Advertisement

Allergic Contact Dermatitis in Humans: Experimental and Quantitative Aspects

  • Malin Glindvad AhlströmEmail author
  • Jeanne Duus Johansen
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Studies on experimental elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis are essential to confirm the diagnosis and to estimate safe exposure concentrations. In the present chapter, an update of methods for experimental allergic contact dermatitis and factors determining elicitation is given.

Keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis Elicitation thresholds Experimental elicitation methods 

References

  1. 1.
    Andersen KE, Lidén C, Hansen J, Vølund Å (1993) Dose-response testing with nickel sulphate using the TRUE test in nickel-sensitive individuals. Multiple nickel sulphate patch-test reactions do not cause an ‘angry back’. Br J Dermatol 129:50–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menné T, Calvin G (1993) Concentration threshold of non-occluded nickel exposure in nickel-sensitive individuals and controls with and without surfactant. Contact Dermatitis 29:180–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flyvholm M, Hall B, Agner T, Tiedemann E, Greenhill P, Vanderveken W, Freeberg F, Menné T (1997) Threshold for occluded formaldehyde patch test in formaldehyde-sensitive patients. Relationship to repeated open application test with a product containing formaldehyde releaser. Contact Dermatitis 36:26–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menné T (1991) Relationship between use test and threshold patch test concentration in patients sensitive to 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one and 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (MCI/MI). Contact Dermatitis 24:375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Menné T (1996) Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 34:414–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frosch PJ, Pilz B, Burrows D, Camarasa J, Lachapelle J, Lahti A, Menné T, Wilkinson JD (1995) Testing with fragrance mix. Is the addition of sorbitan sesquioleate to the constituents useful. Contact Dermatitis 32:266–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rudzki E, Rebandel P, Karaś Z (1997) Patch testing with lower concentrations of chromate and nickel. Contact Dermatitis 37:46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hostynek JJ, Maibach HI (2004) Thresholds of elicitation depend on induction conditions. Could low level exposure induce sub-clinical allergic states that are only elicited under the severe conditions of clinical diagnosis? Food Chem Toxicol 42:1859–1865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vogel TA, Coenraads PJ, Bijkersma LM, Vermeulen KM, Schuttelaar MLA (2015) P-Phenylenediamine exposure in real life – a case-control study on sensitization rate, mode and elicitation reactions in the northern Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 72:355–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hindsén M, Bruze M, Christensen OB, Hindsen M (1999) Individual variation in nickel patch test reactivity. Am J Contact Dermat 10:62–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siemund I, Mowitz M, Zimerson E, Bruze M, Hindsén M (2017) Variation in aluminium patch test reactivity over time. Contact Dermatitis 77:288–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Björk AK, Bruze M, Engfeldt M, Nielsen C, Svedman C (2017) The reactivity of the back revisited. Are there differences in reactivity in different parts of the back? Contact Dermatitis 76:19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischer LA, Menné T, Johansen JD (2005) Experimental nickel elicitation thresholds – a review focusing on occluded nickel exposure. Contact Dermatitis 52:57–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kligman A (1966) The identification of contact allergens by human assay. 3. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol 47:393–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rees J, Friedmann PS, Matthews J (1990) The influence of area of application on sensitization by dinitrochlorobenzene. Br J Dermatol 122:29–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fewings J, Menné T (1999) An update of the risk assessment for methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) with focus on rinse-off products. Contact Dermatitis 41:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fischer LA, Menné T, Johansen JD (2007) Dose per unit area – a study of elicitation of nickel allergy. Contact Dermatitis 56:255–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hextall JM, Alagaratnam NJ, Glendinning a K, Holloway DB, Blaikie L, Basketter DA, McFadden JP (2002) Dose-time relationships for elicitation of contact allergy to para-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 47:96–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jensen CD, Johansen JD, Menné T, Andersen KE (2005) Methyldibromo glutaronitrile contact allergy: effect of single versus repeated daily exposure. Contact Dermatitis 52:88–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jordan WPJ, Sherman W, King SE (1979) Threshold responses in formaldehyde-sensitive subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol 1:44–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andersen KE, Johansen JD, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lepoittevin JP, Rastogi S, White I, Menné T (2001) The time-dose-response relationship for elicitation of contact dermatitis in isoeugenol allergic individuals. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 170:166–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fischer LA, Johansen JD, Menné T (2007) Nickel allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 157:723–729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fischer LA, Johansen JD, Menné T (2008) Methyldibromoglutaronitrile allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 159:1138–1143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fischer LA, Menné T, Avnstorp C, Kasting G, Johansen JD (2009) Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 161:560–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fournier PG, Govers TR (2003) Contamination by nickel, copper and zinc during the handling of euro coins. Contact Dermatitis 48:181–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Erfani B, Lidén C, Midander K (2015) Short and frequent skin contact with nickel. Contact Dermatitis 73:222–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mendelow AY (1985) Patch testing for nickel allergy. The influence of the vehicle on the response rate to topical nickel sulphate. Contact Dermatitis 13:29–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fullerton A, Andersen JR, Hoelgaard A (1988) Permeation of nickel through human skin in vitro – effect of vehicles. Br J Dermatol 118:509–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heydorn S, Andersen KE, Johansen JD, Menné T (2003) A stronger patch test elicitation reaction to the allergen hydroxycitronellal plus the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate. Contact Dermatitis 49:133–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pedersen LK, Haslund P, Johansen JD, Held E, Vølund A, Agner T (2004) Influence of a detergent on skin response to methyldibromo glutaronitrile in sensitized individuals. Contact Dermatitis 50:1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Agner T, Johansen JD, Overgaard L, Vølund A, Basketter D, Menne T, Menné T (2002) Combined effects of irritants and allergens. Synergistic effects of nickel and sodium lauryl sulfate in nickel-sensitized individuals. Contact Dermatitis 47:21–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hannuksela M (1991) Sensitivity of various skin sites in the repeated open application test. Am J Contact Dermat 2:102–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Frosch P, Dreier B, Lepoittevin JP, White I, Menné T (1998) Deodorants: a clinical provocation study in fragrance-sensitive individuals. Contact Dermatitis 39:161–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zachariae C, Hall B, Cottin M, Cupferman S, Andersen KE, Menné T (2005) Experimental elicitation of contact allergy from a diazolidinyl urea-preserved cream in relation to anatomical region, exposure time and concentration. Contact Dermatitis 53:268–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jakasa I, Thyssen JP, Kezic S (2018) The role of skin barrier in occupational contact dermatitis. Exp Dermatol 27:909–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Menné T (1994) Quantitative aspects of nickel dermatitis. Sensitization and eliciting threshold concentrations. Sci Total Environ 148:275–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Filon FL, D’Agostin F, Crosera M, Adami G, Bovenzi M, Maina G (2009) In vitro absorption of metal powders through intact and damaged human skin. Toxicol Vitr 23:574–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Warshaw EM, Kingsley-Loso JL, DeKoven JG, Belsito DV, Zug KA, Zirwas MJ, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, Sasseville D, Fowler JF, CGT M, DeLeo VA, Pratt MD, Marks JG, Fransway AF (2014) Body piercing and metal allergic contact sensitivity. Dermatitis 25:255–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Johansen JD, Skov L, Andersen K, Menné T (1998) Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: a study of fragrance-sensitized individuals. Br J Dermatol 139:264–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hindsén M, Bruze M (1998) The significance of previous contact dermatitis for elicitation of contact allergy to nickel. Acta Derm Venereol 78:367–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jensen CD, Johansen JD, Menné T, Andersen KE (2006) Increased retest reactivity by both patch and use test with methyldibromoglutaronitrile in sensitized individuals. Acta Derm Venereol 86:8–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Frosch PJ, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Svedman C, Goossens A, White IR, Uter W, Arnau Giménez E, Lepoittevin JP, Menné T, Johansen JD (2005) Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis 52:207–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE (2002) Nickel sensitization in adolescents and association with ear piercing, use of dental braces and hand eczema: the odense adolescence cohort study on atopic diseases and dermatitis (TOACS). Acta Derm Venereol 82:359–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Andersen F, Andersen KH, Bernois A, Brault C, Bruze M, Eudes H, Gadras C, Signoret ACJ, Mose KF, Müller BP, Toulemonde B, Andersen KE (2015) Reduced content of chloroatranol and atranol in oak moss absolute significantly reduces the elicitation potential of this fragrance material. Contact Dermatitis 72:75–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Svedman C, Andersen K, Bruze M, Pirker C, Menné T (2003) Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde – known as Lyral: quantitative aspects and risk assessment of an important fragrance allergen. Contact Dermatitis 48:310–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Svedman C, Bruze M, Bernard G, Gimenez-Arnau E, Rastogi SC, Lepoittevin JP, Menné T (2003) Chloroatranol, an extremely potent allergen hidden in perfumes: a dose-response elicitation study. Contact Dermatitis 49:180–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Aalto-Korte K, Suomela S, Pesonen M (2019) Allergic reactions to lower concentrations of nickel sulfate and formaldehyde often appear later than reactions to higher concentrations. Contact Dermatitis 80:162–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hansen MB, Johansen JD, Menné T (2003) Chromium allergy: significance of both Cr (III) and Cr (VI). Contact Dermatitis 49:206–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fischer LA, Voelund A, Andersen KE, Menné T, Johansen JD (2009) The dose–response relationship between the patch test and ROAT and the potential use for regulatory purposes. Contact Dermatitis 61:201–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hannuksela M, Salo H (1986) The repeated open application test (ROAT). Contact Dermatitis 14:221–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    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 73:195–221PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Threshold responses in cinnamic-aldehyde-sensitive subjects: results and methodological aspects. Contact Dermatitis 34:165–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zachariae C, Hall B, Cupferman S, Andersen KE, Menné T (2006) ROAT: morphology of ROAT on arm, neck and face in formaldehyde and diazolidinyl urea sensitive individuals. Contact Dermatitis 54:21–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rolland A, Wagner N, Chatelus A, Shroot B, Schaefer H (1993) Site-specific drug delivery to pilosebaceous structures using polymeric microspheres. Pharm Res 10:1738–1744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vestergaard L, Clemmensen OJ, Sørensen FB, Andersen KE (1999) Histological distinction between early allergic and irritant patch test reactions: follicular spongiosis may be characteristic of early allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 41:207–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wells GC (1956) Effects of nickel on the skin. Br J Dermatol 68:237–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Johansen JD, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Frosch PJ, Dreier B, White IR, Rastogi S, Lepoittevin JP, Menné T (1998) The repeated open application test: suggestions for a scale of evaluation. Contact Dermatitis 39:95–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bjarnason B, Flosadóttir E, Fischer T (1999) Objective non-invasive assessment of patch tests with the laser Doppler perfusion scanning technique. Contact Dermatitis 40:251–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bjarnason B, Fischer T (1998) Objective assessment of nickel sulfate patch test reactions with laser Doppler perfusion imaging. Contact Dermatitis 39:112–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fullerton A, Stücker M, Wilhelm K-P, Wårdell K, Anderson C, Fischer T, Nilsson GE, Serup J (2002) Guidelines for visualization of cutaneous blood flow by laser Doppler perfusion imaging. A report from the standardization Group of the European Society of contact dermatitis based upon the HIRELADO European community project. Contact Dermatitis 46:129–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Heisterberg MV, Menné T, Andersen KE, Avnstorp C, Kristensen B, Kristensen O, Kaaber K, Laurberg G, Henrik Nielsen N, Sommerlund M, Thormann J, Veien NK, Vissing S, Johansen JD (2011) Deodorants are the leading cause of allergic contact dermatitis to fragrance ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 64:258–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Amaro C, Santos R, Cardoso J (2011) Contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone in a deodorant. Contact Dermatitis 64:298–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Aerts O, Verhulst L, Goossens A (2016) Ethylhexylglycerin: a low-risk, but highly relevant, sensitizer in “hypo-allergenic” cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 74:281–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Taghipour K, Tatnall F, Orton D (2008) Allergic axillary dermatitis due to hydrogenated castor oil in a deodorant. Contact Dermatitis 58:168–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gijbels D, Timmermans A, Serrano P, Verreycken E, Goossens A (2014) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by alkyl glucosides. Contact Dermatitis 70:175–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Maibach HI (1983) Formaldehyde: effects on animal and human skin. In: Gibson JE (ed) Formaldehyde toxicity. Hemisphere, Washington, DC, pp 166–174Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Svedman C, Bruze M, Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Goossens A, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin JP, Rastogi SC, White I, Menné T (2003) Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with hydroxycitronellal. Contact Dermatitis 48:217–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bruze M, Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Frosch P, Lepoittevin JP, Rastogi S, Wakelin S, White I, Menné T (2003) Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with cinnamic aldehyde. J Am Acad Dermatol 48:194–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jørgensen PH, Jensen CD, Rastogi S, Andersen KE, Johansen JD (2007) Experimental elicitation with hydroxyisohexyl-3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde-containing deodorants. Contact Dermatitis 56:146–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Frosch PJ, Lahti A, Hannuksela M, Andersen KE, Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Lachapelle J (1995) Chloromethylisothiazolone/methylisothiazolone (CMI/MI) use test with a shampoo on patch-test-positive subjects. Results of a multicentre double-blind crossover trial. Contact Dermatitis 32:210–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Aerts O, Goossens A, Giordano-Labadie F (2015) Contact allergy caused by methylisothiazolinone: the belgian-french experience. Eur J Dermatol 25:228–233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schwensen JF, Uter W, Bruze M, Svedman C, Goossens A, Wilkinson M, Giménez Arnau A, Gonçalo M, Andersen KE, Paulsen E, Agner T, Foti C, Aalto-Korte K, McFadden J, White I, Johansen JD (2017) The epidemic of methylisothiazolinone: a European prospective study. Contact Dermatitis 76:272–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jensen CD, Johansen JD, Menné T, Andersen KE (2004) Methyldibromoglutaronitrile in rinse-off products causes allergic contact dermatitis: an experimental study. Br J Dermatol 150:90–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Yazar K, Lundov MD, Faurschou A, Matura M, Boman A, Johansen JD, Lidén C (2015) Methylisothiazolinone in rinse-off products causes allergic contact dermatitis: a repeated open-application study. Br J Dermatol 173:115–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Knudsen B, Larsen E, Egsgaard H, Menné T (1993) Release of thiurams and carbamates from rubber gloves. Contact Dermatitis 28:63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Knudsen B, Menné T (1996) Elicitation thresholds for thiuram mix using petrolatum and ethanol/sweat as vehicles. Contact Dermatitis 34:410–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hansson C, Bergendorff O, Ezzelarab M, Sterner O (1997) Extraction of mercaptobenzothiazole compounds from rubber products. Contact Dermatitis 36:195–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Allenby CF, Basketter DA (1994) The effect of repeated open exposure to low levels of nickel on compromised hand skin of nickel-allergic subjects. Contact Dermatitis 30:135–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Nielsen NH, Menné T, Kristiansen J, Christensen JM, Borg L, Poulsen LK (1999) Effects of repeated skin exposure to low nickel concentrations: a model for allergic contact dermatitis to nickel on the hands. Br J Dermatol 141:676–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kristiansen J, Christensen JM, Henriksen T, Nielsen NH, Menné T (2000) Determination of nickel in fingernails and forearm skin (stratum corneum). Anal Chim Acta 403:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Nielsen NH, Kristiansen J, Borg L, Christensen JM, Poulsen LK, Menné T (2000) Repeated exposures to cobalt or chromate on the hands of patients with hand eczema and contact allergy to that metal. Contact Dermatitis 43:212–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Staton I, Ma R, Evans N, Hutchinson RW, McLeod CW, Gawkrodger DJ (2006) Dermal nickel exposure associated with coin handling and in various occupational settings: assessment using a newly developed finger immersion method. Br J Dermatol 154:658–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gawkrodger DJ, McLeod CW, Dobson K (2012) Nickel skin levels in different occupations and an estimate of the threshold for reacting to a single open application of nickel in nickel-allergic subjects. Br J Dermatol 166:82–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lidén C, Skare L, Lind B, Nise G, Vahter M (2006) Assessment of skin exposure to nickel, chromium and cobalt by acid wipe sampling and ICP-MS. Contact Dermatitis 54:233–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Julander A, Skare L, Vahter M, Lidén C (2011) Nickel deposited on the skin-visualization by DMG test. Contact Dermatitis 64:151–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Jensen P, Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Skare L, Menné T, Lidén C (2010) Occupational hand eczema caused by nickel and evaluated by quantitative exposure assessment. Contact Dermatitis 64:32–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Bregnbak D, Thyssen JP, Jellesen MS, Zachariae C, Johansen JD (2016) Experimental skin deposition of chromium on the hands following handling of samples of leather and metal. Contact Dermatitis 75:89–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Lidén C, Skare L, Nise G, Vahter M (2008) Deposition of nickel, chromium, and cobalt on the skin in some occupations – assessment by acid wipe sampling. Contact Dermatitis 58:347–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Heydorn S, Menné T, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Svedman C, Basketter D, Johansen JD (2003) The fragrance hand immersion study – an experimental model simulating real-life exposure for allergic contact dermatitis on the hands. Contact Dermatitis 48:324–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Hedberg YS, Erfani B, Matura M, Lidén C (2018) Chromium(III) release from chromium-tanned leather elicits allergic contact dermatitis: a use test study. Contact Dermatitis 78:307–314PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Julander A, Hindsén M, Skare L, Lidén C (2009) Cobalt-containing alloys and their ability to release cobalt and cause dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 60:165–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Lidén C, Menné T, Burrows D (1996) Nickel-containing alloys and platings and their ability to cause dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 134:193–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Menné T, Brandrup F, Thestrup-Pedersen K, Veien NK, Andersen JR, Yding F, Valeur G (1987) Patch test reactivity to nickel alloys. Contact Dermatitis 16:255–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Ahlström MG, Midander K, Menné T, Lidén C, Johansen JD, Julander A, Thyssen JP (2019) Nickel deposition and penetration into the stratum corneum after short metallic nickel contact: An experimental study. Contact Dermatitis 80:86–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ahlström MG, Thyssen JP, Menné T, Midander K, Julander A, Lidén C, Johnsen CR, Johansen JD (2018) Short contact with nickel causes allergic contact dermatitis: an experimental study. Br J Dermatol 179:1127–1134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Horsfall F (1934) Formaldehyde hypersensitiveness. An experimental study. J Immunol 27:569–581Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Fischer T, Andersen K, Bengtsson U, Frosch P, Gunnarsson Y, Kreilgård B, Menné T, Shaw S, Svensson L, Wilkinson J (1995) Clinical standardization of the TRUE test formaldehyde patch. Curr Probl Dermatol 22:24–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Hauksson I, Pontén A, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Engfeldt M, Bruze M (2016) Skincare products containing low concentrations of formaldehyde detected by the chromotropic acid method cannot be safely used in formaldehyde-allergic patients. Br J Dermatol 174:371–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Menné T, Nielsen NH, Linneberg A (2009) Nickel allergy in Danish women before and after nickel regulation. New Engl J Med 360:2259–2260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Ahlström MG, Thyssen JP, Menné T, Johansen JD (2017) Prevalence of nickel allergy in Europe following the EU nickel directive – a review. Contact Dermatitis 77:193–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Lagrelius M, Wahlgren CF, Matura M, Kull I, Lidén C (2016) High prevalence of contact allergy in adolescence: results from the population-based BAMSE birth cohort. Contact Dermatitis 74:44–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Christensen OB, Möller H (1975) External and internal exposure to the antigen in the hand eczema of nickel allergy. Contact Dermatitis 1:136–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Basketter D, Horev L, Slodovnik D, Merimes S, Trattner A, Ingber A (2001) Investigation of the threshold for allergic reactivity to chromium. Contact Dermatitis 44:70–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Thyssen JP, Menné T, Johansen JD (2014) Hexavalent chromium in leather is now regulated in European Union member states to limit chromium allergy and dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 70:1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Alinaghi F, Zachariae C, Thyssen JP, Johansen JD (2019) Temporal changes in chromium allergy in Denmark between 2002 and 2017. Contact Dermatis 80:156–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Contact allergy to popular perfumes; assessed by patch test, use test and chemical analysis. Br J Dermatol 135:419–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Rastogi SC, Lepoittevin JP, Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Menné T, Bruze M, Dreier B, Andersen KE, White IR (1998) Fragrances and other materials in deodorants: search for potentially sensitizing molecules using combined GC-MS and structure activity relationship (SAR) analysis. Contact Dermatitis 39:293–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Schnuch A, Uter W, Dickel H, Szliska C, Schliemann S, Eben R, Ruëff F, Gimenez-Arnau A, Löffler H, Aberer W, Frambach Y, Worm M, Niebuhr M, Hillen U, Martin V, Jappe U, Frosch PJ, Mahler V (2009) Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing in hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde sensitive-patients. Contact Dermatitis 61:152–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    European Commission (2016) The SCCS notes of guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation 9th revision. Sccs 1564:1–155Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Thyssen JP, Menné T, Schnuch A, Uter W, White I, White JM, Johansen JD (2009) Acceptable risk of contact allergy in the general population assessed by CE-DUR – a method to detect and categorize contact allergy epidemics based on patient data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 54:183–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malin Glindvad Ahlström
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeanne Duus Johansen
    • 1
  1. 1.National Allergy Research Centre, Department of Dermatology and AllergyHerlev and Gentofte Hospital, Univeristy of CopenhagenHellerupDenmark

Personalised recommendations