Back to top

What this guide is and who it’s for?

This guide explains the science behind Colourstart® as a universal screening test for allergy to oxidative (permanent) hair colourants, with a focus on p‑phenylenediamine (PPD) and related dye ingredients.

It is written for hairdressers, salon owners, colour educators, manufacturers, insurers and other stakeholders who want a deeper, evidence‑based understanding of the product function as a universal hair colour allergy test.

It brings together independent dermatology literature, real‑world Colourstart data, and public positions from regulators (including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency - MHRA) and industry bodies to show why a PPD‑based patch test can act as a practical universal screen for oxidative hair colour allergy.

Allergy to oxidative hair dyes: what we know

Oxidative hair colourants are a recognised cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). The main culprit is PPD, but closely related aromatic amines such as p‑toluenediamine (PTD), 2‑methoxymethyl‑PPD (ME‑PPD or ME+), p‑aminophenol (PAP) and m‑aminophenol (MAP) are also implicated.

Epidemiological data show that hair dye allergy is not rare. In the EDEN study1, which included over 10,000 healthy adults (2,739 patch‑tested), the approximate prevalence of PPD contact allergy was 0.8%. Use of black henna tattoos, which often contain illegally high concentrations of PPD, was strongly associated with later reactions to oxidative hair dye.

For hairdressers and their stakeholders, the key point is that while most clients will never experience a skin reaction, allergy to oxidative hair dye is common enough, and serious enough for legislation to require products containing these ingredients to be labelled with special warnings. It is sensible to give hairdressers and their clients access to a product to help manage these risks proportionately.

Why PPD is used as a universal marker

Within the professional hairdressing supply chain, there is a persistent misconception that some oxidative hair colours are effectively “PPD‑free2” in a way that removes allergy risk. In reality, most permanent oxidative dyes rely on a family of closely related para‑amines, of which PPD is the best‑known example, such as PTD or ME+.

Dermatologists worldwide include PPD (typically 1% in petrolatum) in the baseline patch test series as an index allergen for oxidative hair‑dye allergy diagnosis. In other words, PPD is widely used clinically as a marker allergen: if a patient reacts to PPD, this is taken as a strong indication of allergy to the broader group of para‑amine hair dyes. This is why PPD is so important3 in both clinical diagnosis and (salon) screening, even when a given hair colour product does not list “PPD” on the label but instead contains closely related substances.

Colourstart® as an MHRA‑licensed screening test

In 2019, Colourstart became the first and only MHRA‑licensed cutaneous patch test4 for screening allergy to PPD in consumers aged 16 years and over.

To obtain this licence, Colourstart had to demonstrate:

  • A high level of efficacy in identifying individuals allergic to PPD.
  • A very low chance of getting a “false positive” result.
  • Non-specialists were able to interpret any skin reaction seen.
  • An acceptable safety profile, including consideration of the risk of sensitisation.
  • Consistent manufacturing quality with a defined allergen dose in each patch.
  • Ongoing pharmacovigilance arrangements for monitoring and reporting adverse events.

Recognised by all major UK hair and beauty trade organisations and designed specifically for professional use, Colourstart gives hairdressers a consistent, regulated standard for managing colour allergy risk — not diagnosing it. No screening test is a perfect predictor of allergic contact dermatitis. Colourstart identifies those most at risk from the principal sensitising allergen family in oxidative hair colour while minimising the risk of active sensitisation, a risk that increases with every repeated allergen exposure.

See section 10.

Real‑world Colourstart data and what it shows

Since licensing, Colourstart has been used extensively by salons and consumers, and real‑world data have been presented twice at Congresses of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD).

Two key datasets have been published.

The positive rate of 0.7% is remarkably consistent across datasets and aligns well with European epidemiological estimates of PPD allergy prevalence (around 0.7–1%). Adverse events were rare, mild and non‑serious, and in the 20225 and 2024 datasets6, a pre‑screening questionnaire was used to identify individuals already highly likely to be allergic to hair dye; these consumers were advised not to apply the patch.

In practice, this suggests that Colourstart is detecting approximately the proportion of clients one would expect to be allergic to PPD based on independent studies, while the safety profile in large‑scale use has been very favourable.

Cross‑reactivity: PPD, PTD, ME‑PPD and related dyes

Allergic contact dermatitis to hair dyes does not exist in isolation for each separate ingredient. Many of the oxidative dye intermediates are structurally similar para‑amines, and the immune system can cross‑react between them.

Multiple studies have shown strong cross‑reactivity between PPD and other oxidative dye ingredients3. A PPD test identified 80.7–86.8% of people already known to be allergic to PTD, m-aminophenol, or p-aminophenol.

Taken together, these findings support the view that PPD allergy serves as a reliable marker7 for allergy to the broader family of oxidative hair‑dye intermediates.

For hairdressers, this means that replacing PPD with another para‑amine such as PTD or PAP does not remove the underlying allergy risk for PPD‑allergic clients; it simply exposes the client to a slightly different allergen within the same reactive family.  It is worth remembering that the clinical advice is clear: “Advice for patients with hair dye allergy remains stop using permanent hair dyes8.

ME‑PPD (ME+) and why PPD remains the screen

ME‑PPD (also known as ME+) has been introduced as a lower‑potency allergen alternative to PPD in some oxidative hair colour formulations.*

Human studies in PPD‑allergic individuals show that:

  • In open‑use tests with short exposure to hair dyes containing 2% PPD or 2% ME‑PPD, about 48% of PPD‑allergic subjects also reacted to the ME‑PPD‑containing dye.
  • When ME‑PPD was patch‑tested at concentrations from 0.1% to 2.0%, cross‑elicitation rates rose to around 84% at higher concentrations9.

* Potency reduction is only demonstrated in a mouse model.

These results indicate that although ME‑PPD is less potent than PPD, it is clearly cross‑reactive and should not be assumed to be safe for PPD‑allergic individuals. From a screening perspective, this supports the continued use of PPD as a relevant marker allergen, even for products formulated with ME‑PPD instead of PPD.

“PPD‑free” claims: ASA and CTPA positions

In recent years, “PPD‑free” claims have been used in marketing some oxidative hair colours. However, these products may still contain PPD‑related para‑amines, and regulators have taken a clear stance on this.

ASA ruling


In 2025, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled on advertising10 for a hair‑colour range described as “PPD‑free” while containing PTD.

The ASA concluded that:

  • Despite the absence of PPD, the presence of PTD meant that PPD‑allergic individuals could still react.
  • Repeated “PPD‑free” claims and associated messaging were likely to give consumers the impression that those with PPD allergy were at little or no risk.
  • The advertisements were therefore misleading and irresponsible and should not be used again in that form.

CTPA guidance


The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA), the UK trade association for cosmetics and personal‑care companies, has issued guidance11 on “PPD‑free” claims which states that:

  • Darker oxidative hair colours often require PPD‑related aromatic amines such as PTD or ME‑PPD.
  • Individuals allergic to PPD may also react to these related ingredients.
  • Products containing PPD or related para‑amines must be labelled with warnings such as “contains phenylenediamines (toluenediamines)”.
  • “PPD‑free” claims on products that still contain PPD‑related ingredients are regarded as misleading.
PROPERTYPPDPTDPAP/MAPME-PPD
CAS number106-50-395-70-5123-30-8337906-36-2 (base);
337906-37-3
(sulfate)
Chemical formulaC6H8N2C7H10N2C6H7N0C8H12N2O
Required pictograms
Signal wordDangerDangerWarningDanger

These public statements are consistent with the dermatology literature on cross‑reactivity and reinforce the need for honest, precise communication about allergenic para‑amines in hair colour products.

Manufacturer recommended 48‑hour Allergy Alert Tests (AATs)

Most oxidative hair colour manufacturers recommend a 48‑hour Allergy Alert Test (AAT) before use. Dermatology literature has discussed these tests critically12, raising several concerns:

  • Standardisation
    Different brands recommend different test sites, allergen doses and exposure times. This lack of standardisation makes AATs difficult to compare or validate across products.
  • Allergen concentration
    Oxidative dye formulations used for AATs can contain PPD concentrations around 2%, which is higher than diagnostic patch‑test preparations used in specialist practice.
  • Frequency of exposure
    Consumers who colour their hair regularly may repeat the AAT several times per year, leading to repeated high‑dose exposure to potent sensitisers, potentially increasing the risk of becoming allergic.
  • Interpretation
    Accurate reading of allergic versus irritant reactions requires training. Untrained consumers can misinterpret redness or itching, resulting in either false reassurance (proceeding despite a reaction) or unnecessary avoidance.
  • Compliance
    In real‑world practice, AATs are not always carried out or documented consistently. Some clients skip them entirely; others may not follow instructions exactly.

These limitations mean that AATs are not equivalent to a standardised, regulated screening tool, and they may themselves carry sensitisation risk13 when used repeatedly with high‑dose dye mixtures.

Why UK salons choose Colourstart over the Allergy Alert Test

While UK salons adopted Colourstart primarily for practical reasons, industry stakeholders should also understand the scientific concerns surrounding manufacturer Allergy Alert Tests:

  • Independent scientific assessment10 has questioned AAT reliability. A 2012 multi-center European dermatology review concluded that manufacturer self-tests have "severe limitations," noting they "have not been validated according to basic criteria defined by scientists"¹⁰ and that test interpretation requires clinical expertise not available in salon settings.
  • In contrast, a standardised system for all professional colour brands makes screening processes uniform, allowing businesses to establish a single approach to allergy screening that can be used to train staff and educate clients, keeping protocols clear, consistent and easy to follow.

From a professional liability perspective, there is also a practical issue around who performs allergy tests. With Colourstart, the client applies the test themselves and, by completing the associated questions, self‑certifies their suitability for colour. This keeps the allergy decision with the client and the licensed medicine, rather than relying on hairdressers to interpret skin reactions, and avoids the additional complexity of the Allergy Alert Test, where irritant reactions to components of the colour formulation 
can be difficult to distinguish from true allergy.

Close-up examples of positive skin reactions identified by consumers using the Colourstart allergy screening system.
Close-up examples of positive skin reactions identified by consumers using the Colourstart allergy screening system.

What this evidence means for professional colour practice

Taken together, the evidence leads to several clear conclusions:

  • PPD is widely recognised as the key marker allergen for oxidative hair‑dye allergy.
  • Cross‑reactivity between PPD and other oxidative dye intermediates (PTD, ME‑PPD, PAP, MAP) is well documented7 in the dermatology literature.
  • Real‑world Colourstart data from more than 58,000 uses show a positive rate (~0.7%) that is consistent with epidemiological estimates of PPD allergy, and adverse events have been extremely infrequent, mild and non‑serious.
  • ASA10 and CTPA11 documents emphasise that “PPD‑free” products containing PPD‑related ingredients may still pose a risk to PPD‑allergic individuals and that such claims can be misleading.
  • Dermatology papers and the European Commission raise questions about the standardisation, dose, frequency and interpretability of manufacturer 48‑hour AATs, particularly when repeated frequently.13

For hairdressers and their stakeholders, this provides the context for using Colourstart as a PPD‑based universal screening test for individuals considering oxidative hair colouring. It offers a regulated, standardised way to screen for relevant allergy across the para‑amine dye family, supports professional duty of care, and can be integrated into salon protocols in place of, or alongside, traditional AATs.

References
  1. Diepgen TL et al. EDEN study, Journal of Investigative Dermatology 2016;136;409-415.
  2. CTPA “PPD‑free?” FAQ, 2024.
  3. Søsted H et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:32–39.
  4. MHRA First allergy test for hair dye to go on general sale. 2019.
  5. Basketter DA, Plunkett N, Andersen KE.Contact Dermatitis, 2022;86:65-85.
  6. Basketter DA, Plunkett N, Andersen KE. Contact Dermatitis,2024;91:53-93.
  7. Basketter DA, English J. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2009;28:104–106.
  8. Pongpairoj, K, McFadden JP, Basketter DA. British Journal of Dermatology,2016;174:957-958.
  9. Schuttelaar ML et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;79:288-294.
  10. ASA ruling, Instituto Naturvita S.L. 2025.
  11. CTPA press release on ASA ruling, 2025
  12. Thyssen JP et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:300–311.
  13. European Commission: Allergy Alert Test (AAT) as a proof-of-concept study, Final Opinion
  14. Orton D, Basketter DA. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:312–316.