent photosensitizer of the pair. There is, says Epstein, no valid reason to condemn out of hand the addition of I to soaps, but physicians should be aware of its potentialities. [Cross-photosensitivity to tribromsalan has also been reported in persons photosensitized to bithionol (Cited in F.C.T. 1965, 3, 137). Why add antiseptic to a domestic product, anyway ? Toilet soaps for an institution may be a different proposition.] 1218. Dibromsalan: An established photosensitizer Molloy, J. F. & Mayer, J. A. (1966). Photodermatitis from dibromsalan. Archs Derm. 93, 329.
COSMETICS, TOILETRIES AND HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS
1216. Baa, baa, white sheep Cronin, E. (1966). Lanolin dermatitis. Br. J. Derm. 78, 167. Newcomb, E. A. (1966). Lanolin allergy? J. Soc. cosmet. Chem. 17, 149. The emulsifying property of wool alcohols and the normally emollient effect of lanolin make this ovine material a valuable component of cosmetics. Despite its harmlessness to most people, lanolin gives the formulator some sleepless nights thinking of the odd woman out who will develop a contact dermatitis to it. Unfortunately, lanolin is a variable product, and changing the breed of sheep from which it is derived, or varying the process of purification, may alter its allergenic properties. Cronin (cited above) has studied test procedures in 40 lanolin-sensitive patients and has found that the most useful diagnostic preparation is 30 Yo wool alcohols in yellow soft paraffin. Hydrous ointment BP (which contains 3 ~o wool alcohols) applied under a polythene occlusive dressing is also considered to be a valid patch testing medium. Newcomb (cited above) states that only about 100 cases of lanolin sensitivity have been reported over the last 30-40 yr. Direct tests on human subjects have shown that neither lanolin nor its oil-soluble fraction can be regarded as a primary irritant. No evidence has emerged from repeated insult testing in man that either lanolin or its liquid fraction acts as a sensitizer. Can the rare allergic reaction, then, be attributed to some impurity? In a natural product having a varying composition due to seasonal and other factors, pinpointing the responsible agent(s) becomes a complex matter. The principal obstacle to progress is the rarity of the allergy, which dissuades researchers from making its investigation a priority. [And what of perfumes, which are almost invariably added to mask the slight odour of wool fat ? May they not play a part, since so many of them are known sensitizers ?] 1217. Watch that soap ! Molloy, J. F. (1966). Photosensitizers in soaps. J. Am. med. Ass. 195, 878. Epstein, S. (1966). Photosensitizers in soaps. J. Am. med. Ass. 195, 878. Epstein & Enta (Cited in F.C.T. 1966, 4, 621) have demonstrated the photosensitization potential of an antiseptic compound tribromsalan (3,4',5-tribromosalicylanilide; I), added to Lifebuoy soap. In criticism of this work, MoUoy (cited above) draws attention to the different halogenated salicylanilides added to toilet soaps. White Lifebuoy (A) contains I whereas green Lifebuoy (B) contains I plus dibromsalan (4',5-dibromosalicylanilide; II). Coral Lifebuoy is presumed to resemble B. In the Louisville area, five patients who suffered from photodermatitis after using B gave positive photopatch reactions to II but not to I. Since other brands of soap containing I had not been associated with photosensitization, the culprit was alleged to have been II. In reply, Epstein (cited above) asserts that his original work showed photosensitization to be associated with A, and that Safeguard soap, which also contains I, has provoked a similar reaction. The common factor is I; but Safeguard also contains the 3,5-dibromo isomer of II, which complicates matters. Cross-sensitivity would explain reactions to II, the more potent photosensitizer of the pair. There is, says Epstein, no valid reason to condemn out of hand the addition of I to soaps, but physicians should be aware of its potentialities. [Cross-photosensitivity to tribromsalan has also been reported in persons photosensitized to bithionol (Cited in F.C.T. 1965, 3, 137). Why add antiseptic to a domestic product, anyway ? Toilet soaps for an institution may be a different proposition.] 1218. Dibromsalan: An established photosensitizer Molloy, J. F. & Mayer, J. A. (1966). Photodermatitis from dibromsalan. Archs Derm. 93, 329.