Allergic Contact Dermatitis in Man — Experimental and Quantitative Aspects

  • Torkil Menné
  • J. Duus Johansen
  • Peter Frosch


Allergic contact dermatitis is a common and potentially disabling disease. The clinical definition of the disease is based on the history of the patient, clinical examination, patch testing, and a detailed often-repeated exposure assessment.


Contact Dermatitis Patch Test Allergic Contact Dermatitis Contact Derm Contact Allergy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wahlberg JE (2000) Patch testing. In: Rycroft RJG, Menne T, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P (eds) Textbook of contact dermatitis, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen KE, Liden C, Hansen J, Volund A (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
  3. 3.
    Menne T, Calvin G (1993) Concentration threshold of non-occluded nickel exposure in nickel-sensitive individuals and controls with and without surfactant. Contact Derm 29: 180–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flyvholm MA, Hall BM, Agner T, Tiedemann E, Greenhill P, Vanderveken W, Freeberg FE, Menne 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 Derm 36: 26–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Menne 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-3one (MCI/MI). Contact Derm 24: 375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Menne T (1996) Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Derm 34: 414–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frosch PJ, Pilz B, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Lachapelle JM, Lahti A, Menne T, Wilkinson JD (1995) Testing with fragrance mix. Is the addition of sorbitan sesquioleate to the constituents useful? Contact Derm 32: 266–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rudzki E, Rebandel P, Karas Z (1997) Patch testing with lower concentrations of chromate and nickel. Contact Derm 37: 46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hindsen M, Bruze M (1998) The significance of previous contact dermatitis for elicitation of contact allergy to nickel. Acta Derm Venereol 78: 367–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johansen JD, Skov L, Volund A, Andersen K, Menne 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
  11. 11.
    Kligman AM (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: 393–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rees JL, Friedmann PS, Matthews JN (1990) The influence of area of application on sensitization by dinitrochlorobenzene. Br J Dermatol 122: 29–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Upadhye MR, Maibach HI (1992) Influence of area of application of allergen on sensitization in contact dermatitis. Contact Derm 27: 281–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fewings J, Menne T (1999) An update of the risk assessment for methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone ( MCI/MI) with focus on rinse-off products. Contact Derm 41: 1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Menne T (1994) Quantitative aspects of nickel dermatitis. Sensitization and eliciting threshold concentrations. Sci Total Environ 148: 275–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liden C, Menne T, Burrows D (1996) Nickel-containing alloys and platings and their ability to cause dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 134: 193–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peters K, Gammelgaard B, Menne T (1991) Nickel concentrations in fingernails as a measure of occupational exposure to nickel. Contact Derm 25: 237–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kristiansen J, Christensen JM, Henriksen T, Nielsen NH, Menne T (1999) Determination of nickel in fingernails and forearm skin (stratum corneum). Anal Chim Acta 403: 265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 Derm 30: 135–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knudsen BB, Larsen E, Egsgaard H, Menne T (1993) Release of thiurams and carbamates from rubber gloves. Contact Derm 28: 63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Knudsen BB, Menne T (1996) Elicitation thresholds for thiuram mix using petrolatum and ethanol/sweat as vehicles. Contact Derm 34: 410–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rastogi SC, Lepoittevin JP, Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Menne 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 Derm 39: 293–303Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menne T (1996) Contact allergy to popular perfumes; assessed by patch test, use test and chemical analysis. Br J Dermatol 135: 419–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gruvberger B (1997) Methylisothiazolinones. Diagnosis and prevention of allergic contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 200: 1–42Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karlberg AT (1994) Identification and sensitization studies of colophony components. Contact Derm 31: 279–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hannuksela M, Salo H (1986) The repeated open application test ( ROAT ). Contact Derm 14: 221–227Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Rastogi SC, Menne T (1996) Threshold responses in cinnamicaldehyde-sensitive subjects: results and methodological aspects. Contact Derm 34: 165–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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
  29. 29.
    Vestergaard L, Clemmensen OJ, Sorensen 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 Derm 41: 207–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johansen JD, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Frosch PJ, Dreier B, White IR, Rastogi S, Lepoittevin JP, Menne T (1998) The repeated open application test: suggestions for a scale of evaluation. Contact Derm 39: 95–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Held E, Lorentzen H, Agner T, Menne T (1998) Comparison between visual score and erythema index ( DermaSpectrometer) in evaluation of allergic patch tests. Skin Res Technol 4: 188–191Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maibach HI (1983) Formaldehyde: effects on animal and human skin. In: Gibson JE (ed) Formaldehyde toxicity. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington DC, pp 166–174Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bruze M (1998) Threshold concentrations of cinnamic aldehyde in deodorants for elicitation of axillary dermatitis. The 4th congress of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis, vol 18, p 29 (abstract)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frosch PJ, Lahti A, Hannuksela M, Andersen KE, Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Lachapelle JM (1995) Chloromethylisothiazolone/methylisothiazolone (CMI/MI) use test with a shampoo on patch-test-positive subjects. Results of a multicentre double-blind crossover trial. Contact Derm 32: 210–217Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hansson C, Bergendorff O, Ezzelarab M, Sterner 0 (1997) Extraction of mercaptobenzothiazole compounds from rubber products. Contact Derm 36: 195–200Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hjorth N, Roed-Petersen J (1976) Occupational protein contact dermatitis in food handlers. Contact Derm 2: 28–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Christensen OB, Moller H (1975) External and internal exposure to the antigen in the hand eczema of nickel allergy. Contact Derm 1: 136–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nielsen NH, Menne T, Kristiansen J, Christensen JM, Borg L, Poulsen LK (1999) Effects of repeated skin exposures to low nickel concentrations–a model for allergic contact dermatitis to nickel on the hands. Br J Dermatol 141: 676–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nielsen NH, Kristiansen J, Borg L, Christensen JM, Poulsen LK, Menné T (2000) Repeated exposures to cobalt and chromate on the hands of patients with hand eczema and the specific metal contact allergy. Contact Derm 43: 212–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Horsfall FL (1934) Formaldehyde hypersensitiveness. An experimental study. J Immunol 27: 569–581Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fischer T, Andersen K, Bengtsson U, Frosch P, Gunnarsson Y, Kreilgard B, Menne T, Shaw S, Svensson L, Wilkinson J (1995) Clinical standardization of the TRUE Test formaldehyde patch. Curr Probl Dermatol 22: 24–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jordan WPJ, Sherman WT, King SE (1979) Threshold responses in formaldehyde-sensitive subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol 1: 44–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torkil Menné
  • J. Duus Johansen
  • Peter Frosch

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations