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 through patch testing. This test procedure is indicated in the investigation of longstanding 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. A patch test is the cutaneous application of a small amount of the suspected allergen in a suitable concentration and vehicle. The test site, usually the back, is covered with an occlusive dressing for 2 days. The skin condition, vehicle and concentration, volume of the test substance, size of the test chamber, test site, application time, and the number of readings influence the result, and frequent errors are possible [1–4] (see Chap. 2). The proper performance and interpretation of this bioassay require considerable training and experience.

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. Adams RM (1981) Patch testing–a recapitulation. J Am Acad Dermatol 5: 629–643

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher AA (1995) Contact dermatitis. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brasch J, Szlinka C, Grabbe 1 (1997) More positive patch test reactions with large test chambers? Contact Dermatitis 37: 118–120

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Benezra C, Andanson J, Chabeau C, Ducombs G, Foussereau J, Lachapelle JM, Lacroix M, Martin P (1978) Concentrations of patch test allergens: are we comparing the same things? Contact Dermatitis 4: 103–105

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cronin E (1972) Clinical prediction of patch test results. Trans St John’s Hosp Derm Soc 58: 153–162

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Podmore P, Burrows D, Bingham EA (1984) Prediction of patch test results. Contact Dermatitis 11: 283–284

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Menné T, Dooms Goossens A, Wahlberg JE, White IR, Shaw S (1992) How large a proportion of contact sensitivities are diagnosed with the European standard series? Contact Dermatitis 26: 201–202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruynzeel DP, Andersen KE, Camarasa JG, Lachapelle J-M, Menné T, White IR (1995) The European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 33: 145–148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Christophersen J, Menné T, Tanghoj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Thestrup Pedersen K, Veien NK (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21: 291–299

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilkinson JD, Hambly EM, Wilkinson DS (1980) Comparison of patch test results in two adjacent areas of England. II. Medicaments. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 60: 245–249

    Google Scholar 

  12. Andersen KE (1998) Multicentre patch test studies: are they worth the effort. Contact Dermatitis 38: 222–223

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 Press, Boca Raton, pp 9–34

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wantke F, Hemmer W, Jarish R, Götz M (1996) Patch test reactions in children, adults and the elderly. A comparative study in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 34: 316–319

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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 Press, Boca Raton, pp 45–54

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk, PM Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK) Contact Dermatitis 37: 200–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Nielsen NH, Menné T (1993) Nickel sensitization and ear piercing in an unselected Danish population. Glostrup Allergy Study. Contact Dermatitis 29: 16–21

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Meijer C, Bredberg M, Fischer T,Widström L (1995) Ear piercing, and nickel and cobalt sensitization in 520 young Swedish men doing compulsory military service. Contact Dermatitis 32: 147–147

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kare Dotterud L, Falk ES (1994) Metal allergy in north Norwegian schoolchildren and its relationship with ear piercing and atopy. Contact Dermatitis 31: 308–313

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  22. Veien N (1989) Systemically induced eczema in adults. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl 147: 1–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Nielsen GD, Soderberg U, Jorgensen PJ, Templeton DM, Rasmussen SN, Andersen KE, Grand-jean P (1999) Absorption and retention of nickel from drinking water in relation to food intake and nickel sensitivity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 154: 67–75

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Burrows D (1989) Prosser white oration. Mischievious metals–chromate, cobalt, nickel and mercury. Clin Exp Dermatol 14: 266–272

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Santucci B, Manna F, Cannistraci C, Cristando A, Capparella R, Bolasco A, Picardo M (1994) Serum and urine concentrations in nickel-sensitive patients after prolonged oral administration. Contact Dermatitis 30: 97–101

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Nielsen GD, Jepsen LV, Jorgensen PJ, Grandjean P, Brandrup F (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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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 62: 35–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Menné T, Holm NV (1983) Hand eczema in nickel-sensitive female twins. Contact Dermatitis 9: 289–296

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Van der Burg CKH, Bruynzeel DP, Vreeburg KJJ, von Blomberg BM, Scheper RJ (1986) Hand Eczema in hairdressers and nurses: a prospective study. Contact Dermatitis 14: 275–279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nilsson EJ, Knutsson A (1995) Atopic dermatitis, nickel sensitivity, and xerosis as risk factors for hand eczema in women. Contact Dermatitis 33: 401–406

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ (1998) Nickel as an occupational allergen. Arch Dermatol 134: 1231–1236

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  34. Van Hoogstraten IM, Andersen KE, Von Blomberg BM, Boden D,Bruynzeel DP, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Dooms-Goossens A, Kraal G, Lahti A (1991) Reduced frequency of nickel allergy upon oral nickel contact at an early age. Clin Exp Immunol 85: 441–445

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 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 

  40. Liden C, Wahlberg JE (1994) Cross-reactivity to metal compounds studied in guinea pigs induced with chromate or cobalt. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 74: 341–343

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Moss C, Friedmann PS, Shuster S, Simpson JM (1985) Susceptibility and amplification of sensitivity in contact dermatitis. Clin Exp Immunol 61: 232–241

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lammintausta K, Pitkanen O P, Kalimo K, Janssen CT (1985) Interrelationship of nickel and cobalt contact sensitization. Contact Dermatitis 13: 148–152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Moulon C, Vollmer J, Weltzien HU (1995) Characterization of processing requirements and metal cross-reactivities in T cell clones from patients with allergic contact dermatitis to nickel. Eur J Immunol 25: 3308–3315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Menné T, Andersen K E, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Andersen JR, Yding F, Valeur G (1987) Evaluation of dimethylglyoxine stick tests for detection of nickel. Derm Beruf Umwelt 35: 128–130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Menné T, Brandrup F, Thestrup-Pedersen K, Veien NK, Andersen JR, Yding F, Valeur G (1987) Patch test reactivity to nickel alloys. Contact Dermatitis 16: 255–259

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kanerva L, Sipilaïnen-Malm T, Estlander T, Zitting A, Jolanki R, Tarvainen K (1994) Nickel release from metals, and a case of allergic contact dermatitis from stainless steel. Contact Dermatitis 31: 299–303

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Haudrechy P, Mantout B, Frappaz A, Rousseau D, Chabeau G, Faure M, Claudy A (1997) Nickel release from stainless steel. Contact Dermatitis 37: 113–117

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Emmett EA, Risby TH, Jiang L, Ng SK, Feinman S (1988) Allergic contact dermatitis to nickel: bioavailability from consumer products and provocation threshold. J Am Acad Dermatol 19: 314–322

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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 

  52. Memon AA, Friedmann PS (1996) Studies on the reproducibility of allergic contact dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 134: 208–214

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 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: 50–56

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Burrows D (1984) The Dichromate problem. Int J Derm 23: 215–220

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  57. Zachariae COC, Agner T, Menné T (1996) Chromium allergy in consecutive patients in a country where ferrous sulfate has been added to cement since 1981. Contact Dermatitis 35: 83–85

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk PM, Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study ( IVDK ). Contact Dermatitis 37: 200–209

    Google Scholar 

  59. Olsayszky R, Rycroft RJG, White IR, McFadden JP (1998) Contact sensitivity to chromate: comparison at a London contact dermatitis clinic over a 10 year period. Contact Dermatitis 38: 329–331

    Google Scholar 

  60. 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 

  61. Avnstorp C (1989) Follow-up of workers from the prefabricated concrete industry after the addition of ferrous sulphate to Danish cement. Contact Dermatitis 20: 365–371

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Roto P, Sainio H, Reunala T, Laippala P (1996) Addition of ferous sulfate to cement and risk of chromium dermatitis among construction workers. Contact Dermatitis 34: 43–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Turk K, Rietschel RL (1993) Effect of processing cement to concrete on hexavalent chromium levels. Contact Dermatitis 228: 209–211

    Google Scholar 

  64. Goh CL, Gan SL (1996) Change in cement manufacturing process, a cause for decline in chromate allergy? Contact Dermatitis 34: 51–54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Wong S-S, Chan MTS, Gan S-L, Ng S-K, Goh C-L (1998) Occupational chromate allergy in Singapore: a study of 87 patients and a review from 1983 to 1995. Am J Contact Dermatitis 9: 1–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Irvine C, Pugh CE, Hansen EJ, Rycroft RJG (1994) Cement dermatitis in underground workers during construction of the Channel Tunnel. Occup Med Oxf 44: 17–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  68. Fregert S (1975) Occupational dermatitis in a 10 year period. Contact Dermatitis 1: 96–107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. 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 

  71. Andersen K E, Burrows D, Cronin E, Dooms Goossens A, Rycroft RJG, White IR (1988) Recommended changes to standard series. Contact Dermatitis 19: 389–390

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Burrows D, Andersen KE, Camarase JG,Dooms Goossens A, Ducombs G, Lachapelle JM, Menné T, Rycroft RJ, Wahlberg JE, White IR (1989) Trial of 0.5% versus 0.375% potassium dichromate. Contact Dermatitis 21: 351

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  75. Basketter D, Briatico-Vangosa G, Kaestner W, Lally C, Bontinck WJ (1993) Nickel, cobalt and chromium in consumer products: a role in allergic contact dermatitis? Contact Dermatitis

    Google Scholar 

  76. -25

    Google Scholar 

  77. Castiglioni G, Carosso A, Manzoni S, Nebiolo F, Bugiani (1992) Results of routine patch testing of 834 routine patients in Turin. Contact Dermatitis 27: 182–185

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Liden C,Wahlberg JE (1993) Cross-reactivity to metal compounds studied in guinea pigs induced with chromate or cobalt. Acta Derm Venereol 74: 341–343

    Google Scholar 

  79. 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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Tandon R, Aarts B (1993) Chromium, nickel and cobalt contents of some Australian cements. Contact Dermatitis 28: 201–205

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Goh CL, Kwok SF, Gan SL (1986) Cobalt and nickel content of Asian cements. Contact Dermatitis 15: 169–172

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Bauer K et al (1988) Flavors and fragrances. In: Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, chap 3, vol A 11. VCH, Weinheim, pp 144–246

    Google Scholar 

  84. de Groot AC, Frosch PJ (1997) Adverse reactions to fragrances. Contact Dermatitis 36: 77–86

    Google Scholar 

  85. Larsen WG (1994) Perfumes. In: Baran R, Maibach HI (eds) Cosmetic dermatology. Dunitz, London, pp 21–26

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Johansen JD, Menné T (1995) The fragrance mix and its constituents: a 14-year material. Contact Dermatitis 32: 18–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Marks JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, Mathias CG, Nethercott JR, Rietschel RL, Sherertz EF, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS (1998) North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol 38: 911–918

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Katsarar A, Kalogeromitros D, Armenaka M, Koufou V, Davou E, Koumantaki E (1997) Trends in the results of patch testing to standard allergens over the period 1984–1995. Contact Dermatitis 37: 245–246

    Google Scholar 

  90. Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen KE, Menné T (1997) Patch testing with markers of fragrance contact allergy. Do clinical tests correspond to patients’ self-reported problems? Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 77: 149–153

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Contact allergy to popular perfumes; assessed by patch test, use test and chemical analysis. Br J Dermatol 135: 419–422

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Johansen JD, Rastogi SC, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Frosch P, Dreier B, Lepoittevin JP, White IR, Menné T (1998) Deodorants: a clinical provocation study in fragrance-sensitive patients. Contact Dermatitis 39: 161–165

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Frosch PJ, Pilz B, Andersen KE, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Dooms-Goossens A, Ducombs G, Fuchs T, Hannuksela M, Lachapelle JM (1995) Patch testing with fragrances: results of a multicenter study of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group with 48 frequently used constituents of perfumes. Contact Dermatitis 33: 333–342

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Larsen W, Nakayama H, Fischer T, Elsner P, Frosch PJ, Burrows D, Jordan W, Shaw S, Wilkinson J, Marks J Jr, Sugawara M, Nethercott M, Nethercott J (1998) A study of a new fragrance mix. Am J Contact Dermatitis 9: 202–206

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Johansen JD, Skov L, Velund AA, Andersen KE, Menné T (1998) Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on elicitation responses: a study of fragrance-sensitised individuals. Br J Dermatol 139: 264–270

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Goossens A, Merckx L (1997) Allergic contact dermatitis from farnesol in a deodorant. Contact Dermatitis 37: 179–180

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  98. Christophersen J, Menné T, Tanghoj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Thestrup Pedersen K, Veien NK (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21: 291–297

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Johansen JD, Andersen TF, Veien N, Avnstorp C, Andersen KE, Menné T (1997) Patch testing with markers of fragrance contact allergy. Do clinical tests correspond to patients’ self-reported problems? Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 77: 149–153

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Mangelsdorf HC, Fleischer AB, Sherertz EF (1996) Patch testing in an aged population without dermatitis: high prevalence of patch test positivity. Am J Contact Dermatitis 7: 155–157

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Veien N (1989) Systemically induced eczema in adults. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 147: 1–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Niinimaki A (1995) Double-blind placebo-controlled peroral challenges in patients with delayed-type allergy to balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 33: 78–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Bauer K et al (1988) Flavors and fragrances. In: Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry, chap 3, vol All. VCH, Weinheim, pp 144–246

    Google Scholar 

  104. 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 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Basketter DA, Allenby CF (1991) Studies of the quenching phenomenon in delayed contact hypersensitivity reactions. Contact Dermatitis 25: 160–171

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Karlberg A-T (1988) Contact allergy to colophony. Thesis, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Hausen BM, Krohn K, Budianto E (1990) Contact allergy due to colophony (VII). Sensitizing studies with oxidation products of abietic and related acids. Contact Dermatitis 22: 352–358

    Google Scholar 

  112. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  114. 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 

  115. Hausen BM, Hessling C (1990) Contact allergy due to colophony (VI). The sensitizing capacity of minor resin acids and 7 commercial modified-colophony products. Contact Dermatitis 23: 90–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Christophersen J, Menné T, Tanghoj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Thestrup Pedersen K, Veien NK (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21: 291–297

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  118. Färm G (1996) Contact allergy to colophony and hand eczema. A follow-up study of patients with previously diagnosed contact allergy to colophony. Contact Dermatitis 34: 93–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Karlberg A-T, Gäfvert E, Meding B, Stenberg B (1996) Airborne contact dermatitis from unexpected exposure to rosin (colophony). Contact Dermatitis 35: 272–278

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Edman B (1988) Computerized patch test data in contact allergy. Thesis, Malmö

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Karlberg A-T, Gäfvert E (1996) Isolated colophony allergens as screening substances for contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 35: 201–207

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Sadhra S, Foulds IS, Gray CN (1998) Oxidation of resin acids in colophony (rosin) and its implications for patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 39: 58–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Gäfvert E, Bordalo O, Karlberg A-T (1996) Patch testing with allergens from modified rosin (colophony) discloses additional cases of contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 35: 290–298

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  126. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk, PM Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-ad-justed frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study ( IVDK ). Contact Dermatitis 37: 200–209

    Google Scholar 

  127. Christophersen J, Menné T, Tanghoj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Thestrup Pedersen K, Veien NK (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21: 291–297

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. 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 

  129. Gollhausen R, Enders F, Przybilla B, Burg G, Ring J (1988) Trends in allergic contact sensitization. Contact Dermatitis 18: 147–154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. van Ginkel CJ, Bruintjes TD, Huizing EH (1995) Allergy due to topical medications in chronic otitis externa and chronic otitis media. Clin Otolaryngol 20: 326–328

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. 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 

  132. Rudzki E, Rebandel P (1996) Cross-reactions with 4 aminoglycoside antibiotics at various concentrations. Contact Dermatitis 35: 62

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Hjorth N, Wilkinson D, Magnusson B, Bandmann HJ, Maibach HI (1978) Glyceryl-Paminobenzoate patch testing in Benzocaine sensitive subjects. Contact Dermatitis 4: 46–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  137. Placucci F, Lorenzi S, La Placa M, Vincenzi C (1996) Sensitization to benzocaine on a condom. Contact Dermatitis 34: 293

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  138. Wilkinson JD, Andersen KE, Lahti A, Rycroft RJG, Shaw S, White I (1990) Preliminary patch testing with 25% and 15% “caine” mixes. Contact Dermatitis 22: 244–245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. 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 

  140. Van Ketel WG, Bruynzeel DP (1991) A “forgotten” topical anaesthetic sensitizer: butyl aminobenzoate. Contact Dermatitis 25: 131–132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Agner T, Menné T (1993) Sensitivity to clioquinol and chlorquinaldol in the quinoline mix. Contact Dermatitis 29: 163

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis, vol 219. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  145. Silvestre JF, Alfonso R, Moragdn M, Ramón R, Botella R (1998) Systemic contact dermatitis due to norfloxacin with a positive patch test to quinoline mix. Contact Dermatitis 39: 83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Simpson JR (1974) Reversed cross-sensitisation between quinine andiodochlorhydroxyquinoline. Contact Dermatitis Newslett 15: 431

    Google Scholar 

  147. Allenby CF (1965) Skin sensitisation to Remiderm and cross-sensitisation to hydroxy-quinoline compounds. Br Med J iî: 208–209

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  149. Beck MH, Wilkinson SM (1994) A distinctive irritant contact reaction to vioform (clioquinol). Contact Dermatitis 31: 54–55

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  150. Clark EW (1975) Estimation of the general incidence of specific lanolin allergy. J Soc Cos-met Chem 26: 323–335

    Google Scholar 

  151. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk PM, Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study ( IVDK ). Contact Dermatitis 37: 200–209

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  155. Wilson CL, Cameron J, Powell SM, Cherry G, Ryan TJ (1991) High incidence of contact dermatitis in leg-ulcer patients–implications for management. Clin Exp Dermatol 16: 250–253

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  156. 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 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  159. Carmichael AJ, Foulds IS, Bransbury DS (1991) Loss of lanolin patch-test positivity. Br J Dermatol 125: 573–576

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  160. Gallenkemper G, Rabe E, Bauer R (1998) Contact sensitization in chronic venous insufficiency: modern wound dressings. Contact Dermatitis 38: 274–278

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  161. Clark EW, Blondeel A, Cronin E, Oleffe JA (1981) Lanolin of reduced sensitizing potential. Contact Dermatitis 7: 80–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  162. Edman B, Moller H (1989) Testing a purified lanolin preparation by a randomized procedure. Contact Dermatitis 20: 287–290

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  163. Rastrogi SC, Schouten A, De Kruijf N, Wejland JW (1995) Contents of methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, butyl-, and benzylparaben in cosmetic products. Contact Dermatitis 32: 28–30

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ (1998) Patch testing with preservatives, antimicrobials and industrial biocides. Results from a multicentre study. Br J Dermatol 138: 467–476

    Google Scholar 

  166. Jacobs MC, White IR, Rycroft RJ, Taub N (1995) Patch testing with preservatives at St John’s from 1982 to 1993. Contact Dermatitis 33: 247–254

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  167. Andersen KE, Volund AA, Frankild S (1995) The guinea pig maximization test–with a multiple dose design. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 75: 463–469

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  169. Gallenkember G, Rabe E, Bauer R (1998) Contact sensitisation in chronic venous insufficiency: modern wound dressings. Contact Dermatitis 38: 274–278

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  174. Veien NK, Hattel T, Laurberg G (1996) Oral challenge with parabens in paraben-sensitive patients. Contact Dermatitis 34: 433

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  176. Flyvholm M, Menné T (1992) Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde. A case study focussing on sources of formaldehyde exposure. Contact Dermatitis 27: 27–36

    Google Scholar 

  177. Feinman SE (1988) Formaldehyde sensitivity and toxicity. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida

    Google Scholar 

  178. Karlberg A-T, Skare L, Lindberg I, Nyhammar E (1998) A method for quantification of formaldehyde in the presence of formaldehyde donors in skin-care products. Contact Dermatitis 38: 20–28

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  180. Scheman AJ, Carroll PA, Brown KH, Osburn AH (1998) Formaldehyde-related textile allergy: an update. Contact Dermatitis 38: 332–336

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  181. Ford GP, Beck MH (1986) Reactions to Quaternium 15, Bronopol and Germall 115 in a standard series. Contact Dermatitis 14: 271–274

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  182. de Groot AC, Van Joost T, Bos JD, van der Meeren HL, Weyland JW (1988) Patch test reactivity to DMDM hydantoin. Relationship to formaldehyde allergy. Contact Dermatitis 18: 197–201

    Google Scholar 

  183. 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 

  184. Szolar-Platzer C,Aberer W (1996) Reactions to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers in a standard series. Contact Dermatitis 35: 192–193

    Google Scholar 

  185. Jacobs MC, White IR, Rycroft RJG, Taub N (1995) Patch testing with preservatives at St John’s from 1982 to 1993. Contact Dermatitis 33: 247–254

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  186. Christoffersen J, Menné T, Tanghoj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Thestrup Pedersen K, Veien NK (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by mulitvariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21: 291–299

    Google Scholar 

  187. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk, PM Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK) Contact Dermatitis 37: 200–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  188. Kang KM, Corey G, Storrs FJ (1995) Follow-up study of patients allergic to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers: retention of information, compliance, course, and persistence of allergy. Am J Contact Dermatitis 6: 209–215

    Google Scholar 

  189. Flyvholm MA, Hall BM, Agner T, Tiedemann E, Greenhill P, Vanderveken W, Freeberg FE, Menné 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 Dermatitis 36: 26–33

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Agner T, Flyvholm M-A, Menné T (1999) Formaldehyde allergy: a follow-up study. Am J Contact Dermatitis 10: 12–17

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  192. Fiedler HP (1983) Formaldehyd-Abspalter. Derm Beruf Umwelt 31: 187–189

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  193. Trattner A, Johansen JD, Menné T (1998) Formaldehyde concentration in diagnostic patch testing: comparison of 1% with 2%. Contact Dermatitis 38: 9–13

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  194. 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 

  195. de Groot AC, Van Joost T, Bos JD, van der Meeren HL, Weyland JW (1988) Patch test reactivity to DMDM hydantoin. Relationship to formaldehyde allergy. Contact Dermatitis 18: 197–201

    Google Scholar 

  196. Kranke B, Szolar-Platzer C, Aberer W (1996) Reactions to formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers in a standard series. Contact Dermatitis 35: 192–193

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. Boffa MJ, Beck MH (1996) Allergic contact dermatitis from quaternium 15 in oilatum cream. Contact Dermatitis 35: 45–46

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  199. Tosti A, Piraccini BM, Bardazzi F (1990) Occupational contact dermatitis due to quaternium 15. Contact Dermatitis 23: 41–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  200. Marren P, De Berker D, Dawber RPR, Powell S (1991) Occupational contact dermatitis due to quaternium 15 presenting as nail dystrophy. Contact Dermatitis 25: 253–255

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  201. Perrenoud D, Bircher A, Hunziker T, Suter H, Bruckner-Tuderman L, Stager J, Thürlimann W, Schmid P, Suard A, Hunziker N (1994) Frequency of sensitization to 13 common preservatives in Switzerland. Contact Dermatitis 30: 276–279

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  202. Jacobs MC, White IR, Rycroft RJG, Taub N (1995) Patch testing with preservatives at St John’s from 1982 to 1993. Contact Dermatitis 33: 247–254

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  203. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ (1998) Patch testing with preservatives, antimicrobials and industrial biocides. Results from a multicentre study. Br J Dermatol 138: 467–476

    Google Scholar 

  204. Christoffersen J, Menné T, Tanghoj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K, Osmundsen PE, Thestrup Pedersen K, Veien NK (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by mulitvariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21: 291–299

    Google Scholar 

  205. de Groot AC, Bos JD, Jagtman BA, Bruynzeel DP, Van Joost T, Weyland JW (1986) Contact allergy to preservatives–II. Contact Dermatitis 15: 218–222

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  207. Burden AD, O’Driscoll JB, Page FC, Beck MH (1994). Contact hypersensitivity to a new isothiazolinone. Contact Dermatitis 30: 179–180

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  208. 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 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  210. Nielsen H (1994) Occupational exposure to isothiazolinones: a study based on a product register. Contact Dermatitis 31: 18–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  211. Chan PK, Baldwin RC, Parsons RD (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 

  212. Andersen KE, Volund AA, Frankild S (1995) The guinea pig maximization test–with a multiple dose design. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 75: 463–469

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  213. 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 

  214. 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 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  216. de Groot AC (1990) Methylisothiazolinone/ methylchloroisothiazolinone (Kathon CG) allergy: un updated review. Am J Contact Dermatits 1: 151–156

    Google Scholar 

  217. de Groot AC (1997) Vesicular dermatitis of the hands secondary to perianal allergic contact dermatitis caused by preservatives in moistened toilet tissues. Contact Dermatitis 36: 173–174

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  218. Gebhardt M, Looks A, Hipler VC (1997) Urticaria caused by type 4 sensitization to isothiazolinones. Contact Dermatitis 36: 314

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  219. Schubert H (1997) Airborne contact dermatitis due to methylchloro-and methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI). Contact Dermatitis 36: 274

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  220. Fewings J, Menné T (1999) An update of the risk assessment for methylchloroisothiazolinone/ methylisothiazolinone ( MCI/MI) with focus on rinse-off products. Contact Dermatitis 41: 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  221. 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 Dermatitis 32: 210–217

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  223. Marks J, Moss JN, Parno JR, Adams RM, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fransway A, Fowler JF, Maibach HI, Mathias CGT, Nethercott JR, Rietschel RL, Sherertz E, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS (1993) Methylchloroisothiazolinone/Methylisothiazolinone (Kathon CG) biocide: second United States Multicenter study of human skin sensitization. Am J Contact Dermatitis 4: 87–89

    Google Scholar 

  224. Farm G, Wahlberg JE (1991) Isothiazolinones (mci/mi): 200 ppm versus 100 ppm in the standard series. Contact Dermatitis 25: 104–107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  225. Gruvberger B, Bruze M (1998) Can chemical burns and allergic contact dermatitis from higher concentrations of methylchloroisothiazolinone/ methylisothiazolinone be prevented? Am J Contact Dermatitis 9: 11–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  226. Guerra L, Bardazzi F, Tosti A (1992) Contact dermatitis in hairdressers’ clients. Contact Dermatitis 26: 108–111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  227. Holness DL, Nethercott JR (1990) Epicutaneous testing results in hairdressers. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1: 224–234

    Google Scholar 

  228. Frosch PJ, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Dooms-Goossens A, Ducombs G, Lahti A, Menné T, Rycroft RJG, Shaw S, White I, Wilkinson JD (1993) Allergic reactions to a hairdresser’s series: results from 9 European centres. Contact Dermatitis 28: 180–183

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  229. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk, PM Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study ( IVDK ). Contact Dermatitis 37: 200–209

    Google Scholar 

  230. Sharma VK, Chakrabarti A (1998) Common contact sensitizers in Chandigarh, India. Contact Dermatitis 38: 127–131

    Google Scholar 

  231. Corbett J F, Menkart J (1973) Hair colouring. Cutis 12: 190

    Google Scholar 

  232. McFadden JP, Wakelin SH, Holloway DB, Basketter DA (1998) The effect of patch duration on elicitation of para-phenylenediamine contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 39: 79–81

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  233. Wakelin SH, Creamer D, Rycroft RIG, White IR, McFadden JP (1998) Contact dermatitis from paraphenylenediamine used as a skin paint Contact Dermatitis 39: 92–93

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  234. Herve-Bazin B, Gradiski D, Marignac B, Foussereau 1 (1977) Occupational eczema from nisopropyl-n’-phenyl-paraphenylenediamine (IPPD) and n-dimethyl-1,3-butyl-n’-phenylparaphenylenediamine ( DMPPD) in tyres. Contact Dermatitis 3: 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  235. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, p 137

    Google Scholar 

  236. Seidenari S, Mantovani L, Manzini BM, Pignatti M (1997) Cross-sensitizations between azo dyes and para-amino compound. A study of 236 azo-dye-sensitive subjects. Contact Dermatitis 36: 91–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  237. Picardo M, Cannistraci C, Cristaudo A, De Luca C, Santucci B (1990) Study on cross-reactivity to the para group. Dermatologica 181: 104–108

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  238. Edwards EK Jr, Edwards EK (1984) Contact urticaria and allergic contact dermatitis caused by paraphenylenediamine. Cutis 34: 87–88

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  240. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 716–745

    Google Scholar 

  241. Estlander T, Jolanki R, Kanerva L (1994) Allergic contact dermatitis from rubber and plastic gloves. In: Mellström G, Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI (eds) Protective gloves for occupational use. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 221–240

    Google Scholar 

  242. Knudsen BB, Larsen E, Egsgaard H, Menné T (1993) Release of thiurams and carbamates from rubber gloves. Contact Dermatitis 28: 63–69

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  243. Cockayne SE, Shah M, Messenger AG, Gawkrodger DJ (1998) Foot dermatitis in children: causative allergens and follow-up. Contact Dermatitis 38: 203–206

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  244. Conde Salazar L, Del Rio E, Guimaraens D, Gonzalez Domingo A (1993) Type IV allergy to rubber additives: a 10-year study of 686 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol 29: 176–180

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  245. Frosch PJ, Born CM, Schultz R (1987) Kontaktallergien auf Gummi-, Operations-and Vinylhandschuhe. Hautarzt 38: 210–217

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  248. Rebandel P, Rudzki E (1996) Secondary contact sensitivity to TMTD in patients primarily positive to TETD. Contact Dermatitis 35: 48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  249. 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 

  250. Gamboa P, Jauregui I, Urrutia I, Antepara I, Peralta C (1993) Disulfiram-induced recall of nickel dermatitis in chronic alcoholism. Contact Dermatitis 28: 255

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  254. Holness DL, Nethercott JR (1997) Results of patch testing with a special series of rubber allergens. Contact Dermatitis 36: 207–211

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  255. Geier J, Gefeller O (1995) Sensitivity of patch tests with rubber mixes: results of the information network of departments of dermatology from 1990 to 1993. Am J Contact Dermatitis 6: 143–149

    Google Scholar 

  256. Knudsen BB, Menné T (1996) Contact allergy and exposure patterns to thiurams and carbamates in consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis 35: 97–99

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  259. Mancuso G, Reggiani M, Berdondini RM (1996) Occupational dermatitis in shoemakers. Contact Dermatitis 34: 17–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  261. Maibach HI (1996) Possible cosmetic dermatitis due to mercaptobenzothiazole Contact Dermatitis 34: 72

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  263. 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 

  264. Hansson C, Agrup G (1993) Stability of the mercaptobenzothiazole compounds. Contact Dermatitis 28: 29–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  265. Menné T, White IR, Bruynzeel DP, Goossens A (1992) Patch test reactivity to the PPD-black-rubber-mix (industrial rubber chemicals) and individual ingredients. Contact Dermatitis 26: 354

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  266. Fisher AA (1991) The significance of a positive reaction to the “black rubber mix”. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2: 141–142

    Google Scholar 

  267. 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 Franc Dermatol Syphilogr 75: 63–67

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  268. Hansson C (1994) Allergic contact dermatitis from N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N’-phenyl-pphenylenediamine and from compounds in polymerized 2,2,4- trimethyl-1,2-dihydroquinoline. Contact Dermatitis 30: 114–115

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  275. Lodi A, Chiarelli G, Mancini LL, Coanini A, Ambonita M, Crosti C (1996) Allergic contact dermatitis from a rubber bracelet. Contact Dermatitis 34: 146

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  276. Mc.Kenna KE, Mc.Millan C (1992) Facial contact dermatitis due to black rubber. Contact Dermatitis 26: 270–271

    Google Scholar 

  277. 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 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  281. Burrows D, Campbell H, Fregert S, Trulsson L (1984) Contact dermatitis from epoxy resins, tetraglycidyl-4, 4-methylene dianiline and 0-diglycidyl pthalate in composite material. Contact Dermatitis 11: 80–83

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  282. 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 

  283. Jolanki R, Tarvainen R, Tatar T, Estlander T, Henricks- Eckerman M-L, Mustakallio KK, Kanerva L (1996) Occupational dermatoses from exposure to epoxy resin compounds in a ski factory. Contact Dermatitis 38: 299–301

    Google Scholar 

  284. Le Coz C, Goossens A (1998) Contact dermatitis from an immersion oil for microscopy. N Engl J Med 339: 406–407

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  285. Le Coz C-L, Coninx D, Van Rengen A, Aboubi SL, Ducombs G, Benz HB, Boursier S, AvenelAudran M, Verret J-L, Erikstam U, Bruze M, Goossens A (1999) An epidemic of occupational contact dermatitis from an immersion oil for microscopy in laboratory personnel. Contact Dermatitis 40: 77–83

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  286. Géraut C, Seroux D, Dupas D (1989) Allergie cutanée aux nouvelles résines époxydiques. Arch Mal Prof 50: 187–188

    Google Scholar 

  287. Leow YH, Goh CL, Ng SK, Wong WK (1995) Allergic contact dermatitis from epoxy resin in Singapore. Contact Dermatitis 33: 355–356

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  288. Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T (1991) Allergic contact dermatitis from epoxy resin hardeners. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2: 89–97

    Google Scholar 

  289. Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T (1998) Occupational epoxy dermatitis with patch test reactions to multiple hardeners including tetraethylenepentamine. Contact Dermatitis 38: 299–301

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  290. 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 

  291. 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 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  293. Calnan CD, Harman RRM (1959) Studies in contact dermatitis. X. Sensitivity to Para-tertiary butylphenol. Trans St John’s Hosp Dermatol Soc 43: 27–32

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  299. Shono M, Ezoe K, Kaniwa M, Ikarashi Y, Kojima S, Nakamura A (1991) Allergic contact dermatitis from paratertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (ptbp-fr) in athletic tape and leather adhesive. Contact Dermatitis 24: 281–288

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  300. Hayakawa R, Ogino Y, Suzuki M, Kaniwa M (1994) Allergic contact dermatitis from para-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (ptbp-f-r). Contact Dermatitis 30: 187–188

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  302. Rycroft RIG, 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 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  305. Burden AD, Lever RS, Morley WN (1994) Contact hypersensitivity induced by p-tertbutylphenol-formaldehyde resin in an adhesive dressing. Contact Dermatitis 31: 276–277

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  306. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W, Agathos M, Arnold R, Fuchs T, Laubstein B, Lischka G, Pietrzyk PM, Rakoski J, Richter G, Rueff F (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study ( IVDK ). Contact Dermatitis 37: 200–209

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  308. Geldof BA, Roesyanto ID, Van Joost T (1989) Clinical aspects of para-tertiary-butylphenolformaldehyde resin ( PTBP-FR) allergy. Contact Dermatitis 21: 312–315

    Google Scholar 

  309. Zimmerson E, Bruze M, Goossens A (1999) Simultaneous p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin and p-tert-butylcatechol contact allergies in man and sensitizing capacities of p-tertbutylphenol and p-tert-butylcatechol in guinea pigs. JOEM 41: 23–27

    Google Scholar 

  310. Schubert H, Agatha G (1979) Zur Allergennatur der para-tert. butylphenolformaldehydharze. Dermatosen Beruf Umwelt 27: 49–52

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  311. Hagdrup H,Egsgaard H, Carlsen L, Andersen KE (1994) Contact allergy to 2-hydroxy-5-tertbutyl benzylalcohol and 2,6-bis(hydroxymethyl)-4-tert-butylphenol, components of a phenolic resin used in a marking pen. Contact Dermatitis 31: 154–156

    Google Scholar 

  312. Malten KE, Rath R, Pastors PMH (1983) Para-tert-Butylphenol Formaldehyde and other causes of Shoe Dermatitis. Dermatosen Beruf Umwelt 31: 149–153

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  313. Bajaj AK, Gupta SC, Chatterju AK (1990) Contact depigmentation from free paratertiarybutylphenol in bindi adhesive. Contact Dermatitis 22: 99–102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  316. Krebs M, Christensen LP (1995) 2-methoxy-6-pentyl-1,4-dihydroxybenzene (miconidin) from primula obconica: a possible allergen? Contact Dermatitis 33: 90–93

    Google Scholar 

  317. Hausen BM (1978) On the occurrence of the contact allergen primin and other quinoid compounds in species of the family of Primulaceae. Arch Derm Res 261: 311–321

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  318. Virgili A, Corazza M (1991) Unusual primin dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 24: 63–64

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  319. Ingber A (1991) Primula photodermatitis in Israel. Contact Dermatitis 25: 265–266

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  321. Tabar AI, Quirce S, Garcia BE, Rodriguez A, Olaguibel JM (1994) Primula dermatitis: versatility in its clinical presentation and the advantages of patch tests with synthetic primin. Contact Dermatitis 30: 47–48

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  322. Dooms-Goossens A, Biesemans G, Vandaele M, Degreef H (1989) Primula dermatitis: more than one allergen? Contact Dermatitis 21: 122–124

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  323. Ducombs G, Benezra C, Talaga P, Andersen KE, Burrows D, Camarasa JG, Dooms-Goossens A, Frosch PJ, Lachapelle JM, Menné (1990) Patch testing with the “sesquiterpene lactone mix”: a marker for contact allergy to Compositae and other sesquiterpene lactone containing plants. Contact Dermatitis 22: 249–252

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  324. Oliwiecki S, Beck MH, Hausen BM (1991) Compositae dermatitis aggravated by eating lettuce. Contact Dermatitis 24: 318–319

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  325. Paulsen E (1992) Compositae dermatitis: a survey. Contact Dermatitis 26: 76–86

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  326. Nandakishore T, Pasricha JS (1994) Pattern of cross-sensitivity between four compositae plants, Parthenium hysterophorus, Xanthium strumarium, Helianthus annuus,and Chrysanthemum coronarium, in Indian patients. Contact Dermatitis 30: 162–167

    Google Scholar 

  327. Paulsen E, Sögaard J, Andersen KE (1998) Occupational dermatitis in Danish gardeners and greenhouse workers (III). Compositae-related symptoms. Contact Dermatitis 38: 140–146

    Google Scholar 

  328. Fitzgerald DA, English JSC (1992) Compositae dermatitis presenting as hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis 27: 256–257

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  329. Wrangsjö K, Ros AM, Wahlberg JE (1990) Contact allergy to compositae plants in patients with summer exacerbated dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 22: 148–154

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  330. Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Hausen BM (1993) Compositae dermatitis in a Danish dermatology department in one year (I). Results of routine patch testing with the sesquiterpene lactone mix supplemented with aimed patch testing with extracts and sesquiterpene lactones of Compositae plants. Contact Dermatitis 29: 6–10

    Google Scholar 

  331. Paulsen E, Andersen KE (1993) Compositae dermatitis in a Danish dermatology department in one year (II). Clinical features in patients with Compositae contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 29: 195–201

    Google Scholar 

  332. Murphy GM, White IR, Hawk JLM (1990) Allergic airborne contact dermatitis to Compositae with photosensitivity. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 7: 38–39

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  333. Paulsen E (1998) Occupational dermatitis in Danish gardeners and greenhouse workers (II). Etiological factors. Contact Dermatitis 38: 14–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  334. Mateo MPG, Velasco M, Miguel FJ, de la Cuadra (1995) Erythema-mutiforme-like eruption following allergic contact dermatitis from sesquiterpene lactones in herbal medicine. Contact Dermatitis 33: 449–450

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  335. Goulden V, Wilkinson SM (1998) Patch testing for compositae allergy. Br J Dermatol 138: 1018–1021

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  336. Hausen BM (1996) A 6-year experience with Compositae mix. Am J Contact Dermatitis 7: 94–99

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  337. Orion E, Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Menné T (1998) Comparison of simultaneous patch testing with parthenolide ans sesquiterpene lactone mix. Contact Dermatitis 38: 207–208

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  338. Paulsen E, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, Bruynzeel DP, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lahti A, Menné T, Shaw S, Tosti A, Wahlberg JE, Wilkinson JD, Wrangsjö K (1999) Routine patch testing with sesquiterpene lactone mix in Europe: a 2 year experience. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 40: 72–76

    Google Scholar 

  339. Reynolds JEF (1993) Martindale, the extra pharmacopoeia, 30th edn. Pharmaceutical Press, London, p 726

    Google Scholar 

  340. Dooms-Goossens A (1995) Allergy to inhaled corticosteroids: a review. Am J Contact Dermatitis 6: 1–3

    Google Scholar 

  341. Lepoittevin J-P, Drieghe J, Dooms-Goossens A (1995) Studies in patients with corticosteroid contact allergy. Understanding cross-reactivity among different steroids. Arch Dermatol 131: 31–37

    Google Scholar 

  342. Goossens A, Matura M, Degreef H (2000) Reactions to corticosteroids: some new aspects regarding cross-sensitivity. Cutis 65: 43–46

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  343. Isaksson M, Anderson KE, Brandâo FM, Bruynzeel DP, Camarasa JG, Diepgen T, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lahti A, Menné T, Rycroft RJG, Seidenari S, Shaw S, Tosti A, Wahlberg J, White IR, Wilkinson JD (2000) Patch testing with corticosteroid mixes in Europe. A multi-centre study of The EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 42: 27–35

    Google Scholar 

  344. Wilkinson SM, Beck MH (1996) Corticosteroid hypersensitivity: what vehicle and concentration? Contact Dermatitis 34: 305–308

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  345. Isaksson M, Anderson KE, Brandâo FM, Bruynzeel DP, Camarasa JG, Diepgen T, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lahti A, Menné T, Rycroft RJG, Seidenari S, Shaw S, Tosti A, Wahlberg J, White IR, Wilkinson JD (2000) Patch testing with budesonide in serial dilutions. A multi-centre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 42: 352–354

    Google Scholar 

  346. Isaksson M, Brandâo FM, Bruze M, Goossens A (2000) Recommendations to include budesonide and tixocortol pivalate in the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 43: 41–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  347. Reynolds JEF (1993) Martindale, the extra pharmacopoeia, 30th edn. Pharmaceutical Press, London, p 739

    Google Scholar 

  348. Boujnah-Khouadja A, Brandie I, Reuter G, Foussereau J (1984) Allergy to 2 new corticoid molecules. Contact Dermatitis 11: 83–87

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  349. Dooms-Goossens A, Verschaeve H, Degreef H, Van Berendoncks J (1986) Contact allergy to hydrocortisone and tixocortol pivalate: problems with the detection of corticosteroid sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 14: 94–102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  350. Lepoittevin J-P, Drieghe J, Dooms-Goossens A (1995) Studies in patients with corticosteroid contact allergy. Understanding cross-reactivity among different steroids. Arch Dermatol 131: 31–37

    Google Scholar 

  351. Lauerma AI (1991) Screening for corticosteroid contact sensitivity. Comparison of tixocortol pivalate, hydrocortisone-17-butyrate, and hydrocortisone. Contact Dermatitis 24: 123–130

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  352. Burden AD, Beck MH (1992) Contact hypersensitivity to topical corticosteroids. Br J Dermatol 127: 497–500

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  353. Lutz ME, el-Azhary RA, Gibson LE, Fransway AF (1998) Contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol pivalate. J Am Acad Dermatol 38: 691–695

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  354. Isaksson M, Anderson KE, Brandäo FM, Bruynzeel DP, Camarasa JG, Diepgen T, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lahti A, Menné T, Rycroft RJG, Seidenari S, Shaw S, Tosti A, Wahlberg J, White IR, Wilkinson JD (2000) Patch testing with corticosteroid mixes in Europe. A multi-centre study of The EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 42: 27–35

    Google Scholar 

  355. Wilkinson SM, Beck MH (1996) Corticosteroid hypersensitivity: what vehicle and concentration? Contact Dermatitis 34: 305–308

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  356. Isaksson M, Brandäo FM, Bruze M, Goossens A (2000) Recommendations to include budesonide and tixocortol pivalate in the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 43: 41–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  358. Crow KD, Peachey RDG, Adams JE (1978) Coolant oil dermatitis due to ethylenediamine Contact Dermatitis 4: 359–361

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  360. Dias M, Fernandes C, Pereira F, Pacheco A (1995) Occupational dermatitis from ethylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 33: 129–130

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  361. Dal Monte A, de Benedictis E, Laffi G (1989) Occupational dermatitis from ethylenediamine hydrochloride. Contact Dermatitis 17: 254

    Google Scholar 

  362. Ash S, Scheman AJ (1997) Systemic contact dermatitis to hydroxyzine. Am J Contact Dermatitis 8: 2–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  363. Price ML, Hall-Smith S P (1984) Allergy to Piperazine in patient sensitive to Ethylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 10: 120

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  364. de la Hoz B, Perez C, Tejedor MA, Lazaro M, Salazar F, Cuevas M (1993) Immediate adverse reaction to aminophylline. Ann Allergy 5: 452–454

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Klaus E. Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian R. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. An Goossens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, St. Thomas’s Hospital, SE1 7EH, 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, 44137, Dortmund, Germany

    Peter J. Frosch

  4. Clinique Dermatologique Laboratoire de Dermatochimie, Univ. Louis Pasteur, 1 Place de L’Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg, France

    Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Andersen, K.E., White, I.R., Goossens, A. (2001). Allergens from the Standard Series. In: Rycroft, R.J.G., Menné, T., Frosch, P.J., Lepoittevin, JP. (eds) Textbook of Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-10302-9_31

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-10302-9_31

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-10304-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-10302-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation