Advertisement

Metal Exposure Regulations and Their Effect on Allergy Prevention

  • Kate Heim
  • David Basketter
Chapter

Abstract

Primary prevention of allergy focuses on minimising the risk of induction, which also ensures the clinical disease is not elicited. Where this fails to protect human health, limiting the elicitation of allergic disease (secondary prevention) may be necessary. For metal allergens, only nickel and chromium have been subject to significant legal restriction to limit allergy, notably in the European Union. The trigger for both was an unacceptable incidence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), with the legislation intending to significantly limit the expression of ACD and thus also to limit new induction of allergy to either of the two metal allergens. Current evidence shows a positive impact of the regulations on the amount of allergy, but the overall picture is complicated, even confounded, by poor enforcement, notably for nickel, and the reality of multiple other sources of exposure for chromium salts.

References

  1. 1.
    Basketter DA, Safford RJ. Skin sensitisation quantitative risk assessment; a review of underlying assumptions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015;74:105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    SCCS. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. Opinion on Fragrance Allergens in Cosmetic Products. Adopted 26–27 June 2012. 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_102.pdf. Last accessed 8 Sept 2015.
  3. 3.
    EU. Nickel Directive: 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. Official J Eur Commun. 1994a;L188:1–2.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    EU. 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. 2014. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0301. Last accessed 8 Nov 2016.
  5. 5.
    EU. Cement Directive: 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). Official J Eur Commun L. 2003;178:24–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Betts CJ, Dearman RJ, Heylings JR, Kimber I, Basketter DA. Skin sensitization potency of methyl methacrylate in the local lymph node assay: comparisons with guinea-pig data and human experience. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:140–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ECETOC. Contact Sensitisation: Classification According to Potency. Technical Report No. 87. ISSN-0773-8072-87. Brussels, April 2003; 2003.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Griem P, Goebel C, Scheffler H. Proposal for a risk assessment methodology for skin sensitization based on sensitization potency data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2003;38:269–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Menné T. Contact allergy epidemics and their controls. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56:185–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacob SE, Goldenberg A, Pelletier JL, Fonacier LS, Usatine R, Silverberg N. Nickel allergy and our children’s health: a review of indexed cases and a view of future prevention. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32:779–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richardson C, Hamann CR, Hamann D, Thyssen JP. Mobile phone dermatitis in children and adults: a review of the literature. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol. 2014;27:60–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ministry of Environment (Denmark). Ordinance on the prohibition of sales of certain products containing nickel. Ordinance No. 472. 27 June 1989; 1989.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Menné T, Rasmussen K. Regulation of nickel exposure in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis. 1990;23:57–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Menné T, Brandup F, Thestrup-Pedersen K, Veien NK, Andersen JR, Yding F, Valeur G. Patch test reactivity to nickel alloys. Contact Dermatitis. 1987a;16:255–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Menné T, Andersen KE, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Andersen JR, Yding F, Valeur G. Evaluation of the dimethylglyoxime stick test for the detection of nickel. Derm Beruf Umwelt. 1987b;35:128–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lidén C. Nickel in jewellery and associated products. Contact Dermatitis. 1992;26:73–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boss A, Menné T. Nickel sensitization from ear piercing. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8:211–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dotterud LK, Falk ES. Metal allergy in north Norwegian schoolchildren and its relationship with ear piercing and atopy. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:308–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larsson-Stymne B, Widström L. Ear piercing--a cause of nickel allergy in schoolgirls? Contact Dermatitis. 1985;13:289–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielsen NH, Menné T. Nickel sensitization and ear piercing in an unselected Danish population. Glostrup allergy study. Contact Dermatitis. 1993;29:16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prystowsky SD, Allen AM, Smith RW, Nonomura JH, Odom RB, Akers WA. Allergic contact hypersensitivity to nickel, neomycin, ethylenediamine, and benzocaine. Relationships between age, sex, history of exposure, and reactivity to standard patch tests and use tests in a general population. Arch Dermatol. 1979;115(8):959–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Santucci B, Ferrari PV, Cristaudo A, Cannistraci C, Picardo M. Nickel dermatitis from cheap earrings. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;21:245–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schnuch A, Uter W. Decrease in nickel allergy in Germany and regulatory interventions. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49(2):107–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). EN 1810. Body-piercing post assemblies. Reference test method for determination of nickel content by flame atomic absorption spectrometry. Brussels, CEN, 1998; 1998a.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). EN 1811. Reference Test Method for Release of Nickel from Products Intended to Come into Direct and Prolonged Contact with the Skin. Brussels, CEN, 1998; 1998b.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Screening Tests for Nickel Release from Alloys and Coatings in Items that Come into Direct and Prolonged Contact with the Skin. PD CR 12471, Brussels, CEN, 2002; 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). EN 12472:1998. Method for the simulation of wear and corrosion for the detection of nickel release from coated items. Brussels, CEN, 1998; 1999.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). EN 12472:2005. Method for the simulation of wear and corrosion for the detection of nickel release from coated items. Brussels, CEN, 2005; 2005.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). EN 12472:2005+A1:2009. Method for the simulation of wear and corrosion for the detection of nickel release from coated items. Brussels, CEN, 2009; 2009.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    EC. Directive 2004/96/EC (OJ L 301, 28.9.2004, p. 51) as a revision to the EU Nickel Directive 94/27/EC. Brussels; 2004.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    LGC. Risks of sensitisation of humans to nickel by piercing post assemblies. Final report 31 March 2003 - Contract No. EDT/FIF.2001592; 2003.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haudrechy P, Foussereau J, Mantout B, Baroux B. Nickel release from 304 and 316 stainless steels in synthetic sweat. Comparison with nickel and nickel-plated metals. Consequences on allergic contact dermatitis. Corros Sci. 1993;35:329–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haudrechy P, Foussereau J, Mantout B, Baroux B. Nickel release from nickel-plated metals and stainless steels. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:249–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Haudrechy P, Mantout B, Frappaz A, Rousseau D, Chabeau G, Faure M, Claudy A. Nickel release from stainless steels. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:113–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lidén C, Menné T, Burrows D. Nickel-containing alloys and platings and their ability to cause dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 1996;134:193–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). CEN (2011a) EN 1811:2011. Reference Test Method for Release of Nickel from Products Intended to Come into Direct and Prolonged Contact with the Skin. Brussels, CEN, 2011.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). EN 1811:2011+A1:2015. 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. Brussels, CEN, 2015.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). CEN (2011b) EN 16128:2011. Ophthalmic optics — Reference method for the testing of spectacle frames and sunglasses for nickel release. Brussels, CEN, 2011.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    EC. Regulation (EC) No 552/2009 of 22 June 2009, entry 27 in Annex XVII. Brussels; 2009.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    EC. Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation (recast). 975/98 recital 11. Brussels, 11.4.2013 COM(2013) 184 final 2013/0096 (NLE); 2013.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    ECHA. Prolonged contact with the skin – definition building for nickel. 02.04.2014. Helsinki, Finland. 2014. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13641/nickel_restriction_prolonged_contact_skin_en.pdf.
  42. 42.
    Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Risk assessment targeted report: nickel as used in euro coins. Copenhagen. 1999;1999:1–42.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    EU. European Union Risk Assessment Report on Nickel. CAS No: 7440-02-0 EINECS No: 231-111-4. 2008. http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/cefda8bc-2952-4c11-885f-342aacf769b3.
  44. 44.
  45. 45.
  46. 46.
    Designation: F2923 – 14. Standard specification for consumer product safety for children’s jewelry. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2014a.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Designation: F2923 – 14. Standard consumer safety specification for adult jewelry. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2014b.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Carøe C, Andersen KE, Thyssen JP, Mortz CG. Fluctuations in the prevalence of chromate allergy in Denmark and exposure to chrome-tanned leather. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:340–6.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fall S, Bruze M, Isaksson M, Lidén C, Matura M, Stenberg B, Lindberg M. Contact allergy trends in Sweden - a retrospective comparison of patch test data from 1992, 2000, and 2009. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Johansen JD, Menné T, Christophersen J, Kaaber K, Veien N. Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985–86 and 1997–98, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies. Br J Dermatol. 2000;142:490–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lindberg M, Edman B, Fischer T, Stenberg B. Time trends in Swedish patch test data from 1992 to 2000. A multi-centre study based on age- and sex-adjusted results of the Swedish standard series. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56:205–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nielsen NH, Linneberg A, Menné T, Madsen F, Frølund L, Dirksen A, Jørgensen T. Allergic contact sensitization in an adult Danish population: two cross-sectional surveys eight years apart (the Copenhagen allergy study). Acta Derm Venereol. 2001;81:31–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schnuch A, Schwitulla J. Decrease in nickel allergy in women after the second EU nickel directive. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:253–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schnuch A, Wolter J, Geier J, Uter W. Nickel allergy is still frequent in young German females - probably because of insufficient protection from nickel-releasing objects. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:142–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Smith VM, Clark SM, Wilkinson M. Allergic contact dermatitis in children: trends in allergens, 10 years on. A retrospective study of 500 children tested between 2005 and 2014 in one UK Centre. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Thyssen JP, Jensen P, Carlsen BC, Engkilde K, Menne T, Johansen JD. The prevalence of chromium allergy in Denmark is currently increasing as a result of leather exposure. Br J Dermatol. 2009a;161:1288–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Carlsen BC, Menné T. Prevalence of nickel and cobalt allergy among female patients with dermatitis before and after Danish government regulation: a 23-year retrospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009b;61:799–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vongyer GA, Green C. Allergic contact dermatitis in children; has there been a change in allergens? Clin Exp Dermatol. 2015;40:31–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Thyssen JP, Menné T, Johansen JD. Identification of metallic items that caused nickel dermatitis in Danish patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2010a;63:151–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zug KA, Pham AK, Belsito DV, DeKoven JG, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, Marks JG Jr, Mathias CG, Pratt MD, Sasseville D, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS, Warshaw EM, Zirwas MJ. Patch testing in children from 2005–2012: results from the North American contact dermatitis group. Dermatitis. 2014;25:345–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rudner EJ. North American group results. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:208–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Taylor JS, Sasseville D, DeKoven JG, Zirwas MJ, Fransway AF, Mathias CG, Zug KA, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Marks JG, Pratt MD, Storrs FJ, Maibach HI. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis. 2013;24:50–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mortz CG, Lauritsen JM, Bindslev-Jensen C, Andersen KE. 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. 2002;82:359–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Jensen CS, Lisby S, Baadsgaard O, Vølund A, Menné T. Decrease in nickel sensitization in a Danish schoolgirl population with ears pierced after implementation of a nickel-exposure regulation. Br J Dermatol. 2002;146:636–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Brandão MH, Gontijo B, Girundi MA, de Castro MC. Ear piercing as a risk factor for contact allergy to nickel. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2010;86:149–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Warshaw EM, Kingsley-Loso JL, DeKoven JG, Belsito DV, Zug KA, Zirwas MJ, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, Sasseville D, Fowler JF Jr, Mathias CG, DeLeo VA, Pratt MD, Marks JG Jr, Fransway AF. Body piercing and metal allergic contact sensitivity: North American contact dermatitis group data from 2007 to 2010. Dermatitis. 2014;25:255–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    LGC. Survey of Nickel Release From Items of Jewelery Intended to Come into Prolonged Contact with the Skin. March 2003; 2003.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lidén C, Norberg K. Nickel on the Swedish market. Follow-up after implementation of the Nickel Directive. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Thyssen JP, Menné T, Lidén C, White IR, White J, Spiewak R, Johansen JD. Excessive nickel release from earrings purchased from independent shops and street markets--a field study from Warsaw and London. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25:1021–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Thyssen JP, Ross-Hansen K, Menné T, Johansen JD. Patch test reactivity to metal allergens following regulatory interventions: a 33-year retrospective study. Contact Dermatitis. 2010b;63:102–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Danish Environmental Protection Agency. An investigation of causes of nickel allergy A LOUS follow-up project. Environmental Project No. 1869; 2016.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fischer LA, Menne T, Johanssen JD. Experimental nickel elicitation thresholds – a review focusing on occluded nickel exposures. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Niebuhr M, Kapp A, Werfel T, Heratizadeh A. Allergic contact dermatitis and atopy. Hautarzt. 2011;62:744–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ross-Hansen K, Johansen JD, Vølund A, Menné T, Thyssen JP. The nickel dose-response relationship by filaggrin genotype (FLG). Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    NiPERA. Research study: definition of prolonged skin contact with nickel. In progress; 2016a.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    NiPERA. Research study: sources of Children’s Nickel Allergic Contact Dermatitis. In progress; 2016b.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    NiPERA. Research study: market survey of included items under EU nickel restriction. Approved for funding in 2017; 2017.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Basketter DA, White IR, McFadden JP, Kimber I. Skin sensitization: integration of clinical data into hazard identification and risk assessment. Human Exp Toxicol. 2015;34:1222–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Cronin E. Chromium. In:Contact dermatitis. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1980. p. 287–313.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Schoeffler A, Waton J, Latarche C, Poreaux C, Cuny JF, Schmutz JL, Barbaud A. Changes in the European baseline series from 1981 to 2011 in a French dermatology-allergology centre. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2013;140:499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P. Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rietschel RL, Fowler JF. Chromate. In:Fisher’s contact dermatitis. 6th ed. Hamilton: BC Decker; 2008. p. 653–60.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Avnstorp C. Cement. In: Kanerva L, Elsner P, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI, editors. Condensed handbook of occupational dermatology. Berlin: Springer; 2004. p. 339–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bregnbak D, Johansen JD, Jellesen MS, Zachariae C, Menné T, Thyssen JP. Chromium allergy and dermatitis: prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis. 2015a;73:261–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    REACH. Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) establishing a European Chemicals Agency amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006; 2006.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hills L and Johansen VC. Hexavalent chromium in cement manufacturing: literature review, PCA R&D Serial No. 2983, Portland Cement Association. http://uniwinchemical.com/products/ferrous-sulfate-hexavalent-chromium-in-cement-manufacturing.html. 2007. Last accessed 7th November 2016.
  87. 87.
    Irvine C, Pugh CE, Hansen EJ, Rycroft RJ. Cement dermatitis in underground workers during construction of the channel tunnel. Occup Med (Lond). 1994;44:17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Avnstorp C. Prevalence of cement eczema in Denmark before and since addition of ferrous sulfate to Danish cement. Acta Derm Venereol. 1989;69:151–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    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
  90. 90.
    Bensefa-Colas L, Stocks SJ, McNamee R, Faye S, Pontin F, Agius RM, Lasfargues G, RNV3P Members, Telle-Lamberton M, Momas I. Effectiveness of the European Chromium VI Directive for cement implementation on occupational allergic contact dermatitis occurrence: assessment in France and UK. Brit J Dermatol. 2016.; in press Dec 23. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15261.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hedberg YS, Gumulka M, Lindberg M-L, Matura M, Liden C. Severe occupational chromium allergy despite cement legislation. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:321–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Sasseville D, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, Marks JG, Fowler JF Jr, Mathias CG, DeLeo VA, Pratt MD, Zirwas MJ, Zug KA. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2013–2014. Dermatitis. 2017;28(1):33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Warshaw EM, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, Sasseville D, DeKoven JG, Zirwas MJ, Fransway AF, Mathias CG, Zug KA, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Marks JG, Pratt MD, Storrs FJ, Belsito DV. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results: 2011–2012. Dermatitis. 2015;26:49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Wang BJ, Wu JD, Sheu SC, Shih TS, Chang HY, Guo YL, Wang YJ, Chou TC. Occupational hand dermatitis among cement workers in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2011;110:775–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Kridin K, Bergman R, Khamaisi M, Zelber-Sagi S, Weltfriend S. Cement-induced chromate occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2016;27:208–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    NIOSH. Criteria for a Recommended Standard – Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium. Department of Heatlh and Human Services. 2013. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2013-128/pdfs/2013_128.pdf. Last accessed 8th November 2016.
  97. 97.
    Sarma N. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis among construction workers in India. Indian J Dermatol. 2009;54:137–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wong CC, Gamboni SE, Palmer AM, Nixon RL. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis to chromium from cement: estimating the size of the problem in Australia. Australas J Dermatol. 2015;56:290–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    EU. European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. 1994b. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31994L0062. Last accessed 10th November 2016.
  100. 100.
    Bregnbak D, Johansen JD, Jellesen MS, Zachariae C, Menné T, Thyssen JP. Chromium (VI) release from leather and metals can be detected with a diphenylcarbazide spot test. Contact Dermatitis. 2015b;73:281–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NiPERADurhamUSA
  2. 2.DABMEB Consultancy LtdSharnbrookUK

Personalised recommendations