Metal Allergy pp 163-175 | Cite as

Metals in Tools and the Workplace

  • Vera Mahler


The use of work tools and their production has been of central importance to the development of humankind. In the modern manufacture of tools, nickel, chromium, and cobalt are often used because of their hardening properties and ability to inhibit corrosion, thereby improving quality. This chapter provides an overview of the current knowledge on metals in tools and the workplace, with regard to metal allergy.


  1. 1.
    Kickinger-Lörsch A, Bruckner T, Mahler V. Nickel and cobalt release from metal alloys of tools—a current analysis in Germany. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:289–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menné T. Quantitative aspects of nickel dermatitis. Sensitization and eliciting threshold concentrations. Sci Total Environ. 1994;148:275–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Commission of the European Communities. European Parliament and Council Directive 94/27/EC of 30 June 1994 amending for the 12th time Directive 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 certain dangerous substances and preparations. Off J Eur Union. 1994;L188:1–2.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Commission of the European Communities. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 552/2009 of June 2009. Amending Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII. Off J Eur Union. 2009;L164:7–31.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biesterbos J, Yazar K, Lidén C. Nickel on the Swedish market: follow-up 10 years after entry into force of the EU Nickel Directive. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:333–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thyssen JP, Uter W, McFadden J, Menné T, Spiewak R, Vigan M, Gimenez-Arnau A, Lidén C. The EU Nickel Directive revisited – future steps towards better protection against nickel allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:121–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    REACH ANNEX XVII. Restrictions on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of certain dangerous substances, preparations and articles. Off J Eur Union. 2006;L396:422–3.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ECHA. Prologed contact with the skin. Definition building for nickel. Published 02 Apr 2014. Statement of the ECHA.
  9. 9.
    Wild P, Bourgkard E, Paris C. Lung cancer and exposure to metals: the epidemiological evidence. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;472:139–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Field RW, Withers BL. Occupational and environmental causes of lung cancer. Clin Chest Med. 2012;33:681–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens. 12th ed. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 2011. Nickel compounds and metallic nickel substance profiles. Available at: (last accessed 11 Dec 2016).
  12. 12.
    Ahlström MG, Menne T. Thyssen JP, Johansen JG. Nickel allergy in a Danish population 25 years after the first nickel regulation. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76:325–2.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lidén C, Röndell E, Skare L, Nalbanti A. Nickel release from tools on the Swedish market. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39:127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thyssen JP, Jensen P, Lidén C, Julander A, Jellesen MS, Menné T, Johansen JD. 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;409:4663–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kettelarij JA, Lidén C, Axén E, Julander A. Cobalt, nickel and chromium release from dental tools and alloys. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Committee for Standardization (Cen). Reference Test method for release of nickel from all post assemblies which are inserted into pierced parts of the human body and articles intended to come into direct and prolonged contact with the skin. EN 1811, 2011.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kettelarij J, Nilsson S, Midander K, Lidén C, Julander A. Snapshot of cobalt, chromium and nickel exposure in dental technicians. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75:370–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bregnbak D, Johansen JD, Jellesen MS, Zachariae C, Thyssen JP. Chromium(VI) release from leather and metals can be detected with a diphenylcarbazide spot test. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:281–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diepgen TL, Dickel H, Becker D, Geier J, Mahler V, Schmidt A, Schwanitz HJ, Skudlik C, Wagner E, Wehrmann W, Weisshaar E, Werfel T, Blome O. Evidence-based evaluation of the effect of Type IV Allergies on the reduction of fitness for work. Survey of occupational skin diseases. Hautarzt. 2005;56:207–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nickel LC. In: Rustemeyer T, Elsner P, John SM, Maibach HI, editors. Kanerva’s occupational dermatology. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2012. p. 485–94.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Erfani B, Liden C, Midander K. Short and frequent skin contact with nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:222–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fischer LA, Johansen JD, Menne T. Nickel allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157:723–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fischer LA, Menné T, Voelund A, Johansen JD. Can exposure limitations for well-known contact allergens be simplified? An analysis of dose-response patch test data. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:337–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liden C, Skare L, Nise G, Vahter M. Deposition of nickel, chromium, and cobalt on the skin in some occupations – assessment by acid wipe sampling. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:347–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Julander A, Skare L, Mulder M, Grander M, Vahter M, Liden C. Skin deposition of nickel, cobalt, and chromium in production of gas turbines and space propulsion components. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010;54:340–50.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gawkrodger DJ, Mcleod CW, Dobson K. 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. 2012;166:82–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jensen P, Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Skare L, Menné T, Lidén C. Occupational hand eczema caused by nickel and evaluated by quantitative exposure assessment. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:32–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thyssen JP, Milting K, Bregnhøj A, Søsted H, Duus Johansen J, Menné T. Nickel allergy in patch-tested female hairdressers and assessment of nickel release from hairdressers' scissors and crochet hooks. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61:281–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fischer T. Occupational nickel dermatitis. In: Maibach HI, Menne T, editors. Nickel and the skin: immunology and toxicology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1989. p. 117–32.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cavelier C, Foussereau J. Kontaktallergie gegen Metalle und deren Salze. Teil 2: Nickel, Kobalt, Quecksiber und Palladium. Dermatologie Beruf Umwelt. 1995;43:152–62.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wu CC, Liu HM. Determinants of metals exposure to metalworking fluid among metalworkers in Taiwan. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2014;69:131–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ringborg E, Lidén C, Julander A. Nickel on the market: a baseline survey of articles in 'prolonged contact' with skin. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75:77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hamann D, et al. Nickel exposure from keys: alternatives for protection and prevention. Dermatitis. 2013;24:186–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thyssen JP, Skare L, Lundgren L, Menné T, Johansen JD, Maibach HI, Lidén C. Sensitivity and specificity of the nickel spot (dimethylglyoxime) test. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62:279–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dickel H, Radulescu M, Weyher I, Diepgen TL. Occupationally-induced "isolated cobalt sensitization". Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:246–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Uter W, Gefeller O, Geier J, Schnuch A. Contact sensitization to cobalt--multifactorial analysis of risk factors based on long-term data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:326–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Barceloux DG. Cobalt. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1999;37:201–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liden C, Julander A. Cobalt. In: Rustemeyer T, Elsner P, John SM, Maibach HI, editors. Kanerva’s occupational dermatology. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2012. p. 505–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liden C, Bruze M, Menne T. Metals. In: Frosch PJ, Menne T, Lepoittevin J-P, editors. Contact dermatitis. 4th ed. Heidelberg: Springer; 2006. p. 537–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rui F, Bovenzi M, Prodi A, et al. Nickel, cobalt and chromate sensitization and occupation. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62:225–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fischer T, Rystedt I. Cobalt allergy in hard metal workers. Contact Dermatitis. 1983;9:115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pirilä V. Sensitization to cobalt in pottery workers. Acta Derm Venereol. 1953;33:193–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Anonymous. Chrom(III)-Verbindungen. In: Hentschler D, Greim H, Hartwig A, editors. Gesundheitsschädliche Arbeitsstoffe: Toxikologisch-arbeitsmedizinische Begründungen von MAK-Werten und Einstufungen, vol. 46. Lieferung, Nachtrag. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2009.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Anonymous. Chrom(VI)-Verbindungen. In: Hentschler D, Greim H, Hartwig A, editors. Gesundheitsschädliche Arbeitsstoffe: Toxikologisch-arbeitsmedizinische Begründungen von MAK-Werten und Einstufungen, vol. 53. Lieferung, Nachtrag. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2012.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bregnbak D, Johansen JD, Jellesen MS, Zachariae C, Menné T, Thyssen JP. Chromium allergy and dermatitis: prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:261–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Geier J, Lessmann H, Hellweg B, Jappe U, Spornraft-Ragaller P, Fuchs T, Aberer W, Frosch PJ, Weisshaar E, Mahler V, Löffler H, Skudlik C, Szliska C, Koch P, Pföhler C, Lilie M, Becker D, Trcka J, Meyer J, Hahn JU, Adam M. Chromated metal products may be hazardous to patients with chromate allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;6:199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Geier J, Lessmann H, Bauer A, Becker D, Dickel H, Fartasch M, Häberle M, John SM, Krohn S, Mahler V, Skudlik C, Weisshaar E, Werfel T, Diepgen TL Für die Arbeitsgruppe “Bewertung der Allergene bei BK 5101” der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Berufs- und Umweltdermatologie und der Deutschen Kontaktallergie-Gruppe in der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft. Auswirkung einer berufsbedingten Kontaktallergie gegen Chrom(VI)-Verbindungen bei der BK 5101. Dermatologie Beruf Umwelt. 2016;64:175–82.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bregnbak D, Thyssen JP, Zachariae C, Johansen JD. Characteristics of chromium-allergic dermatitis patients prior to regulatory intervention for chromium in leather: a questionnaire study. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:338–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Athavale P, Shum KW, Chen Y, Agius R, Cherry N, Gawkrodger DJ. Occupational dermatitis related to chromium and cobalt: experience of dermatologists (EPIDERM) and occupational physicians (OPRA) in the UK over an 11-year period (1993–2004). Br J Dermatol. 2007;157:518–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fregert S. Occupational dermatitis in a 10-year material. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1:96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mahler V, Geier J, Schnuch A. Current trends in patch testing - new data from the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG) and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2014;12:583–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Directive 2003/53/EC of The European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003. Amending for the 26th time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (nonylphenol, nonylphenol ethoxylate and cement). Off J Eur Union. 2003;L178:24–7.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Geier J, Krautheim A, Uter W, Lessmann H, Schnuch A. Occupational contact allergy in the building trade in Germany: influence of preventive measures and changing exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2011;84:403–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Roto P, Sainio H, Reunala T, Laippala P. Addition of ferrous sulfate to cement and risk of chromium dermatitis among construction workers. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sethi G, Belum VR, Burrows D, Maibach HI, Jurij JH. Chromium. In: Rustemeyer T, Elsner P, John SM, Maibach HI, editors. Kanerva’s occupational dermatology. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2012. p. 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Spoo J, Elsner P. Cement burns: a review 1960–2000. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:68–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Poppe H, Poppe LM, Bröcker EB, Trautmann A. Do-it-yourself cement work: the main cause of severe irritant contact dermatitis requiring hospitalization. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:111–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hedberg YS, Lidén C, Wallinder IO. Chromium released from leather – I: exposure conditions that govern the release of chromium(III) and chromium (VI). Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:206–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mathiason F, Lidén C, Hedberg YS. Chromium released from leather – II: the importance of environmental parameters. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:275–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Commission Regulation (EU) No. 301/2014 of 25 March 2014. Amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards chromium VI compounds Text with EEA relevance. Off J Eur Union. 2014;L90:1–3.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Andersen KE, White IR, Goossens A. Allergens from the European baseline series – chromium. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin JP, editors. Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2011. p. 550–2.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Keane M, Siert A, Stone S, Chen BT. Profiling stainless steel welding processes to reduce fume emissions, hexavalent chromium emissions and operating costs in the workplace. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2016;13:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lehmann E, Fröhlich N. Kühlschmierstoffe – ZUSÄTZLICHE BELASTUNGEN DURCH METALLIONEN? Amtliche Mitteilungen der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz. 1993;1:1–7.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Cavelier C, Foussereau J. Kontaktallergie gegen Metalle und deren Salze. Teil 1: Chrom und Chromate. Dermatologie Beruf Umwelt. 1995;43:100–12.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Julander A, Skare L, Vahter M, Lidén C. Nickel deposited on the skin-visualization by DMG test. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:151–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Menne T, Liden C, Julander A, Moller P, Jellesen MS. A new spot test for detection of cobalt release – early experience and findings. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:63–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Jellesen MS, Menné T. Cobalt spot test used for diagnosis of occupationally-related exposure to cobalt-containing powder. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:228–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lidén C, Skare L, Lind B, Nise G, Vahter M. Assessment of skin exposure to nickel, chromium and cobalt by acid wipe sampling and ICP-MS. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;54:233–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DermatologyUniversity Hospital of ErlangenErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Paul-Ehrlich-InstituteLangenGermany

Personalised recommendations