Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Adverse reactions to fragrances: A clinical review

Open access
de Groot, Anton C., Frosch, Peter J.·1997·Contact Dermatitis

Abstract

This article reviews side‐effects of fragrance materials present in cosmetics with emphasis on clinical aspects: epidemiology, type, of adverse reactions, clinical picture, diagnostic procedures, and the sensitizers. Considering the ubiquitous occurrence of fragrance materials, the risk of side‐effects is small. In absolute numbers, however, fragrance allergy is common, affecting approximately 1% of the general population. Although a detailed profile of patients sensitized to fragrances needs to be elucidated, common features of contact allergy are: axillary dermatitis, dermatitis of the face (including the eyelids) and neck, well‐circumscribed patches in areas of “dubbing‐on” perfumes (wrists, behind the ears) and (aggravation of) hand eczema. Depending on the degree of sensitivity, the severity of dermatitis may range from mild to severe with dissemination and even erythroderma. Airborne or “connubial” contact dermatitis should always be suspected. Other less frequent adverse reactions to fragrances are photocontact dermatitis, immediate contact reactions and pigmentary changes. The fragrance mix, although very useful for the detection of sensitive patients, both causes False‐positive and false‐negative reactions, and detects only 70% of perfume‐allergic patients. Therefore, future research should be directed at increasing the sensitivity and the specificity of the mix. Relevance is said to be established in 50–65% of positive reactions, but accurate criteria are needed. Suggestions are made for large‐scale investigation of several fragrances on the basis of literature data and frequency of use in cosmetics. The literature on adverse reactions to balsam of Peru (an indicator for fragrance sensitivity), essential oils (which currently appear to be used more in aromatherapy than in perfumery) and on fragrances used as flavours and spices in foods and beverages is not discussed in detail, but pertinent side‐effects data are tabulated and relevant literature is provided.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1997.tb00418.x

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 54 references

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
de Groot, A. C., & Frosch, P. J.
Venue
Contact Dermatitis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-02
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
57-86
ISSN
  • 0105-1873 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0536
OpenAlex
W1518977425
Cited by
274
References
54
FWCI
16.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Adverse reactions to fragrances: A clinical review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1997.tb00418.x
The paper
de Groot, A. C., & Frosch, P. J. (1997). Adverse reactions to fragrances: A clinical review. Contact Dermatitis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1997.tb00418.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.