Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Allergens from the Standard Series

  • Chapter
Textbook of Contact Dermatitis

Abstract

The distinction between allergic and irritant contact dermatitis is usually made by patch testing. This test procedure is indicated in the investigation of long-standing cases of contact dermatitis and should also be used to exclude contact allergy as a complicating factor in stubborn cases of other eczematous diseases such as atopic dermatitis, stasis eczema, seborrhoeic dermatitis and vesicular hand eczema.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Grandjean P, Nielsen GD, Andersen 0 (1989) Human nickel exposure and chemobiokinetics. In: Maibach HI, Menné T (eds) Nickel and the skin• immunology and toxicology. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 9–34

    Google Scholar 

  2. Morgan LG, Flint GN (1989) Nickel alloys and coatings: release of nickel. In: Maibach HI, Menné T (eds) Nickel and the skin: immunology and toxicology. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 45–54

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  4. Romaguera C, Grimalt F, Vilaplana J (1988) Contact dermatitis from nickel: an investigation of its source. Contact Dermatitis 19: 52–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Larsson-Stymne B, Widström L (1985) Ear piercing — a cause of nickel allergy in schoolgirls. Contact Dermatitis 13: 289–293

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Calnan CD, Wells GC (1956) Suspender dermatitis and nickel sensitivity. Br Med J 2: 1265–1268

    Google Scholar 

  7. Veien N (1989) Systemically induced eczema in adults. Acta Derm Venereol [Suppl] (Stockh) 147

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burrows D (1989) Prosser White Oration. Mischievious metals — chromate, cobalt, nickel and mercury. Clin Exp Dermatol 14: 266–272

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nielsen GD, et al. (1990) Nickel-sensitive patients with vesicular hand eczema: oral challenge with a diet naturally high in nickel. Br J Dermatol 122: 299–308

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilkinson DS, Wilkinson JD (1989) Nickel allergy and hand eczema. In: Maibach HI, Menné T (eds) Nickel and the skin: immunology and toxicology. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 133–163

    Google Scholar 

  11. Menné T, Borgan O, Green A (1982) Nickel allergy and hand dermatitis in a stratified sample of the Danish female population: an epidemiological study including statistic appendix. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 62: 35–41

    Google Scholar 

  12. Van der Burg CKH, Bruynzeel DP, Vreeburg KJJ, et al. (1986) Hand eczema in hairdressers and nurses: a prospective study. Contact Dermatitis 14: 275–279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rees JL, Friedmann PS, Matthews JN (1989) Sex differences in susceptibility to development of contact hypersensitivity to dinitrochlorobenzene ( DNCB ). Br J Dermatol 120: 371–374

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hoogstraten IMW, Andersen KE, von Blomberg BME, et al. (1989) Preliminary results of a multicenter study on the incidence of nickel allergy in relationship to previous oral and cutaneous contacts. In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle J-M, Rycroft RJ, Scheper RJ (eds). Current topics in contact dermatitis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 178–183

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sjövall P, Christensen OB, Möller H (1987) Oral hyposensitization in nickel allergy. J Am Acad Dermatol 17: 774–778

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thomas RHM, Rademaker M, Goddard NJ, Munro D (1987) Severe eczema of the hands due to an orthopedic plate made of vitallium. Br Med J 294: 106–107

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilkinson JD (1989) Nickel allergy and orthopedic prostheses. In: Maibach HI, Menné T (eds) Nickel and the skin: immunology and toxicology. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 187–193

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lammintausta K, Kalimo K (1987) Do positive nickel reactions increase nonspecific patch test reactivity? Contact Dermatitis 16: 160–163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Paramsothy Y, Collins M, Smith AG (1988) Contact dermatitis in patients with leg ulcers: the prevalence of late positive reactions and evidence against systemic ampliative allergy. Contact Dermatitis 18: 30–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Moss C, et al. (1985) Susceptibility and amplification of sensitivity in contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Immunol 61: 232–241

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lammintausta K, Pitkanen OP, Kalimo K, et al. (1985) Interrelationship of nickel and cobalt contact sensitization. Contact Dermatitis 13: 148–152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Menné T, Andersen KE, Kaaber K, et al. (1987) Evaluation of dimethylglyoxine stick tests for detection of nickel. Derm Beruf Umwelt 35: 128–130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Menné T, Brandrup F, Thestrup-Pedersen K, et al. (1987) Patch test reactivity to nickel alloys. Contact Dermatitis 16: 255–259

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Emmett EA, et al. (1988) Allergic contact dermatitis to nickel: bioavailability from consumer products and provocation threshold. J Am Acad Dermatol 19: 314–322

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Menné T, Rasmussen K (1990) Regulation of nickel exposure in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 23: 57–58

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kieffer M (1979) Nickel sensitivity: relationship between history and patch test reaction. Contact Dermatitis 5: 398–401

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Möller H, Svensson A (1986) Metal sensitivity: positive history but negative test indicates atopy. Contact Dermatitis 14: 57–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gilboa R, Al-Tawil NG, Marcusson JA (1988) Metal allergy in cashiers: an in vitro and in vivo study for the presence of metal allergy. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 68: 317–324

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Fregert S, Rorsman H (1964) Allergy to trivalent chromium. Arch Dermatol 90: 4–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Burrows D (1984) The dichromate problem. Int J Dermatol 23: 215–220

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Edman B, Möller H (1982) Trends and forecasts for standard allergens in a 12-year patch test material. Contact Dermatitis 8: 95–104

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kiec-Swierczynska M (1990) Allergy to chromate, cobalt and nickel in Lodz 1977–1988. Contact Dermatitis 22: 229–231

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Färm G (1986) Changing patterns in chromate allergy. Contact Dermatitis 15: 298–310

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gailhofer G, Ludvan M (1987) Zur Änderung des Allergenspektrums bei Kontaktekzemen in den Jahren 1975–1984. Derm Beruf Umwelt 35: 12–16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Burrows D (1983) Chromium: metabolism and toxicity. CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  36. Avnstorp C (1989) Prevalence of cement eczema in Denmark before and since addition of ferrous sulphate to Danish cement. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 69: 151–156

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Avnstorp C (1989) Follow-up of workers from the prefabricated concret cement. Contact Dermatitis 20: 365–371

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Burrows D, Adams RM (1990) Metals. In: Adams RM (ed) Occupational skin disease, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 349–386

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fregert S (1975) Occupational dermatitis in a 10-year material. Contact Dermatitis 1: 96–107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Burrows D (1972) Prognosis in industrial dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 87: 145–148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Purschel W, Furst G (1972) Berufsbedingtes Kontaktekzem — Katamnesen and Rehabilitation. Berufsdermatosen 20: 174

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kaaber K, Veien N (1977) The significance of chromate ingestion in patients allergic to chromate. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 57: 321–323

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Andersen KE, Burrows D, Cronin E, et al. (1988) Recommended changes to standard series. Contact Dermatitis 19: 389–390

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Burrows D, Andersen KE, Camarase JG, et al. (1989) Trial of 0.5% versus 0.375% potassium dichromate. Contact Dermatitis 21: 351

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Frosch P, Aberer W (1988) Chrom-Allergie. Dermatosen 36: 168–169

    Google Scholar 

  46. Fregert S, Rorsman H (1966) Allergic reactions to trivalent chromium compounds. Arch Dermatol 66: 711–714

    Google Scholar 

  47. Van Joost T, van Everdingen JJ (1982) Sensitization to cobalt associated with nickel allergy: clinical and statistical studies. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 62: 525–529

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rystedt T, Fischer T (1983) Relationship between nickel and cobalt sensitization in hard metal workers. Contact Dermatitis 9: 195–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Bauer K, et al. (1988) Flavors and fragrances. In: Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry, vol All. VCH, Weinheim, pp 144–246

    Google Scholar 

  50. Larsen WG (1986) Perfume dermatitis. In: Fisher AA (ed) Contact dermatitis, 3rd edn. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 394–404

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wilkinson JD, Andersen K, Camarasa J, et al. (1989) Preliminary results on the effectiveness of two forms of fragrance mix as screening agents for fragrance sensitivity. In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle J-M, Rycroft EJ, Scheper EJ (eds) Current topics in contact dermatitis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 127–131

    Google Scholar 

  52. Larsen WG (1977) Perfume dermatitis. A study of 20 patients. Arch Dermatol 113: 623–627

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. De Groot AC (1988) Adverse reactions to cosmetics. Thesis, State University of Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  54. Larsen WG, Maibach HI (1982) Fragrance contact allergy. Semin Dermatol 1: 85–90

    Google Scholar 

  55. De Groot AC, Liem DH, Nater JP, van Ketel WG (1985) Patch tests with fragrance materials and preservatives. Contact Dermatitis 12: 87–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hjorth N (1961) Allergy to balsams, allied perfumes and flavouring agents. Munksgaard, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  57. Christophersen J, et al. (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21: 291–297

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Veien N (1989) Systemically induced eczema in adults. Acta Derm Venereol [Suppl] (Stockh) 147

    Google Scholar 

  59. Opdyke DL (1975) The safety of fragrance materials. Br J Dermatol 93: 351

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Bauer K, et al. (1988) Flavors and fragrances. In: Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry, vol All. VCH, Weinheim, pp 144–246

    Google Scholar 

  61. Fisher AA, Dooms-Goossens A (1976) The effect of perfume “ageing” on the allergenicity of individual perfume ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 2: 155–159

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Opdyke DLK (1976) Inhibition of sensitization reactions induced by certain aldehydes. Food Cosmet Toxicol 14: 197–198

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Hanau D, et al. (1983) The influence of limonene on induced delayed hypersensitivity to citral in guinea pigs. I. Histological study. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 63: 1–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Barbier P, Benezra C (1983) The influence of limonene on induced delayed hypersensitivity to citral in guinea pigs. II. Label distribution in the skin of 14C-labelled citral. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 63: 93–96

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Hausen BM, Kuhlwein A, Schultz KH (1982) Kolophonium-Allergie. Derm Beruf Umwelt 30: 145–152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Karlberg A-T (1988) Contact allergy to colophony. Thesis, University of Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  67. Fisher AA (1986) Contact dermatitis, 3rd edn. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 665–674

    Google Scholar 

  68. Karlberg A-T, Bohlinder K, Boman A, Hacksell U, Hermansson J, Jacobsson S, Nilsson JLG (1988) Identification of 15-hydroxyperoxyabietic acid as a contact allergen in Portuguese colophony. J Pharm Pharmacol 40: 42–47

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Hausen BM, Krueger JM, Mohnert J, Hahn H, König WA (1989) Contact allergy due to colophony. III. Sensitizing potency of resin acids and some related products. Contact Dermatitis 20: 41–50

    Google Scholar 

  70. Hausen BM, Jensen S, Mohnert J (1989) Contact allergy to colophony. IV. The sensitizing potency of commercial products. An investigation of French and American modified colophony derivatives. Contact Dermatitis 20: 133–143

    Google Scholar 

  71. Hausen BM, Mohnert J (1989) Contact allergy to colophony. V. Patch test results with different types of colophony and modified-colophony products. Contact Dermatitis 20: 295–301

    Google Scholar 

  72. Christoffersen J, et al. (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21: 291–299

    Google Scholar 

  73. Hjorth N (1961) Allergy to balsams, allied perfumes and flavouring agents. Munksgaard, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  74. Edman B (1988) Computerized patch test data in contact allergy. Thesis, University of Lund

    Google Scholar 

  75. Karlberg A-T, Boman A, Nilsson JLG (1988) Hydrogenation reduces the allergenicity of colophony. Contact Dermatitis 19: 22–29

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Prystowsky SD, Nonomura JH, Smith RW, Allen AM (1979) Allergic hypersensitivity to neomycin. Arch Dermatol 115: 713–715

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Edman B, Möller H (1982) Trends and forecasts for standard allergens in a 12-year patch test material. Contact Dermatitis 8: 95–104

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Gollhausen R, et al. (1988) Trends in allergic contact sensitization. Contact Dermatitis 18: 147–154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Frosch PJ, Weickel R, Schmitt T, Krastel H (1987) Nebenwirkungen von ophthalmologischen Externa. Z Hautkr 63: 126–136

    Google Scholar 

  80. Pirilä V, Förström L, Rouhunkoski S (1967) Twelve years of sensitization to neomycin in Finland: report of 1760 cases of sensitivity to neomycin and/or bacitracin. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 47: 419–425

    Google Scholar 

  81. Förström L, Pirilä V (1978) Cross sensitivity within the neomycin group of antibiotics. Contact Dermatitis 4: 312

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Kligman AM (1966) The identification of contact allergens by human assay. III. The mazimization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol 47: 393–409

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Hjorth N, Wilkinson D, Magnusson B, et al. (1978) Glyceryl-P-aminobenzoate patch testing in benzocaine sensitive subjects. Contact Dermatitis 4: 46–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Adriani J, Dalili H (1971) Penetration of local anesthetics through epithelia barriers. Anesth Analg 50: 834–841

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Fisher AA (1986) Local anaesthetics in contact dermatitis, 3rd edn. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 220–227

    Google Scholar 

  86. Wilkinson JD, et al. (1990) Preliminary patch testing with 25% and 15% “caine” mixes. Contact Dermatitis 22: 244–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Beck MH, Holden A (1988) Benzocaine — an unsatisfactory indicator of topical local anaesthetic sensitization for the U.K. Br J Dermatol 118: 91–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ekelund A, Möller H (1969) Oral provocation in eczematous contact allergy to neomycin and hydroxyquinolines. Acta Derm Verereol (Stockh) 49: 422–426

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Skog E (1975) Systemic eczematous contact-type dermatitis induced by iodochlorhydroxyquin and chloroquine phosphate. Contact Dermatitis 1: 187

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Simpson JR (1974) Reversed cross-sensitisation between quinine and iodochlorhydroxyquinoline. Contact Dermatitis Newsletter 15: 431

    Google Scholar 

  92. Allenby CF (1965) Skin sensitisation to Remiderm and cross-sensitisation to hydroxyquinoline compounds. Br Med J: 208–209

    Google Scholar 

  93. Kero M, Hannuksela M, Sothman A (1979) Primary irritant dermatitis from topical clioquinol. Contact Dermatitis 5: 115–117

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Clark EW (1975) Estimation of the general incidence of specific lanolin allergy. J Soc Cosmet Chem 26: 323–335

    Google Scholar 

  95. Kligman AM (1983) Lanolin allergy: crisis or comedy. Contact Dermatitis 9: 99–107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Breit R, Bandmann HJ (1973) Dermatitis from lanolin. Br J Dermatol 88: 414–416

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Hjorth N, Trolle Lassen C (1963) Skin reactions to ointment bases. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc 49: 127–140

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Iden DL, Schroeter AL (1977) The vehicle tray revisited: the use of the vehicle tray in assessing allergic contact dermatitis by a 24-hours application method. Contact Dermatitis 3: 122–126

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Fisher AA, et al. (1971) Allergic contact dermatitis due to ingredients of vehicles. Arch Dermatol 104: 286–290

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Mortensen T (1979) Allergy to lanolin. Contact Dermatitis 5: 137–139

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Clark EW, et al. (1977) Lanolin with reduced sensitizing potential Contact Dermatitis 3: 69–74

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Cronin E (1966) Lanolin dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 78: 167–174

    Google Scholar 

  103. Sugai T, Higashi J (1975) Hypersensitivity to hydrogenated lanolin. Contact Dermatitis 1: 146–157

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. English JSC, Rycroft RJG (1989) Occupational sensitization to ethylenediamine in a floor polish remover. Contact Dermatitis 20: 220–221

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Crow KD, Peachey RDG, Adams JE (1978) Coolant oil dermatitis due to ethylene-diamine. Contact Dermatitis 4: 359–361

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Angelini G, Meneghini CL (1977) Dermatitis in engineers due to synthetic coolants. Contact Dermatitis 3: 219–220

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Price ML, Hall-Smith SP (1984) Allergy to piperazine in a patient sensitive to ethylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 10: 120

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Menné T, Hjorth N (1988) Routine patch testing with paraben esters. Contact Dermatitis 19: 189–191

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Fisher AA, et al. (1971) Allergic contact dermatitis due to ingredients of vehicles. Arch Dermatol 104: 286–290

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Schorr WF (1968) Paraben allergy: a cause of intractable dermatitis. JAMA 204: 859–862

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Hjorth N, Trolle Lassen C (1963) Skin reactions to ointment bases. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc 49: 127–140

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Maucher OM (1974) Beitrag zur Kreuz-oder Kopplingsallergie zur ParahydroxybenzoeSäure-Ester. Berufsdermatosen 22: 183–187

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Fisher AA (1973) The paraben paradox. Cutis 12: 830–832

    Google Scholar 

  114. Mitchell JC (1977) Multiple concomitant positive patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis 3: 315–320

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Feinman SE (1988) Formaldehyde sensitivity and toxicity. CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  116. Adams RM, Fisher AA (1986) Contact allergen alternatives: 1986. J Am Acad Dermatol 14: 951–969

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Ford GP, Beck MH (1986) Reactions to Quaternium 15, Bronopol and Germa11115 in a standard series. Contact Dermatitis 14: 271–274

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. De Groot AC, et al. (1988) Patch test reactivity to DMDM hydantoin. Relationship to formaldehyde allergy. Contact Dermatitis 18: 197–201

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Storrs F (1983) Allergic contact dermatitis to 2-bromo-2-nitro-propane-1,3-diol in a hydrophilic ointment. J Am Acad Dermatol 2: 157–170

    Google Scholar 

  120. Christoffersen J, et al. (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21: 291–299

    Google Scholar 

  121. Jordan W, Sherman W, King S (1979) Threshold responses in formaldehyde-sensitive subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol 1: 44–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Fiedler HP (1983) Formaldehydabspalter. Derm Beruf Umwelt 31: 187–189

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Storrs F (1983) Allergic contact dermatitis to 2-bromo-2-nitro-propane-1,3-diol in a hydrophilic ointment. J Am Acad Dermatol 2: 157–170

    Google Scholar 

  124. De Groot AC, et al. (1988) Patch test reactivity to DMDM hydantoin. Relationship to formaldehyde allergy. Contact Dermatitis 18: 197–201

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Jordan WP, Sherman WT, King SE (1979) Threshold responses in formaldehyde-sensitive subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol 1: 44 48

    Google Scholar 

  126. Christoffersen J, et al. (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21: 291–299

    Google Scholar 

  127. De Groot AC, et al. (1986) Contact allergy to preservatives. II. Contact Dermatitis 15: 218–222

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Björkner B, Bruze M, Dahlquist I, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Persson K (1986) Contact allergy to the preservative Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 14: 85–90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. De Groot AC, Weyland JW (1988) Kathon CG: a review. J Am Acad Dermatol 18: 350–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Rastogi SC (1990) Kathon CG and cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis 22: 155–160

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. Decker RL Jr (1985) Frequency of preservative use in cosmetic formulas as disclosed to FDA — 1984. Cosmet Toilet 100: 65–68

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Chan PK, Baldwin RC, Parsons RD, et al. (1983) Kathon biocide: manifestation of delayed contact dermatitis in guinea pigs is dependent on the concentration for induction and challenge. J Invest Dermatol 81: 409–411

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Bruze M, Dahlquist I, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Persson K (1987) Contact allergy to the active ingredients of Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 16: 183–188

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Cronin E, Hannuksela M, Lachapelle J-M, Maibach HI, Malten KE, Meneghini CL (1988) Frequency of sensitization to the preservative Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 18: 274–279

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Frosch PJ, Schulze-Dirks A (1987) Kontaktallergie auf Kathon CG. Hautarzt 38: 422–425

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Maibach HI (1985) Diagnostic patch test concentration for Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 13: 242–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. Corbett JF, Menkart J (1973) Hair colouring. Cutis 12: 190

    Google Scholar 

  138. Herve-Bazin B, et al. (1977) Occupational eczema from n-isopropyl-n’-phenylparaphenylenediamine (IPPD) and n-dimethyl-1,3-butyl-n’-phenylparaphenylenediamine (DMPPD) in tyres. Contact Dermatitis 3: 1–15

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. MacKie BS, Mackie LE (1964) Cross sensitization in dermatitis due to hair dyes. Aust J Dermatol 7: 189

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  140. Schonning L, Hjorth N (1969) Cross sensitization between hair dyes and rubber chemicals. Berufsdermatosen 17: 100

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  141. Cronin E (1980) Contact Dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, p 137

    Google Scholar 

  142. Calnan CD (1967) Reaction to artificial colouring materials. J Soc Cosm Chem 18: 215

    Google Scholar 

  143. Dooms-Goosens A, Scheper RS, Andersen KE, et al. (1988) Comparative patch testing with PPD base and PPD dihydrochloride: human and animal data compiled by the European Contact Dermatitis Group. In: Frosch P et al (eds) Current topics in contact dermatitis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 281–285

    Google Scholar 

  144. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, p 729

    Google Scholar 

  145. Frosch PJ, Born CM, Schütz R (1987) Kontaktallergien auf Gummi-, Operations-und Vinylhandschuhe. Hautarzt 38: 210–217

    Google Scholar 

  146. Gold S (1966) A skinful of alcohol. Lancet 2: 1417

    Google Scholar 

  147. Stole D, King LE (1980) Disulfiram-alcohol skin reaction to beer-containing shampoo. JAMA 244: 2045

    Google Scholar 

  148. Kaaber K, Menné T, Veien N, Hougaard P (1983) Treatment of dermatitis with Antabuse; a double blind study. Contact Dermatitis 9: 297–299

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  149. Van Hecke E, Vermander F (1984) Allergic contact dermatitis by oral disulfiram. Contact Dermatitis 10: 254

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Andersen KE, Burrows D, Cronin E, Dooms-Goossens A, Rycroft RIG, White IR (1988) Recommended changes to the standard series. Contact Dermatitis 19: 389–390

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  151. Logan RA, White IR (1988) Carbamix is redundant in the patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 18: 303–304

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  152. Fregert S (1969) Cross-sensitivity pattern of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT). Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 49: 45–48

    Google Scholar 

  153. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 734–735

    Google Scholar 

  154. Condé-Salazar L, LLinas Volpe MG, Guimaraens D, Romero L (1988) Allergic contact dermatitis from a suction socket prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 19: 305–306

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Taylor JS (1986) Rubber. In: Fisher AA (ed) Contact dermatitis. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, p 623

    Google Scholar 

  156. Andersen KE, Burrows D, Cronin E, Dooms-Goossens A, Rycroft RJG, White IR (1988) Recommended changes to the standard series. Contact Dermatitis 5: 389–390

    Google Scholar 

  157. Bieber MP, Foussereau J (1968) Role de deux amines aromatiques dans l’allergie au caoutchouc; PBN et 4010 NA, amines anti-oxydantes dans l’industrie du pneu. Bull Soc Fr Dermatol Syphiligr 75: 63–67

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. Herve-Bazin B, Gradiski D, Marignac B, Foussereau J (1977) Occupational eczema from N-isopropyl-N’-phenylparaphenylenediamine (IPPD) and N-dimethyl-1,3butyl-N-phenylparaphenylenediamine ( DMPPD) in tyres. Contact Dermatitis 3: 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  159. White IR (1988) Dermatitis in rubber manufacturing industries. Dermatol Clin 6: 53–59

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  160. Tuyp E, Mitchell JC (1983) Scuba diver dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 9: 334–335

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  161. Goh CL (1987) Hand dermatitis from a rubber motorcycle handle. Contact Dermatitis 16: 40–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  162. Ho VC, Mitchell JC (1985) Allergic contact dermatitis from rubber boots. Contact Dermatitis 12: 110–111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  163. Romaguera C, Aguirre A, Diaz Perez JL, Grimalt F (1986) Watch strap dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 14: 260–261

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  164. Conde-Salazar L, Guimaraens D, Romero LV, Gonzalez MA (1987) Unusual allergic contact dermatitis to aromatic amines. Contact Dermatitis 17: 42–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  165. Carlsen L, Andersen KE, Egsgaard H (1987) IPPD contact allergy from an orthopedic bandage. Contact Dermatitis 17: 119–121

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  166. Fisher AA (1984) Purpuric contact dermatitis. Cutis 33: 346

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  167. Ancona A, Monroy F, Fernandez-Diez J (1982) Occupational dermatitis from IPPD in tyres. Contact Dermatitis 8: 91–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  168. Burrows D, Campbell H, Fregert S, Trulsson L (1984) Contact dermatitis from epoxy resins, tetraglycidyl-4, 4-methylene dianiline and O-diglycidyl phthalate in composite material. Contact Dermatitis 11: 80–83

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  169. Fregert S, Thorgeirsson A (1977) Patch testing with low molecular oligomers of epoxy resin in humans. Contact Dermatitis 3: 301–303

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  170. Dahlquist E, Fregert S (1979) Contact allergy to Cardura E, an epoxy reactive diluent of the ester type. Contact Dermatitis 5: 121–122

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  171. Fregert S, Trulsson L (1978) Simple methods for demonstration of epoxy resins in bisphenol A type. Contact Dermatitis 4: 69–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  172. Fregert S (1988) Physicochemical methods for detection of contact allergens. Dermatol Clin 6: 97–104

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  173. Calnan CD, Harman RRM (1959) Studies in contact dermatitis X. Sensitivity to para-tertiary butylphenol. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc 43: 27–32

    Google Scholar 

  174. Malten KE (1967) Contact sensitizations caused by p. tert. butylphenol and certain phenol-formaldehyd-containing glues. Dermatologica 135: 54–59

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  175. Van Ketel WG (1974) Plastics and glues. Contact Dermatitis Newslett 16: 470–471

    Google Scholar 

  176. Van der Willingen AH, Stolz E, van Joost T (1987) Sensitisation to phenol formaldehyde in rubber glue. Contact Dermatitis 16: 291–292

    Google Scholar 

  177. Bruze M (1987) Contact dermatitis from phenol-formaldehyde resins. In: Maibach HI (ed) Occupational and industrial dermatology, 2nd edn. Year Book Medical Publishers, Chicago, pp 430–435

    Google Scholar 

  178. Engel HO, Calnan CD (1966) Resin dermatitis in a car factory. Br J Ind Med 23: 62–66

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  179. Mobacken H, Hersle K (1976) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by para-tertiary butylphenol-formaldehyde resin in watch straps. Contact Dermatitis 2: 59

    Google Scholar 

  180. Rycroft RJG, Wilkinson JD, Holmes R, Hay RJ (1980) Contact sensitization to p-tertiary butylphenol ( PTBP) resin plastic nail adhesive. Clin Exp Dermatol 5: 441–445

    Google Scholar 

  181. Moran M, Martin-Pascual A (1978) Contact dermatitis to para-tertiary-butylphenol formaldehyde. Contact Dermatitis 4: 372–373

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  182. Dahlquist I (1984) Contact allergy to paratertiary butylphenol formaldehyde resin in an adhesive label. Contact Dermatitis 10: 54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  183. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 617–619

    Google Scholar 

  184. Malten KE (1973) Occupational dermatoses in the processing of plastics. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc 59: 78–113

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  185. Schubert H, Agatha G (1979) Zur Allergennatur der para-tert. Butylphenolformaldehydharze. Derm Beruf Umwelt 27: 49–52

    Google Scholar 

  186. Malten KE, Rath R, Pastors PMH (1983) Para-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde and other causes of shoe dermatitis. Derm Beruf Umwelt 31: 149–153

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  187. Hjorth N (1967) Seasonal variations in contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 47: 409–418

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  188. Benezra C, Ducombs G, Sell Y, Foussereau J (1985) Plant contact dermatitis. Decker, Toronto, pp 200–201

    Google Scholar 

  189. Fregert S, Hjorth N, Schulz KH (1968) Patch testing with synthetic primin in persons sensitive to Primula obconica. Arch Dermatol 98: 144–147

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Klaus E. Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Desmond Burrows
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ian R. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Contact Dermatitis Clinic, St. John’s Dermatology Centre, St. Thomas’s Hospital, Lambeth Palace RD, SE1 7 EH, London, UK

    Richard J. G. Rycroft

  2. Department of Dermatology, Gentofte Hospital University of Copenhagen, Niels Andersens Vej 65, 2900, Hellerup, Denmark

    Torkil Menné

  3. Hautklinik der Städtischen Kliniken Dortmund, Abteilung Dermatologie, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Beurhausstraße 40, 4600, Dortmund, Germany

    Peter J. Frosch

  4. Laboratoire de Dermatochimie, Université Louis Pasteur, Clinique Dermatologique, 1 Place de l’Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg Cedex, France

    Claude Benezra

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Andersen, K.E., Burrows, D., White, I.R. (1992). Allergens from the Standard Series. In: Rycroft, R.J.G., Menné, T., Frosch, P.J., Benezra, C. (eds) Textbook of Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-13119-0_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-13119-0_22

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-13121-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-13119-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation