Contact allergy to oxidised geraniol may be over-represented in individuals with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous overrepresentations of contact allergies and photocontact allergies are common in individuals with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen. AIMS: To investigate whether contact allergy to oxidised (ox.) geraniol, geraniol, geranial, neral and citral is overrepresented in individuals with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen. METHODS: The contact allergy rates to ox. geraniol, geraniol, geranial, neral and citral in routinely patch tested dermatitis patients were compared with the corresponding rates in individuals with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen. RESULTS: Allergic patch test reactions were noted to ox. geraniol 11% (n = 39, 5.8%), ox. geraniol 6% (n = 12, 1.8%), geraniol 6% (n = 2, 0.3%), geranial (n = 18, 2.7%), neral (n = 7, 1.0%) and citral (n = 15, 2.2%). In those four patients who were diagnosed with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen during the test period, a significant overrepresentation (p = 0.020) of simultaneous contact allergy to ox. geraniol 11% was demonstrated. Overrepresentation of simultaneous contact allergy to various combinations of ox. geraniol, ox. limonene and ox. linalool was also noted in ketoprofen-photoallergic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergy to ox. geraniol, geranial and citral is common in routinely tested dermatitis patients. There is an overrepresentation of simultaneous contact allergy to ox. geraniol, ox. limonene and ox. linalool in patients with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen.

Exclusion of Disperse Orange 3 is possible from the textile dye mix present in the Swedish baseline patch test series. A study by the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group.

BACKGROUND: The textile dye mix (TDM) 6.6% in petrolatum contains Disperse Blue (DB) 35, Disperse Yellow 3, Disperse Orange (DO) 1 and 3, Disperse Red 1 and 17, and DB 106 and 124. The most frequent allergen in TDM-positive patients is DO 3. Around 85% of para-phenylenediamine (PPD)-allergic dermatitis patients have been positive to DO 3. There has been a discussion to exclude DO 3 from TDM 6.6% because of strong simultaneous reactions to TDM and PPD. OBJECTIVES: To study if DO 3 can be excluded from TDM 6.6%. METHODS: Patch tests were performed on 1481 dermatitis patients with TDM 6.6%, TDM 7.0% (without DO 3 but the other disperse dyes at 1.0% each), DO 3 1.0%, and PPD 1.0% pet. RESULTS: Contact allergy to TDM 6.6% was 3.6% and to TDM 7.0% was 3.0%. All 26 DO 3-positive patients were positive to PPD. The 44 patients positive to TDM 7.0% plus the 13 positive to PPD and TDM 6.6% but negative to TDM 7.0% were 57, outnumbering the 53 positive to TDM 6.6%. CONCLUSION: TDM 7.0% can replace TDM 6.6% in the Swedish baseline series, since TDM 7.0% together with PPD 1.0% will detect patients with textile dye allergy.

Patch test results to extracts of synthetic garments in textile dye positive patients.

BACKGROUND: Disperse dyes (DDs) are the most prevalent causes of textile-related allergic contact dermatitis and are used for colouring synthetic textile materials based on fibres such as polyester, acrylic, acetate and polyamide. Eight DDs are included in a textile dye mix (TDM) 6.6% petrolatum (pet.) in the European baseline patch test series. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to patch test TDM 6.6% pet. positive individuals with the extracts of synthetic fibre clothes that do not contain any of the pure DDs present in the TDM 6.6% to study the reactivity pattern. METHODS: Seventy-three TDM-positive former patients tested between 2012 and 2017 at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology in Malmö, Sweden were invited to join the study, 10 participated. Twenty-four textile items (collected in nine countries in Europe, Asia and North America in 2012) were extracted in dichloromethane. The TDM 6.6% was patch tested simultaneously with the 24 textile item preparations in petrolatum made from the extracts. Prior to patch testing the participants filled the 7-question questionnaire regarding possible symptoms from textile exposure. RESULTS: Ten individuals, agreed to join the study. Eight of them reacted to TDM 6.6%. Nine participants reacted to 20 of 24 extracts. One reacted to 19 extracts, another to 14, 3 to 5 extracts, 1 to 4, 1 to 3 extracts and 2 to 2 extracts. One was negative to all tested preparations including TDM 6.6%. The participants mainly reacted to six textile extracts. All controls tested negatively to tested extracts. Four individuals of the 10 TDM-allergic individuals previously had had problems after wearing clothes. Four out of the 10 participants had had atopic eczema in childhood. All women had dyed their hair with permanent hair dyes but none of the males. CONCLUSION: TDM-positive patients react to textile extracts made from synthetic garments, even if they do not contain any of the pure DDs present in TDM 6.6%. More studies are needed to pin-point the culprit haptens in these extracts.

Contact allergy to fragrance mix I and its components in individuals with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen.

BACKGROUND: Contact allergy to fragrance mix I (FM I) is over-represented in patients photoallergic to ketoprofen. The prevalence of contact allergy to two components of FM I, cinnamal and cinnamyl alcohol, in ketoprofen-photoallergic patients is higher than in dermatitis patients. OBJECTIVE: To explore the prevalence of contact allergy to FM I and its individual components in patients with photocontact allergy to ketoprofen, and to compare with a dermatitis and the general population. METHODS: Data on patch and photopatch tests performed between 2009-2018 were collected. Ketoprofen-photoallergic patients were compared with dermatitis patients and published data on the general population regarding the prevalence and the distribution of contact allergy to FM I and its components. RESULTS: A higher prevalence of contact allergy to cinnamyl alcohol compared with cinnamal (23.3% vs 10.0%), and eugenol compared with isoeugenol (23.3% vs 6.7%), was observed in ketoprofen-photoallergic patients, while the relationship was the opposite in the dermatitis group (0.7% vs 1.05%; 0.4% vs 0.9%). The overall prevalence of contact allergy to several components of FM I was significantly higher in ketoprofen-photoallergic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergy to FM I and many of its components is over-represented in patients photoallergic to ketoprofen compared with dermatitis patients and the general population.

Can reducing cosmetic substances help prevent chromate contact allergy?

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by Cr(VI) is often severe and difficult to treat. Therefore, primary prevention is a main goal but, secondary prevention can be valuable to ease the symptoms or prevent relapse of Cr(VI) dermatitis when sensitization has occurred. Barrier creams have been tried for many chemical substances, but until now there is no successful barrier cream against Cr(VI). OBJECTIVES: To investigate the ability of reducing agents to transform Cr(VI) into Cr(III) in an experimental situation, in order to find suitable chemicals to investigate for possible use in a barrier cream. METHODS: The capacity to reduce the amount of Cr(VI) was analyzed in water solutions of acetylcysteine, cysteine, dihydroxyacetone, glutathione, and iron sulfate heptahydrate. Thereafter the reducing capacity of acetylcysteine, dihydroxyacetone, glutathione, and iron sulfate on the amount of Cr(VI) in cement extracts was investigated. The content of Cr(VI) in the test solutions and in the cement extracts was estimated by the diphenyl carbazide spot test. RESULTS: All of the chosen chemicals reduced the amount of Cr(VI) in the test solutions and in the cement extracts to some extent. The reducing capacity was most prominent for iron sulfate. CONCLUSION: A reducing capacity was found for all chosen chemicals.

Skin application of glutathione and iron sulfate can inhibit elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis from hexavalent chromium.

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI), is often severe and difficult to treat. The most common source of exposure to Cr(VI) in Sweden used to be cement, and more recently leather. The contact allergy can be diminished or inhibited if the exposure is decreased or ceases. Barrier creams against different kinds of allergens have been investigated for their protective properties which may offer protection against Cr(VI) exposure. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the capacity of formulas containing glutathione (GSH) and iron sulfate to inhibit elicitation of ACD in Cr(VI)-allergic individuals when exposed to Cr(VI). METHODS: In 18 Cr(VI)-allergic volunteers the back was divided into eight patch test areas which were treated with preparations of possible barrier creams, prior to patch testing with a dilution series of potassium dichromate and a buffered extract of cement. RESULTS: A significant reduction in reactivity to Cr(VI) and cement extract on skin treated with formulas containing GSH or iron sulfate was noticed, compared with untreated skin. CONCLUSION: Formulas containing GSH or iron sulfate in barrier creams inhibit ACD in individuals allergic to Cr(VI) when applied before exposure to Cr(VI) and cement extract.

Oral provocation of patients allergic to sesquiterpene lactones with German chamomile tea to demonstrate possible systemic allergic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with contact allergy to Asteraceae plants are patch test positive to sesquiterpene lactone mix (SLM). There are several reports among these patients of a flare-up of hand eczema after ingestion of food and beverages originating from Asteraceae plants. AIM: To investigate whether German chamomile tea can elicit systemic allergic dermatitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals with or without contact allergy to SLM were patch tested with an extract of German chamomile tea. Six weeks later, they were provoked with capsules containing either freeze-dried German chamomile tea or placebo capsules containing lactose, in a double-blind, randomized study. A numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to ascertain the volunteers' opinion of their hand eczema status. The study individuals were examined to detect a possible flare-up of healed patch test reactions to chamomile. RESULTS: None of the subjects had a flare-up of healed patch test reactions. According to the NRS, SLM-positive individuals experienced a significant worsening of hand eczema, independently of whether they received chamomile or lactose capsules. CONCLUSION: No evidence suggestive of systemic allergic dermatitis was found.

Patch testing with a textile dye mix with and without Disperse Orange 3.

BACKGROUND: The textile dye mix (TDM) 6.6% pet. contains Disperse Blue (DB) 35, Disperse Yellow 3, Disperse Orange (DO) 1 and 3, Disperse Red 1 and 17, and DB 106 and 124. The most frequent allergen in TDM-positive patients is DO 3. Around 85% of p-phenylenediamine (PPD)-allergic dermatitis patients have shown positive patch test reactions to DO 3. There has been a discussion to exclude DO 3 from TDM 6.6% because of frequent, strong reactions to TDM 6.6% and PPD. OBJECTIVES: To study if DO 3 can be omitted from a TDM. METHODS: Patch tests were performed on 2250 dermatitis patients with TDM 6.6%, TDM 5.6% pet., TDM 7.0% pet., and PPD 1.0% pet.; 122 patients were also patch tested with DO 3 1.0% pet. RESULTS: Among the 2250 patients patch tested, contact allergy prevalence to TDM 6.6% was 2.4%, to TDM 5.6% 1.8%, and to TDM 7.0% 2.0%. Of the 54 TDM 6.6%-positive patients, 55.6% reacted to PPD; as much as 42.2% of PPD-allergic women and 50% of PPD-allergic men reacted to TDM 6.6%. Of the 17 DO 3-positive patients, 94.1% showed a positive reaction to PPD. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that DO 3 can probably be omitted from TDM, but patch testing with TDM 6.6%, TDM 7.0%, DO 3 1.0%, and PPD 1.0% simultaneously is needed to finally decide whether it is possible or not.

Twenty-eight-day follow-up of patch test reactions to p-phenylenediamine and p-phenylenediamine dihydrochloride: A multicentre study on behalf of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing discussion on whether routinely patch testing with p-phenylenediamine (PPD) 1.0% pet. is safe, owing to the risk of patch test sensitization. Late-appearing patch test reactions may reflect patch test sensitization, but may also be attributable to a low degree of pre-existing sensitization. OBJECTIVES: To follow the positive patch test reactions to PPD and its salt PPD dihydrochloride (PPD-DHC) in order to characterize reaction patterns concerning time and dose in PPD-sensitized individuals. METHODS: Volunteers with previous reactions to PPD 1.0% were included and patch tested with PPD and PPD-DHC in equimolar dilution series. There were then seven follow-up visits over a period of 28 days. RESULTS: Twenty-six volunteers completed the study, of whom 23 of 26 (88%) reacted to PPD 1.0%, and 69% reacted to PPD 0.32%. Altogether, 42% and 27% reacted to the corresponding equimolar concentrations of PPD-DHC. After day 7, no new reactions were observed to any concentration tested, either of PPD or of PPD-DHC. CONCLUSION: No late-appearing reactions to PPD or PPD-DHC were observed at any dose. There is a risk of missing contact allergy when the dose is decreased.

A retrospective investigation of hexavalent chromium allergy in southern Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Historically, allergic contact dermatitis caused by hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] in cement was the most common cause of invalidity attributable to skin disease in Sweden. Since the legislation to reduce Cr(VI) in cement was introduced in 1989, we rarely see allergic contact dermatitis caused by cement. OBJECTIVES: To examine the frequency of contact allergy to Cr(VI) in southern Sweden in 2005-2014. METHODS: We investigated the occurrence of positive reactions to potassium dichromate 0.5% pet. in consecutively tested dermatitis patients, and compared the occurrence of atopic dermatitis, localization of dermatitis and simultaneous positive reactions to cobalt chloride and nickel sulfate in the Cr(VI)-positive patients with those in a group of patients with a similar age and sex distribution. RESULTS: In total, 6482 patients were tested, and 233 Cr(VI)-allergic individuals were found (3.6%). A significantly higher proportion of atopic dermatitis was found among Cr(VI)-allergic patients, and a significantly higher share of foot dermatitis was found among Cr(VI)-allergic women, than among controls. Cr(VI) allergy was less likely when both nickel allergy and cobalt allergy were present. CONCLUSION: A relatively high frequency of contact allergy to Cr(VI) was found. The cause has shifted from cement exposure to other exposures, probably mainly leather.

Solvent Orange 60 is a potent contact sensitizer in occupational and everyday life.

BACKGROUND: Solvent Orange (SO) 60 is a perinone-type dye that is often used in plastic materials such as spectacle frames and has been shown to cause contact allergy. The first case of SO 60 allergic contact dermatitis caused by spectacle frames was reported in 1999, and the second in 2011. We have recently seen 10 patients, of whom 6 developed dermatitis in the retroauricular/temporal area after wearing plastic spectacles. OBJECTIVES: To report the cause of the dermatitis in the 10 patients and to describe our first case with occupational SO 60 contact allergy. METHODS: In this retrospective study, patch test results of 10 patients, tested with the Swedish baseline series and our specific spectacle and/or plastic series, including SO 60 1.0% pet., in 2011-2017 were analysed. RESULTS: Ten patients, 2 males and 8 females, aged 43 to 71 years, reacted positively to SO 60 1.0% pet., namely, 4 pensioners, 2 nurses, 1 office worker, 1 teacher, 1 shop assistant, and 1 unemployed person. Four of the patients had an atopic history. Patch test reactions varied from + to +++; some had spread >20 cm outside the test area in terms of erythematous, infiltrated skin with papules. Retesting of patient no. 1 with serial dilutions of SO 60 in acetone showed positive reactions down to 1 ppm. Three patients reacted to the extracts of their earpieces. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry was used to confirm the presence of SO 60 in 2 earpieces. CONCLUSIONS: SO 60 should be included in any spectacle patch test series that may be used. If there is a strong suspicion of contact allergy to SO 60 before patch testing, lowering the test concentration from 1.0% to 0.01% should be considered.

Sensitization and cross-reactivity patterns of contact allergy to diisocyanates and corresponding amines: investigation of diphenylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate, diphenylmethane-4,4'-diamine, dicyclohexylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate, and dicylohexylmethane-4,4'-diamine.

BACKGROUND: Isocyanates are used in polyurethane production. Dermal exposure to isocyanates can induce contact allergy. The most common isocyanate is diphenylmethane diisocyanate used for industrial purposes. The isomer diphenylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate (4,4'-MDI) is used in patch testing. Diphenylmethane-4,4'-diamine (4,4'-MDA) is its corresponding amine. Concurrent reactions to 4,4'-MDI and 4,4'-MDA have been reported, as have concurrent reactions to 4,4'-MDI and dicyclohexylmethane-4,4'-diisocyanate (4,4'-DMDI). OBJECTIVES: To investigate the sensitization capacities and the cross-reactivity of 4,4'-MDI, 4,4'-MDA, 4,4'-DMDI, and dicyclohexylmethane-4,4'-diamine (4,4'-DMDA). METHODS: The guinea-pig maximization test (GPMT) was used. RESULTS: The GPMT showed sensitizing capacities for all investigated substances: 4,4'-MDI, 4,4'-MDA, 4,4'-DMDI, and 4,4'-DMDA (all p < 0.001). 4,4'-MDI-sensitized animals showed cross-reactivity to 4,4'-MDA (p < 0.001) and 4,4'-DMDI (all p < 0.05). 4,4'-MDA-sensitized animals showed cross-reactivity to 4,4'-DMDA (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: All of the investigated substances were shown to be strong sensitizers. Animals sensitized to 4,4'-MDI showed cross-reactivity to 4,4'-MDA and 4,4'-DMDI, supporting previous findings in the literature. The aromatic amine 4,4'-MDA showed cross-reactivity to the aliphatic amine 4,4'-DMDA.

Variation in aluminium patch test reactivity over time.

BACKGROUND: Contact allergy to aluminium has been reported more frequently in recent years. It has been pointed out that positive patch test reactions to aluminium may not be reproducible on retesting. OBJECTIVES: To investigate possible variations in patch test reactivity to aluminium over time. METHODS: Twenty-one adults, who had previously reacted positively to aluminium, were patch tested with equimolar dilution series in pet. of aluminium chloride hexahydrate and aluminium lactate, four times over a period of 8 months. RESULTS: Thirty-six of 84 (43%) serial dilution tests with aluminium chloride hexahydrate and 49 of 84 (58%) serial dilution tests with aluminium lactate gave negative results. The range of reactivity varied between a negative reaction to aluminium chloride hexahydrate at 10% and/or to aluminium lactate at 12%, and a positive reaction to aluminium chloride hexahydrate at 0.1% and/or to aluminium lactate at 0.12%. The highest individual difference in test reactivity noticed was 320-fold when the two most divergent minimal eliciting concentrations were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The patch test reactivity to aluminium varies over time. Aluminium-allergic individuals may have false-negative reactions. Therefore, retesting with aluminium should be considered when there is a strong suspicion of aluminium contact allergy.

Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance mix I, fragrance mix II and their ingredients in southern Sweden between 2009 and 2015.

BACKGROUND: Fragrance mix I (FM I) and fragrance mix II (FM II) are included in the European baseline series as screening substances for fragrance contact allergy. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency of allergic reactions to FM I, FM II and their ingredients in consecutively patch tested patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from 4430 patients patch tested between 2009 and 2015 was performed. RESULTS: Of the patients, 6.5% were FM I-positive and 3.2% were FM II-positive. Forty-five per cent of FM I-positive patients did not have positive reactions to FM I ingredients. Thirty-five per cent of those who were FM II-positive did not have positive reactions to FM II ingredients. Twenty-seven per cent of those with positive reactions to one or more of the FM I ingredients were FM I-negative, and 36% of those who had positive reactions to one or more of the FM II ingredients were FM II-negative. The allergens with the highest pick-up rates were Evernia prunastri (1.8%), cinnamal (1.3%), citral (1.2%), and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (1.2%). Significant differences were observed in the proportions of positive reactions to FM I, FM II, eugenol, isoeugenol, and farnesol when results from patch testing with materials from different suppliers were compared. CONCLUSIONS: There is a risk of missing fragrance contact allergy when testing with only the fragrance mixes is performed. The use of preparations from different suppliers may affect the patch test results.

Chromate and amine contact allergies in workers manufacturing precast concrete elements.

BACKGROUND: Five workers from a plant manufacturing concrete wall panels and beams were referred to our department because of suspected occupational dermatitis. When patch tested, 3 workers reacted to potassium dichromate. Four workers reacted to ethylenediamine dihydrochloride, without any obvious exposure. Owing to the high proportion of workers with recent-onset skin disease, an investigation of all workers at the plant was initiated. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of occupational dermatitis and contact allergy in the workers at the plant. METHODS: All 24 workers at the plant underwent a clinical investigation and were patch tested. RESULTS: Four cases of allergic occupational contact dermatitis and 3 cases of irritant occupational contact dermatitis were diagnosed. Contact allergy to potassium dichromate was found in 4 workers. All 4 also reacted to ethylenediamine dihydrochloride and/or amines that were present as additives in the cement. CONCLUSIONS: Chromate contact allergy can still be found in concrete workers, despite the legislation regulating the amount of hexavalent chromium (chromate) in cement. Occupational contact allergy to amines can be found in workers exposed to cement and concrete, so amines should be tested in these workers.

Two sensitizing oxidation products of p-phenylenediamine patch tested in patients allergic to p-phenylenediamine.

BACKGROUND: The results from a previous study indicated the presence of several possible sensitizers formed during oxidation of the potent sensitizer p-phenylenediamine (PPD) to which PPD-sensitized patients might react, in various patterns. OBJECTIVES: To extract and analyse a yellow spot from a thin-layer chromatogram with oxidized PPD, to which 6 of 14 (43%) PPD-positive patients had reacted in a previous study, in order to identify potential sensitizer(s) and to patch test this/these substance(s) in the 14 PPD-positive patients. METHODS: The yellow spot was extracted from a thin-layer chromatogram of oxidized PPD, and two substances, suspected to be allergens, were identified by analysis with gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS). The 14 PPD-positive patients, who had been previously tested with the thin-layer chromatogram of oxidized PPD, participated in the investigation, and were tested with dilutions of the two substances. RESULTS: GCMS analysis identified 4-nitroaniline and 4,4'-azodianiline in the yellow spot. Of the 14 PPD-positive test patients, 5 (36%) reacted to 4-nitroaniline and 9 (64%) reacted to 4,4'-azodianiline. CONCLUSION: The results show that 4-nitroaniline and 4,4'-azodianiline, formed during oxidation of PPD, are potent sensitizers. PPD-sensitized patients react to a high extent to concentrations equimolar to PPD of 4-nitroaniline and 4,4'-azodianiline.

Isobornyl acrylate: an impurity in alkyl glucosides.

CONTEXT: Alkyl glucosides and alkyl poly-glucosides are widely used as wetting agents, surfactants and emulsifiers in several industrial and cosmetic products. They are known as well-tolerated and are usually added to the primary surfactants in order to reduce the irritating potential of the main foaming agents. OBJECTIVE: Recently, some authors suggested that allergic contact dermatitis to alkyl glucosides might be more frequent than suspected. On the other hand, the chemical structures of glucosides do not show potentially allergenic chemical groups or strongly polarized structures. The aim of our study is to investigate alkyl glucosides carrying out a detailed chemical analysis on samples of raw materials to identify potentially allergenic impurities or by-products contained in commercial samples of alkyl glucosides. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We chemically analyzed samples of cocoyl glucoside, decyl glucoside and lauryl glucoside by three different analytical methods, in order to identify any undesired or polluting substances. RESULT: In each of the three samples, we detected the presence of isobornyl acrylate. Its approximate content in the tested samples is 500 ng/g of the product. DISCUSSION: Isobornyl acrylate is not used in the synthesis of alkyl glucosides, but as a plasticizer in many plastic materials. It can be easily released to materials flowing over these surfaces when they have high extraction power, as glucosides. CONCLUSION: Isobornyl acrylate may play a role as hidden allergen, in the form of an impurity collected during the industrial process, explaining some cases of allergic reaction to alkyl glucosides.

Is p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (PTBP-FR) in TRUE Test® (Mekos test) sensitizing the tested patients?

BACKGROUND: In a population study using TRUE Test®, we noted late reactions to p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (PTBP-FR) in 0.5% of subjects tested. OBJECTIVES: In order to explore possible test sensitization, differences in the contents of sensitizers within PTBP-FR in test preparations for TRUE Test® and Finn Chambers® were analysed. Subjects allergic to PTBP-FR and subjects with late reactions to PTBP-FR were retested in order to explore whether these groups reacted to different PTBP-FR sensitizers. PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS: Four individuals with late reactions and 5 subjects with established allergy to PTBP-FR were retested with defined PTBP-FR sensitizers. PTBP-FR constituents in patches from TRUE Test® were analysed with high-performance liquid chromatography. Previously analysed samples of PTBP-FR constituents served as a reference. RESULTS: The pattern of reaction to PTBP-FR sensitizers was similar in both groups. Subjects with suspected sensitization had somewhat stronger reactions than controls. The concentrations of monomers, dimers and trimers were generally higher in the TRUE Test® resin than in reference substances. CONCLUSIONS: Retesting did not add information regarding causes of possible sensitization. Analysis showed that the resin used in TRUE Test® has a lower degree of polymerization or condensation, which may enhance its sensitizing properties. A follow-up of late reactions to PTBP-FR in TRUE Test® should be carried out.

Are gloves sufficiently protective when hairdressers are exposed to permanent hair dyes? An in vivo study.

BACKGROUND: The use of permanent hair dyes exposes hairdressers to contact allergens such as p-phenylenediamine (PPD), and the preventive measures are insufficient. OBJECTIVES: To perform an in vivo test to study the protective effect of gloves commonly used by hairdressers. PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS: Six gloves from Sweden, Italy and Germany were studied: two vinyl, one natural rubber latex, two nitrile, and one polyethylene. The hair dye used for the provocation was a dark shade permanent dye containing PPD. The dye was mixed with hydrogen peroxide, and 8 PPD-sensitized volunteers were tested with the gloves as a membrane between the hair dye and the skin in a cylindrical open chamber system. Three exposure times (15, 30 and 60 min) were used. RESULTS: Eczematous reactions were found when natural rubber latex, polyethylene and vinyl gloves were tested with the dye. The nitrile gloves gave good protection, even after 60 min of exposure to the hair dye. CONCLUSIONS: Many protective gloves used by hairdressers are unsuitable for protection against the risk of elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis caused by PPD.