Premium
The role of 3‐dimethylaminopropylamine and amidoamine in contact allergy to cocamidopropylbetaine
Author(s) -
Foti Caterina,
Bonamonte Domenico,
Mascolo Giuseppe,
Corcelli Angela,
Lobasso Simona,
Rigano Luigi,
Angelini Gianni
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
contact dermatitis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1600-0536
pISSN - 0105-1873
DOI - 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2003.00078.x
Subject(s) - contact allergy , allergy , poly(amidoamine) , dermatology , allergic contact dermatitis , contact dermatitis , medicine , amidoamine , patch testing , traditional medicine , chemistry , immunology , organic chemistry , dendrimer
Since it has been found that all subjects with contact allergy to cocamidopropylbetaine (CAPB) have positive reactions to 3‐dimethylaminopropylamine (DMAPA), and reports have appeared in literature of the sensitizing action of amidoamine in products containing CAPB, we aimed to verify the possibility that pure amidoamine may have a sensitizing role in subjects with positive reactions to CAPB. To this end, in 10 patients with contact allergy to a commercial CAPB, we tested DMAPA 1% aq. and a pure amidoamine in concentrations ranging from 0·5% aq. to 0·1% aq. The study showed that all patients with positive reactions to DMAPA reacted to amidoamine at 0·5% and 0·25% aq., while 4 of the 10 also had positive reactions to amidoamine at 0·1% aq. We consider that simultaneous allergic reaction to DMAPA and amidoamine represents cross‐reactivity and hypothesize that DMAPA is in fact the true sensitizing substance, while amidoamine, which may in any case release DMAPA in vivo as a result of enzymatic hydrolysis, may favour the transepidermal penetration of the sensitizing agent. In addition, we advise that testing of CAPB be suspended, because, as suggested by chemico‐structural analyses and demonstrated in vivo , when thoroughly purified, it no longer has a sensitizing action.