CASE REPORT
A 44‐year‐old female patient was referred for patch testing because of two episodes of severe face eczema. The patient reported that the dermatitis developed after the use of the anti‐aging cream Bionike Defence My Age Day Cream® (ICIM International, Milano, Italy) and was successfully treated with an oral corticosteroid.
Patch testing was performed with the SIDAPA (Società Italiana di Dermatologia Allergologica Professionale e Ambientale) baseline series and the integrative eyelids series (F.I.R.M.A., Florence, Italy). Patch‐test chambers (Van der Bend, Brielle, The Netherlands) were applied on the upper part of the patientʼs back. The readings on day (D) 2 and D3, according to the Italian guidelines, 1 showed positive reactions to nickel sulfate (+++/+++) and cobalt chloride (+/++). The patient did not inform us of any additional patch test reactions beyond D3. A repeated open application test (ROAT) with Bionike cream in the antecubital fossa was performed; a positive reaction was observed within 3 days, confirming that the cream was the agent responsible for the patientʼs face eczema (Figure 1). Due to the ROAT strong reaction, the patient refused further patch test with the cream.
FIGURE 1.
The positive repeated open application test (ROAT) performed with Bionike Defence My Age Cream® in the patientʼs antecubital fossa
The label on the cream reported pentylene glycol (PTG) among the top ingredients. As we were not able to contact the manufacturer, we performed patch tests only with PTG 5% and 10% aq.; both the concentrations gave a positive reaction (+) at D3. PTG was obtained from Symrise (Holzminden, Germany) and tested at 5% and 10% concentrations according to previous studies. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7
We also tested propylene glycol (PG) 5% pet. and 30% aq., with no reaction.
Patch tests with PTG and PG at the same concentrations were performed in 15 healthy subjects with no reactions.
DISCUSSION
Pentylene glycol (1,5‐pentanediol; 1,2‐dihydroxy pentane; CAS no. 5343‐92‐0) is a preservative, solvent, and humectant that might be used increasingly in cosmetic products. It is considered to be both a weak irritant and a weak allergen.
Few cases of sensitization to PTG have been described in the literature 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 (Table 1). Most of the cases involved the facial region, and a previous dermatitis was present.
TABLE 1.
Previous reported cases of allergic contact dermatitis due to pentylene glycol
| Authors | Gender/age | Site of contact dermatitis | Clinical aspects | Preexisting dermatosis | Product | Patch test with product (“as is”) and/or ROAT | Patch test with pentylene glycol | Patch test with propylene glycol | Concomitant allergens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gallo et al 3 | F/90 | Eyelids and periorbital region | Severe eczema | No | Toleriane Ultra Yeux® (eye cream) |
D2+/D3+ ROAT pos D2 |
5% water/alcohol D2+/D4+ | Negative | Benzyl alcohol + D3 |
| Foti et al 4 | M/62 | Face | Worsening of seborrheic dermatitis | Seborrheic dermatits | Sebclair face cream® (face cream) | D2++/D3++ |
2% pet. D2++/D3++ 5% pet. D2++/D3++ 5% aq. D2++/D3++ |
5% pet. + |
Corticosteroids |
| Mortz et al 5 | F/68 | Face | Recurrent and spreading dermatitis | No |
Decubal face cream® Decubal eyes cream® |
D3++ |
5% aq. D3+ 0.5% aq. D3+ |
Negative | Ethylhexylglycerin |
| Kerre et al 6 | F/56 | Face and eyelids | Dermatitis and swelling of the eyelids | No |
Toleriane riche cream®, (face cream) L. Widmer body lotion® |
D2++ |
5% aq. Neg ROAT pos D3 |
5% aq. + |
No |
| Amado et al 7 | F/44 | Face and body | Scaling erythematous dermatitis | Atopic dermatitis | MimyX cream® (body emulsion) |
D2++/D3++ ROAT D7++ |
5% pet. D2+++/D3+++ 10% pet. D2+++/D3+++ |
Not performed | Fragrance mix I, paraphenylenediamine, neomycin, tea tree oil |
| Gallo et al 2 | M/39 | Skin folds | Exudative and itchy dermatitis | Scaling erythematous dermatitis | Resvelife cream® (body cream) | D2+/D3++ |
5% aq. D2++ /D3++ 10% aq. D2++/D3++ 0.5% aq. D2+/D3++ |
Negative | Resveratrol |
Due to the similar chemical structure between PTG and PG, differing only in a longer carbon chain and the position of alcohol groups in PTG, a cross‐reaction could be expected. In our patient no cross‐reactions were observed, confirming what has been observed in the literature.
Further studies are strongly needed define the real allergenic potential of this molecule, which is used frequently in cosmetics that are formulated for sensitive and atopic skin. It is also desirable to determine the correct concentration and the vehicle for PTG to be used in patch tests. Finally, the occurrence of cross‐reactivity between different glycols should be deeply investigated, perhaps using higher patch‐test concentrations and later readings.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors declare no funding and no conflicts of interest related directly to the work being submitted.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Monica Corazza: Conceptualization (lead); data curation (lead); formal analysis (lead); investigation (lead); methodology (lead); writing – review and editing (lead). Cecilia Schenetti: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review and editing (supporting). Natale Schettini: Data curation (supporting); investigation (supporting). Pierantonia Zedde: Data curation (supporting); investigation (supporting). Alessandro Borghi: Formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); supervision (lead); validation (equal); writing – review and editing (supporting).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Open Access Funding provided by Universita degli Studi di Ferrara within the CRUI‐CARE Agreement. [Correction added on 25 May 2022, after first online publication: CRUI funding statement has been added.]
Corazza M, Schenetti C, Schettini N, Zedde P, Borghi A. Pentylene glycol: An emerging cosmetic allergen? Contact Dermatitis. 2022;86(1):44-46. doi: 10.1111/cod.13963
REFERENCES
- 1. Stingeni L, Bianchi L, Hansel K, et al. Italian guidelines in patch testing ‐ adapted from the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD). G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2019;154(3):227‐253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Gallo R, Viglizzo G, Vecchio F, Parodi A. Allergic contact dermatitis from pentylene glycol in an emollient cream, with possible co‐sensitization to resveratrol. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48(3):176‐177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Gallo R, Russo R, Trave I, Murgioni F, Parodi A. Allergic contact dermatitis to pentylene glycol in an eye contour cream. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82(4):254‐255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Foti C, Bonamonte D, Cassano N, Conserva A, Vena GA. Allergic contact dermatitis to propyl gallate and pentylene glycol in an emollient cream. Australas J Dermatol. 2010;51(2):147‐148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Mortz CG, Otkjaer A, Andersen KE. Allergic contact dermatitis to ethylhexylglycerin and pentylene glycol. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61(3):180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Kerre S. Allergic contact dermatitis to pentylene glycol in a cosmetic cream. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58(2):122‐123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Amado A, Taylor JS, Murray DA, Reynolds JS. Contact dermatitis to pentylene glycol in a prescription cream for atopic dermatitis: case report. Arch Dermatol. 2008;144(6):810‐812. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]