Advertisement

The Use of Ultrasonic Bath Extracts in the Diagnostics of Contact Allergy and Allergic Contact Dermatitis

  • Magnus BruzeEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Investigation of patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis always requires patch testing with a baseline series but frequently also with additional series and patient-supplied products/materials. Many products/materials can be tested as they are, but sometimes this testing can be false negative. The undiagnosed contact allergy can still be clinically relevant, particularly when the undiagnosed contact allergy to the product/material is weak and the exposure to the product/material is extensive. The idea behind patch testing with ultrasonic bath extracts is to test a possible but unknown contact sensitizer at a higher concentration than what is present in the product, which will yield/has yielded a negative reaction when tested as is. The extraction procedure using an ultrasonic bath means an improved device to get standardized extracts from the same kind of products in a short time with regard to extraction area and time, volume of extracting solvent, use of ultrasonic bath, and evaporation, which enables the patient to be tested with extracts of patient-supplied products at the first visit to the patch test clinic.

Keywords

Contact Dermatitis Patch Testing Allergic Contact Dermatitis Contact Allergy Contact Sensitizer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Bruze M. What it a relevant contact allergy? Contact Dermatitis. 1990;23:224–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruze M. Principles of occupational hand eczema. In: Menné T, Maibach HI, editors. Hand eczema. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1993. p. 165–78.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lachapelle J-M. Historical aspects. Chapter 1. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P, editors. Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peiser M, Tralau T, Heidler J, Api AM, Arts JHE, Basketter DA, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: epidemiology, molecular mechanisms, in vitro methods and regulatory aspects. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2012;69:763–81.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruze M, Condé-Salazar L, Goossens A, Kanerva L, White IR. Thoughts on sensitizers in a standard patch test series. The European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:241–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruze M, Gruvberger B, Björkner B. Kathon® CG – an unusual contact sensitizer. In: Menné T, Maibach HI, editors. Exogenous dermatoses: environmental dermatitis. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1990. p. 283–98.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruze M, Trulsson L, Bendsöe N. Patch testing with ultrasonic bath extracts. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1992;3:133–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pontén A, Hamnerius N, Bruze M, Hansson C, Persson C, Svedman C, et al. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by sterile non-latex protective gloves: clinical investigation and chemical analyses. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:103–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruvberger B, Persson K, Björkner B, Bruze M, Dahlquist I, Fregert S. Demonstration of Kathon CG in some commercial products. Contact Dermatitis. 1986;15:24–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ebbehöj NE, Agner T, Zimerson E, Bruze M. Prevalence of eczema and rhinitis in a group of office-workers in Greenland (submitted).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bruze M, Frick M, Persson L. Patch testing with thin-layer chromatograms. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:278–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Svedman C, Isaksson M, Zimerson E, Bruze M. Occupational contact dermatitis from a grease. Dermatitis. 2004;15:41–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Isaksson M, Zimerson E. Risks and possibilities in patch testing with contaminated personal objects: usefulness of thin-layer chromatograms in a patient with acrylate contact allergy from a chemical burn. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:84–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lundh K, Gruvberger B, Möller H, Persson L, Hindsén M, Zimerson E, et al. Patch testing with thin-layer chromatograms of chamomile tea in patients allergic to sesquiterpene lactones. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:218–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryberg K, Goossens A, Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Zimerson E, Persson L, et al. Patch testing of patients allergic to Disperse Blue 106 and Disperse Blue 124 with thin-layer chromatograms and purified dyes. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:270–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lammintausta K, Zimerson E, Hasan T, Susitaival P, Winhoven S, Gruvberger B, et al. An epidemic of furniture-related dermatitis: searching for a cause. Br J Dermatol. 2010;162:108–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malinauskiene L, Zimerson E, Bruze M, Ryberg K, Isaksson M. Textile dyes disperse Orange 1 and Yellow 3 contain more than one allergen as shown by patch testing with thin-layer chromatograms. Dermatitis. 2011;22:335–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bruze M. Use of buffer solutions for patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10:267–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Occupational and Environmental DermatologyLund UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations