Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Allergens from the Standard Series

  • Chapter
Contact Dermatitis

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Wahlberg JE, Elsner P, Kanerva L, Maibach HI (2003) Management of positive patch test reactions. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF (2001) Fisher’s contact dermatitis, 5th edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pa.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kanerva L, Elsner P, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI (2000) Handbook of occupational dermatology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brasch J, Szlinka C, Grabbe J (1997) More positive patch test reactions with larger test chambers? Contact Dermatitis 37:118–120

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Benezra C, Andanson J, Chabeau C, Ducombs G, Foussereau J, Lachapelle JM, Lacroix M, Martin P (1978) Concentrations of patch test allergens: are we comparing the same things? Contact Dermatitis 4:103–105

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cronin E (1972) Clinical prediction of patch test results. Trans St John’s Hosp Dermatol Soc 58:153–162

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Podmore P, Burrows D, Bingham EA (1984) Prediction of patch test results. Contact Dermatitis 11:283–284

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Menné T, Dooms Goossens A, Wahlberg JE, White IR, Shaw S (1992) How large a proportion of contact sensitivities are diagnosed with the European standard series? Contact Dermatitis 26:201–202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruynzeel DP, Andersen KE, Camarasa JG, Lachapelle J-M, Menné T, White IR (1995) The European standard series. European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG). Contact Dermatitis 33:145–148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Isaksson M, Brandao FM, Bruze M, Goossens A (2000) Recommendation to include budesonide and tixocortol pivalate in the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 43:41–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Christophersen J, Menné T, Tanghoj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Thestrup-Pedersen K, Veien NK (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Danish Contact Dermatitis Group. Contact Dermatitis 21:291–299

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wilkinson JD, Hambly EM, Wilkinson DS (1980) Comparison of patch test results in two adjacent areas of England. II. Medicaments. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 60:245–249

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Andersen KE (1998) Multicentre patch test studies: are they worth the effort. Contact Dermatitis 38:222–223

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Grandjean P, Nielsen GD, Andersen O (1989) Human nickel exposure and chemobiokinetics. In: Maibach HI, Menne T (eds) Nickel and the skin: immunology and toxicology. CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., pp 9–34

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE (2002) Nickel sensitization in adolescents and association with ear piercing, use of dental braces and hand eczema. The Odense Adolescence Cohort Study on Atopic Diseases and Dermatitis (TOACS). Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 82:359–364

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nielsen NH, Linneberg A, Menne T, Madsen F, Frolund L, Dirksen A, Jorgensen T (2001) Allergic contact sensitization in an adult Danish population: two cross-sectional surveys eight years apart (the Copenhagen Allergy Study). Acta Derm Venereol 81:31–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Morgan LG, Flint GN (1989) Nickel alloys and coatings: release of nickel. In: Maibach HI, Menne T (eds) Nickel and the skin: immunology and toxicology. CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., pp 45–54

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk PM, Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 37:200–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ (1998) Nickel as an occupational allergen. A survey of 368 nickel-sensitive subjects. Arch Dermatol 134:1231–1236

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shum KW, Meyer JD, Chen Y, Cherry N, Gawkrodger DJ (2003) Occupational contact dermatitis to nickel: experience of the British dermatologists (EPIDERM) and occupational physicians (OPRA) surveillance schemes. Occup Environ Med 60:954–957

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Marks JG Jr, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, Mathias CG, Pratt MD, Rietschel RL, Sherertz EF, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS; North American Contact Dermatitis Group (2003) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermat 14:59–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Larsson-Stymne B, Widström L (1985) Ear piercing — a cause of nickel allergy in schoolgirls? Contact Dermatitis 13:289–293

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Meijer C, Bredberg M, Fischer T, Widstrom L (1995) Ear piercing, and nickel and cobalt sensitization, in 520 young Swedish men doing compulsory military service. Contact Dermatitis 32:147–149

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Calnan CD, Wells GC (1956) Suspender dermatitis and nickel sensitivity. Br Med J (4978):1265–1268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Andersen KE, Hjorth N, Menne T (1984) The baboon syndrome: systemically-induced allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 10:97–100

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jensen CS, Lisby S, Larsen JK, Veien NK, Menne T (2004) Characterization of lymphocyte subpopulations and cytokine profiles in peripheral blood of nickel-sensitive individuals with systemic contact dermatitis after oral nickel exposure. Contact Dermatitis 50:31–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jensen CS, Menne T, Lisby S, Kristiansen J, Veien NK (2003) Experimental systemic contact dermatitis from nickel: a dose-response study. Contact Dermatitis 49:124–132

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Veien N (1989) Systemically induced eczema in adults. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 147:1–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Burrows D (1989) The Prosser White oration 1988. Mischievous metals — chromate, cobalt, nickel and mercury. Clin Exp Dermatol 14:266–272

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Santucci B, Manna F, Cristaudo A, Cannistraci C, Capparella MR, Picardo M (1990) Serum concentrations in nickel-sensitive patients after prolonged oral administration. Contact Dermatitis 22:253–256

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nielsen GD, Jepsen LV, Jorgensen PJ, Grandjean P, Brandrup F (1990) Nickel-sensitive patients with vesicular hand eczema: oral challenge with a diet naturally high in nickel. Br J Dermatol 122:299–308

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nielsen GD, Soderberg U, Jorgensen PJ, Templeton DM, Rasmussen SN, Andersen KE, Grandjean P (1999) Absorption and retention of nickel from drinking water in relation to food intake and nickel sensitivity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 154:67–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilkinson DS, Wilkinson JD (1989) Nickel allergy and hand eczema. In: Maibach HI, Menne T (eds) Nickel and the skin: immunology and toxicology. CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., pp 133–163

    Google Scholar 

  21. Menne T, Holm NV (1983) Hand eczema in nickel-sensitive female twins. Genetic predisposition and environmental factors. Contact Dermatitis 9:289–296

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Menne T, Borgan O, Green A (1982) Nickel allergy and hand dermatitis in a stratified sample of the Danish female population: an epidemiological study including a statistic appendix. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 62:35–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bryld LE, Agner T, Menne T (2003) Relation between vesicular eruptions on the hands and tinea pedis, atopic dermatitis and nickel allergy. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 83:186–188

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bryld LE, Hindsberger C, Kyvik KO, Agner T, Menne T (2003) Risk factors influencing the development of hand eczema in a population-based twin sample. Br J Dermatol 149:1214–1220

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. van der Burg CK, Bruynzeel DP, Vreeburg KJ, von Blomberg BM, Scheper RJ (1986) Hand eczema in hairdressers and nurses: a prospective study. I. Evaluation of atopy and nickel hypersensitivity at the start of apprenticeship. Contact Dermatitis 14:275–279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nilsson EJ, Knutsson A (1995) Atopic dermatitis, nickel sensitivity and xerosis as risk factors for hand eczema in women. Contact Dermatitis 33:401–406

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE (2001) Prevalence of atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergic rhinitis, and hand and contact dermatitis in adolescents. The Odense Adolescence Cohort Study on Atopic Diseases and Dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 144:523–532

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rees JL, Friedmann PS, Matthews JN (1989) Sex differences in susceptibility to development of contact hypersensitivity to dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB). Br J Dermatol 120:371–374

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhai H, Chew AL, Bashir SJ, Reagan KE, Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI (2003) Provocative use test of nickel coins in nickel-sensitized subjects and controls. Br J Dermatol 149:311–317

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Van Hoogstraten IM, Andersen KE, von Blomberg BM, Boden D, Bruynzeel DP, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Dooms-Goossens A, Kraal G, Lahti A (1991) Reduced frequency of nickel allergy upon oral nickel contact at an early age. Clin Exp Immunol 85:441–445

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sjovall P, Christensen OB, Moller H (1987) Oral hyposensitization in nickel allergy. J Am Acad Dermatol 17:774–778

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Thomas RH, Rademaker M, Goddard NJ, Munro DD (1987) Severe eczema of the hands due to an orthopaedic plate made of Vitallium. Br Med J Clin Res Ed 294:106–107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wilkinson JD (1989) Nickel allergy and orthopedic prosthesis. In: Maibach HI, Menne T (eds) Nickel and the skin: immunology and toxicology. CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., pp 187–193

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gawkrodger DJ (2003) Metal sensitivities and orthopaedic implants revisited: the potential for metal allergy with the new metal-on-metal joint prostheses. Br J Dermatol 148:1089–1093

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lammintausta K, Kalimo K (1987) Do positive nickel reactions increase nonspecific patch test reactivity? Contact Dermatitis 16:160–163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Paramsothy Y, Collins M, Smith AG (1988) Contact dermatitis in patients with leg ulcers. The prevalence of late positive reactions and evidence against systemic ampliative allergy. Contact Dermatitis 18:30–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Liden C, Wahlberg JE (1994) Cross-reactivity to metal compounds studied in guinea pigs induced with chromate or cobalt. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 74:341–343

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Moss C, Friedmann PS, Shuster S, Simpson JM (1985) Susceptibility and amplification of sensitivity in contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Immunol 61:232–241

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Lammintausta K, Pitkanen OP, Kalimo K, Jansen CT (1985) Interrelationship of nickel and cobalt contact sensitization. Contact Dermatitis 13:148–152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Moulon C, Vollmer J, Weltzien HU (1995) Characterization of processing requirements and metal cross-reactivities in T cell clones from patients with allergic contact dermatitis to nickel. Eur J Immunol 25:3308–3315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Gamerdinger K, Moulon C, Karp DR, Van Bergen J, Koning F, Wild D, Pflugfelder U, Weltzien HU (2003) A new type of metal recognition by human T cells: contact residues for peptide-independent bridging of T cell receptor and major histocompatibility complex by nickel. J Exp Med 197:1345–1353

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Menne T, Brandup F, Thestrup-Pedersen K, Veien NK, Andersen JR, Yding F, Valeur G (1987) Patch test reactivity to nickel alloys. Contact Dermatitis 16:255–259

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Kanerva L, Sipilainen-Malm T, Estlander T, Zitting A, Jolanki R, Tarvainen K (1994) Nickel release from metals, and a case of allergic contact dermatitis from stainless steel. Contact Dermatitis 31:299–303

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Haudrechy P, Mantout B, Frappaz A, Rousseau D, Chabeau G, Faure M, Claudy A (1997) Nickel release from stainless steels. Contact Dermatitis 37:113–117

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Basketter DA, Angelini G, Ingber A, Kern PS, Menne T (2003) Nickel, chromium and cobalt in consumer products: revisiting safe levels in the new millennium. Contact Dermatitis 49:1–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Johansen JD, Menne T, Christophersen J, Kaaber K, Veien N (2000) Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985–1986 and 1997–1998, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies. Br J Dermatol 142:490–495

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Schnuch A, Geier J, Lessmann H, Uter W (2003) (Decrease in nickel sensitization in young patients-successful intervention through nickel exposure regulation? Results of IVDK, 1992–2001). Hautarzt 54:626–632

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Kieffer M (1979) Nickel sensitivity: relationship between history and patch test reaction. Contact Dermatitis 5:398–401

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Moller H, Svensson A (1986) Metal sensitivity: positive history but negative test indicates atopy. Contact Dermatitis 14:57–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Uter W, Pfahlberg A, Gefeller O, Geier J, Schnuch A (2003) Risk factors for contact allergy to nickel — results of a multifactorial analysis. Contact Dermatitis 48:33–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE (2002) Contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis in adolescents: prevalence measures and associations. The Odense Adolescence Cohort Study on Atopic Diseases and Dermatitis (TOACS). Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 82:352–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Memon AA, Friedmann PS (1996) Studies on the reproducibility of allergic contact dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 134:208–214

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Andersen KE, Liden C, Hansen J, Volund A (1993) Dose-response testing with nickel sulfate using the TRUE test in nickel-sensitive individuals. Multiple nickel sulfate patch-test reactions do not cause an ‘angry back’. Br J Dermatol 129:50–56

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Hindsen M, Bruze M, Christensen OB (1999) Individual variation in nickel patch test reactivity. Am J Contact Dermat 10:62–67

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Fregert S, Rorsman H (1964) Allergy to trivalent chromium. Arch Dermatol 90:4–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Burrows D (1984) The dichromate problem. Int J Dermatol 23:215–220

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Burrows D (1983) Chromium: metabolism and toxicity. CRC, Boca Raton, Fla.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hansen MB, Johansen JD, Menne T (2003) Chromium allergy: significance of both Cr(III) and Cr(VI). Contact Dermatitis 49:206–212

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zachariae CO, Agner T, Menne T (1996) Chromium allergy in consecutive patients in a country where ferrous sulfate has been added to cement since 1981. Contact Dermatitis 35:83–85

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk PM, Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 37:200–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Olsavszky R, Rycroft RJ, White IR, McFadden JP (1998) Contact sensitivity to chromate: comparison at a London contact dermatitis clinic over a 10-year period. Contact Dermatitis 38:329–331

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Avnstorp C (1989) Prevalence of cement eczema in Denmark before and since addition of ferrous sulfate to Danish cement. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 69:151–155

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Avnstorp C (1989) Follow-up of workers from the prefabricated concrete industry after the addition of ferrous sulphate to Danish cement. Contact Dermatitis 20:365–371

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Roto P, Sainio H, Reunala T, Laippala P (1996) Addition of ferrous sulfate to cement and risk of chromium dermatitis among construction workers. Contact Dermatitis 34:43–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Turk K, Rietschel RL (1993) Effect of processing cement to concrete on hexavalent chromium levels. Contact Dermatitis 28:209–211

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Goh CL, Gan SL (1996) Change in cement manufacturing process, a cause for decline in chromate allergy? Contact Dermatitis 34:51–54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wong SS, Chan MT, Gan SL, Ng SK, Goh CL (1998) Occupational chromate allergy in Singapore: a study of 87 patients and a review from 1983 to 1995. Am J Contact Dermat 9:1–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Irvine C, Pugh CE, Hansen EJ, Rycroft RJ (1994) Cement dermatitis in underground workers during construction of the Channel Tunnel. Occup Med Oxf 44:17–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bock M, Schmidt A, Bruckner T, Diepgen TL (2003) Occupational skin disease in the construction industry. Br J Dermatol 149:1165–1171

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Johansen JD, Menne T, Christophersen J, Kaaber K, Veien N (2000) Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985–1986 and 1997–1998, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies. Br J Dermatol 142:490–495

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Burrows D, Adams RM, Flint GN (1999) Metals. In: Adams RM (ed) Occupational skin disease, 3rd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa., pp 395–433

    Google Scholar 

  18. Thormann J, Jespersen NB, Joensen HD (1979) Persistence of contact allergy to chromium. Contact Dermatitis 5:261–264

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lips R, Rast H, Elsner P (1996) Outcome of job change in patients with occupational chromate dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 34:268–271

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fowler JFJ, Kauffman CL, Marks JG Jr, Proctor DM, Fredrick MM, Otani JM, Finley BL, Paustenbach DJ, Nethercott JR (1999) An environmental hazard assessment of low-level dermal exposure to hexavalent chromium in solution among chromium-sensitized volunteers. J Occup Environ Med 41:150–160

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Basketter DA, Angelini G, Ingber A, Kern PS, Menne T (2003) Nickel, chromium and cobalt in consumer products: revisiting safe levels in the new millennium. Contact Dermatitis 49:1–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaaber K, Veien N (1977) The significance of chromate ingestion in patients allergic to chromate. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 57:321–323

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Andersen KE, Burrows D, Cronin E, Dooms Goossens A, Rycroft RJ, White IR (1988) Recommended changes to standard series. Contact Dermatitis 19:389–390

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Burrows D, Andersen KE, Camarasa JG, Dooms-Goossens A, Ducombs G, Lachapelle JM, Menne T, Rycroft RJ, Wahlberg JE, White IR, et al (1989) Trial of 0.5% versus 0.375% potassium dichromate. European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG). Contact Dermatitis 21:351

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Basketter DA, Angelini G, Ingber A, Kern PS, Menne T (2003) Nickel, chromium and cobalt in consumer products: revisiting safe levels in the new millennium. Contact Dermatitis 49:1–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Schafer T, Bohler E, Ruhdorfer S, Weigl L, Wessner D, Filipiak B, Wichmann HE, Ring J (2001) Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy 56:1192–1196

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T, Alanko K, Savela A (2000) Incidence rates of occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by metals. Am J Contact Dermat 11:155–160

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Edman B (1985) Sites of contact dermatitis in relationship to particular allergens. Contact Dermatitis 13:129–135

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Basketter DA, Briatico-Vangosa G, Kaestner W, Lally C, Bontinck WJ (1993) Nickel, cobalt and chromium in consumer products: a role in allergic contact dermatitis? Contact Dermatitis 28:15–25

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wahlberg JE, Liden C (2000) Cross-reactivity patterns of cobalt and nickel studied with repeated open applications (ROATS) to the skin of guinea pigs. Am J Contact Dermat 11:42–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. van Joost T, van Everdingen JJ (1982) Sensitization to cobalt associated with nickel allergy: clinical and statistical studies. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 62:525–529

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rystedt I, Fischer T (1983) Relationship between nickel and cobalt sensitization in hard metal workers. Contact Dermatitis 9:195–200

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Uter W, Ruhl R, Pfahlberg A, Geier J, Schnuch A, Gefeller O (2004) Contact allergy in construction workers: results of a multifactorial analysis. Ann Occup Hyg 48:21–27

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bock M, Schmidt A, Bruckner T, Diepgen TL (2003) Occupational skin disease in the construction industry. Br J Dermatol 149:1165–1171

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nielsen NH, Kristiansen J, Borg L, Christensen JM, Poulsen LK, Menne T (2000) Repeated exposures to cobalt or chromate on the hands of patients with hand eczema and contact allergy to that metal. Contact Dermatitis 43:212–215

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Geier J, Gefeller O, Wiechmann K, Fuchs T (1999) Patch test reactions at D4, D5 and D6. Contact Dermatitis 40:119–126

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Storrs FJ, White CR Jr (2000) False-positive “poral” cobalt patch test reactions reside in the eccrine acrosyringium. Cutis 65:49–53

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Bauer K, Garbe D, Surburg H (1988) Flavors and fragrances In: Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry, Chap 3, vol A 11. VCH, Weinheim, Germany, pp 144–246

    Google Scholar 

  2. Heydorn S, Menne T, Johansen JD (2003) Fragrance allergy and hand eczema — a review. Contact Dermatitis 48:59–66

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. de Groot AC, Frosch PJ (1997) Adverse reactions to fragrances: a clinical review. Contact Dermatitis 36:57–86

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Larsen WG (1994) Perfumes. In: Baran R, Maibach HI (eds) Cosmetic dermatology. Dunitz, London, pp 21–26

    Google Scholar 

  5. Larsen WG (1977) Perfume dermatitis. A study of 20 patients. Arch Dermatol 113:623–627

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Johansen JD, Menné T (1995) The fragrance mix and its constituents: a 14-year material. Contact Dermatitis 32:18–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Marks JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, Mathias CG, Nethercott JR, Rietschel RL, Sherertz EF, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS (1998) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol 38:911–918

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Katsarou A, Kalogeromitros D, Armenaka M, Koufou V, Davou E, Koumantaki E (1997) Trends in the results of patch testing to standard allergens over the period 1984–1995. Contact Dermatitis 37:245–246

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Buckley DA, Rycroft RJ, White IR, McFadden JP (2003) The frequency of fragrance allergy in patch-tested patients increases with their age. Br J Dermatol 149:986–989

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen KE, Menné T (1997) Patch testing with markers of fragrance contact allergy. Do clinical tests correspond to patients’ self-reported problems? Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 77:149–153

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Contact allergy to popular perfumes; assessed by patch test, use test and chemical analysis. Br J Dermatol 135:419–422

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Frosch P, Dreier B, Lepoittevin JP, White IR, Menné T (1998) Deodorants: a clinical provocation study in fragrance-sensitive patients. Contact Dermatitis 39:161–165

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Frosch PJ, Pilz B, Andersen KE, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Dooms-Goossens A, Ducombs G, Fuchs T, Hannuksela M, Lachapelle JM et al. (1995) Patch testing with fragrances: results of a multicenter study of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group with 48 frequently used constituents of perfumes. Contact Dermatitis 33:333–342

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch PJ, Burrows D, Jordan W, Shaw S, Wilkinson J, Marks J Jr, Sugawara M, Nethercott M, Nethercott J (1998) A study of a new fragrance mix. Am J Contact Dermat 9:202–206

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Frosch PJ, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Svedman C, Goossens A, White IR, Uter W, Arnau EG, Lepoittevin JP, Menné T, Johansen JD (2005) Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 52:201–215

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johansen JD, Skov L, Vølund AA, Andersen KE, Menné T (1998) Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: a study of fragrance-sensitized individuals. Br J Dermatol 139:264–270

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Goossens A, Merckx L (1997) Allergic contact dermatitis from farnesol in a deodorant. Contact Dermatitis 37:179–180

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hausen BM (2001) Contact allergy to balsam of Peru. II. Patch test results in 102 patients with selected balsam of Peru constituents. Am J Contact Dermat 12:93–102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hjorth N (1961) Eczematous allergy to balsams, allied perfumes and flavouring agents. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  4. Christophersen J, Menné T, Tanghoj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Thestrup-Pedersen K, Veien NK (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21:291–297

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Buckley DA, Wakelin SH, Seed PT, Holloway D, Rycroft RJ, White IR, McFadden JP (2000) The frequency of fragrance allergy in a patch-test population over a 17-year period. Br J Dermatol 142:279–283

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen KE, Menné T (1997) Patch testing with markers of fragrance contact allergy. Do clinical tests correspond to patients’ self-reported problems? Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 77:149–153

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Machet L, Couhe C, Perrinaud A, Hoarau C, Lorette G, Vaillant L (2004) A high prevalence of sensitization still persists in leg ulcer patients: a retrospective series of 106 patients tested between 2001 and 2002 and a meta-analysis of 1975–2003 data. Br J Dermatol 150:929–935

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Veien N (1989) Systemically induced eczema in adults. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 147:1–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Niinimaki A (1995) Double-blind placebo-controlled peroral challenges in patients with delayed-type allergy to balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 33:78–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Salam TN, Fowler JF Jr (2001) Balsam-related systemic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 45:377–381

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Pfutzner W, Thomas P, Niedermeier A, Pfeiffer C, Sander C, Przybilla B (2003) Systemic contact dermatitis elicited by oral intake of Balsam of Peru. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 83:294–295

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Downs AMR, Sansom JE (1999) Colophony allergy: a review. Contact Dermatitis 41:305–310

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bruynzeel DP, Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, Goosssens A, Lahti A, Mahler V, Maibach HI, Menné T, Wilkinson JD (2005) Monitoring the European Standard series in 10 centres: 1996–2000. Contact Dermatitis (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kuno Y, Kato M (2001) Photosensitivity from colophony in a case of chronic actinic dermatitis associated with contact allergy from colophony. Acta Derm Venereol 81:442–443

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hjorth N (1961) Eczematous allergy to balsams, allied perfumes and flavouring agents. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  5. Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruynzeel DP, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lahti A, Menné T, Shaw S, Tosti A, Wahlberg JE, Wilkinson JD, Wrängsjö K (1999) Routine patch testing with the sesquiterpene lactone mix in Europe: a 2-year experience. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 40:72–76

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wöhrl S, Hemmer W, Focke M, Götz M, Jarisch R (2001) The significance of fragrance mix, balsam of Peru, colophony and propolis as screening tools in the detection of fragrance allergy. Br J Dermatol 145:268–273

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lepoittevin J-P, Meschkat E, Huygens S, Goossens A (2000) Presence of resin acids in “Oakmoss” patch test material: a source of misdiagnosis? J Invest Dermatol 115:129–130

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Reichert-Pénétrat S, Barbaud A, Pénétrat E, Granel F, Schmutz JL (2001) Allergic contact dermatitis from surgical paints. Contact Dermatitis 45:116–117

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Li LF, Wang J (2002) Patch testing in allergic contact dermatitis caused by topical Chinese herbal medicine. Contact Dermatitis 47:166–168

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Saha M, Srinivas CR, Shenoy SD, Balachandrar C, Acharya S (1993) Footwear dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 28:260–264

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lyon CC, Tucker SC, Gäfvert E, Karlberg A-T, Beck MH (1999) Contact dermatitis from modified rosin in footwear. Contact Dermatitis 41:102–103

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Strauss RM, Wilkinson SH (2002) Shoe dermatitis due to colophonium used as leather tanning or finishing agent in Portuguese shoes. Contact Dermatitis 47:59

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lange-Ionescu S, Bruze M, Gruvberger B, Zimerson E, Frosch P (2000) Kontaktallergie durch kohlefreies Durchschlagpapier. Dermatosen Beruf Umwelt 48:183–187

    Google Scholar 

  14. Karlberg AT, Magnusson K (1996) Rosin components identified in diapers. Contact Dermatitis 34:176–180

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kanerva L, Rintala H, Henriks-Eckerman K, Engström K (2001) Colophonium in sanitary pads. Contact Dermatitis 44:59–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Färm G (1996) Contact allergy to colophony and hand eczema. A follow-up study of patients with previously diagnosed contact allergy to colophony. Contact Dermatitis 34:93–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Karlberg AT, Gäfvert E, Meding B, Stenberg B (1996) Airborne contact dermatitis from unexpected exposure to rosin (colophony). Rosin sources revealed with chemical analyses. Contact Dermatitis 35:272–278

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kumar A, Freeman S (1999) Leukoderma following occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 41:94–98

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Corazza M, Borghi A, Virgili A (2004) A medicolegal controversy due to a hidden allergen in cutting oils. Contact Dermatitis 50:254–255

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Agarwal S, Gawkrodger DJ (2002) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis to silver and colophonium in a jeweler. Am J Contact Dermatitis 13:74

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Karlberg AT, Boman A, Nilsson JLG (1988) Hydrogenation reduces the allergenicity of colophony. Contact Dermatitis 19:22–29

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Karlberg A-T, Gäfvert E (1996) Isolated colophony allergens as screening substances for contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 35:201–207

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sadhra S, Foulds IS, Gray CN (1998) Oxidation of resin acids in colophony (rosin) and its implications for patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 39:58–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gäfvert E, Bordalo O, Karlberg A-T (1996) Patch testing with allergens from modified rosin (colophony) discloses additional cases of contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 35:290–298

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hausen BM, Mohnert J (1989) Contact allergy due to colophony. (V) Patch test results with different types of colophony and modified-colophony products. Contact Dermatitis 20:295–301

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Goossens A, Armingaud P, Avenel-Audran M, Begon-Bagdassarian I, Constandt L, Giordano-Labadie F, Girardin P, Le Coz CJ, Milpied-Homsi B, Nootens C, Pecquet C, Tennstedt D, Vanhecke E (2002) An epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis due to epilating products. Contact Dermatitis 47:67–70

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk, PM Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 37:200–209

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bruynzeel DP, Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, Goosssens A, Lahti A, Mahler V, Maibach HI, Menné T, Wilkinson JD (2004) Monitoring the European Standard series in 10 centres: 1996–2000. Contact Dermatitis (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Edman B, Möller H (1982) Trends and forecasts for standard allergens in a 12-year patch test material. Contact Dermatitis 8:95–104

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gollhausen R, Enders F, Przybilla B, Burg G, Ring J (1988) Trends in allergic contact sensitization. Contact Dermatitis 18:147–154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. van Ginkel CJ, Bruintjes TD, Huizing EH (1995) Allergy due to topical medications in chronic otitis externa and chronic otitis media. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 20:326–328

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hillen U, Geier J, Goos M (2000) Kontaktallergien bei Patienten mit Ekzemen des äußeren Gehörgangs. Hautarzt 51:239–243

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bjarnason B, Flosadöttir E (2000) Patch testing with neomycin sulfate. Contact Dermatitis 43:295–302

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kimura M, Kawada A (1998) Contact sensitivity induced by neomycin with cross-sensitivity to other aminoglycoside antibiotics. Contact Dermatitis 39:148–150

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Placucci F, Lorenzi S, La Placa M, Vincenzi C (1996) Sensitization to benzocaine on a condom. Contact Dermatitis 34:293

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bruynzeel DP, Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, Goosssens A, Lahti A, Mahler V, Maibach HI, Menné T, Wilkinson JD (2004) Monitoring the European Standard series in 10 centres: 1996–2000. Contact Dermatitis (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sidhu SK, Shaw S, Wilkinson J (1999) A 10-year retrospective study on benzocaine allergy in the United Kingdom. Am J Contact Dermat 10:57–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilkinson JD, Andersen KE, Lahti A, Rycroft RJG, Shaw S, White I (1990) Preliminary patch testing with 25% and 15% “caine” mixes. The EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 22:244–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Beck MH, Holden A (1988) Benzocaine — an unsatisfactory indicator of topical local anaesthetic sensitization for the UK. Br J Dermatol 118:91–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. van Ketel WG, Bruynzeel DP (1991) A “forgotten” topical anaesthetic sensitizer: butyl aminobenzoate. Contact Dermatitis 25:131–132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Agner T, Menné T (1993) Sensitivity to clioquinol and chlorquinaldol in the quinoline mix. Contact Dermatitis 29:163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, UK, p 219

    Google Scholar 

  3. Goh CL, Ling R (1998) A retrospective epidemiology study of contact eczema among the elderly attending a tertiary dermatology referral centre in Singapore. Singapore Med J 39:442–446

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Ginkel CJ, Bruintjes TD, Huizing EH (1995) Allergy due to topical medications in chronic otitis externa and chronic otitis media. Clin Otolaryngol 20:326–328

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morris SD, Rycroft RJ, Wakelin SH, McFadden JP (2002). Comparative frequency of patch test reactions to topical antibiotics. Br J Dermatol 146:1047–1051

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ekelund A, Möller H (1969) Oral provocation in eczematous contact allergy to neomycin and hydroxy-quinolines. Act Derm Verereol (Stockh) 49:422–426

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Skog E (1975) Systemic eczematous contact-type dermatitis induced by iodochlorhydroxyquin and chloroquine phosphate. Contact Dermatitis 1:187

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Silvestre JF, Alfonso R, Moragón M, Ramón R, Botella R (1998) Systemic contact dermatitis due to norfloxacin with a positive patch test to quinoline mix. Contact Dermatitis 39:83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Janier M, Vignon MD (1995) Recurrent fixed drug eruption due to clioquinol. Br J Dermatol 133:1013–1034

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Simpson JR (1974) Reversed cross-sensitisation between quinine and iodochlorhydroxyquinoline. Contact Dermatitis Newslett 15:431

    Google Scholar 

  11. Katsarou A, Armenaka M, Ale I, Koufou V, Kalogeromitros D (1999) Frequency of immediate reactions to the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 41:276–279

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Allenby CF (1965) Skin sensitisation to Remederm and cross-sensitisation to hydroxyquinoline compounds. Br Med J ii:208–209

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kero M, Hannuksela M, Sothman A (1979) Primary irritant dermatitis from topical clioquinol. Contact Dermatitis 5:115–117

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Beck MH, Wilkinson SM (1994) A distinctive irritant contact reaction to Vioform (clioquinol). Contact Dermatitis 31:54–55

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk PM, Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 37:200–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bruynzeel DP, Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, Goosssens A, Lahti A, Mahler V, Maibach HI, Menné T, Wilkinson JD (2005) Monitoring the European Standard series in 10 centres: 1996–2000. Contact Dermatitis (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kligman AM (1983) Lanolin allergy: crisis or comedy. Contact Dermatitis 9: 99–107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Breit R, Bandmann HJ (1973) Contact dermatitis XXII Dermatitis from lanolin. Br J Dermatol 88:414–416

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kligman AM (1998) The myth of lanolin allergy. Contact Dermatitis 39:103–107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wakelin SH, Smith H, White IR, Rycroft RJG, McFadden JP (2001) A retrospective analysis of contact allergy to lanolin. Br J Dermatol 145:28–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gallenkemper G, Rabe E, Bauer R (1998) Contact sensitization in chronic venous insufficiency: modern wound dressings. Contact Dermatitis 38:274–278

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Carmichael AJ, Foulds IS, Bransbury DS (1991) Loss of lanolin patch-test positivity. Br J Dermatol 125:573–576

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Matthieu L, Dockx P (1997) Discrepancy in patch test results with wool wax alcohols and Amerchol-L101. Contact Dermatitis 36:150–151

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Clark EW, Blondeel A, Cronin E, Oleffe JA, Wilkinson DS (1981) Lanolin of reduced sensitizing potential. Contact Dermatitis 7:80–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Edman B, Moller H (1989) Testing a purified lanolin preparation by a randomized procedure. Contact Dermatitis 20:287–290

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Rastogi SC, Schouten A, de Kruijf N, Weijland JW (1995) Contents of methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, butyl-and benzylparaben in cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis 32:28–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Harvey PW, Everett DJ (2004) Significance of the detection of esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid (parabens) in human breast tumours. J Appl Toxicol 24:1–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Menné T, Hjorth N (1988) Routine patch testing with paraben esters. Contact Dermatitis 19:189–191

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ (1998) Patch testing with preservatives, antimicrobials and industrial biocides. Results from a multicentre study. Br J Dermatol 138:467–476

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jacobs MC, White IR, Rycroft RJ, Taub N (1995) Patch testing with preservatives at St John’s from 1982 to 1993. Contact Dermatitis 33:247–254

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, Bruynzeel DP, Bruze M, Camarasa JM, Diepgen TL, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lachappelle JM, Lahti A, Menne T, Seidenari S, Tosti A, Wahlberg JE (2002) Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10-year overview (1991–2000). Contact Dermatitis 46:207–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Andersen KE, Volund A, Frankild S (1995) The guinea pig maximization test — with a multiple dose design. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 75:463–469

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fisher AA, Pascher F, Kanof NB (1971) Allergic contact dermatitis due to ingredients of vehicles. A “vehicle tray” for patch testing. Arch Dermatol 104:286–290

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gallenkemper G, Rabe E, Bauer R (1998) Contact sensitization in chronic venous insufficiency: modern wound dressings. Contact Dermatitis 38:274–278

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Praditsuwan P, Taylor JS, Roenigk HH Jr (1995) Allergy to Unna boots in four patients. J Am Acad Dermatol 33:906–908

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher AA (1973) The paraben paradox. Cutis 12:830–832

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher AA (1979) Paraben dermatitis due to a new medicated bandage: the “paraben paradox”. Contact Dermatitis 5:273–274

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schorr WF (1968) Paraben allergy. A cause of intractable dermatitis. JAMA 204:859–862

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hjorth N, Trolle-Lassen C (1963) Skin reactions to ointment bases. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc 49:127–140

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Maucher OM (1974) Beitrag zur Kreuz-oder Kopplingsallergie zur parahydroxybenzoe-säure-ester. Berufsdermatosen 22:183–187

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fisher AA (1975) Letter: Paraben-induced dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 111:657–658

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Carradori S, Peluso AM, Faccioli M (1990) Systemic contact dermatitis due to parabens. Contact Dermatitis 22:238–239

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Veien NK, Hattel T, Laurberg G (1996) Oral challenge with parabens in paraben-sensitive patients. Contact Dermatitis 34:433

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Henry JC, Tschen EH, Becker LE (1979) Contact urticaria to parabens. Arch Dermatol 115:1231–1232

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nagel JE, Fuscaldo JT, Fireman P (1977) Paraben allergy. JAMA 237: 1594–1595

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Flyvholm MA, Menne T (1992) Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde. A case study focussing on sources of formaldehyde exposure. Contact Dermatitis 27:27–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Feinman SE (1988) Formaldehyde sensitivity and toxicity. CRC, Boca Raton, Fla.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Karlberg AT, Skare L, Lindberg I, Nyhammar E (1998) A method for quantification of formaldehyde in the presence of formaldehyde donors in skin-care products. Contact Dermatitis 38:20–28

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Adams RM, Fisher AA (1986) Contact allergen alternatives: 1986. J Am Acad Dermatol 14:951–969

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Scheman AJ, Carroll PA, Brown KH, Osburn AH (1998) Formaldehyde-related textile allergy: an update. Contact Dermatitis 38:332–336

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ford GP, Beck MH (1986) Reactions to Quaternium-15, Bronopol and Germall 115 in a standard series. Contact Dermatitis 14:271–274

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. de Groot AC, van Joost T, Bos JD, van der Meeren HL, Weyland JW (1988) Patch test reactivity to DMDM hydantoin. Relationship to formaldehyde allergy. Contact Dermatitis 18:197–201

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Storrs FJ, Bell DE (1983) Allergic contact dermatitis to 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol in a hydrophilic ointment. J Am Acad Dermatol 8:157–170

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kranke B, Szolar-Platzer C, Aberer W (1996) Reactions to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers in a standard series. Contact Dermatitis 35:192–193

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jacobs MC, White IR, Rycroft RJ, Taub N (1995) Patch testing with preservatives at St John’s from 1982 to 1993. Contact Dermatitis 33:247–254

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Christophersen J, Menne T, Tanghoj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Thestrup-Pedersen K, Veien NK (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Danish Contact Dermatitis Group. Contact Dermatitis 21:291–299

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk PM, Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 37:200–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, Bruynzeel DP, Bruze M, Camarasa JM, Diepgen TL, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lachappelle JM, Lahti A, Menne T, Seidenari S, Tosti A, Wahlberg JE (2002) Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10-year overview (1991–2000). Contact Dermatitis 46:207–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Uter W, Geier J, Land M, Pfahlberg A, Gefeller O, Schnuch A (2001) Another look at seasonal variation in patch test results. A multifactorial analysis of surveillance data of the IVDK. Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Contact Dermatitis 44:146–152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kang KM, Corey G, Storrs FJ (1995) Follow-up study of patients allergic to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers: retention of information, compliance, course, and persistence of allergy. Am J Contact Dermat 6:209–215

    Google Scholar 

  16. Flyvholm MA, Hall BM, Agner T, Tiedemann E, Greenhill P, Vanderveken W, Freeberg FE, Menne T (1997) Threshold for occluded formaldehyde patch test in formaldehyde-sensitive patients. Relationship to repeated open application test with a product containing formaldehyde releaser. Contact Dermatitis 36:26–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jordan WP Jr, Sherman WT, King SE (1979) Threshold responses in formaldehyde-sensitive subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol 1:44–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Agner T, Flyvholm MA, Menne T (1999) Formaldehyde allergy: a follow-up study. Am J Contact Dermat 10:12–17

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Maurice F, Rivory JP, Larsson PH, Johansson SG, Bousquet J (1986) Anaphylactic shock caused by formaldehyde in a patient undergoing long-term hemodialysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 77:594–597

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Orlandini A, Viotti G, Magno L (1988) Anaphylactoid reaction induced by patch testing with formaldehyde in an asthmatic. Contact Dermatitis 19:383–384

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Andersen KE, Maibach HI (1984) Multiple application delayed onset contact urticaria: possible relation to certain unusual formalin and textile reactions? Contact Dermatitis 10:227–234

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Fiedler HP (1983) Formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers (in German). Derm Beruf Umwelt 31:187–189

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Trattner A, Johansen JD, Menne T (1998) Formaldehyde concentration in diagnostic patch testing: comparison of 1% with 2%. Contact Dermatitis 38:9–13

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Anonymous (1997) International cosmetic ingredients dictionary and handbook, 7th edn. The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dickel H, Taylor JS, Bickers DR, Merk HF, Bruckner TM (2003) Multiple patch-test reactions: a pilot evaluation of a combination approach to visualize patterns of multiple sensitivity in patch-test databases and a proposal for a multiple sensitivity index. Am J Contact Dermat 14:148–153

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Storrs FJ, Bell DE (1983) Allergic contact dermatitis to 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol in a hydrophilic ointment. J Am Acad Dermatol 8:157–170

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. de Groot AC, van Joost T, Bos JD, van der Meeren HL, Weyland JW (1988) Patch test reactivity to DMDM hydantoin. Relationship to formaldehyde allergy. Contact Dermatitis 18:197–201

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kranke B, Szolar-Platzer C, Aberer W (1996) Reactions to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers in a standard series. Contact Dermatitis 35:192–193

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Maouad M, Fleischer AB Jr, Sherertz EF, Feldman SR (1999) Significance-prevalence index number: a reinterpretation and enhancement of data from the North American contact dermatitis group. J Am Acad Dermatol 41:573–576

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kang KM, Corey G, Storrs FJ (1995) Follow-up study of patients allergic to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers: retention of information, compliance, course, and persistence of allergy. Am J Contact Dermat 6:209–215

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jordan WP Jr, Sherman WT, King SE (1979) Threshold responses in formaldehyde-sensitive subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol 1:44–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Boffa MJ, Beck MH (1996) Allergic contact dermatitis from quaternium-15 in Oilatum cream. Contact Dermatitis 35:45–46

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tosti A, Piraccini BM, Bardazzi F (1990) Occupational contact dermatitis due to quaternium-15. Contact Dermatitis 23:41–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Marren P, de Berker D, Dawber RP, Powell S (1991) Occupational contact dermatitis due to quaternium-15 presenting as nail dystrophy. Contact Dermatitis 25:253–255

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Finch TM, Prais L, Foulds IS (2001) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from quaternium-15 in an electroencephalography skin preparation gel. Contact Dermatitis 44:44–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zina AM, Fanan E, Bundino S (2000) Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde and quaternium-15 in photocopier toner. Contact Dermatitis 43:241–242

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Perrenoud D, Bircher A, Hunziker T, Suter H, Bruckner-Tuderman L, Stager J, Thurlimann W, Schmid P, Suard A, Hunziker N (1994) Frequency of sensitization to 13 common preservatives in Switzerland. Swiss Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis 30:276–279

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jacobs MC, White IR, Rycroft RJ, Taub N (1995) Patch testing with preservatives at St John’s from 1982 to 1993. Contact Dermatitis 33:247–254

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ (1998) Patch testing with preservatives, antimicrobials and industrial biocides. Results from a multicentre study. Br J Dermatol 138:467–476

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, Bruynzeel DP, Bruze M, Camarasa JM, Diepgen TL, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lachappelle JM, Lahti A, Menne T, Seidenari S, Tosti A, Wahlberg JE (2002) Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10-year overview (1991–2000). Contact Dermatitis 46:207–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. de Groot AC, Weyland JW (1988) Kathon CG: a review. J Am Acad Dermatol 18:350–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Burden AD, O’Driscoll JB, Page FC, Beck MH (1994) Contact hypersensitivity to a new isothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis 30:179–180

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mathias CG, Andersen KE, Hamann K (1983) Allergic contact dermatitis from 2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one, a paint mildewcide. Contact Dermatitis 9:507–509

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bjorkner B, Bruze M, Dahlquist I, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Persson K (1986) Contact allergy to the preservative Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 14:85–90

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rastogi SC (1990) Kathon CG and cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis 22:155–160

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nielsen H (1994) Occupational exposure to isothiazolinones. A study based on a product register. Contact Dermatitis 31:18–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Andersen KE, Volund A, Frankild S (1995) The guinea pig maximization test — with a multiple dose design. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 75:463–469

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cronin E, Hannuksela M, Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI, Malten K, Meneghini CL (1988) Frequency of sensitisation to the preservative Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 18:274–279

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruze M, Dahlquist I, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Persson K (1987) Contact allergy to the active ingredients of Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 16:183–188

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, Bruynzeel DP, Bruze M, Camarasa JM, Diepgen TL, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lachappelle JM, Lahti A, Menne T, Seidenari S, Tosti A, Wahlberg JE (2002) Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10-year overview (1991–2000). Contact Dermatitis 46:207–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. de Groot AC (1997) Vesicular dermatitis of the hands secondary to perianal allergic contact dermatitis caused by preservatives in moistened toilet tissues. Contact Dermatitis 36:173–174

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gebhardt M, Looks A, Hipler UC (1997) Urticaria caused by type IV sensitization to isothiazolinones. Contact Dermatitis 36:314

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schubert H (1997) Airborne contact dermatitis due to methylchloro-and methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI). Contact Dermatitis 36:274 med

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bohn S, Niederer M, Brehm K, Bircher AJ (2000) Airborne contact dermatitis from methylchloroisothiazolinone in wall paint. Abolition of symptoms by chemical allergen inactivation. Contact Dermatitis 42:196–201

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Finkbeiner H, Kleinhans D (1994) Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by preservatives in home-decorating paints. Contact Dermatitis 31:275–276

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Frosch PJ, Lahti A, Hannuksela M, Andersen KE, Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Lachapelle JM (1995) Chloromethylisothiazolone/methylisothiazolone (CMI/MI) use test with a shampoo on patch-test-positive subjects. Results of a multicentre double-blind crossover trial. Contact Dermatitis 32:210–217

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Farm G, Wahlberg JE (1991) Isothiazolinones (MCI/MI): 200 ppm versus 100 ppm in the standard series. Contact Dermatitis 25:104–107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gruvberger B, Bruze M (1998) Can chemical burns and allergic contact dermatitis from higher concentrations of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone be prevented? Am J Contact Dermat 9:11–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Geier J, Schnuch A (1996) No cross-sensitization between MCI/MI, benzisothiazolinone and octylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis 34:148–149

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Guerra L, Bardazzi F, Tosti A (1992) Contact dermatitis in hairdressers’ clients. Contact Dermatitis 26:108–111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Holness DL, Nethercott JR (1990) Epicutaneous testing results in hairdressers. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1:224–234

    Google Scholar 

  3. Frosch PJ, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Dooms-Goossens A, Ducombs G, Lahti A, Menné T, Rycroft RJG, Shaw S, White I, Wilkinson JD (1993) Allergic reactions to a hairdressers’ series: results from 9 European centres. Contact Dermatitis 28:180–183

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk PM, Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 37:200–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sharma VK, Chakrabarti A (1998) Common contact sensitizers in Chandigarh, India. Contact Dermatitis 38:127–131

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Uter W, Lessmann H, Geier J, Schnuch A (2003) Contact allergy to ingredients of hair cosmetics in female hairdressers and clients — an 8-year analysis of IVDK data. Contact Dermatitis 49:236–240

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fautz R, Fuchs A, van der Walle H, Henny V, Smits L (2002) Hair dye-sensitized hairdressers: the cross-reaction pattern with new generation hair dyes. Contact Dermatitis 46:319–324

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sosted H, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE, Johansen JD, Menne T (2004) Hair dye contact allergy: quantitative exposure assessment of selected products and clinical cases. Contact Dermatitis 50:344–348

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sosted H, Agner T, Andersen KE, Menne T (2002) 55 cases of allergic reactions to hair dye: a descriptive, consumer complaint-based study. Contact Dermatitis 47:299–303

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wakelin SH, Creamer D, Rycroft RJG, White IR, McFadden JP (1998) Contact dermatitis from paraphenylenediamine used as a skin paint. Contact Dermatitis 39:92–93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nawaf AM, Joshi A, Nour-Eldin O (2003) Acute allergic contact dermatitis due to para-phenylenediamine after temporary henna painting. J Dermatol 30:797–800

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McFadden JP, Wakelin SH, Holloway DB, Basketter DA (1998) The effect of patch duration on elicitation of paraphenylenediamine contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 39:79–81

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Herve-Bazin B, Gradiski D, Duprat P, Marignac B, Foussereau J, Cavelier C, Bieber P (1977) Occupational eczema from N-isopropyl-N’-phenyl-paraphenylenediamine (IPPD) and N-dimethyl-1,3-butyl-N’-phenylparaphenylenediamine (DMPPD) in tyres. Contact Dermatitis 3:1–15

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, UK, p 137

    Google Scholar 

  15. Seidenari S, Mantovani L, Manzini BM, Pignatti M (1997) Cross-sensitizations between azo dyes and para-amino compound. A study of 236 azo-dye-sensitive subjects. Contact Dermatitis 36:91–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Goon AT, Gilmour NJ, Basketter DA, White IR, Rycroft RJ, McFadden JP (2003) High frequency of simultaneous sensitivity to Disperse Orange 3 in patients with positive patch tests to para-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 48:248–250

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Picardo M, Cannistraci C, Cristaudo A, De Luca C, Santucci B (1990) Study on cross-reactivity to the para group. Dermatologica 181:104–108

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Edwards EK Jr, Edwards EK (1984) Contact urticaria and allergic contact dermatitis caused by paraphenylenediamine. Cutis 34:87–88

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wong GA, King CM (2003) Immediate-type hypersensitivity and allergic contact dermatitis due to para-phenylenediamine in hair dye. Contact Dermatitis 48:166

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Andersen KE, Burrows D, Cronin E, Dooms-Goossens A, Rycroft RJG, White IR (1988) Recommended changes to standard series. Contact Dermatitis 19:389–390

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, UK, pp 716–745

    Google Scholar 

  2. Estlander T, Jolanki R, Kanerva L (1994) Allergic contact dermatitis from rubber and plastic gloves. In: Mellström G, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI (eds) Protective gloves for occupational use. CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., pp 221–240

    Google Scholar 

  3. Geier J, Lessmann H, Uter W, Schnuch A (2003) Occupational rubber glove allergy: results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 1995–2001. Contact Dermatitis 48:39–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nettis E, Assennato G, Ferrannini A, Tursi A (2002) Type I allergy to natural rubber latex and type IV allergy to rubber chemicals in health care workers with glove-related skin symptoms. Clin Exp Allergy 32:441–447

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gibbon KL, McFadden JP, Rycroft RJ, Ross JS, White IR (2001) Changing frequency of thiuram allergy in healthcare workers with hand dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 144:347–350

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Knudsen BB, Larsen E, Egsgaard H, Menné T (1993) Release of thiurams and carbamates from rubber gloves. Contact Dermatitis 28:63–69

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cockayne SE, Shah M, Messenger AG, Gawkrodger DJ (1998) Foot dermatitis in children: causative allergens and follow-up. Contact Dermatitis 38:203–206

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Conde-Salazar L, del-Rio E, Guimaraens D, Gonzalez Domingo A (1993) Type IV allergy to rubber additives: a 10-year study of 686 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol 29:176–180

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Frosch PJ, Born CM, Schultz R (1987) Kontaktallergien auf Gumini-, Operations-und Vinylhandschuhe. Hautarzt 38:210–217

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gold S (1966) A skinful of alcohol. Lancet 2:1417

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stole D, King LE Jr (1980) Disulfiram-alcohol skin reaction to beer-containing shampoo. J Am Med Assoc 244:2045

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rebandel P, Rudzki E (1996) Secondary contact sensitivity to TMTD in patients primarily positive to TETD. Contact Dermatitis 35:48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaaber K, Menné T, Veien N, Hougaard P (1983) Treatment of dermatitis with Antabuse; a double blind study. Contact Dermatitis 9:297–299

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gamboa P. Jauregui I, Urrutia I, Antepara I, Peralta C (1993) Disulfiram-induced recall of nickel dermatitis in chronic alcoholism. Contact Dermatitis 28:255

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. van Hecke E, Vermander F (1984) Allergic contact dermatitis by oral disulfiram. Contact Dermatitis 10:254

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Andersen KE, Burrows D, Cronin E, Dooms-Goossens A, Rycroft RJG, White IR (1988) Recommended changes to the standard series. Contact Dermatitis 19:389–390

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Logan RA, White JR (1988) Carbamix is redundant in the patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 18:303–304

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Holness DL, Nethercott JR (1997) Results of patch testing with a special series of rubber allergens. Contact Dermatitis 36:207–211

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Geier J, Gefeller O (1995) Sensitivity of patch tests with rubber mixes. Results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology from 1990 to 1993. Am J Contact Dermatitis 6:143–149

    Google Scholar 

References

  1. Fregert S (1969) Cross-sensitivity pattern of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT). Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 49:45–48

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, UK, pp 734–735

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mancuso G, Reggiani M, Berdondini RM (1996) Occupational dermatitis in shoemakers. Contact Dermatitis 34:17–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Condè-Salazar L, Llinas Volpe MG, Guimaraens D, Romero L (1988) Allergic contact dermatitis from a suction socket prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 19:305–306

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maibach HI (1996) Possible cosmetic dermatitis due to mercaptobenzothiazole. Contact Dermatitis 34:72

    Google Scholar 

  6. Taylor JS (1986) Rubber. In: Fisher AA (ed) Contact dermatitis, 3rd edn. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, Pa., p 623

    Google Scholar 

  7. Andersen KE, Burrows D, Cronin E, Dooms-Goossens A, Rycroft RJG, White IR (1988) Recommended changes to standard series. Contact Dermatitis 5:389–390

    Google Scholar 

  8. Geier J, Uter W, Schnuch A, Brasch J; German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG); Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) (2002) Diagnostic screening for contact allergy to mercaptobenzothiazole derivatives. Am J Contact Dermat 13:66–70

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hansson C, Agrup G (1993) Stability of the mercaptobenzothiazole compounds. Contact Dermatitis 28:29–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Menné T, White IR, Bruynzeel DP, Goossens A (1992) Patch test reactivity to the PPD-black-rubber-mix (industrial rubber chemicals) and individual ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 26:354

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher AA (1991) The significance of a positive reaction to the “black rubber mix”. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2:141–142

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bieber MP, Foussereau J (1968) Role de deux amines aromatiques dans l’allergie au caoutchouc; PBN et 4010 NA, amines anti-oxydantes dans l’industrie du pneu. Bull Soc Franc Dermatol Syphilogr 75:63–67

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hansson C (1994) Allergic contact dermatitis from N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine and from compounds in polymerized 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,2-dihydroquinoline. Contact Dermatitis 30:114–115

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Herve-Bazin B, Gradiski D, Marignac B, Foussereau J (1977) Occupational eczema from N-isopropyl-N′-phenylparaphenylenediamine (IPPD) and N-dimethyl-1,3-butyl-N′-phenylparaphenylenediamine (DMPPD) in tyres. Contact Dermatitis 3:1–15

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. White IR (1988) Dermatitis in rubber manufacturing industries. Dermatol Clin 6:53–59

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Uter W, Ruhl R, Pfahlberg A, Geier J, Schnuch A, Gefeller O. (2004) Contact allergy in construction workers: results of a multifactorial analysis. Ann Occup Hyg 48:21–27

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rademaker M (1998) Occupational contact dermatitis among New Zealand farmers. Australas J Dermatol 39:164–167

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Tuyp E, Mitchell JC (1983) Scuba diver facial dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 9:334–335

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Goh CL (1987) Hand dermatitis from a rubber motorcycle handle. Contact Dermatitis 16:40–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ho VC, Mitchell JC (1985) Allergic contact dermatitis from rubber boots. Contact Dermatitis 12:110–111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nishioka K, Murata M, Ishikawa T, Kaniwa M (1996) Contact dermatitis due to rubber boots worn by Japanese farmers, with special attention to 6-ethoxy-2,2,4-trimethyl-1,2-dihydroquinoline (ETMDQ) sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 35:241–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Romaguera C, Aguirre A, Diaz Perez JL, Grimalt F (1986) Watch strap dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 14:260–261

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lodi A, Chiarelli G, Mancini LL, Coassini A, Ambonati M, Crosti C (1996) Allergic contact dermatitis from a rubber bracelet. Contact Dermatitis 34:146

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. McKenna KE, McMillan C (1992) Facial contact dermatitis due to black rubber. Contact Dermatitis 26:270–271

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Conde-Salazar L, Guimaraens D, Romero LV, Gonzalez MA (1987) Unusual allergic contact dermatitis to aromatic amines. Contact Dermatitis 17:42–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Carlsen L, Andersen KE, Egsgaard H (1987) IPPD contact allergy from an orthopedic bandage. Contact Dermatitis 17:119–121

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fisher AA (1984) Purpuric contact dermatitis. Cutis 33:346, 349, 351

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ancona A, Monroy F, Fernandes-Diez J (1982) Occupational dermatitis from IPPD in tyres. Contact Dermatitis 8:91–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Fregert S, Thorgeirsson A (1977) Patch testing with low molecular oligomers of epoxy resin in humans. Contact Dermatitis 3:301–303

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Koch P (2002) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from epoxy resin systems and possibly acetone in a shoemaker. Contact Dermatitis 46:362–363

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Burrows D, Campbell H, Fregert S, Trulsson L (1984) Contact dermatitis from epoxy resins, tetraglycidal-4,4’-methylene dianiline and o-diglycidyl phthalate in composite material. Contact Dermatitis 11:80–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jolanki R, Tarvainen R, Tatar T, Estlander T, Henricks-Eckerman M-L, Mustakallio KK, Kanerva L (1996) Occupational dermatoses from exposure to epoxy resin compounds in a ski factory. Contact Dermatitis 34:390–396

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pontén A, Carstensen O, Rasmussen K, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Bruze M (2004) Epoxy-based production of wind turbine rotor blades: occupational dermatoses. Contact Dermatitis 50:329–338

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T (2001) Active sensitization by epoxy in Leica immersion oil. Contact Dermatitis 44:194–196

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kumar A, Freeman S (1999) Leukoderma following occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 41:94–98

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Silvestre JF, Albares MP, Escutia B, Vergara G, Pascual JC, Botella R (2003) Contact vitiligo appearing after allergic contact dermatitis from aromatic reactive diluents in an epoxy resin system. Contact Dermatitis 49:113–114

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruynzeel DP, Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, Goosssens A, Lahti A, Mahler V, Maibach HI, Menné T, Wilkinson JD (2004) Monitoring the European Standard series in 10 centres: 1996–2000. Contact Dermatitis (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Géraut C, Seroux D, Dupas D (1989) Allergie cutanée aux nouvelles résines époxydiques. Arch Mal Prof 50:187–188

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pontén A, Zimerson E, Bruze M (2004) Contact allergy to the isomers of diglycidyl ether of bisphenol F. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 84:12–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koch P (2003) Allergic contact dermatitis from BIS-GMA and epoxy resins in dental bonding agents. Contact Dermatitis 49:104–105

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R, Alanko K (2000) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from 2,2-bis (4-(2-hydroxy-3-acryloxypropoxy) phenyl) propane (epoxy diacrylate) in ultraviolet-cured inks. Contact Dermatitis 43:56–59

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jolanki R, Estlander T, Kanerva L (2001) 182 patients with occupational allergic epoxy contact dermatitis over 22 years. Contact Dermatitis 44:121–123

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T (1991) Allergic contact dermatitis from epoxy resin hardeners. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2:89–97

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T (1998) Occupational epoxy dermatitis with patch test reactions to multiple hardeners including tetraethylenepentamine. Contact Dermatitis 38:299–301

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fregert S, Trulsson L (1978) Simple methods for demonstration of epoxy resins in bisphenol A type. Contact Dermatitis 4:69–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fregert S (1988) Physicochemical methods for detection of contact allergens. Dermatol Clin 6:97–104

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. van der Willingen AH, Stolz E, van Joost T (1987) Sensitization to phenol formaldehyde in rubber glue. Contact Dermatitis 16:291–292

    Google Scholar 

  2. Foussereau J, Cavelier C, Selig D (1976) Occupational eczema from para-tertiary-butylphenol formaldehyde resins: a review of the sensitizing resins. Contact Dermatitis 2:254–258

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Freeman S (1997) Shoe dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 36:247–251

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rani Z, Hussain L, Haroon TS (2003) Common allergens in shoe dermatitis: our experience in Lahore, Pakistan. Int J Dermatol 42:605–607

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Engel HO, Calnan CD (1966) Resin dermatitis in a car factory. Br J Ind Med 23:62–66

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wollina U (2002) Contact sensitization to para-tertiary butylphenol formaldehyde resin possibly due to glass wool exposure. Exogenous Dermatol 1:265

    Google Scholar 

  7. Shono M, Ezoe K, Kaniwa M, Ikarashi Y, Kojima S, Nakamura A (1991) Allergic contact dermatitis from para-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (PTBP-FR) in athletic tape and leather adhesive. Contact Dermatitis 24:281–288

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hayakawa R, Ogino Y, Suzuki M, Kaniwa M (1994) Allergic contact dermatitis from para-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (PTBP-F-R). Contact Dermatitis 30:187–188

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mobacken H, Hersle K (1976) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by para-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin in watch straps. Contact Dermatitis 2:59

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rycroft RJG, Wilkinson JD, Holmes R, Hay RJ (1980) Contact sensitization to p-tertiary butylphenol (PTBP) resin plastic nail adhesive. Clin Exp Dermatol 5:441–445

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Moran M, Pascual AM (1978) Contact dermatitis to paratertiary-butylphenol formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis 4:372–373

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dahlquist I (1984) Contact allergy to paratertiary butylphenol formaldehyde resin in an adhesive label. Contact Dermatitis 10:54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Burden AD, Lever RS, Morley WN (1994) Contact hypersensitivity induced by p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin in an adhesive dressing. Contact Dermatitis 31:276–277

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nagashima C, Tomitaka-Yagami A, Matsunaga K (2003) Contact dermatitis due to para-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin in a wetsuit. Contact Dermatitis 49:267–268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bredlich RO, Gall H (1998) Generalisiertes allergisches Kontaktekzem durch Kniebandagen. Dermatosen Beruf Umwelt 46:125–128

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sood A, Taylor J, Billock JN (2003) Contact dermatitis to a limb prosthesis. Am J Contact Dermat 14:169–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Romaguera C, Grimalt F, Vilaplana J (1985) Paratertiairy butylphenol formaldehyde resin in prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 12:174

    Google Scholar 

  18. Avenel-Audran M, Goosssens A, Zimerson E, Bruze M (2003) Contact dermatitis from electrocardiograph-monitoring electrodes: role of p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin. Contact Dermatitis 48:108–111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk PM, Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 37:200–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bruynzeel DP, Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, Goosssens A, Lahti A, Mahler V, Maibach HI, Menné T, Wilkinson JD (2005) Monitoring the European Standard series in 10 centres: 1996–2000. Contact Dermatitis 53:146–149

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Zimerson E, Bruze M (2002) Low-molecular-weight contact allergens in p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin. Am J Contact Dermat 13:190–197

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zimmerson E, Bruze M, Goossens A (1999) Simultaneous p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin and p-tert-butylcatechol contact allergies in man and sensitizing capacities of p-tert-butylphenol and p-tert-butylcatechol in guinea pigs. J Occup Environ Med 41:23–28

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zimerson E, Bruze M (1999) Demonstration of the contact sensitizer p-tert-butylcatechol in p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin. Am J Contact Dermat 10:2–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schubert H, Agatha G (1979) Zur Allergennatur der paratert. Butylphenolformaldehydharze. Dermatosen Beruf Umwelt 27:49–52

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hagdrup H, Egsgaard H, Carlsen L, Andersen KE (1994) Contact allergy to 2-hydroxy-5-tert-butyl benzylalcohol and 2,6-bis(hydroxymethyl)-4-tert-butylphenol, components of a phenolic resin used in a marking pen. Contact Dermatitis 31:154–156

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Malten KE, Rath R, Pastors PMH (1983) p-tert.-Butylphenol formaldehyde and other causes of shoe dermatitis. Dermatosen Beruf Umwelt 31:149–153

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bajaj AK, Gupta SC, Chatterjee AK (1990) Contact depigmentation from free para-tertiary-butylphenol in bindi adhesive. Contact Dermatitis 22:99–102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Özkaja-Bayazit N, Büjükbabani N (2001) Non-eczematous pigmented interface dermatitis from para-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin in a watchstrap adhesive. Contact Dermatitis 44:45–46

    Google Scholar 

  29. Evans AV, Banerjee P, McFadden JP, Calonje E (2003) Lymphomatoid contact dermatitis to para-tertyl-butylphenol resin. Clin Exp Dermatol 28:272–273

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bruze M (1987) Contact dermatitis from phenol-formaldehyde resins. In: Maibach HI (ed) Occupational and industrial dermatology, 2nd edn. Year Book Medical, Chicago, Illinois, pp 430–435

    Google Scholar 

References

  1. Piaserico S, Larese F, Recchia GP, Corradin MT, Scardigli F, Gennaro F, Carriere C, Semenzato A, Brandolisio L, Peserico A, Fortina AB; North-East Italy Contact Dermatitis Group (2004) Allergic contact sensitivity in elderly patients. Aging Clin Exp Res 16:221–225

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Paulsen E (1994) Primula eczema — well-known and overlooked. Ugeskr Laeger 156:1147–1148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Britton JE, Wilkinson SM, English JS, Gawkrodger DJ, Ormerod AD, Sansom JE, Shaw S, Statham B (2003) The British standard series of contact dermatitis allergens: validation in clinical practice and value for clinical governance. Br J Dermatol 148:259–264

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Christensen LP (2000) Primulaceae. In: Avalos J, Maibach HI (eds) Dermatologic botany. CRC, Boca Raton, Fla., pp 201–235

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mowad CM (1998) Routine testing for Primula obconica: is it useful in the United States? Am J Contact Dermat 9:231–233

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Aplin CG, Lovell CR (2001) Contact dermatitis due to hardy Primula species and their cultivars. Contact Dermatitis 44:23–29

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Christensen LP, Larsen E (2000) Primin-free Primula obconica plants available. Contact Dermatitis 43:45–46

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hjorth N (1967) Seasonal variations in contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 47:409–418

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Krebs M, Christensen LP (1995) 2-methoxy-6-pentyl-1,4-dihydroxybenzene (miconidin) from Primula obconica: a possible allergen? Contact Dermatitis 33:90–93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hausen BM (1978) On the occurrence of the contact allergen primin and other quinoid compounds in species of the family of primulaceae. Arch Dermatol Res 261:311–321

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Christensen LP, Larsen E (2000) Direct emission of the allergen primin from intact Primula obconica plants. Contact Dermatitis 42:149–153

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Virgili A, Corazza M (1991) Unusual primin dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 24:63–64

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ingber A (1991) Primula photodermatitis in Israel. Contact Dermatitis 25:265–266

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fregert S, Hjorth N, Schulz KH (1968) Patch testing with synthetic primin in persons sensitive to Primula obconica. Arch Dermatol 98:144–147

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tabar AI, Quirce S, Garcia BE, Rodriguez A, Olaguibel JM (1994) Primula dermatitis: versatility in its clinical presentation and the advantages of patch tests with synthetic primin. Contact Dermatitis 30:47–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Dooms-Goossens A, Biesemans G, Vandaele M, Degreef H (1989) Primula dermatitis: more than one allergen? Contact Dermatitis 21:122–124

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Ducombs G, Benezra C, Talaga P, Andersen KE, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Dooms-Goossens A, Frosch PJ, Lachapelle JM, Menne T et al. (1990) Patch testing with the “sesquiterpene lactone mix”: a marker for contact allergy to Compositae and other sesquiterpene-lactone-containing plants. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 22:249–252

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hausen BM, Andersen KE, Helander I, Gensch KH (1986) Lettuce allergy: sensitizing potency of allergens. Contact Dermatitis 15:246–249

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Oliwiecki S, Beck MH, Hausen BM (1991) Compositae dermatitis aggravated by eating lettuce. Contact Dermatitis 24:318–319

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Paulsen E (1992) Compositae dermatitis: a survey. Contact Dermatitis 26:76–86

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Hausen BM (2001) Sensitization and cross-reaction patterns in Danish Compositae-allergic patients. Contact Dermatitis 45:197–204

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nandakishore T, Pasricha JS (1994) Pattern of cross sensitivity between 4 Compositae plants, Parthenium hysterophorus, Xanthium strumarium, Helianthus annuus and Chrysanthemum coronarium, in Indian patients. Contact Dermatitis 30:162–167

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Hausen BM (2001) An 8-year experience with routine SL mix patch testing supplemented with Compositae mix in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 45:29–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hausen BM (1996) A 6-year experience with compositae mix. Am J Contact Dermat 7:94–99

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Paulsen E, Sogaard J, Andersen KE (1998) Occupational dermatitis in Danish gardeners and greenhouse workers (III). Compositae-related symptoms. Contact Dermatitis 38:140–146

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fitzgerald DA, English JS (1992) Compositae dermatitis presenting as hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis 27:256–257

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Paulsen E, Andersen KE (1993) Compositae dermatitis in a Danish dermatology department in 1 year (II). Clinical features in patients with Compositae contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 29:195–201

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Christensen LP, Jakobsen HB, Paulsen E, Hodal L, Andersen KE (1999) Airborne Compositae dermatitis: monoterpenes and no parthenolide are released from flowering Tanacetum parthenium (feverfew) plants. Arch Dermatol Res 291:425–431

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Paulsen E, Christensen LP, Andersen KE (2002) Do monoterpenes released from feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium) plants cause airborne Compositae dermatitis? Contact Dermatitis 47:14–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wrangsjo K, Ros AM, Wahlberg JE (1990) Contact allergy to Compositae plants in patients with summer-exacerbated dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 22:148–154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Hausen BM (1993) Compositae dermatitis in a Danish dermatology department in one year (I). Results of routine patch testing with the sesquiterpene lactone mix supplemented with aimed patch testing with extracts and sesquiterpene lactones of Compositae plants. Contact Dermatitis 29:6–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Murphy GH, White IR, Hawk JL (1990) Allergic airborne contact dermatitis to Compositae with photosensitivity — chronic actinic dermatitis in evolution. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 7:38–39

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Paulsen E (1998) Occupational dermatitis in Danish gardeners and greenhouse workers (II). Etiological factors. Contact Dermatitis 38:14–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mateo MP, Velasco M, Miquel FJ, de la Cuadra J (1995) Erythema-multiforme-like eruption following allergic contact dermatitis from sesquiterpene lactones in herbal medicine. Contact Dermatitis 33:449–450

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Goulden V, Wilkinson SM (1998) Patch testing for Compositae allergy. Br J Dermatol 138:1018–1021

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kanerva L, Estlander T, Alanko K, Jolanki R (2001) Patch test sensitization to Compositae mix, sesquiterpene-lactone mix, Compositae extracts, laurel leaf, Chlorophorin, Mansonone A, and dimethoxydalbergione. Am J Contact Dermat 12:18–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilkinson SM, Pollock B (1999) Patch test sensitization after use of the Compositae mix. Contact Dermatitis 40:277–278

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bong JL, English JS, Wilkinson SM; British Contact Dermatitis Group (2001) Diluted Compositae mix versus sesquiterpene lactone mix as a screening agent for Compositae dermatitis: a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis 45:26–28

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Orion E, Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Menne T (1998) Comparison of simultaneous patch testing with parthenolide and sesquiterpene lactone mix. Contact Dermatitis 38:207–208

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, Bruynzeel DP, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lahti A, Menne T, Shaw S, Tosti A, Wahlberg JE, Wilkinson JD, Wrangsjo K (1999) Routine patch testing with the sesquiterpene lactone mix in Europe: a 2-year experience. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 40:72–76

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Parfitt K (ed) (1999) Martindale, the complete drug reference, 32nd edn. Pharmaceutical Press, London, pp 1034–1035

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dooms-Goossens A (1995) Allergy to inhaled corticosteroids: a review. Am J Contact Dermat 6:1–3

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pirker C, Misic A, Frosch PJ (2002) Angioedema and dysphagia caused by contact allergy to inhaled budesonide. Contact Dermatitis 49:77–79

    Google Scholar 

  4. Isaksson M, Bruze M (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis in response to budesonide reactivated by inhalation of the allergen. J Am Acad Dermatol 46:880–885

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bennett ML, Fountain JM, McCarty MA, Sheretz EF (2001) Contact allergy to corticosteroids in patients using inhaled or intranasal corticosteroids for allergic rhinitis or asthma. Am J Contact Dermatitis 12:193–196

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Goossens A, Matura M, Degreef H (2000) Reactions to corticosteroids: some new aspects regarding crosssensitivity. Cutis 65:43–46

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Isaksson M, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruynzeel DP, Camarasa JG, Diepgen T, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lahti A, Menné T, Rycroft RJG, Seidenari S, Shaw S, Tosti A, Wahlberg J, White IR, Wilkinson JD (2000) Patch testing with corticosteroid mixes in Europe. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 42:27–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Isaksson M, Brandão FM, Bruze M, Goossens A (2000) Recommendation to include budesonide and tixocortol pivalate in the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 43:41–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Isaksson M, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruynzeel DP, Camarasa JG, Diepgen T, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lahti A, Menné T, Rycroft RJG, Seidenari S, Shaw S, Tosti A, Wahlberg J, White IR, Wilkinson JD (2000) Patch testing with budesonide in serial dilutions. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 42:352–354

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Isaksson M, Bruze M, Björkner B, Hindsén M, Svensson L (1999) The benefit of patch testing with a corticosteroid at a low patch concentration. Am J Contact Dermat 10:31–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilkinson SM, Beck MH (2000) Patch testing for corticosteroids using high and low concentrations. Contact Dermatitis 42:350–351

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chowdhury MMU, Statham BN, Sansom JE, Foulds IS, English JSC, Podmore P, Bourke J, Orton D, Ormerod AD (2002) Patch testing for corticosteroid allergy with low and high concentrations of tixocortol pivalate and budesonide. Contact Dermatitis 46:311–312

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilkinson SM, Beck MH (1996) Corticosteroid hypersensitivity: what vehicle and concentration? Contact Dermatitis 34:305–308

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. Parfitt K (ed) (1999) Martindale, the complete drug reference, 32nd edn. Pharmaceutical Press, London, pp 1034–1035

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lauerma AI (1991) Screening for corticosteroid contact sensitivity. Comparison of tixocortol pivalate, hydrocortisone-17-butyrate and hydrocortisone. Contact Dermatitis 24:123–130

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Goossens A, Matura M, Degreef H (2000) Reactions to corticosteroids: some new aspects regarding cross-sensitivity. Cutis 65:43–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Isaksson M, Bruze M, Goossens A, Lepoittevin JP (2000) Patch-testing with serial dilutions of tixocortol pivalate and potential cross-reactive substances. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 80:33–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Frankild S, Lepoittevin JP, Kreilgaard B, Andersen KE (2001) Tixocortol pivalate contact allergy in the GPMT: frequency and cross-reactivity. Contact Dermatitis 44:18–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Burden AD, Beck MH (1992) Contact hypersensitivity to topical corticosteroids. Br J Dermatol 127:497–500

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lutz ME, el-Azhary RA, Gibson LE, Fransway AF (1998) Contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol pivalate. J Am Acad Dermatol 38:691–695

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Isaksson M, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, Bruynzeel DP, Camarasa JG, Diepgen T, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lahti A, Menné T, Rycroft RJG, Seidenari S, Shaw S, Tosti A, Wahlberg J, White IR, Wilkinson JD (2000) Patch testing with corticosteroid mixes in Europe. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 42:27–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilkinson SM, Beck MH (1996) Corticosteroid contact hypersensitivity: what vehicle and concentration? Contact Dermatitis 34:305–308

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Isaksson M, Brandão FM, Bruze M, Goossens A (2000) Recommendations to include budesonide and tixocortol pivalate in the European standard series. ESCD and EECDRG. European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 43:41–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilkinson SM, Beck MH (2000) Patch testing for corticosteroid allergy using high and low concentrations. Contact Dermatitis 42:350–351

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chowdhury MMU, Statham BN, Sansom JE, Foulds IS, English JSC, Podmore P, Bourke J, Orton D, Ormerod AD (2002) Patch testing for corticosteroid allergy with low and high concentrations of tixocortol pivalate and budesonide. Contact Dermatitis 46:311–312

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

References

  1. English JS, Rycroft RJ (1989) Occupational sensitization to ethylenediamine in a floor polish remover. Contact Dermatitis 20:220–221

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chieregato C, Vincenzi C, Guerra L, Farina P (1994) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis due to ethylenediamine dihydrochloride and cresyl glycidyl ether in epoxy resin systems. Contact Dermatitis 30:120 med.tss./MAG

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Crow KD, Peachey RD, Adams JE (1978) Coolant oil dermatitis due to ethylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 4:359–361

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Angelini G, Meneghini CL (1977) Dermatitis in engineers due to synthetic coolants. Contact Dermatitis 3:219–220

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dias M, Fernandes C, Pereira F, Pacheco A (1995) Occupational dermatitis from ethylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 33:129–130

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dal Monte A, de Benedictis E, Laffi G (1987) Occupational dermatitis from ethylenediamine hydrochloride. Contact Dermatitis 17:254 med.tss./MAG

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stingeni L, Caraffini S, Agostinelli D, Ricci F, Lisi P (1997) Maculopapular and urticarial eruption from cetirizine. Contact Dermatitis 37:249–250

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Walker SL, Ferguson JE (2004) Systemic allergic contact dermatitis due to ethylenediamine following administration of oral aminophylline. Br J Dermatol 150:594

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ash S, Scheman AJ (1997) Systemic contact dermatitis to hydroxyzine. Am J Contact Dermat 8:2–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Guin JD, Fields P, Thomas KL (1999) Baboon syndrome from i.v. aminophylline in a patient allergic to ethylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 40:170–171

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Price ML, Hall Smith SP (1984) Allergy to piperazine in a patient sensitive to ethylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 10:120 med.tss./MAG

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. De la Hoz B, Perez C, Tejedor MA, Lazaro M, Salazar F, Cuevas M (1993) Immediate adverse reaction to aminophylline (see comments). Ann Allergy 71:452–454

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Odense University Hospital, 5000, Odense C, Denmark

    Klaus E. Andersen

  2. St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK

    Ian R. White

  3. Dermatology/Contact allergy, U.Z.K.U. Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    An Goossens

Authors
  1. Klaus E. Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian R. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. An Goossens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH, Hautklinik Lehrstuhl Dermatologie der Universität Witten/Herdecke, Beurhausstr. 40, 44137, Dortmund, Germany

    Peter J. Frosch (Professor) (Professor)

  2. Dermatologisk afdeling K, Amtssygehuset Gentofte, 2900, Hellerup, Denmark

    Torkil Menné (Professor Dr.) (Professor Dr.)

  3. Laboratoire de Dermato-Chimie Clinique Dermatologique, CHU, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France

    Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin (Professor) (Professor)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Andersen, K.E., White, I.R., Goossens, A. (2006). Allergens from the Standard Series. In: Frosch, P.J., Menné, T., Lepoittevin, JP. (eds) Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31301-X_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31301-X_29

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-24471-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31301-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation