Pitfalls in the Diagnosis of Occupational Contact Dermatitis

  • An GoossensEmail author
Reference work entry


  • The diagnosis of an occupation-related allergic contact dermatitis can be missed in the various stages of the contact-allergy investigation: the history, the clinical symptoms and localization of the lesions, the skin testing, as well as the determination of the relevance of a positive test.

  • Airborne contact dermatitis is very frequently caused by occupational exposure.

  • Basic knowledge on the chemicals contacted is essential, which is not obvious in an occupational context.

  • It is evident that the more experience the investigator has, the more in an accurate way allergens can be identified.

  • The knowledge needs to be based on a good training, keeping up with the literature, attending courses and meetings, and the use of relevant websites.


Allergic contact dermatitis Chemicals Clinical symptoms Diagnosis False-negative tests History Localization Patch testing Relevance Test technique Pitfalls 


  1. Amaro C, Goossens A (2008) Immunological occupational contact urticaria and contact dermatitis from proteins: a review. Contact Dermatitis 58:757–767Google Scholar
  2. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Vestita M, Angelini G (2013) Noneczematous contact dermatitis. Allergy 2013:1–10. Scholar
  3. Bruynzeel DP, Ferguson J, Andersen K, et al, European Task Force for Photopatch Testing (2004) Photopatch testing: a consensus methodology for Europe. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 18:679–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruze M (1984) Use of buffer solutions for patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 10:267–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruze M (1990) What is a relevant contact allergy? Contact Dermatitis 23:224–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruze M, Trulsson L, Bendsöe N (1992) Patch testing with ultrasonic bath extracts. Am J Contact Dermat 3:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Groot A (2008) Patch testing. Test concentrations and vehicles for 4350 chemicals, 3rd edn. Acdegroot Publishing, WapserveenGoogle Scholar
  8. De Groot A, Frosch PJ (2011) Chapter 56: Patch test concentrations and vehicles for testing contact allergens. In: Johansen JD, Frosch P, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Contact dermatitis, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 1071–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engfeldt M, Goossens A, Isaksson M, Zimerson E, Bruze M (2013) The outcome of 9 years of consecutive patch testing with 4,4′-diaminodiphenylmethane and 4,4′-diphenylmethane diisocyanate. Contact Dermatitis 68:98–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goon A, Goh CL (2011) Chapter 22: Non-eczematous contact reactions. In: Johansen JD, Frosch P, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Contact dermatitis, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 415–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goossens A (2001) Minimizing the risks of missing a contact allergy. Dermatology 202:186–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goossens A, Amaro C (2011) Chapter 21: Protein contact dermatitis. In: Johansen JD, Frosch P, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Contact dermatitis, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goossens A, Drieghe J (1998) Computer applications in contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 38:51–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goossens A, Detienne T, Bruze M (2002) Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by isocyanates. Contact Dermatitis 47:304–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gruvberger B, Bruze M, Fregert S, Lidén C (2011) Chapter 27: Allergens exposure assessment. In: Johansen JD, Frosch P, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Contact dermatitis, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 493–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hannuksela M, Salo H (1998) The repeated open application test: suggestions for a scale of evaluation. Contact Dermatitis 39:95–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Isaksson M, Bruze M, Björkner B, Hindsen M, Svensson L (1999) The benefit of patch testing with a corticosteroid at a low concentration. Am J Contact Dermat 10:31–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bircher A, Bruze M, Cannavó A, Giménez-Arnau A, Gonçalo M, Goossens A, John SM, Lidén C, Lindberg M, Mahler V, Matura M, Rustemeyer T, Serup J, Spiewak R, Thyssen JP, Vigan M, White IR, Wilkinson M, Uter W (2015) European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing – recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis 73:195–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karlberg A-T, Lidén C (1992) Colophony (resin) in newspapers may contribute to hand eczema. Br J Dermatol 126:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karlberg A-T, Bergström MA, Börje A, Luthman K, Nolsson JLG (2008) Allergic contact dermatitis – formation, structural requirements, and reactivity of skin sensitizers. Chem Res Toxicol 21:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keegel T, Saunders H, LaMontagne AD, Nixon R (2007) Are material safety data sheets (MSDS) useful in the diagnosis and management of occupational contact dermatitis? Contact Dermatitis 57:331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerre S, Matura M, Goossens A (2006) Allergic contact dermatitis from a degreaser. Contact Dermatitis 55:117–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lachapelle J-M, Maibach HI (2012) Patch testing and prick testing. A practical guide, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lecoz CJ, Lepoittevin J-P (2011) Dictionary of contact allergens: chemical structures, sources and references. In: Frosch PJ, Menné T, Lepoittevin J-P (eds) Textbook of contact dermatitis, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 1121–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levin C, Warshaw E (2008) Protein contact dermatitis: allergens, pathogenesis, and management. Dermatitis 19:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nakayama H (2011) Chapter 19: Pigmented contact dermatitis and chemical depigmentation. In: Johansen JD, Frosch P, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Contact dermatitis, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 377–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Uter W, Schnuch A, Giménez-Arnau A, Orton D, Statham B (2011) Chapter 54: Databases and networks. The benefit of research and quality assurance in patch testing. In: Johansen JD, Frosch P, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Contact dermatitis, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 1053–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Steenkiste E, Goossens A, Meert H, Apers S, Aerts O (2015) Airborne-induced lymphomatoid contact dermatitis from methylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis 72:237–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yiannias JA (2004) Facilitation of the management of allergic contact dermatitis via on-line tools. Dermatitis 5:101Google Scholar
  30. Yiannias JA (2007) What ACDS members asked for new functionality of the contact allergen replacement database and more. Dermatitis 18:109CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Contact Allergy Unit, Department of DermatologyUniversity Hospital K.U. LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations