ArticleJournal of food and drug analysis2021
Quantitative analysis of fragrance allergens in various matrixes of cosmetics by liquid-liquid extraction and GC-MS.
Article in Journal of food and drug analysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristic volatile product analysis of moldy cigar wrapper and filler using gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2025Article
- Mass-Spectrometry-Based Research of Cosmetic Ingredients.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fragrances are the most common chemicals in cosmetics to which people expose every day. However, the unwanted allergic reactions such as contact dermatitis caused by direct contact with fragrances may happen. In Directive 2003/15/EC of the EU, cosmetic product containing one or more of 26 fragrance allergens must be declared on the package label. In addition, commission regulation (EU) 2017/1410 amending Annexes II and III of cosmetic regulation 1223/2009 restricted fragrance chemical of methyl eugenol, and prohibited Lyral, atranol, chloroatranol to be used in cosmetic. In this study, an efficient and sensitive GC-MS method for 3 banned fragrances, 26 fragrance allergens along with restricted methyl eugenol in cosmetics was established. Sample preparation by liquid-liquid extraction was developed by testing various solvent systems to simplify traditional complex extraction methodologies. Validation of the proposed method showed good linearities in a wide concentration ranges of 0.1-10 μg/mL. The intra-day and inter-day recoveries were between 84.4 and 119% with coefficient of variation (CV) below 13.5%. The limit of quantifications (LOQs) of 27 fragrance allergens were in the range of 2-20 μg/g. A surveillance study consisted with 82 cosmetics was conducted, among which 31 products claimed fragrance-free. The results showed some fragrance-free claims were false. In the other hand, there were seven cosmetics labeled containing Lyral, but only four were detected. The top fragrance allergens detected in the samples were linalool, limonene, and geraniol. The analysis of fragrance allergens in cosmetics indicated that potential contact allergy related to these products should be considered, even though some fragrance allergens were from natural extracts, such as oak moss absolute.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.