Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Common Allergens

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Contact Dermatitis

Abstract

Twenty substances among the most common allergens are reported. For each one of them, the general characteristics, sources of exposure, clinical presentation, and specific prevention rules are detailed. Special recommandations concerning the percentages of use and other useful data for patch tests are in addition discussed.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ohara T, Sato T, Shimizu N, et al. Acrylic acid and derivatives. In: Elvers B, editor. Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry, 7th ed. Weinheim: Wiley VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Penzel E, Ballard N, Asua JM. Polyacrylates. In: Elvers B, editor. Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry, 7th ed. Weinheim: Wiley VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Foti C, Bonamonte D. Dermatite da contatto nel personale sanitario. In: Angelini G, Vena GA, editors. Dermatologia professionale e ambientale, vol. 3. Brescia: ISED; 1999, p. 669.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sasseville D. Acrylates in contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. de Groot AC, Roberts DW. Contact and photocontact allergy to octocrylene: a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson SE, Meade BJ. Potential health effects associated with dermal exposure to occupational chemicals. Environ Health Insights. 2014;8(Suppl 1):51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Harper J, Zirwas M. Allergic contact dermatitis of the vagina and perineum: causes, incidence of, and differentiating factors. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;58:153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Syed M, Chopra R, Sachdev V. Allergic reactions to dental materials-a systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9:ZE04.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Montgomery R, Stocks SJ, Wilkinson SM. Contact allergy resulting from the use of acrylate nails is increasing in both users and those who are occupationally exposed. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lugović-Mihić L, Ferček I, Duvančić T, et al. Occupational contact dermatitis amongst dentists and dental technicians. Acta Clin Croat. 2016;55:293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chou M, Dhingra N, Strugar TL. Contact sensitization to allergens in nail cosmetics. Dermatitis. 2017;28:231.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Herman A, de Montjoye L, Tromme I, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by medical devices for diabetes patients: a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;79:331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zirwas MJ. Contact dermatitis to cosmetics. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2019;56:119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Milam EC, Cohen DE. Contact dermatitis: emerging trends. Dermatol Clin. 2019;37:21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Voller LM, Warshaw EM. Acrylates: new sources and new allergens. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2020;45:277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ngan V. Allergy to acrylates. 2012. https://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/allergy-to-acrylate. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  17. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) of the European Union (2018) Cosmetic ingredient database (Cosing) - Ingredients and fragrance inventory. http://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/cosmetic-ingredient-database-ingredients-and-fragrance-inventory. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  18. Foti C, Lopalco A, Stingeni L, et al. Contact allergy to electrocardiogram electrodes caused by acrylic acid without sensitivity to methacrylates and ethyl cyanoacrylate. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;79:118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hansel K, Tramontana M, Bianchi L, et al. Contact sensitivity to electrocardiogram electrodes due to acrylic acid: a rare cause of medical device allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82:118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mukaijo J, Inomata N, Higashihira M. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate in a moisturizing face pack in a handmade acrylic accessory enthusiast. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;79:383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. van Amerongen CCA, Dahlin J, Isaksson M, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate in a hospital wristband. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:446.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Winston FK, Yan AC. Wearable health device dermatitis: a case of acrylate-related contact allergy. Cutis. 2017;100:97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ródenas-Herranz T, Navarro-Triviño FJ, Linares-González L, et al. Acrylate allergic contact dermatitis caused by hair prosthesis fixative. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82:62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Suzuki K, Matsunaga K, Sasaki K, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by tetrahydrofurfuryl acrylate in the adhesive of clip-on earrings. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82:131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Moreira J, Gonçalves R, Coelho P, et al. Eyelid dermatitis caused by allergic contact to acrylates in artificial nails. Dermatol Rep. 2017;9:7198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McCarthy S, Flynn A, Bennett M, et al. It’s not lupus, it’s your nails! Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Romita P, Foti C, Masciopinto L, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to acrylates. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2017;31:529.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Quaade AS, Hald M, Johansen JD. Allergic contact stomatitis caused by (meth)acrylates in an occlusal splint. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82:112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mattos Simoes Mendonca M, LaSenna C, Tosti A. Severe onychodystrophy due to allergic contact dermatitis from acrylic nails. Skin Appendage Disord. 2015;1:91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Alamri A, Lill D, Summer B, et al. Artificial nail wearing: unexpected elicitor of allergic contact dermatitis, oral lichen planus and risky arthroplasty. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Carr C, Liu M, Goff HW. Acrylate allergic contact dermatitis-induced lichen planus of the nail. Dermatitis. 2019;30:233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fisher AA, Baran RL. Adverse reactions to acrylate sculptured nails with particular reference to prolonged paresthesia. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1991;2:38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Guerra L, Vincenzi C, Peluso AM, et al. Prevalence and sources of occupational contact sensitization to acrylates in Italy. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;28:101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Bong JL, English JS. Allergic contact dermatitis from airborne exposure to acrylates. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;43:242.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Maio P, Carvalho R, Amaro C, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from sculptured acrylic nails: special presentation with an airborne pattern. Dermatol Rep. 2012;4:e6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Vaccaro M, Guarneri F, Barbuzza O, et al. Airborne contact dermatitis and asthma in a nail art operator. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2014;27:137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kanerva L, Tarvainen K, Jolanki R, et al. Airborne occupational allergic contact dermatitis due to trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA) used in the manufacture of printed circuit boards. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:292.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Aerts O, Goossens A, Bervoets A, et al. Almost missed it! Photo-contact allergy to octocrylene in a ketoprofen-sensitized subject. Dermatitis. 2016;27:33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Foti C, Bonamonte D, Conserva A, et al. Allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis from ketoprofen: evaluation of cross-reactivities by a combination of photopatch testing and computerized conformational analysis. Curr Pharm Des. 2008;14:2833.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.results&annex_v2=VI&search. Accessed 19 Dec 2019.

  41. Romita P, Foti C, Hansel K, et al. Photo-contact allergy to octocrylene: a decreasing trend? Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Daecke C, Schaller S, Schaller J, et al. Contact urticaria from acrylic acid in Fixomull tape. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;29:216.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Lunder T, Rogl-Butina M. Chronic urticaria from an acrylic dental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;43:232.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Roche E, de la Cuadra J, Alegre V. Sensitization to acrylates caused by artificial acrylic nails: review of 15 cases. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2008;99:788.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Scheers C, Andrè J, Negulescu M, et al. Recurrent cheilitis and lip oedema caused by (meth)acrylates present in ultraviolet-curable nail lacquer. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Haisma MS, Schuttelaar ML. Contact urticaria caused by the ultraviolet absorber octocrylene in sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77:254.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Dickison P, Smith SD. Itching for nail fashion: chronic urticaria and chronic hand dermatitis secondary to acrylate and methacrylate allergy in gel nail varnish. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2018;43:50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nayebzadeh A, Dufresne A. Evaluation of exposure to methyl methacrylate among dental laboratory technicians. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1999;60:625.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Torén K, Brisman J, Olin AC, et al. Asthma on the job: work-related factors in new-onset asthma and in exacerbations of pre-existing asthma. Respir Med. 2000;94:529.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. House R, Rajaram N, Tarlo SM. Case report of asthma associated with 3D printing. Occup Med (Lond). 2017;67:652.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Mancuso G, Berdondini RM. Occupational conjunctivitis as the sole manifestation of airborne contact allergy to trimethylolpropane triacrylate contained in a UV-cured paint. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59:372.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Lindström M, Alanko K, Keskinen H, et al. Dentist’s occupational asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and allergic contact dermatitis from methacrylates. Allergy. 2002;57:543.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Dudek W, Wittczak T, Swierczyńska-Machura D, et al. Allergic blepharoconjunctivitis caused by acrylates promotes allergic rhinitis response. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2014;113:492.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kim YJ, Chung JK. Bilateral eyelid contact dermatitis and toxic conjunctivitis due to acrylate-containing glue. Ann Dermatol. 2014;26:543.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Pirilä P, Kanerva L, Keskinen H, et al. Occupational respiratory hypersensitivity caused by preparations containing acrylates in dental personnel. Clin Exp Allergy. 1998;28:1404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pirilä P, Hodgson U, Estlander T, et al. Occupational respiratory hypersensitivity in dental personnel. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1992;75:209.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ramos L, Cabral R, Gonçalo M. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by acrylates and methacrylates–a 7-year study. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Wilkinson M, Gonçalo M, Aerts O, et al. The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2019. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hansel K, Foti C, Nettis E, et al. Acrylate and methacrylate allergy: when is patch testing with acrylic acid recommended? Contact Dermatitis. 2020;82:231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Vaccaro M, Barbuzza O, Campo GM, et al. Late patch-test reaction to acrylates: a biochemical hypothesis. Dermatitis. 2009;20:E1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Andersson T, Bruze M, Björkner B. In vivo testing of the protection of gloves against acrylates in dentin-bonding systems on patients with known contact allergy to acrylates. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:254.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Morgado F, Batista M, Gonçalo M. Short exposures and glove protection against (meth)acrylates in nail beauticians-thoughts on a rising concern. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ham BM, Maham A. Analytical chemistry: a chemist and laboratory technician’s toolkit. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Altman RS, Smith-Coggins R, Ampel L. Local anesthetics. Ann Emerg Med. 1985;14:1209.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Thyssen JP, Menné T, Elberling J, et al. Hypersensitivity to local anaesthetics–update and proposal of evaluation algorithm. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59:69.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Fisher A. Dermatitis due to benzocaine present in sunscreens containing glyceryl PABA (Escalol 106). Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:170.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Lewis FM, Harrington CI, Gawkrodger DJ. Contact sensitivity in pruritus vulvae: a common and manageable problem. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:264.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Lodi A, Ambonati M, Coassini A, et al. Contact allergy to ‘caines’ caused by anti-hemorrhoidal ointments. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:221.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. van Ketel WG. Contact allergy to different antihaemorrhoidal anaesthetics. Contact Dermatitis. 1983;9:512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Marques C, Faria E, Machado A, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis and systemic contact dermatitis from cinchocaine. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;33:443.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Beck MH, Holden A. Benzocaine–an unsatisfactory indicator of topical local anaesthetic sensitization for the UK. Br J Dermatol. 1988;118:91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Sidhu SK, Shaw S, Wilkinson JD. A 10-year retrospective study on benzocaine allergy in the United Kingdom. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1999;10:57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Wilkinson JD, Andersen KE, Lahti A, et al. Preliminary patch testing with 25% and 15% ‘caine’-mixes. The EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis. 1990;22:244.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Brinca A, Cabral R, Gonļçalo M. Contact allergy to local anaesthetics–value of patch testing with a caine mix in the baseline series. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:156.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Thyssen JP, Engkilde K, Menné T, et al. Prevalence of benzocaine and lidocaine patch test sensitivity in Denmark: temporal trends and relevance. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Ramirez P, Sendagorta E, Floristan U, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from antihemorrhoidal ointments: concomitant sensitization to both amide and ester local anesthetics. Dermatitis. 2010;21:176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Adams RM. Occupational skin disease. New York: Grune and Stratton; 1983. p. 204.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Kridin K, Bergman R, Khamaisi M, et al. Cement-induced chromate occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2016;27:208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Bregnbak D, Johansen JD, Jellesen MS. Chromium allergy and dermatitis: prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:261.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Jaeger H, Pelloni E. Tests epicutanés aux bichromates positifs dans l’eczema au ciment. Dermatologica. 1950;100:207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Sertoli A, Francalanci S, Acciai MC, et al. Indagine epidemiologica GIRDCA (Gruppo Italiano Ricerca Dermatiti da Contatto e Ambientali) sulle dermatiti da contatto in Italia (1984–1993). Generalità sull’inchiesta e dati globali su 42.839 casi (nota I). Boll Dermatol Allerg Profes. 1996;11:135.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Goh CL, Gan SL. Change in cement manufacturing process, a cause for decline in chromate allergy? Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Roto P, Saino H, Reunala T, et al. Addition of ferrous sulphate and risk of chromium dermatitis among construction workers. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Geier J, Krautheim A, Uter W, et al. Occupational contact allergy in the building trade in Germany: influence of preventive measures and changing exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2011;84:403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Stocks SJ, McNamee R, Turner S, et al. Has European Union legislation to reduce exposure to chromate in cement been effective in reducing the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis attributed to chromate in the UK? Occup Environ Med. 2012;69:150–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Avnstorp C. Follow-up of workers from the prefabricated concrete industry after the addition of ferrous sulphate to Danish cement. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;20:365.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Hedberg YS, Gumulka M, Lind ML, et al. Severe occupational chromium allergy despite cement legislation. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:321.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Macedo MS, de Avelar Alchorne AO, Costa EB, et al. Contact allergy in male construction workers in Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2000–2005. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56:232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Sarma N. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis among construction workers in India. Indian J Dermatol. 2009;54:137.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Wang BJ, Wu JD, Sheu SC, et al. Occupational hand dermatitis among cement workers in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2011;110:775.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Aslan A. Determination of heavy metal toxicity of finished leather solid waste. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2009;82:633.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Thyssen JP, Jensen P, Carlsen BC, et al. The prevalence of chromium allergy in Denmark is currently increasing as a result of leather exposure. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161:1288.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Hansen MB, Johansen JD, Menné T. Chromium allergy: significance of both Cr(III) and Cr(VI). Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49:206.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Hansen MB, Menné T, Johansen JD. Cr(III) and Cr(VI) in leather and elicitation of eczema. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;54:278.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Seishima M, Oyama Z, Yamamura M. Cellular phone dermatitis. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Seishima M, Oyama Z, Oda M. Cellular phone dermatitis with chromate allergy. Dermatology. 2003;207:48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Tan S, Nixon R. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by chromium in a mobile phone. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Richardson C, Hamann CR, Hamann D, et al. Mobile phone dermatitis in children and adults: a review of the literature. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol. 2014;27:60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Wahlberg JE, Lindstedt G, Einarsson O. Chromium, cobalt and nickel in Swedish cement, detergents, mould and cutting oils. Dermatosen Beruf Umwelt. 1977;25:220.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Basketter DA, Briatico-Vangosa G, Kaestner W, et al. Nickel, cobalt and chromium in consumer products: a role in allergic contact dermatitis? Contact Dermatitis. 1993;28:15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Geier J, Lessmann H, Hellweg B, et al. Chromated metal products may be hazardous to patients with chromate allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:199.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Kim IS, Yoo KH, Kim MN, et al. The fine scratches of the spectacle frames and the allergic contact dermatitis. Ann Dermatol. 2013;25:152.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Kapnisis K, Constantinides G, Georgiou H, et al. Multi-scale mechanical investigation of stainless steel and cobalt—chromium stents. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014;40C:240.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83A:428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Jacobs JJ, Urban RM, Hallab N, et al. Metal-on-metal bearing surfaces. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17:69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Tosti A, Peluso AM, Varotti C. Skin burns due to transit-mixed Portland cement. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;21:58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Mastrolonardo M, Cassano N, Vena GA. Cement burns in 2 football players. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Englehardt WE, Mayer RL. Über Chromeczeme im Graphischen Gawerbe. Arch Gewerbepath Hyg. 1931;2:140.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Burrows D, Andersen KE, Camarasa JG, et al. Trial of 0.5% versus 0.375% potassium dichromate. European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG). Contact Dermatitis. 1989;21:351.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Frosh P, Aberer W. Chrom-Allergie. Dermatosen. 1988;36:168.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Intradermal test in contact allergy to metals. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 1979;59(Suppl. 85):123.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Alinaghi F, Zachariae C, Thyssen P, et al. Causative exposures and temporal development of cobalt allergy in Denmark between 2002 and 2017. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:242.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Thyssen P. Cobalt sensitization and dermatitis: considerations for the clinical. Dermatitis. 2012;23:203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Geier J, Lessmann H, Skudlik C, et al. Berufsbedingte Kontaktallergie bei Maurern, Fliesenlegern und Angehörigen verwandter Berufe. Aktuelles Sensibilisierungsspektrum und Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre. Dermatol Beruf Umwelt. 2012;60:136.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Fregert S, Gruvberger B. Solubility of cobalt in cement. Contact Dermatitis. 1978;4:14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Uter W, Gefeller O, Geier J, et al. Contact sensitization to cobalt—multifactorial analysis of risk factors based on lonf-term data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:326.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Bourne LB, Milner FJ. Polyester resin hazards. Br J Ind Med. 1963;20:100.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Schena D, Rosina P, Chieregato C, et al. Lymphomatoid-like contact dermatitis from cobalt naphthenate. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;33:197.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Fowler JF Jr. Cobalt. Dermatitis.2016;27:3.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Thyssen JP, Jensen P, Lidén C, et al. Assessment of nickel and cobalt release from 200 unused hand-held work tools for sale in Denmark sources of occupational metal contact dermatitis? Sci Total Environ. 2011;409:4663.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Day GA, Virji MA, Stefaniak AB. Characterization of exposures among cemented tungsten carbide workers. Part II: assessment of surface contamination and skin exposures to cobalt, chromium and nickel. J ExpoSci Environ Epidemiol. 2009;19:423.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Lidén C. Nickel in jewellery and associated products. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;26:73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Hamann C, Hamann D, Hamann KK, et al. Cobalt release from inexpensive earrings from Thailand and China. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Thyssen JP, Menné T, Lidén C, et al. Cobalt release from implants and consumer items and characteristics of cobalt sensitized patients with dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:113.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Hamann D, Hamann C, Li L-F, et al. The Sino-American Belt Study: nickel and cobalt exposure, epidemiology and clinical considerations. Dermatitis. 2012;23:117.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Warshaw EM, Schram SE, Belsito DV, et al. Shoe allergens: retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2001–2004. Dermatitis. 2007;18:191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Basko-Plluska JL, Thyssen JP, Schalock PC. Cutaneous and systemic hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants. Dermatitis. 2011;22:65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Bjoernber A. Allergic reaction to cobalt in light blue tattoo markings. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh). 1961;41:259.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Sainio EL, Jolanki R, Hakala E, et al. Metals and arsenic in eye shadows. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42:5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Corazza M, Baldo F, Pagnoni A, et al. Measurement of nickel, cobalt and chromium in toy make-up by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 2009;89:130.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. Veien NK, Kaaber K. Nickel, cobalt and chromium sensitivity in patients with pompholyx (dyshidrotic eczema). Contact Dermatitis. 1979;5:371.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, et al. Oral challenge with metal salts. (II). Various types of eczema. Contact Dermatitis. 1983;9:407.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, et al. Oral challenge with nickel and cobalt in patients with positive patch tests to nickel and/or cobalt. Acta Derm Venereol. 1987;67:321.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Veien NK, Hattel T, Laurberg G. Placebo-controlled oral challenge with cobalt in patients with positive patch tests to cobalt. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;33:54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Wahlberg JE, Boman A. Sensitization and testing of guinea pigs with cobalt chloride. Contact Dermatitis. 1978;4:128.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Uter W, Amario-Hita JC, Balato A, et al. European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results with the European baseline series, 2013-14. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:1516.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results 2013-2014. Dermatitis. 2017;28:33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Thyssen JP. The epidemiology of contact allergy. Allergen exposure and recent trends. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2009;144:507.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Kettelarij JA, Lidén C, Axén E, et al. Cobalt, nickel and chromium release from dental tools and alloys. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  140. Pirilä V. Sensitization to cobalt in pottery workers. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 1953;33:193.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Fregert S, Gruvberger B. Blue and black pottery as a potential source of cobalt. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10:50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Jellesen MS, et al. Cobalt spot test used for diagnosis of occupationally-related exposure to cobalt-containing powder. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Uter W, Ruhl R, Pfahlberg A, et al. Contact allergy in construction workers: results of a multifactorial analysis. Ann Occup Hyg. 2004;48:21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Wahlberg JE, Lindstedt G, Einarsson O. Chromium, cobalt and nickel in Swedish cement, detergents, mould and cutting oils. Berufsdermatosen. 1977;25:220.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Vilaplana J, Grimalt F, Romaguera C, et al. Cobalt content of household cleaning products. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;16:139.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Fischer T, Rystedt I. False-positive, follicular and irritant patch test reactions to metal salts. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;12:93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. Storrs FJ, White CR. False positive ‘‘poral’’ cobalt patch test reactions reside in the eccrine acrosyringium. Cutis. 2000;65:49.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Carlsen BC, et al. Prevalence of nickel and cobalt allergy among female patients with dermatitis before and after Danish government regulation: a 23-year retrospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;61:799.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Hindsén M, Spiren A, Bruze M. Cross-reactivity between nickel and palladium demonstrated by systemic administration of nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;53:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Thyssen JP, Skare L, Lundgren L, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the nickel spot (dimethylglyoxime) test. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62:279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Karlberg AT. Contact allergy to colophony. Chemical identifications of allergens, sensitization experiments and clinical experiences. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 1988;201:1.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Karlberg AT, Boman A, Hacksell U, et al. Contact allergy to dehydroabietic acid derivatives isolated from Portuguese colophony. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;19:166.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  153. Kuiters GRR, Smitt JHS, Cohen EB, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis in children and young adults. Arch Dermatol. 1989;125:1531.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Mariano A, Paredes I, Nuti R, et al. Occupational asthma due to colophony in non-industrial environments. Med Lav. 1993;84:459.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Karlberg AT, Bergsted E, Boman A, et al. Is abietic acid the allergenic component of colophony? Contact Dermatitis. 1985;13:209.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  156. Hausen BM, Kreuger A, Mohnert J, et al. Contact allergy due to colophony (III). Sensitizing potency of resin acids and some related products. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;20:41.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Downs AMR, Sansom JE. Colophony allergy: a review. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:305.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. Karlberg AT, Boman A, Nilsson JLG. Hydrogenation reduces the allergenicity of colophony (rosin). Contact Dermatitis. 1988;19:22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  159. Hausen BM, Hessling C. Contact allergy due to colophony (IV). The sensitizing capacity of minor resin acids and 7 commercial modified-colophony products. Contact Dermatitis. 1990;23:90.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Hausen BM, Loll M. Contact allergy due to colophony (VIII). The sensitizing potency of commercial products: an investigation of French and German modified-colophony derivatives. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;29:189.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Gäfvert E, Bordalo O, Karlberg AT. Patch testing with allergens from modified rosin (colophony) discloses additional cases of contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Goh CL, Ng SK. Airborne contact dermatitis to colophony in soldering flux. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;17:89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  163. Smith PA, Son PS, Callaghan PM. Sampling and analysis of airborne resin acids and solvent-soluble material derived from heated colophony (rosin) flux: a method to quantify exposure to sensitizing compounds liberated during electronics soldering. Toxicology. 1996;111:225.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Crépy MN. Dermatoses professionnelles à la colophane. Fiche d’allergologie-dermatologie professionnelle TA 65. Doc Méd Trav. 2002;89:75.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Fischer T, Bohlin S, Edling C. Skin disease and contact sensitivity in house painters using water-based paints, glues and putties. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;32:39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  166. Karlberg AT, Gäfvert E, Lidén C. Environmentally friendly paper may increase risk of hand eczema in rosin-sensitive persons. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;33:427.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Meding B, Torén K, Karlberg AT. Evaluation of skin symptoms among workers at a Swedish paper mill. Am J Ind Med. 1993;23:721.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Chen YX, Gao BA, Cheng HY, et al. Survey of occupational allergic contact dermatitis and patch test among clothing employees in Beijing. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:3102358.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  169. Henriks-Eckerman ML, Suuronen K, Jolanki R. Analysis of allergens in metalworking fluids. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59:261.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  170. Crépy MN. Skin diseases in musicians. Eur J Dermatol. 2015;25:375.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  171. James WD. Allergic contact dermatitis to a colophony derivative. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10:6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  172. Körber A, Kohaus S, Geisheimer M, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from a hydrocolloid dressing due to colophony sensitization. Hautarzt. 2006;57:242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Alavi A, Sibbald RG, Ladizinski B, et al. Wound-related allergic/irritant contact dermatitis. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2016;29:278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Salim A, Shaw S. Recommendations to include ester gum resin when patch testing patients with leg ulcers. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;44:34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  175. Barbaud A, Collet E, Le Coz CJ, et al. Contact allergy in chronic leg ulcers: results of a multicentre study carried out in 423 patients and proposal for an updated series of patch tests. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:279.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  176. Deswysen AC, Zimerson E, Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by self-adhesive electrocardiography electrodes in an infant. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Machovcova A. Colophony, a hidden allergen on ECG electrodes in a boy after cardiovascular surgery. Pediatr Dermatol. 2011;28:345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Oestmann E, Philipp S, Zuberbier T, et al. Colophony-induced contact dermatitis due to ECG electrodes in an infant. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56:177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Garcia-Bravo B, Pons A, Rodriguez-Pichardo A. Oral lichen planus from colophony. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;26:279.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Cockayne SE, Murphy R, Gawkrodger DJ. Occupational contact dermatitis from colophonium in a dental technician. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;44:42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  181. Kanerva L, Estlander T. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from colophony in 2 dental nurses. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:342.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  182. Bugnet LD, Sanchez-Politta S, Sorg O, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to colophonium-contaminated socks. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59:127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Strauss RM, Wilkinson SM. Shoe dermatitis due to colophonium used as leather tanning or finishing agent in Portuguese shoes. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  184. Koh D, Lee L, Ong HY, et al. Colophony in topical traditional Chinese medicaments. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:243.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  185. Chen HH, Sun CC, Tseng MP, et al. A patch test study of 27 crude drugs commonly used in Chinese topical medicaments. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49:8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  186. Karlberg AT, Magnusson K. Rosin components identified in diapers. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:176.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  187. Fisher AA. Allergic contact dermatitis due to rosin (colophony) in eye shadow and mascara. Cutis. 1988;42:507.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Karlberg AT, Lidén C, Ehrin E. Colophony in mascara as a cause of eyelid dermatitis. Chemical analyses and patch testing. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 1991;71:445.

    Google Scholar 

  189. Goosens A, Armingaud P, Avenel-Aurdran M, et al. An epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis due to epilating products. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46:67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Angelini G. Contact allergy to ester gums in cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:110.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  191. Karlberg AT, Gäfvert E, Meding B, et al. Airborne contact dermatitis from unexpected exposure to rosin (colophony). Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:272.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  192. Pesonen M, Suuronen K, Suomela S, et al. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by colophonium. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. Shao LP, Gäfvert E, Karlberg AT, et al. The allergenicity of glycerol esters and other esters of rosin (colophony). Contact Dermatitis. 1993;27:229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Kooij R. Hypersensitivity to hydrocortisone. Br J Dermatol. 1959;71:392.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Burckhardt W. Kontaktekzem durch hydrocortison. Hautarzt. 1959;10:42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. Isaksson M. Corticosteroids. Dermatol Ther. 2004;17:314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. Dooms-Goossens A. Corticosteroid contact allergy: a challenge to patch testing. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1993;4:120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Seukeran DC, Wilkinson SM, Beck MH. Patch testing to detect corticosteroid allergy: is it adequate? Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36:127.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  199. Boffa MJ, Wilkinson SM, Beck MH. Screening for corticosteroid contact hypersensitivity. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;33:149.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  200. Dooms-Goossens A, Morren M. Results of routine patch testing with corticosteroid series in 2073 patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;26:182.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  201. Dooms-Goossens A, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, et al. Corticosteroid contact allergy: an EECDRG multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  202. Davis MD, el-Azhary RA, Farmer SA (2007) Results of patch testing to a corticosteroid series: a retrospective review of 1188 patients during 6 years at Mayo Clinic. J Am Acad Dermatol. 56:921.

    Google Scholar 

  203. Alcántara Villar M, Martínez Escribano J, López Sánchez JD, et al. Corticosteroid-induced contact dermatitis. Clinical management. Allergol Immunol Clin. 1999;14:152.

    Google Scholar 

  204. Morelli M, Fumagalli M, Altomare GF, et al. Contact granuloma annulare. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;18:317.

    Google Scholar 

  205. Hayakawa R, Matsunaga K, Suzuki M, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis due to budesonide. Contact Dermatitis. 1991;24:136.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  206. Stingeni L, Caraffini S, Assalve D, et al. Erythema-multiforme-like contact dermatitis from budesonide. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:154.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  207. Stingeni L, Hansel K, Lisi P. Morbilliform erythema-multiforme-like eruption from desoxymethasone. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:363.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  208. Miranda-Romero A, Sánchez-Sambucety P, Bajo C, et al. Genital oedema from contact allergy to prednicarbate. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:228.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  209. Chavarria Mur E, Gonzalez-Carrascosa Ballesteros M, Suarez Fernandez R, et al. Generalized exanthematous reaction with pustulosis induced by topical corticosteroids. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  210. Broesby-Olsen S, Clemmensen O, Ejner AK. Allergic contact dermatitis from a topical corticosteroid mimicking acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 2005;85:444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  211. Sánchez-Pérez J, Gala SP, Jiménez YD, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to prednicarbate presenting as lupus erythematosus. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  212. Bircher AJ, Pelloni F, Langauer Messmer S, et al. Delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids applied to mucous membranes. Br J Dermatol. 1996;135:310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  213. Isaksson M, Bruze M, Hornblad Y, et al. Contact allergy to corticosteroids in asthma/rhinitis patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40:327.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  214. Bircher AJ, Bigliardi P, Zaugg T, et al. Delayed generalized allergic reactions to corticosteroids. Dermatology. 2000;200:349.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  215. Guillot B. Skin reactions to inhaled corticosteroids. Clinical aspects, incidence, avoidance, and management. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2000;1:107.

    Google Scholar 

  216. Pirker C, Misić A, Frosch PJ. Angioedema and dysphagia caused by contact allergy to inhaled budesonide. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49:77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  217. Uter W. Allergische reaktionen auf glukokortikoide. Derm Beruf Umwelt. 1990;38:75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  218. Lauerma A, Reitamo S. Allergic reactions to topical and systemic corticosteroids. Eur J Dermatol. 1994;5:354.

    Google Scholar 

  219. Whitmore SE. Delayed systemic allergic reactions to corticosteroids. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;32:193.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  220. Isaksson M. Systemic contact allergy to corticosteroids revisited. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  221. Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. European society of contact dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing—recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  222. Stingeni L, Bianchi L, Hansel K, et al. Italian guidelines in patch testing—adapted from the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD). G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2019;154:227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  223. Gallucci S, Matzinger P. Danger signals: SOS to the immune system. Curr Opin Immunol. 2001;13:114.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  224. Coopman S, Degreef H, Dooms-Goossens A. Identification of cross-reaction patterns in allergic contact dermatitis to topical corticosteroids. Br J Dermatol. 1989;121:27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  225. Lepoittevin JP, Drieghe J, Dooms-Goossens A. Studies in patient with corticosteroid contact allergy. Understanding cross-reactivity. Arch Dermatol. 1995;131:31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  226. Oh-i T. Contact dermatitis due to topical steroids with conceivable cross-reactions between topical steroid preparations. J Dermatol. 1996;23:200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  227. Wilkinson SM, English JSC. Hydrocortisone sensitivity. An investigation into the nature of the allergen. Contact Dermatitis. 1991;25:178.

    Google Scholar 

  228. Goossens A, Matura M, Degreef H. Reactions to corticosteroids: some new aspects regarding cross-sensitivity. Cutis. 2000;65:43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  229. Goossens A, Huygens S, Matura M, et al. Fluticasone propionate: a rare contact sensitizer. Eur J Dermatol. 2001;11:29.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  230. Wilkinson SM, Beck MH. Fluticasone propionate and mometasone furoate have a low risk of contact sensitization. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:365.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  231. Balato N, Ayala F, Patruno C, et al. Mometasone furoate is an alternative for corticosteroid sensitive patients. Abstract’s book of the “Clinical Dermatology 2000” Congress, Singapore, 18–20 June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  232. Angelini G, Rigano L, Foti C, et al. Pure cocamidopropylbetaine is not the allergen in patients with positive reactions to commercial cocamidopropylbetaine. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:252.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  233. Suuronen K, Pesonen M, Aalto-Korte K. Occupational contact allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine and its impurities. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:286.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  234. American College of Toxicology. Final report on the safety assessment of cocamidopropyl betaine. J Am Coll Toxicol. 1991;10:33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  235. Foti C, Bonamonte D, Mascolo G, et al. The role of 3-dimethylaminopropylamine and amidoamine in contact allergy to cocamidopropylbetaine. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:194.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  236. Fowler JF Jr, Shaughnessy CN, Belsito DV, et al. Cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity to surfactants. Dermatitis. 2015;26:268.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  237. Foti C, Romita P, Cristaudo A. Contact allergy to 3-dimethylaminopropylamine in 5140 consecutive Italian patients: A one-year retrospective multicenter SIDAPA study. Contact Dermatitis. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.13445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  238. Burnett CL, Boyer I, Bergfeld WF, et al. Safety assessment of fatty acid amidopropyl dimethylamines as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol. 2019;38:39S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  239. Suuronen K, Bäck B2, Aalto-Korte K. Skin exposure to epoxy chemicals in construction coating, assessed by observation, interviews, and measurements. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:18.

    Google Scholar 

  240. Amado A, Taylor JS. Contact allergy to epoxy resins. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;5:186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  241. Foti C, Bonamonte D, Antelmi A, et al. Airborne allergy to isophoronediamine and epoxy resin. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 2010;32:528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  242. Breuer K, Uter W, Geier J. Epidemiological data on airborne contact dermatitis—results of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:239.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  243. Geier J, UterW Lessmann H, et al. Kontaktallergien gegen Epoxidharze—ein unterdiagnostiziertes Problem. Allergo J. 2003;12:323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  244. Bangsgaard N, Thyssen JP, Menné T, et al. Contact allergy to epoxy resin: risk occupations and consequences. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  245. Dickel H, Kuss O, Schmidt A, et al. Occupational relevance of positive standard patch-test results in employed persons with an initial report of an occupational skin disease. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2002;75:423.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  246. Geier J, Lessmann H, Hillen U, et al. An attempt to improve diagnostics of contact allergy due to epoxy resin systems. First results of the multicentre study EPOX 2002. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;51:263.

    Google Scholar 

  247. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Angelini G. Dermatosi da contatto occupazionali nel personale infermieristico. Rilievi clinici ed eziopatogenetici. Boll Dermatol Allergol Profes. 1997;12:33.

    Google Scholar 

  248. Cronin E. Contact dermatitis. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1980. p. 788.

    Google Scholar 

  249. Cronin E. Formalin textile dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 1963;75:267.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  250. Andersen KE, Burrows D, White IR. Allergens from the standard series. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosh PJ, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1995. p. 415.

    Google Scholar 

  251. Flyvholm M-A. Formaldehyde exposure at the workplace and in the environment. Allergologie. 1997;20:225.

    Google Scholar 

  252. Latorre N, Silvestre JF, Monteagudo AF. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers. Actas Dermosifilogr. 2011;102:86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  253. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF. Fisher’s contact dermatitis, 6th ed. Hamilton: BC Decler; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  254. Tupasela O, Kanerva L. Skin tests and specific IgE urticaria caused by low-molecular weight chemicals. In: Amin S, Lahti A, Maibach HI, editors. Textbook of the contact urticaria syndrome. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1997. p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  255. Hauksson I, Pontén A, Isaksson M, et al. Formaldehyde in cosmetics in patch tested dermatitis patients with and without contact allergy to formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:145.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  256. Bonamonte D. Profumi. In: Angelini G, Vena GA, editors. Dermatologia professionale e ambientale, vol. 2. Brescia: ISED; 1999. p. 439.

    Google Scholar 

  257. Arribas MP, Soro P, Silvestre JF. Allergic contact dermatitis to fragrances: part 2. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2013;104:29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  258. Enders F, Przybilla B, Ring J. Patch testing with fragrance-mix and its constituents: discrepancies are largely due to the presence or absence of sorbitan sesquioleate. Contact Dermatitis. 1991;24:238.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  259. Frosch PJ, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, et al. Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:207.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  260. Frosch PJ, Rastogi SC, Pirker C, et al. Patch testing with a new fragrance mix—reactivity to the individual constituents and chemical detection in relevant cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:216.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  261. Bruze M, Andersen KE, Goossens A, et al. Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) in the European baseline patch test series. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:129.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  262. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) of the European Union. Cosmetic ingredient database (Cosing)—Ingredients and Fragrance inventory. 2018. http://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/cosmetic-ingredient-database-ingredients-and-fragrance-inventory. Accessed 29 Oct 2019.

  263. Kim S, Chen J, Cheng T, et al. PubChem 2019 update: improved access to chemical data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(D1):D1102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  264. American Chemical Society. Common Chemistry. 2019. http://www.commonchemistry.org. Accessed 30 Nov 2019.

  265. Zucca P, Littarru M, Rescigno A, et al. Cofactor recycling for selective enzymatic biotransformation of cinnamaldehyde to cinnamyl alcohol. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2009;73:1224.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  266. Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.results&annex_v2=III&search. Accessed 30 Nov 2019.

  267. International Fragrance Association (IFRA), Research Institute for Fragrance Materials (RIFM). IFRA RIFM QRA Information Booklet Version 7.1. 2015. https://ifrafragrance.org/docs/default-source/ifra-code-of-practice-and-standards/background-scientific-information-and-guidelines/ifra-rifm-qra-information-booklet-v7-1.pdf?sfvrsn=1426bcb8_0. Accessed 30 Nov 2019.

  268. International Fragrance Association (IFRA). IFRA Standards. 2015. https://ifrafragrance.org/docs/default-source/ifra-code-of-practice-and-standards/ifra-standards—48th-amendment/ifra-standards-in-full—booklet.pdf?sfvrsn=4b1e3cf_0. Accessed 30 Nov 2019.

  269. Smith CK, Moore CA, Elahi EN, et al. Human skin absorption and metabolism of the contact allergens, cinnamic aldehyde, and cinnamic alcohol. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2000;168:189.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  270. Niklasson IB, Delaine T, Islam MN, et al. Cinnamyl alcohol oxidizes rapidly upon air exposure. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:129.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  271. Basketter DA. Skin sensitization to cinnamic alcohol: the role of skin metabolism. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 1992;72:264.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  272. Cheung C, Hotchkiss SA, Pease CK. Cinnamic compound metabolism in human skin and the role metabolism may play in determining relative sensitisation potency. J Dermatol Sci. 2003;31:9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  273. Elahi EN, Wright Z, Hinselwood D, et al. Protein binding and metabolism influence the relative skin sensitization potential of cinnamic compounds. Chem Res Toxicol. 2004;17:301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  274. Niklasson IB, Ponting DJ, Luthman K, et al. Bioactivation of cinnamic alcohol forms several strong skin sensitizers. Chem Res Toxicol. 2014;27:568.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  275. Hagvall L, Bäcktorp C, Svensson S, et al. Fragrance compound geraniol forms contact allergens on air exposure. Identification and quantification of oxidation products and effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol. 2007;20:807.

    Google Scholar 

  276. Hagvall L, Baron JM, Börje A, et al. Cytochrome P450-mediated activation of the fragrance compound geraniol forms potent contact allergens. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2008;233:308.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  277. Hagvall L, Karlberg AT, Christensson JB. Contact allergy to air-exposed geraniol: clinical observations and report of 14 cases. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  278. Kamatou GP, Vermaak I, Viljoen AM. Eugenol–from the remote Maluku Islands to the international market place: a review of a remarkable and versatile molecule. Molecules. 2012;17:6953.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  279. Rastogi SC, Johansen JD. Significant exposures to isoeugenol derivatives in perfumes. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:278.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  280. Bernard G, Giménez-Arnau E, Rastogi SC, et al. Contact allergy to oak moss: search for sensitizing molecules using combined bioassay-guided chemical fractionation, GC-MS, and structure-activity relationship analysis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2003;295:229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  281. Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Svedman C, et al. Chloroatranol, an extremely potent allergen hidden in perfumes: a dose-response elicitation study. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49:180.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  282. Rastogi SC, Bossi R, Johansen JD, et al. Content of oak moss allergens atranol and chloroatranol in perfumes and similar products. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50:367.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  283. Johansen JD, Bernard G, Giménez-Arnau E, et al. Comparison of elicitation potential of chloroatranol and atranol–2 allergens in oak moss absolute. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;54:192.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  284. Mowitz M, Zimerson E, Svedman C, et al. Patch testing with serial dilutions and thin-layer chromatograms of oak moss absolutes containing high and low levels of atranol and chloroatranol. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:342.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  285. Mowitz M, Svedman C, Zimerson E, et al. Usage tests of oak moss absolutes containing high and low levels of atranol and chloroatranol. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 2014;94:398.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  286. Andersen F, Andersen KH, Bernois A, et al. Reduced content of chloroatranol and atranol in oak moss absolute significantly reduces the elicitation potential of this fragrance material. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  287. Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1410 of 2 August 2017 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products. 2017. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R1410&from=EN. Accessed 05 Dec 2019.

  288. Lanigan RS, Yamarik TA; Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert panel. Final report on the safety assessment of sorbitan caprylate, sorbitan cocoate, sorbitan diisostearate, sorbitan dioleate, sorbitan distearate, sorbitan isostearate, sorbitan olivate, sorbitan sesquiisostearate, sorbitan sesquistearate, and sorbitan triisostearate. Int J Toxicol. 2002;21 (Suppl 1):93.

    Google Scholar 

  289. Frosch PJ, Pilz B, Burrows D, et al. Testing with fragrance mix. Is the addition of sorbitan sesquioleate to the constituents useful? Contact Dermatitis. 1995;32:266.

    Google Scholar 

  290. Orton DI, Shaw S. Sorbitan sesquioleate as an allergen. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;44:190.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  291. Asarch A, Scheinman PL. Sorbitan sesquioleate, a common emulsifier in topical corticosteroids, is an important contact allergen. Dermatitis. 2008;19:323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  292. Asarch A, Scheinman PL. Sorbitan sesquioleate: an emerging contact allergen. Dermatitis. 2008;19:339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  293. Cressey BD, Kumar N, Scheinman PL. Contact allergy to sorbitans: a follow-up study. Dermatitis. 2012;23:158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  294. Geier J, Schnuch A, Lessmann H, et al. Reactivity to sorbitan sesquioleate affects reactivity to fragrance mix I. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:296.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  295. Bennike NH, Johansen JD. Sorbitan sesquioleate; a rare cause of contact allergy in consecutively patch tested dermatitis patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:242.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  296. Stingeni L, Tramontana M, Bianchi L, et al. Patch test with sorbitan sesquioleate in Italian consecutive patients: a 1-year multicenter SIDAPA study. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  297. Rudbäck J, Hagvall L, Börje A, et al. Characterization of skin sensitizers from autoxidized citronellol—impact of the terpene structure on the autoxidation process. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:329.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  298. Heydorn S, Menné T, Andersen KE, et al. Citral a fragrance allergen and irritant. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49:32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  299. Vogel A. Darstellung von Benzoesäure aus der Tonka-Bohne und aus den Meliloten- oder Steinklee-Blumen [Preparation of benzoic acid from tonka beans and from the flowers of melilot or sweet clover]. Ann Phys. 1820;64:161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  300. Vogel A. De l’existence de l’acide benzoïque dans la fève de tonka et dans les fleurs de mélilot” [On the existence of benzoic acid in the tonka bean and in the flowers of melilot]. J de Pharmacie. 1820;6:305.

    Google Scholar 

  301. Wang YH, Avula B, Nanayakkara NP, et al. Cassia cinnamon as a source of coumarin in cinnamon-flavored food and food supplements in the United States. J Agric Food Chem. 2013;61:4470.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  302. Ieri F, Pinelli P, Romani A. Simultaneous determination of anthocyanins, coumarins and phenolic acids in fruits, kernels and liqueur of Prunus mahaleb L. Food Chem. 2012;135:2157.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  303. Rastogi SC, Johansen JD, Menné T. Natural ingredients based cosmetics. Content of selected fragrance sensitizers. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:423.

    Google Scholar 

  304. Goossens A, Merckx L. Allergic contact dermatitis from farnesol in a deodorant. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:179.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  305. Rastogi SC, Johansen JD, Menné T, et al. Contents of fragrance allergens in children’s cosmetics and cosmetic-toys. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  306. Hemmer W, Focke M, Leitner B, et al. Axillary dermatitis from farnesol in a deodorant. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42:168.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  307. Rastogi SC, Heydorn S, Johansen JD, et al. Fragrance chemicals in domestic and occupational products. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:221.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  308. García-Abujeta JL, de Larramendi CH, Berna JP, et al. Mud bath dermatitis due to cinnamon oil. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  309. Juarez A, Goiriz R, Sanchez-Perez J, et al. Disseminated allergic contact dermatitis after exposure to a topical medication containing geraniol. Dermatitis. 2008;19:163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  310. Nardelli A, Drieghe J, Claes L, et al. Fragrance allergens in ‘specific’ cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  311. Carvalho R, Maio P, Amaro C, et al. Hydrogel allergic contact dermatitis and imidazolidinyl urea/diazolidinyl urea. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2011;30:331.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  312. Guarneri F, Vaccaro M, Barbuzza O, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from alpha-amylcinnamaldehyde [Dermatite allergica da contatto da alfa-amilcinnamaldeide]. Ann Ital Dermatol Allergol. 2013;67:69.

    Google Scholar 

  313. De Mozzi P, Johnston GA. An outbreak of allergic contact dermatitis caused by citral in beauticians working in a health spa. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  314. Nijkamp MM, Bokkers BG, Bakker MI, et al. Quantitative risk assessment of the aggregate dermal exposure to the sensitizing fragrance geraniol in personal care products and household cleaning agents. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;73:9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  315. Corazza M, Virgili A, Bertoldi AM, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by insect repellent wipes. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  316. Wieck S, Olsson O, Kümmerer K, et al. Fragrance allergens in household detergents. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2018;97:163.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  317. Jongeneel WP, Delmaar JE, Bokkers BGH. Health impact assessment of a skin sensitizer: analysis of potential policy measures aimed at reducing geraniol concentrations in personal care products and household cleaning products. Environ Int. 2018;118:235.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  318. Panico A, Serio F, Bagordo F, et al. Skin safety and health prevention: an overview of chemicals in cosmetic products. J Prev Med Hyg. 2019;60:E50.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  319. Bousquet PJ, Guillot B, Guilhou JJ, et al. A stomatitis due to artificial cinnamon-flavored chewing gum. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141:1466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  320. Tamagawa-Mineoka R, Katoh N, Kishimoto S. Allergic contact cheilitis due to geraniol in food. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56:242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  321. Srivastava D, Cohen DE. Identification of the constituents of balsam of Peru in tomatoes. Dermatitis. 2009;20:99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  322. Swerdlin A, Rainey D, Storrs FJ. Fragrance mix reactions and lime allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2010;21:214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  323. Guarneri F. Occupational allergy to cinnamal in a baker. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  324. Isaac-Renton M, Li MK, Parsons LM. Cinnamon spice and everything not nice: many features of intraoral allergy to cinnamic aldehyde. Dermatitis. 2015;26:116.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  325. Bui TNPT, Mose KF, Andersen F. Eugenol allergy mimicking burning mouth syndrome. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  326. Matiz C, Jacob SE. Systemic contact dermatitis in children: how an avoidance diet can make a difference. Pediatr Dermatol. 2011;28:368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  327. Perper M, Cervantes J, Eber AE, et al. Airborne contact dermatitis caused by fragrance diffusers in Uber cars. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77:116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  328. Jensen P, Garcia Ortiz P, Hartmann-Petersen S, et al. Connubial allergic contact dermatitis caused by fragrance ingredients. Dermatitis. 2012;23:e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  329. Mathias CG, Cram D, Ragsdale J, et al. Contact dermatitis caused by spouse’s perfume and cologne. Can Med Assoc J. 1978;119:257.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  330. Held JL, Ruszkowski AM, Deleo VA. Consort contact dermatitis due to oak moss. Arch Dermatol. 1988;124:261.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  331. Yamamoto A, Morita A, Tsuji T, et al. Contact urticaria from geraniol. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46:52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  332. Verhulst L, Goossens A. Cosmetic components causing contact urticaria: a review and update. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75:333.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  333. López-Sáez MP, Carrillo P, Huertas AJ, et al. Occupational asthma and dermatitis induced by eugenol in a cleaner. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2015;25:64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  334. Folletti I, Siracusa A, Paolocci G. Update on asthma and cleaning agents. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;17:90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  335. Basketter DA, Huggard J, Kimber I. Fragrance inhalation and adverse health effects: the question of causation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019;104:151.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  336. Paulsen E, Andersen F. Fragrant and sticky allergens from the pinewood: cohabiting and coreacting. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:374.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  337. Vocanson M, Goujon C, Chabeau G, et al. The skin allergenic properties of chemicals may depend on contaminants–evidence from studies on coumarin. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2006;140:231.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  338. Hagvall L, Bråred Christensson J. Cross-reactivity between citral and geraniol - can it be attributed to oxidized geraniol? Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:280.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  339. Herman A, Aerts O, de Montjoye L, et al. Isothiazolinone derivatives and allergic contact dermatitis: a review and update. JEADV. 2019;33:267.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  340. Rodrigues-Barata AR, Conde-Salazar L. Methylisothiazolinone and methylchloroisothiazolinone: new insights. EMJ Dermatol. 2014;2:101.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  341. Mose AP, Frost S, Öhlund U, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from octylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:49.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  342. Schwensen JF, Menné Bonefeld C, Zachariae C, et al. Cross-reactivity between methylisothiazolinone, octylisothiazolinone and benzisothiazolinone using a modified local lymph node assay. Br J Dermatol. 2016;176:176.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  343. Marks JG Jr, Moss JN, Parno JR. Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (Kathon CG) biocide: second United States multicenter study of human skin sensitization. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1990;4:157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  344. Nielsen H. Occupational exposure to isothiazolinones. A study based on a product register. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:18.

    Google Scholar 

  345. Aerts O, Baeck M, Constandt L, et al. The dramatic increase in the rate of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Belgium: a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  346. Hosteing S, Meyer N, Waton J, et al. Outbreak of contact sensitization to methylisothiazolinone: an analysis of French data from the REVIDAL- GERDA network. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:262.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  347. Food and Drug Administration. Frequency of use of cosmetic ingredients. FDA database. Submitted by FDA in response to FOI request F06-18753. Washington, DC: FDA; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  348. Amaro C, Santos R, Cardoso J. Contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone in a deodorant. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  349. Uter W, Geier J, Bauer A, et al. Risk factors associated with methylisothiazolinone contact sensitization. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:231.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  350. Uter W, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in Europe: follow-up on changing exposures. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;34:333.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  351. Vanneste L, Persson L, Zimerson E, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by methylisothiazolinone from different sources, including ‘mislabelled’ household wet wipes. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:311.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  352. Alvarez-Rivera G, Dagnac T, Lores M, et al. Determination of isothiazolinone preservatives in cosmetics and household products by matrix solid-phase dispersion followed by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2012;1270:41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  353. Mose AP, Lundov MD, Zachariae C, et al. Occupational contact dermatitis in painters: an analysis of patch test data from the Danish Contact Dermatitis Group. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:293.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  354. Thomsen AV, Schwensen JF, Bossi R, et al. Isothiazolinones are still widely used in paints purchased in five European countries: a follow-up study. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:246.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  355. Friis UF, Menné T, Flyvholm MA, et al. Isothiazolinones in commercial products at Danish workplaces. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  356. Lundov MD, Kolarik B, Bossi R, et al. Emission of isothiazolinones from water-based paints. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:6989.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  357. Schwensen JF, Lundov MD, Bossi R, et al. Methylisothiazolinone and benzisothiazolinone are widely used in paint: a multicentre study of paints from five European countries. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:127.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  358. Alwan W, White IR, Banerjee P. Presumed airborne contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone causing acute severe facial dermatitis and respiratory difficulty. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:320.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  359. Lundov MD, Mosbech H, Thyssen JP, et al. Two cases of airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by methylisothiazolinone in paint. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:175.

    Google Scholar 

  360. Kaae J, Menné TL, Thyssen JP. Presumed primary contact sensitization to methylisothiazoline from paint: a chemical that became airborne. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  361. Foti C, Romita P, Stufano A, et al. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by 2-butyl-1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one in a metalworker. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  362. Windler L, Height M, Nowack B. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobials for textile applications. Environ Int. 2013;53:62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  363. Febriana SA, Jungbauer F, Soebono H, et al. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis and patch test results of leather workers at two Indonesian tanneries. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:277.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  364. Ayadi M, Martin P. Pulpitis of the fingers from a shoe glue containing 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one (BIT). Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40:115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  365. Febriana SA, Zimerson E, Svedman C, et al. Thin-layer chromatography and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry examination of shoe. materials from patients with shoe dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:248.

    Google Scholar 

  366. Febriana SA, Soebono H, Coenraads PJ, et al. Contact allergy in Indonesian patients with foot eczema attributed to shoes. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29:1582.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  367. Rani Z, Hussain I, Haroon TS. Common allergens in shoe dermatitis: our experience in Lahore. Pakistan. Int J Dermatol. 2003;42:605.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  368. Aalto-Korte K, Alanko K, Henriks-Eckerman ML, et al. Antimicrobial allergy from polyvinyl chloride gloves. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142:1326.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  369. Aalto-Korte K, Ackermann L, Henriks-Eckerman ML, et al. 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one in disposable polyvinyl chloride gloves for medical use. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:365.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  370. Kawakami T, Isama K, Ikarashi Y. Analysis of isothiazolinone preservatives in polyvinyl alcohol cooling towels used in Japan. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2014;49:1209.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  371. Fewings J, Menné T. An update of the risk assessment for methylchloroisothiazolinone/ methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) with focus on rinse-off products. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  372. Mowad CM. Methylchloro-isothiazolinone revisited. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 2000;11:115.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  373. Yu SH, Sood A, Taylor JS. Patch testing for methylisothiazolinone and methylchloroisothiazolinone-methylisothiazolinone contact allergy. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  374. García-Bravo B, Conde-Salazar L, De La Cuadra-Oyanguren J, et al. Epidemiological study of allergic contact dermatitis in Spain. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas. 2001;95:14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  375. Cuesta L, Silvestre JF, Toledo F, et al. Delayed hypersensitivity to methylchloroisothiazolinone/ methylisothiazolinone not detected by the baseline series of the Spanish group. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62:250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  376. Ackermann L, Aalto-Korte K, Alanko K, et al. Contact sensitization to methylisothiazolinone in Finland–a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:49.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  377. Schnuch A, Mildau G, Kratz EM, et al. Risk of sensitization to preservatives estimated on the basis of patch test data and exposure, according to a sample of 3541 leave-on products. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:167.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  378. Uter W, Gefeller O, Geier J, et al. Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone contact sensitization: diverging trends in subgroups of IVDK patients in a period of 19 years. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:125.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  379. Gonçalo M, Goossens A. Whilst Romeburns: the epidemic of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  380. Lundov MD, Krongaard T, Menné T, et al. Methylisothiazolinone contact allergy: a review. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165:1178.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  381. Murad A, Marren P. Prevalence of methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone contact allergy in facial dermatitis: a single centre Irish study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30:60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  382. Geier J, Lessmann H, Schuch A, et al. Recent increase in allergic reactions to methylchloroisothiazolinone/ methylisothiazolinone: is methylisothiazolinone the culprit? Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:334.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  383. Lundov MD, Opstrup MS, Johansen JD. Methylisothiazolinone contact allergy - a growing epidemic. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:271.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  384. Burnett CL, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, et al. Final report of the safety assessment of methylisothiazolinone. Int J Toxicol. 2010;29:187S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  385. Schwensen JF, Uter W, Bruze M, et al. The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone: a European prospective study. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;76:272.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  386. Pesonen M, Jolanki R, Larese Filon F, et al. Patch test results of the European baseline series among patients with occupational contact dermatitis across Europe—analyses of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy network, 2002–2010. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:154.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  387. Gruvberger B, Bruze M, Almgren G. Occupational dermatoses in a plant producing binders for paints and glues. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  388. Urwin R, Wilkinson M. Methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone contact allergy: a new ‘epidemic’. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  389. Castanedo-Tardana MP, Zug KA. Methylisothiazolinone. Dermatitis.2013;24:2.

    Google Scholar 

  390. Aerts O, Cattaert N, Lambert J, et al. Airborne and systemic dermatitis, mimicking atopic dermatitis, caused by methylisothiazolinone in a young child. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  391. Madsen JT, Andersen KE. Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by methylisothiazolinone in a child sensitized from wet wipes. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  392. Bregnbak D, Johansen JD. Airborne sensitization to isothiazolinones observed in a 3-month-old boy. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  393. Van Steenkiste E, Goossens A, Meert H, et al. Airborne- induced lymphomatoid contact dermatitis caused by methylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:237.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  394. Kaur-Knudsen D, Menné T, Christina Carlsen B. Systemic allergic dermatitis following airborne exposure to 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  395. Morren MA, Dooms-Goossens A, Delabie J, et al. Contact allergy to isothiazolinone derivatives: unusual clinical presentations. Dermatology. 1992;184:260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  396. Arnau AMG, Uter W, Pujol RM. Chloromethylisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, still a prevalent allergen causing contact dermatitis. Poster, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  397. Smets KBA, Hauben E, Goossens A. B-cell lymphomatoid contact dermatitis caused by methyl- and methylchloroisothiazolinone. Eur J Dermatol. 2018;28:91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  398. Aerts O, Van Dyck F, Dandelooy J, et al. Contact dermatitis masquerading as folliculitis decalvans: methylisothiazolinone strikes again! Dermatitis. 2014;25:276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  399. Bruze M, Goossens A, Isaksson M. Recommendation to increase the test concentration of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone in the European baseline patch test series—On behalf of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis and the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  400. Bruze M, Engfeldt M, Gonçalo M. Recommendation to include methylisothiazolinone in the European baseline patch test series–on behalf of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis and the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:263.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  401. Alexander BR. An assessment of the comparative sensitization potential of some common isothiazolinones. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46:191.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  402. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. European Commission. Opinion on methylisothiazolinone (P94) submission II (sensitisation only). Revision of the opinion on methylisothiazolinone (P94). Adopted: 12 December, 2013. Revision: 27 March, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  403. Maor D, Nixon R. Allergic contact dermatitis to methylchloroisothia-zolinone/methylisothiazolinone in cooling tower technicians. Dermatitis. 2015;26:62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  404. Aerts O, Goossens A, Lambert J, et al. Contact allergy caused by isothiazolinone derivatives: an overview of non-cosmetic and unusual cosmetic sources. Eur J Dermatol. 2017;27:115.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  405. Matthieu L, Dockx P. Discrepancy in patch test results with wool wax alcohols and Amerchol L-101. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36:150.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  406. Sengupta A, Behera J. Comprehensive view on chemistry, manufacturing & applications of lanolin extracted from wool pretreatment. AJER. 2014;33:43.

    Google Scholar 

  407. Rogers GFC, Mayhew YR. Thermodynamic and transport properties of fluids. Oxford: Blackwell; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  408. Bruynzeel DP, Diepgen TL, Andersen KE, et al. Monitoring the European standard series in 10 centres 1996–2000. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;53:146.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  409. Warshaw EM, Nelsen DD, Maibach HI, et al. Positive patch test reactions to lanolin: cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1994 to 2006. Dermatitis. 2009;20:79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  410. Thyssen JP, Mcfadden JP, Kimber I. The multiple factors affecting the association between atopic dermatitis and contact sensitization. Allergy. 2014;69:28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  411. Halling-Overgaard AS, Kezic S, Jakasa I, et al. Skin absorption through atopic dermatitis skin: a systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2017;177:84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  412. Clemmensen KK, Thomsen SF, Jemec GB, et al. Pattern of contact sensitization in patients with and without atopic dermatitis in a hospital-based clinical database. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  413. Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Linneberg A, et al. The association between contact sensitization and atopic disease by linkage of a clinical database and a nationwide patient registry. Allergy. 2012;67:1157.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  414. Fransen M, Overgaard LEK, Johansen JD, et al. Contact allergy to lanolin: temporal changes in prevalence and association with atopic dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  415. Miest RY, Yiannias JA, Chang YH, et al. Diagnosis and prevalence of lanolin allergy. Dermatitis. 2013;24:119.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  416. Kligman AM. The myth of lanolin allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39:103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  417. Clark EW, Blondeel A, Cronin E, et al. Lanolin of reduced sensitizing potential. Contact Dermatitis. 1981;7:80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  418. Knijp J, Bruynzeel DP, Rustemeyer T. Diagnosing lanolin contact allergy with lanolin alcohol and Amerchol L101. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  419. Bonamonte D. Balsamo del Perù. In: Angelini G, Vena GA, editors. Dermatologia professionale e ambientale, vol. 2. Brescia: ISED; 1999. p. 442.

    Google Scholar 

  420. De Groot AC. Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru)—a critical review of the literature and assessment of the significance of positive patch test reactions and the usefulness of restrictive diets. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  421. Ngan V. Balsam of Peru allergy. 2002. https://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/balsam-of-peru-allergy. Accessed 29 Oct 2019.

  422. Amado A, Taylor JS. Balsam of Peru or balsam of El Salvador? Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  423. European Medicines Agency. Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products (HMPC). Assessment report on Myroxylon balsamum (L.) Harms var. pereirae (Royle) Harms, balsamum. 2016. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/herbal-report/final-assessment-report-myroxylon-balsamum-l-harms-var-pereirae-royle-harms-balsamum_en.pdf. Accessed 29 Oct 2019.

  424. Hausen BM, Simatupang T, Bruhn G, et al. Identification of new allergenic constituents and proof of evidence for coniferyl benzoate in balsam of Peru. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1995;6:199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  425. De Groot AC. Monographs in contact allergy, vol. II—Fragrances and essential oils. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  426. International Fragrance Association (IFRA). Standard Peru balsam extracts and distillates. 2008. http://www.ifraorg.org/en-us/standards-library. Accessed 29 Oct 2019.

  427. Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.results&annex_v2=III&search. Accessed 29 Oct 2019.

  428. Hjorth N. Eczematous allergy to balsams, allied perfumes and flavouring agents, with special reference to balsam of Peru. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 1961;41 Suppl 46:1.

    Google Scholar 

  429. Bedello PG, Goitre M, Cane D. Contact dermatitis and flare from food flavouring agents. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8:143.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  430. Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, et al. Oral challenge with balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;12:104.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  431. Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, et al. Reduction of intake of balsams in patients sensitive to balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;12:270.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  432. Salam TN, Fowler JF Jr. Balsam-related systemic contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;45:377.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  433. Pfützner W, Thomas P, Niedermeier A, et al. Systemic contact dermatitis elicited by oral intake of Balsam of Peru. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 2003;83:294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  434. Herro EM, Jacob SE. Systemic contact dermatitis–kids and ketchup. Pediatr Dermatol. 2013;30:e32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  435. Dermatitis Academy. Balsam of Peru diet. 2019. https://www.dermatitisacademy.com/bop-diet. Accessed 29 Oct 2019.

  436. Bruze M. Simultaneous reactions to phenol-formaldehyde resins colophony/hydroabietyl alcohol and balsam of Peru/perfume mixture. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;14:119.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  437. Matthieu L, Meuleman L, Van Hecke E, et al. Contact and photocontact allergy to ketoprofen. The Belgian experience. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50:238.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  438. Nakagawa M, Kawai K, Kawai K. Cross-sensitivity between resorcinol, resorcinol monobenzoate and phenyl salicylate. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:199.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  439. Hausen BM. Contact allergy to balsam of Peru. II. Patch test results in 102 patients with selected balsam of Peru constituents. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 2001;12:93.

    Google Scholar 

  440. Sasseville D. Neomycin. Dermatitis. 2010;21:3

    Google Scholar 

  441. Baer RI, Ludwig JS. Allergic eczematous sensitization to neomycin. Ann Allergy. 1952;10:136.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  442. Uter W, Ramsch C, Aberer W, et al. The European baseline series in 10 European countries, 2005/2006—results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA). Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61:31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  443. Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF Jr, et al. Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2005–2006. Dermatitis. 2009;20:149.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  444. Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Taylor JS, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis. 2013;24:50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  445. Motaparthi K, Hsu S. Topical antibacterial agents. In: Wolverton SE, editor. Comprehensive dermatologic drug therapy, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2013. p. 445.

    Google Scholar 

  446. Phillips DK. Neomycin sulfate. In: Guin JD, editor. Practical contact dermatitis. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc; 1995. p. 167.

    Google Scholar 

  447. Ekelund AG, Móller H. Oral provocation in eczematous contact allergy to neomycin and hydroxyquinolines. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh). 1969;49:422.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  448. Guin JD, Phillips D. Erythroderma from systemic contact dermatitis: a complication of systemic gentamicin in a patient with contact allergy to neomycin. Cutis. 1989;43:564.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  449. Pirilä V, Förstrom L, Rouhunkoski S. Twelve years of sensitization to neomycin in Finland: Report of 1760 cases of sensitivity to neomycin and/or bacitracin. Acta Derm Venereol. 1967;47:419.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  450. Schorr W, Ridgway HB. Tobramycin-neomycin cross-sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:133.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  451. Pirilä V, Hirvonen M, Rouhnkoski S. The pattern of cross-sensitivity to neomycin. Dermatologica. 1986;136:321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  452. Rudzki E, Zakrewski Z, Rebandel P, et al. Cross reactions between aminoglycoside antibiotics. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;18:314.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  453. Saito M, Arakaki R, Yamada A, et al. Molecular mechanisms of nickel allergy. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:E202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  454. Weltzien H. Lessons from nickel hypersensitivity: structural findings. In: Pichler WJ, editor. Drug hypersensitivity. Basel: Karger; 2007. p. 47.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  455. Ahlström MG, Thyssen JP, Wennervaldt M, et al. Nickel allergy and allergic contact dermatitis: a clinical review of immunology, epidemiology, exposure, and treatment. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  456. Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Nickel as an occupational allergen: a survey of 368 nickel-sensitive subjects. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1231.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  457. Shum KW, Meyer JD, Chen Y, et al. Occupational contact dermatitis to nickel: experience of the British dermatologists (EPIDERM) and occupational physicians (OPRA) surveillance schemes. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60:954.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  458. European Dir. 94/27/EC of 30 June 1994 amending for the 12th time Dir. 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances. Off J Eur Commun. 1994;37:1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  459. Thyssen JP, Uter W, McFadden J, et al. The EU Nickel Directive revisited—future steps towards better protection against nickel allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  460. Guarneri F, Costa C, Cannavó SP, et al. Release of nickel and chromium in common foods during cooking in 18/10 (grade 316) stainless steel pots. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76:40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  461. Calogiuri GF, Bonamonte D, Foti C et al. Nickel hypersensitivity: a general review on clinical aspects and potential co-morbidities. J Allergy Ther. 2016; 7:5.

    Google Scholar 

  462. Teo WZW, Schalock PC. Metal hypersensitivity reactions to orthopedic implants. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2017;7:53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  463. Veien NK. Acute and recurrent vesicular hand dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2009;27:337.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  464. Thomas P, Summer B. Diagnosis and management of patients with allergy to metal implants. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2015;11:501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  465. Thyssen JP, Menné T, Johansen JD, et al. No association between metal allergy and cardiac in-stent restenosis in patients with dermatitis—results from a linkage study. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  466. Köster R, Vieluf D, Kiehn M, et al. Nickel and molybdenum contact allergies in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis. Lancet. 2000;356:1895.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  467. Muris J, Kleverlaan CJ. Hypersensitivity to dental alloys. In: Chen JK, Thyssen JP, editors. Metal allergy. Springer, Cham: From dermatitis to implant and device failure; 2018. p. 285.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  468. Jensen CS, Lisby S, Baadsgaard O, et al. Release of nickel ions from stainless steel alloys used in dental braces and their patch test reactivity in nickel-sensitive individuals. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  469. Janson GR, Dainesi EA, Consolaro A, et al. Nickel hypersensitivity reaction before, during, and after orthodontic therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113:655.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  470. Noble J, Ahing SI, Karaiskos NE, et al. Nickel allergy and orthodontics, a review and report of two cases. Br Dent J. 2008;204:297.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  471. Pigatto PD, Brambilla L, Ferrucci S, et al. Systemic allergic contact dermatitis associated with allergy to intraoral metals. Dermatol Online J. 2014;20:13030/qt74632201.

    Google Scholar 

  472. Angelini G, Meneghini C. Patch tests: vantaggi ed effetti indesiderati. Giorn Ital Dermatol Venereol. 1986; 121:209.

    Google Scholar 

  473. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Antelmi A, et al. Nickel contact allergy and menstrual cycle. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  474. Wall LM. Nickel penetration through rubber gloves. Contact Dermatitis. 1980;6:461.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  475. van Ketel WG, Bruynzeel DP. Chelating effect of EDTA on nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;11:311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  476. Kaaber K, Menné T, Tjell JC, et al. Antabuse treatment of nickel dermatitis. Chelation—a new principle in the treatment of nickel dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1979;5:221.

    Google Scholar 

  477. Christensen OB, Kristensen M. Treatment with disulfuram in chronic nickel hand dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8:59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  478. Kaaber K, Menné T, Veien NK, et al. Some adverse effects of disulfiram in the treatment of nickel allergic patients. Derm Beruf Umwelt. 1987;35:209.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  479. Pigatto PD, Gibelli E, Fumagalli M, et al. Disodium cromoglycate versus diet in the treatment and prevention of nickel-positive pompholyx. Contact Dermatitis. 1990;22:27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  480. Bonamonte D, Cristaudo A, Nasorri F, et al. Efficacy of oral hyposensitization in allergic contact dermatitis caused by nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:293.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  481. Bonamonte D, Guida S, Vestita M, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis to nickel: from clinical aspects to therapeutic measures. Clinical Immunology, Endocrine & Metabolic Drugs. 2014;1:75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  482. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Vestita M, et al. Parabens: an endless story. Ann Ital Dermatol Allergol. 2013;67:41.

    Google Scholar 

  483. Kligman A. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. III. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol. 1966;47:393.

    Google Scholar 

  484. Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Antimicrobials: experimental contact sensitization in man. J Cosm Chem. 1973;24:399.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  485. Bonnevie P. Overfolsomhed fur aetylparauxybenzoat (Mycocten). Nord Med. 1940;6:684.

    Google Scholar 

  486. Castelain F, Castelain M. Parabens: a real hazard or a scare story? Eur J Dermatol. 2012;22:723.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  487. Hjorth N, Trolle-Lassen C. Skin reaction to oinments bases. Trans St John Hosp Dermatol Soc. 1963;49:127.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  488. Bonamonte D. Allergeni della serie standard. In: Angelini G, Vena GA, editors. Dermatologia professionale e ambientale, vol. 2. Brescia: ISED; 1999. p. 451.

    Google Scholar 

  489. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Contact dermatitis in a group of patients with leg ulcers. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1:183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  490. Angelini G, Vena GA, Meneghini CL. Allergic contact dermatitis to some medicaments. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;12:263.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  491. Angelini G, Vena GA, Giglio G, et al. Allergia da contatto in sede ano-perineale e genitale. Boll Dermatol Allergol Profes. 1988;3:55.

    Google Scholar 

  492. Cronin E. Contact dermatitis. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1980. p. 665.

    Google Scholar 

  493. Steinberg DC. Voluntary registration of cosmetics and frequency of preservative use. Cosm Toil. 2008;123:47.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  494. Menné T, Hjorth N. Routine patch testing with paraben esters. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;19:189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  495. Johnson WT, DeStigter T. Hypersensitivity to procaine, tetracaine, mepivacaine and methyl paraben: a report of a case. J Am Dent Assoc. 1983;106:53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  496. Turchin J, Moreau L, Warshaw E, et al. Cross reactions among parabens, paraphenylenediamine, and benzocaine. Dermatitis. 2006;17:192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  497. Hofmann AW. Organische Basen Jahresberichte ueber die Fortschritte der Chemie. Ann Rep Prog Chem. 1863;3:422.

    Google Scholar 

  498. Lidén C, Brehmer-Andersson E. Occupational dermatoses from colour developing agents. Acta Dermato-Venereol. 1988;68:514.

    Google Scholar 

  499. Fernández-Vozmediano JM, Padilla-Moreno M, Armario-Hita JC, et al. Pattern of contact sensitization to paraphenylenediamine and its detection in hair dyes. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2011;102:206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  500. Thyssen JP, White JM, European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Epidemiological data on consumer allergy to p-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;59:327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  501. Chan YC, Ng SK, Goh CL. Positive patch-test reactions to para-phenylenediamine, their clinical relevance and the concept of clinical tolerance. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:217.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  502. Sharma VK, Chakrabarti A. Common contact sensitizers in Chandigarh, India. A study of 200 patients with the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:127.

    Google Scholar 

  503. Sharma VK, Sethuraman G, Garg T, et al. Patch testing with the Indian standard series in New Delhi. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;51:319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  504. Vogel TA, Coenraads PJ, Bijkersma LM, et al, EDEN Fragrance Study Group. p-Phenylenediamine exposure in real life—a case–control study on sensitization rate, mode and elicitation reactions in the northern Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:355.

    Google Scholar 

  505. Thyssen JP, Andersen KE, Bruze M, et al. p-Phenylenediamine sensitization is more prevalent in central and southern European patch test centres than in Scandinavian: results from a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:314.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  506. Patel S, Basketter DA, Jefferies D, et al. Patch test frequency to p-phenylenediamine: follow up over the last 6 years. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56:35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  507. Haluk Akar H, Adatepe S, Tahan F, et al. Hair dyes and temporary tattoos are a real hazard for adolescents? Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;46:35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  508. KoleKoley S, Sarkar J, Choudhary S, et al. Erythema multiforme following application of hair dye. Indian J Dermatol. 2012;57:230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  509. Sharma VK, Mandal SK, Sethuraman G, et al. Paraphenylenediamine-induced lichenoid eruptions. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  510. Sequeira FF, Jayaseelan E, Stephen J, et al. Paraphenylenediamine-induced cutaneous pseudolymphoma. Indian J Dermatol. 2014;59:424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  511. Edwards EK, Edwards EK. Contact urticaria and allergic contact dermatitis caused by paraphenylenediamine. Cutis. 1984;34:87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  512. Taylor JS, Maibach HI, Fisher A, et al. Contact leukoderma associated with the use of hair colors. Cutis. 1993;52:273.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  513. Romita P, Foti C, Mascia P, et al. Eyebrow allergic contact dermatitis caused by m-aminophenol and toluene-2,5-diamine secondary to a temporary black henna tattoo. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;79:51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  514. Sudhir Nayak UK. Hair dye dermatitis and para-phenylenediamine contact sensitivity. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2015;6:246.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  515. Mukkanna KS, Stone NM, Ingram JR. Para-phenylenediamine allergy: current perspectives on diagnosis and management. J Asthma Allergy. 2017;10:9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  516. Kazandjieva J, Grozdev I, Tsankov N. Temporary henna tattoos. Clin Dermatol. 2007;25:383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  517. Ho SG, White IR, Rycroft RJ, et al. A new approach to patch testing patients with para-phenylenediamine allergy secondary to temporary black henna tattoos. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;51:213.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  518. Herve-Bazin B, Gradiski D, Duprat P, et al. Occupational eczema from N-isopropyl-N′-phenylparaphenylenediamine (IPPD) and N-dimethy-1,3 butyl-N′-phenylparaphenylenediamine (DMPPD) in tyres. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  519. McFadden JP, Yeo L, White JL. Clinical and experimental aspects of allergic contact dermatitis to para-phenylenediamine. Clin Dermatol. 2011;29:316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  520. Ho SG, Basketter DA, Jefferies D. Analysis of para-phenylenediamine allergic patients in relation to strength of patch test reaction. Br J Dermatol. 2005;153:364.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  521. Foti C, Balato N, Cristaudo A, et al. Multicenter clinical trial on a permanent hair dye containing paratoluenediamine. Giorn Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2018;153:464.

    Google Scholar 

  522. Frosch PJ, Kügler K, Geier J. Patch testing with hydroxyethyl-p-phenylenediamine sulfate—cross-reactivity with p-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  523. Edwards A, Coman G, Blickenstaff N. Dermatotoxicologic clinical solutions: hair dying in hair dye allergic patients? Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2015;34:72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  524. Antelmi A, Young E, Svedman C, et al. Are gloves sufficiently protective when hairdressers are exposed to permanent hair dyes? An in vivo study. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:229.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  525. Nagashima C, Tomitaka-Yagami A, Matsunaga K. Contact dermatitis due to para-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin in a wetsuit. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49:267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  526. p-tert-Butylphenol Formaldehyde Resin: Contact Allergen Database. 2008. http://contactallergy.com/contact_allergy_062.htm.

  527. Herro E, Jacob SE. p-tert-Butylphenol formaldehyde resin and its impact on children. Dermatitis. 2012;23:86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  528. Zimerson E, Bruze M. Contact allergy to the monomers in p-tertbutylphenolformaldehyde resin. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:147.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  529. Zimerson E, Bruze M. Low-molecular-weight contact allergens in ptertbutylphenol-formaldehyde resin. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 2002;13:190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  530. Geldof BA, Roesyanto ID, van Joost T. Clinical aspects of para-tertiary-butylphenolformaldehyde resin (PTBP-FR) allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;21:312.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  531. Bruze Fregert S, Zimerson E. Contact allergy to phenolformaldehyde resins. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;12:81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  532. Fregert S. Contact allergy to phenolplastics. Contact Dermatitis. 1981;7:170.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  533. Zug KA, McGinley-Smith D, Warshaw EM, et al. Contact allergy in children referred for patch testing. North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001–2004. Arch Dermatol. 2008;144:1329.

    Google Scholar 

  534. Hsu J, Jacob SE. The other side of athletic safety gear in adolescents: the role of p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde-resin in allergic contact dermatitis. J Dermatol Nurs. 2009;1:198.

    Google Scholar 

  535. Vincenzi C, Guerra I, Peluso AM, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis due to phenol-formaldehyde resin in a knee-guard. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;27:54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  536. Sommer S, Wilkinson SM, Dodman B. Contact dermatitis due to ureaformaldehyde resin in shin-pads. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40:159.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  537. Shono M, Ezoe K, Kaniwa M, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from para-tertiary-butylphenol formaldehyde resin (PTBP-FR) in athletic tape and leather adhesive. Contact Dermatitis. 1991;24:281.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  538. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr. Textile and shoe dermatitis. In: Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr, editors. Fisher’s contact dermatitis. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 279.

    Google Scholar 

  539. Mastrolonardo M, Loconsole F, Conte A, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis due to para-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin in a hearing aid. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;28:197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  540. Meding B, Ringdahl A. Allergic contact dermatitis from the earmolds of hearing aids. Ear Hear. 1992;13:122.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  541. Avenel-Audran M, Goossens A, Zimerson E, et al. Contact dermatitis from electrocardiograph-monitoring electrodes: role of p-tert-butylphenolformaldehyde resin. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:108.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  542. Dahlquist I. Contact allergy to paratertiary butylphenol formaldehyde resin in an adhesive label. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10:54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  543. Rycroft RJG, Wilkinson JD, Holmes R, et al. Contact sensitization to p-tertiary butylphenol (PTBP) resin in plastic nail adhesive. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1980;5:441.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  544. Ozkaya E, Elinç-Aslan MS, Mirzoyeva L. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin and colophonium in neoprene thermal sauna shorts. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  545. DuPont Performance Elastomers: Neoprene Polychloroprene. 2010. http://www.dupontelastomers.com/Products/neoprene/neoprene.asp?id5wikineo.

  546. Martellotta D, Di Costanzo L, Cafiero M, et al. Contact allergy to p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin and zinc diethyldithiocarbamate in a wet suit. Dermatitis. 2008;19:E3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  547. Crepy M-N. Rubber: new allergens and preventive measures. Eur J Dermatol. 2016;26:523.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  548. Schwensen JF, Menné T, Johansen JD, et al. Contact allergy to rubber accelerators remains prevalent: restrospective results from a tertiary clinic suggesting an association with facial dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venerol. 2016;30:1768.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  549. Andersen KE, White JR, Goossens A. Allergens from the standard series. In: Johansen D J, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P. editors. Contact dermatitis, 5th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 453.

    Google Scholar 

  550. Knudsen BB, Larsen E, Egsgaard H, et al. Release of thiurams and carbamates from rubber gloves. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;28:63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  551. Van Hecke E, Vermander F. Allergic contact dermatitis by oral disulfiram. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10:254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  552. Ayala F, Balato N, Lembo G, et al. A multicentre study of contact sensitization in children. Gruppo Italiano Ricerca Dermatiti da Contatto e Ambientali (GIRDCA). Contact Dermatitis. 1992;26:307.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  554. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Vestita M, et al. Noneczematous contact dermatitis. ISRN. Allergy. 2013;2013:361746.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  555. Malinauskiene L. Contact allergy to textile dyes. Clinical and experimental studies on disperse azo dyes: Thesis, University of Lund, Sweden; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  556. Oeko-Tex Standard 100. 2012. http://www.oekotex.com/OekoTex100_PUBLIC/content1.asp?area=hauptmenue&site=grenzwerte&cls=02. Last Accessed 10 Oct 2018.

  557. Wong A, Ball N, de Gannes G. Nonpruritic contact dermatitis from disperse blue dyes. Dermatitis. 2011;22:278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  558. Seidenari S, Manzini BM, Danese P. Contact sensitization to textile dyes: description of 100 subjects. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;24:253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  559. Haratizadeh A, Geier J, Molin S, et al. Contact sensitization in patients with suspected textile allergy. Data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) 2007–2015. Contact Dermatitis. 2017; 77:143.

    Google Scholar 

  560. Lazarov A. Textile dermatitis in patients with contact sensitization in Israel: a 4-year prospective study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2004;18:531.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  561. Narganes LM, Sambucety PS, Gonzalez IR, et al. Lymphomatoid dermatitis caused by contact with textile dyes. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  562. Abdiweli AM, Andersen F. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by textile dyes mimicking atopic dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76:114.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  563. Isaksson M, Ryberg K, Goossens A, et al. Recommendation to include a textile dye mix in the European baseline series. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  564. Isaksson M, Ale I, Andersen KE, et al. Patch testing to a textile dye mix by the international contact dermatitis research group. Dermatitis. 2015;26:170.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  565. Ryberg K, Goossens A, Isaksson M, et al. Is contact allergy to disperse dyes and related substances associated with textile dermatitis? Br J Dermatol. 2009;160:107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  566. Malinauskiene L, Zimerson E, Bruze M, et al. Are allergenic disperse dyes used for dyeing textiles? Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:141.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  567. Svedman C, Engfeldt M, Malinauskiene L. Textile contact dermatitis: how fabrics can induce dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;6:103.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Caterina Foti & Domenico Bonamonte

  2. Dermatological Clinic, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico di Bari, Bari, Italy

    Paolo Romita

  3. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Fabrizio Guarneri

  4. Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy

    Cataldo Patruno

  5. Professor of Dermatology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Gianni Angelini

Authors
  1. Caterina Foti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Domenico Bonamonte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paolo Romita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fabrizio Guarneri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cataldo Patruno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gianni Angelini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caterina Foti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Dermatology, Bari, Italy

    Gianni Angelini

  2. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Domenico Bonamonte

  3. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Caterina Foti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Foti, C., Bonamonte, D., Romita, P., Guarneri, F., Patruno, C., Angelini, G. (2021). Common Allergens. In: Angelini, G., Bonamonte, D., Foti, C. (eds) Clinical Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49332-5_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49332-5_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49331-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-49332-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation