Immediate Skin Contact Reactions Induced by Chemicals

  • Elena Giménez-ArnauEmail author
Part of the Updates in Clinical Dermatology book series (UCD)


An ever-expanding list of causes has been reported for immediate skin contact reactions, of which most are proteins (molecular weight 10,000 to several hundred thousand daltons), but also chemical compounds of low molecular weight (less than 1,000 Da). Low molecular weight chemical agents can be indeed responsible for immediate contact skin symptoms in the differently defined categories of contact urticaria. The most important chemicals responsible for nonimmunological and immunological contact urticaria are described in this chapter. For purposes of simplification and comprehension, these have been classified into the major families of products that include fragrances and cosmetic ingredients, biocides and preservatives, and drugs, together with other categories.


Immediate skin reactions Contact urticaria Nonimmunological Immunological Occupational Low molecular weight compounds Fragrances Cosmetics Preservatives Drugs Chemicals 


  1. 1.
    Giménez-Arnau A, Maurer M, De la Cuadra J, Maibach HI. Immediate contact skin reactions, an update of contact urticaria, contact urticaria syndrome and protein contact dermatitis-“A never ending story”. Eur J Dermatol. 2010;20:552–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ale SI, Maibach HI. Occupational contact urticaria. In: Kanerva L, Elsner P, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI, editors. Handbook of occupational dermatology. Berlin: Springer; 2000. p. 200–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lahti A. Non-immunologic contact urticaria. Acta Dermatovener (Stockholm). 1980;60(Suppl. 91):1–49.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kligman AM. The spectrum of contact urticaria: wheals, erythema and pruritus. Dermatologic Clin. 1990;8:57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coverly J, Peters L, Whittle E, Basketter DA. Susceptibility to skin stinging, non-immunologic contact urticaria and skin irritation-is there a relationship? Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:90–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lahti A, Vaananen A, Kokkonen E-L, Hannuksela M. Acetylsalicylic acid inhibits non-immunologic contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;16:133–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johansson J, Lahti A. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs inhibit non-immunological immediate contact reactions. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;19:161–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wakelin SH. Contact urticaria. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2001;26:132–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amaro C, Goossens A. Immunological occupational contact urticaria and contact dermatitis from proteins: a review. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:67–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goossens A, Amaro C, Géraut C. Urticaire et dermatite de contact aux protéines en pathologie professionnelle. In:Progrès en Dermato-Allergologie. Paris: John Libbey Eurotext; 2007. p. 57–70.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Castanedo-Tardan MP, Jacob SE, Baumann LS. Contact urticaria to cosmetic and toiletry ingredients. Cosmetic Dermatol. 2008;21:339–46.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lahti A, Basketter D. Immediate contact reactions. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P, editors. Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 137–53.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gleich GJ, Yunginger JW. The radioallergosorbent test: a method to measure IgE antibodies, IgG blocking antibodies, and the potency of allergy extracts. Bull N Y Acad Med. 1981;57:559–67.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vigan M. Urticaire de contact aux cosmétiques. In:Progrès en Dermato-Allergologie. Paris: John Libbey Eurotext; 2007. p. 17–34.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cancian M, Fortina AB, Peserico A. Contact urticaria syndrome from constituents of balsam of Peru and fragrance mix in a patient with chronic urticaria. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:3000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larsen WG. Perfume dermatitis. a study of 20 patients. Arch Dermatol. 1977;113:623–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frosch PJ, Pirker C, Rastogi SC, Andersen K, Bruze M, Svedman C, Goossens A, White IR, Uter W, Giménez-Arnau E, Lepoittevin J-P, Menné T, Johansen JD. Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52:207–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Safford RJ, Basketter DA, Allenby CF, Goodwin BFJ. Immediate contact reactions to chemicals in the fragrance mix and a study of the quenching action of eugenol. Br J Dermatol. 1990;123:595–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diba VC, Statham BN. Contact urticaria from cinnamal leading to anaphylaxis. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Forsbeck M, Skog E. Immediate reactions to patch tests with balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:201–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hausen BM, Simatupang T, Bruhn G, Evers P, Koenig WA. Identification of new allergens constituents and proof of evidence for coniferyl benzoate in balsam of Peru. Am J Contact Dermat. 1995;6:199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Api AM. Only Peru Balsam extracts or distillates are used in perfumery. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;54:179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yamamoto A, Morita A, Tsuji T, et al. Contact urticaria from geraniol. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46:52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hagvall L, Bäcktorp C, Svensson S, Nyman G, Börje A, Karlberg AT. Fragrance compound geraniol forms contact allergens on air exposure. identification and quantification of oxidation products and effect on skin sensitization. Chem Res Toxicol. 2007;20:807–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R. Dental nurse’s occupational allergic contact dermatitis from eugenol used as a restorative dental material with polymethylmethacrylate. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:339–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Praven T, Pushpalatha C, Shrenik J, Sowmya SW. An unexpected positive hypersensitive reaction to eugenol. BMJ Case Rep. 2013.
  27. 27.
    Marzulli FN, Maibach HI. Contact allergy: predictive testing of fragrance ingredients in humans by Draize and maximization tests. J Environ Pathol Toxicol. 1980;3:243–5.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tananka S, Royds C, Buckley D, Basketter DA, Goossens A, Bruze M, Svedman C, Menné T, Johansen JD, White IR, McFadden JP. Contact allergy to isoeugenol and its derivatives: problems with allergen substitution. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;51:288–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vocanson M, Valeyrie M, Rozières A, Hennino A, Floc’h F, Gard A, Nicolas JF. Lack of evidence for allergenic properties of coumarin in a fragrance allergy mouse model. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57:361–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heurung AR, Raju SI, Warshaw EM. Benzophenones. Dermatitis. 2014;25:3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Emonet S, Pasche-Koo F, Perin-Minisini MJ, Hauser C. Anaphylaxis to oxybenzone, a frequent constituent of sunscreens. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001;107:556–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yesudian PD, King CM. Severe contact urticarial and anaphylaxis from benzophenone-3 (2-hydroxy-4-methoxy benzophenone). Contact Dermatitis. 2002;46:55–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maibach HI, Conant M. Contact urticarial to a corticosteroid cream: polysorbate 60. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:350–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pérez-Pérez L, García Gavín J, Piñeiro B, Zulaica A. Biologic-induced urticarial due to polysorbate 80: usefulness of prick test. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164:1119–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Asarch A, Scheinmann PL. Sorbitan sesquiolate: an emerging contact allergen. Dermatitis. 2008;19:339–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hardy H, Maibach H. Contact urticarial syndrome from sorbitan sesquiolate in a corticosteroid ointment. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;32:114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    EWG’s Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database.
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Funk JO, Maibach HI. Propylene glycol dermatitis: re-evaluation of an old problem. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:236–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Andersen KE, Storrs FJ. Skin irritation caused by propylene glycols. Hautarzt. 1982;33:12–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Warshaw EM, Nelsen DD, Maibach HI, Marks JG, Zug KA, et al. Positive patch test reactions to lanolin: cross-sectional data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1994 to 2006. Dermatitis. 2009;20:79–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lundov MB, Moesby L, Zachariae C, Johansen JD. Contamination versus preservation of cosmetics: a review on legislation, usage, infections, and contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:70–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fryklöf L-E. A note on the irritant properties of sorbic acid in ointments and creams. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1958;10:719–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rietschel RL. Contact urticaria from synthetic cassia oil and sorbic acid limited to the face. Contact Dermatitis. 1978;4:347–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Clemmensen O, Hjort N. Perioral contact urticarial from sorbic acid and benzoic acid in salad dressing. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8:1–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nair B. Final report on the safety assessment of benzyl alcohol, benzoic acid and sodium benzoate. Int J Toxicol. 2001;20:23–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hannuksela M, Haahtela T. Hypersensitivity reactions to food additives. Allergy. 1987;42:561–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Public Health England. Formaldehyde: health effects, incident management and toxicology. 2017.
  49. 49.
    Eighth Commission Directive 86/199/EC of 26 March 1986 adapting to technical progress Annexes II, IV and VI to council directive 76/768/EC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to cosmetic products. Off J Eur Commun 1986; L149:38–45.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Von Krogh G, Maibach HI. Contact urticaria. In: Adam RM, editor. Occupational skin disease. New York: Grune & Stratton; 1983. p. 58–69.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Torresani C, Periti I, Beski L. Contact urticaria syndrome from formaldehyde with multiple physical urticarias. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:174–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Braun J, Zana H, Purohit A. Anaphylactic reactions to formaldehyde in root canal sealant after endodontic treatment. four cases of anaphylactic shock and three of generalized urticarial. Allergy. 2003;58:1210–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ogawa M, Nishinakagawa S, Yokosawa F, Yoshida T, Endo Y. Formaldehyde-specific IgE-mediated urticaria due to formaldehyde in a room environment. Jpn J Occup Med Traumatol. 2009;57:125–9.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kireche M, Giménez-Arnau E, Lepoittevin J-P. Preservatives in cosmetics: reactivity of allergenic formaldehyde releasers toward amino acids through breakdown products other than formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:192–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, Uter W. Contact allergy to preservatives. analysis of IVDK data 1996-2009. Br J Dermatol. 2011;164:1316–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Thyssen JP, Engkilde K, Lundov MD, Carlsen BC, Menné T, Johansen JD. Temporal trends of preservative allergy in Denmark (1985-2008). Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62:272–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gonçalo M, Goossens A. Whilst Rome burns: the epidemic of contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:257–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lundov MD, Opstrup MS, Johansen JD. Methylisothiazolinone contact allergy – a growing epidemic. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:271–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Thyssen JP, Sederberg-Olsen N, Thomsen JF, Menné T. Contact dermatitis from methylisothiazolinone in a paint factory. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;54:322–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    García-Gavín J, Vansina S, Kerre S, Naert A, Goossens A. Methylisothiazolinone, an emerging allergen in cosmetics? Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:96–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lundov MD, Zachariae C, Menné T, Johansen JD. Airborne exposure to preservative methylisothiazolinone causes severe allergic reactions. BMJ. 2012;345:e8221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Geier J, Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Uter W. Recent increase in allergic reactions to methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone: is methylisothiazolinone the culprit? Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:334–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Debeuckelaere C, Moussallieh FM, Elbayed K, Namer IJ, Berl V, Giménez-Arnau E, Lepoittevin J-P. In situ chemical behaviour of methylisothiazolinone (MI) and methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) in reconstructed human epidermis: a new approach to the cross-reactivity issue. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74:159–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gebhardt M, Looks A, Hipler UC. Urticaria caused by type IV sensitization to isothiazolinones. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36:314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Guin JD, Goodman J. Contact urticaria from benzyl alcohol presenting as intolerance to saline soaks. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:182–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Walker SL, Chalmers RJG, Beck MH. Contact urticaria due to p-chloro-m-cresol. Br J Dermatol. 2004;151:927–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Birnie AJ, English JS. 2-Phenoxyethanol-induced contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;54:349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Co-Minh HB, Demoly P, Guillot B, Raison-Peyron N. Anaphylactic shock after oral intake and contact urticaria due to polyethylene glycols. Allergy. 2007;62:92–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ophaswongse S, Maibach HI. Alcohol dermatitis: allergic contact dermatitis and contact urticaria syndrome. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;30:1–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Uter W. The European surveillance system of contact allergies (ESSCA): results of patch testing the standard series. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2008;22:174–81.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF, et al. Patch-test results of the North American contact dermatitis group 2005-2006. Dermatitis. 2009;20:149–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Barranco Sanz P, Martin Muñoz F, Lopez Serrano C, Martin Esteban M, Ojeda Casas JA. Hypersensitivity to mercuric fluorescein compounds. Allergol Immunopathol. 1989;17:219–22.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Corrales Torres JL, De Corres F. Anaphylactic hypersensitivity to mercurochrome (merbrominum). Ann Allergy. 1985;54:230–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Dooms-Goossens A, Gevers D, Mertens A, Vanderheyden D. Allergic contact urticaria due to chloramine. Contact Dermatitis. 1983;9:319–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kramps JA, van Toorenenbergen AW, Vooren PH, Dijkman JH. Occupational asthma due to inhalation of chloramine-T. II Demonstration of specific IgE antibodies. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol. 1981;64:428–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kanerva L, Alanko K, Estlander T, Sihvonen T, Jolanki R. Occupational allergic contact urticaria from chloramine-T solution. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:180–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sinaiko R, Heinemann C, Maibach HI. Contact urticaria and anaphylaxis to Chlorhexidine. In: Zhai H, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI, editors. Dermatotoxicology. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2007. p. 485–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Nagendran V, Wicking J, Ekbote A, Onyekwe T, Garvey LH. Ig-E mediated chlorhexidine allergy: a new occupational hazard? Occup Med. 2009;59:270–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Calogiuri GF, Di Leo E, Trautmann A, Nettis E, Ferrannini A, Vacca A. Chlorhexidine hypersensitivity: a critical and updated review. J Allergy Ther. 2013;4:141.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Walker S, Chalmers R, Beck M. Contact urticaria due to p-chloro-m-cresol. Br J Dermatol. 2004;151:936–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Goncalo M, Goncalo S, Moreno A. Immediate and delayed sensitivity to chlorocresol. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;17:46–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Jovanovic M, Karadaglic D, Brkic S. Contact urticaria and allergic contact dermatitis to lidocaine in a patient sensitive to benzocaine and propolis. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;54:124–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Waton J, Boulanger A, Trechot PH, Schumtz JL, Barbaud A. Contact urticaria from Emla cream. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;51:284–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Suzuki T, Kawada A, Yashimoto Y, Isogai R, Aragane Y, Tezuka T. Contact urticaria to ketoprofen. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:284–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Arroliga ME, Pien L. Penicillin allergy: consider trying penicillin again. Cleveland Clinic J Med. 2003;70:313–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Nola RC, Puy R, Deckert K, O’Hehir RE, Douglass JA. Experience with a new commercial skin testing kit to identify IgE-mediated penicillin allergy. Int Med J. 2008;38:357–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kim MH, Lee JM. Diagnosis and management of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to cephalosporins. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2014;6:485–95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Romano A, Mayorga C, Torres MJ, Artesani MC, Suau R, Sanchez F, Perez E, Venuti A, Blanca M. Immediate allergic reactions to cephalosporins: cross-reactivity and selective responses. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;106:1177–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kim JE, Kim SH, Jin HJ, Hwang EK, Kim JH, Ye YM, Park HS. IgE sensitization to cephalosporins in health care workers. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2012;4:85–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ariza A, García-Martín E, Salas M, Montañez MI, Mayorga C, et al. Pyrazolones metabolites are relevant for identifying selective anaphylaxis to metamizole. Sci Rep. 2016;6:23845.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Brandão FM, Goossens A. Topical drugs. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P, editors. Contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 729–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Rasanen L, Tarvainen K, Makinen-Kiljunen S. Urticaria to hydrocortisone. Allergy. 2001;56:352–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Nettis E, Muratore L, Valogiuri G, Ferrannini A, Tursi A. Urticaria to hydrocortisone. Allergy. 2001;56:802–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Helaskoski E, Kuuliala O, Aalto-Korte K. Occupational contact urticaria caused by cyclic acid anhydrides. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:214–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Tupasela O, Halmepuro L, Keskinen H, Estlander T, Sysilampi ML. Immediate and delayed allergy from epoxy resins based on diglycidyl ether of bisphenol a. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1991;17:208–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kanerva L, Pelttari M, Jolanki R, Alanko K, Estlander T, Suhonen R. Occupational contact urticarial from diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A epoxy resin. Allergy. 2002;57:1205–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kanerva L, Tokannen J, Jolanki R, Estlander T. Statistical data on occupational contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:229–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Koopmans AK, Bruynzeel DP. Is PPD a useful screening agent? Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:89–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Seidenari S, Mantovani L, Manzini BM, Pignatti M. Cross-sensitizations between azo dyes and para-amino compound. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36:91–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Hausen BM. Contact allergy to disperse blue 106 and disperse blue 124 in german and austrian patients, 1995 to 1999. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;44:173–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Wong GA, King CM. Immediate-type hypersensitivity and allergic contact dermatitis due to para-phenylenediamine in hair dye. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Sosted H, Agner T, Andersen KE, Menné T. 55 cases of allergic reactions to hair dye: a descriptive consumer complaint-based study. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:299–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Goldberg BJ, Hermnn FF, Hirata I. Systemic anaphylaxis due ton an oxidation product of p-phenylenediamine in a hair dye. Ann Allergy. 1987;58:205–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Helgesen AL, Austad J. Contact urticaria from aluminium and nickel in the same patient. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:303–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Kreciscz B, Kiec-Swierczynska M, Krawczyk P, Chomiczewska D, Palczynski C. Cobalt-induced anaphylaxis, contact urticaria and delayed allergy I a ceramics decorator. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:173–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Bergman A, Svedberg U, Nilsson E. Contact urticaria with anaphylactic reactions caused by occupational exposure to iridium salt. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;32:14–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Estlander T, Kanerva L, Tupasela O, Keskinen H, Jolanki R. Immediate and delayed allergy to nickel with contact urticaria, rhinitis, asthma and contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Allergy. 1993;23:306–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Cristaudo A, Sera F, Severino V, De Rocco M, Di Lella E, Picardo M. Occupational hypersensitivity to metal salts, including platinum, in the secondary industry. Allergy. 2005;60:159–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Schena D, Barba A, Costa G. Occupational contact urticaria due to cisplatin. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:220–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dermatochemistry LaboratoryInstitut de Chimie de Strasbourg (CNRS UMR 7177), Université de StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations