CD06 Wiped out: the current landscape of allergens in baby wipes in the UK

Abstract Baby wipes contain water and low levels of preservatives, fragrances, surfactants and emollients, which remain on the skin and contribute to irritant and allergic contact dermatitis in infants and caregivers. Historically, the preservatives methylisothiazolinone (MI) and methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) were significant allergens [Chang MW, Nakrani R. Six children with allergic contact dermatitis to methylisothiazo­linone in wet wipes (baby wipes). Pediatrics 2014; 133: e434–8; Soriano LF, Chowdhury MMU, Cooper SM et al. Current prevalence and relevance of positive patch test reactions to cosmetic and noncosmetic isothiazolinones in the UK. Br J Dermatol 2021; 185: 223–5]. However, their ban in leave-on cosmetics in the European Union since 2018 has shifted the allergen landscape. This study investigates the prevalence of current ingredients in UK baby wipes. In January 2025, a survey of baby wipe products was conducted across nine major supermarkets and health and beauty retailers in a UK city. Product names, ingredients, marketing claims (e.g. ‘fragrance-free/sensitive’) and compliance with the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) were documented. Unique ingredients were identified using Python (version 3.13.1). In total, 85 products were identified, containing 120 unique ingredients, with a mean of 10 ingredients per product (range 1–20). Five products were noncompliant with INCI labelling standards, with terms including ‘bamboo’, ‘aloe vera’, ‘apple’ and ‘apple extract’. The most frequently occurring ingredients included sodium benzoate (66 of 85), citric acid (60 of 85), sodium citrate (47 of 85), ‘aloe barbadensis’ (aloe vera) (46 of 85) and glycerine (41 of 85). MI and MCI were absent from all surveyed products. Preservatives and antimicrobials were common, particularly sodium benzoate (66 of 85), phenoxyethanol (22 of 85), benzoic acid (26 of 85), dehydroacetic acid (24 of 85), potassium sorbate/sorbic acid (19 of 85) and benzalkonium chloride (11 of 85). Plant extracts, including chamomile, citrus and Asteraceae derivatives, appeared in 41 of 85 products. Fragrances were present in 20 of 85 products, primarily as parfum (18 of 85), with gamma-nonalactone and pentadecalactone identified in two of 85. Three fragranced products lacked explicit labelling, including one marketed as ‘sensitive and fragrance-free’. Other allergens identified included glycols (30 of 85), carboxylic acids and salts (19 of 85), betaine derivatives (eight of 85), cetearyl alcohol (six of 85) and lauryl glucoside (three of 85). Although MI and MCI were absent, preservatives, fragrances and botanical extracts were prevalent. Noncompliance with INCI standards and misleading marketing claims may obscure consumer awareness of potential sensitizers. Given the allergen burden in baby wipes in 2025, clinicians should consider them as a cause of infant allergic perineal dermatitis and hand dermatitis in their caregivers. A targeted patch testing series may improve diagnostic accuracy and early intervention and overcome the limitations imposed by infant size, while minimizing unnecessary hapten exposure.