Patch testing with substances not included in the standard series

Veien, Niels K.; Hattel, Thais; Justesen, O; Nørholm, A

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.1983.tb04396.x

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ICDRG series of rubber chemicals were applied for 24 h (8). From 1974 to 1980, the allergens were bought from Trolab, Denmark, and thereafter from Epikon Oy, Finland.…”

Section: Patch Testing With Rubbermentioning

confidence: 99%

Dermatitis and urticaria from rubber and plastic gloves

1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number and nature of allergic occupational glove dermatoses were analysed. 542 cases of allergic contact dermatosis were diagnosed during [1974][1975][1976][1977][1978][1979][1980][1981][1982][1983]. Amongst these, 68 (12.5%) were caused by rubber or plastic gloves. 2 patients had contact urticaria due to rubber gloves.Gloves were the main cause of occupational allergic rubber eczema, inducing 63 (58.3%) of 108 rubber eczema cases. 38 of them had positive reactions to rubber chemicals and glove material, 14 to glove material only, and II to rubber chemicals. 5 cases of allergic eczema from plastic gloves were diagnosed, all due to polyvinyl chloride (PVC). 2 cases of contact urticaria from natural rubber gloves were diagnosed by a provocation test. Epicutaneous testing with material of natural rubber gloves and rubber chemicals was negative.The present study shows that allergy to rubber gloves is usual, while allergy to plastic gloves is rare. Thus, plastic gloves should be used, when possible. Patch testing with protective gloves should always be used when patients develop prolonged hand dermatitis and where the possibility of glove eczema exists.

show abstract

“…The ICDRG series of rubber chemicals were applied for 24 h (8). From 1974 to 1980, the allergens were bought from Trolab, Denmark, and thereafter from Epikon Oy, Finland.…”

Section: Patch Testing With Rubbermentioning

confidence: 99%

Dermatitis and urticaria from rubber and plastic gloves

1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The need for testing with nonstandard allergens when indicated by the patient's history and occupation is well established. 3 In addition, allergic contact urticaria is also an important cause of contact allergy which will frequently be missed if skin prick testing to the suspected allergen is not carried out. 4 Following the setting up of a specialist contact allergy service in our department, we carried out a study to assess the value of such a service in the diagnosis of contact allergy by making a comparison between results obtained using this clinic and the preexisting system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a contact allergy clinic

Goulden

Wilkinson

2000

Clinical and Experimental Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to assess the value of patch testing in a specialist contact allergy clinic as compared to testing carried out by general dermatologist for the diagnosis of contact allergy. One hundred consecutive patients referred for patch testing were tested to the European standard and specialized series. A comparison was made between patch tests read and interpreted by a consultant dermatologist with an interest in contact allergic dermatitis and by an experienced registrar who had not yet received any formalized specialized training. Results of testing with additional allergens acquired following the establishment of the specialist clinic were examined. In addition patients with a hand problem and/or symptoms suggestive of contact urticaria underwent skin prick testing. There was a variation in patch test reading and interpretation between the consultant and registrar in 10 patients. Patch testing using allergens from the additional series revealed additional relevant contact allergies in 19 patients. In 14 patients, allergies would have been missed by a limited additional series. Contact urticaria was detected in seven patients. This study has confirmed the value of a specialist contact clinic in the diagnosis of contact allergy. The importance of formalized training in patch test reading and interpretation, testing with additional series and prick testing for the diagnosis of contact urticaria are highlighted.

show abstract

“…The solvents (table 6) may smell (24,44,47), and they may contribute to irritation (9,41,42,43) in cooperation with, eg, formaldehyde and ammonia. Turpentine is a known sensitizer (49). Most of the solvents are absorbed through the lungs and /or through the skin (41,44).…”

Section: Toxicology 0/ Chemicals In Waterborne Paintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waterborne paints. A review of their chemistry and toxicology and the results of determinations made during their use.

Hansen

Larsen²,

Kh³

1987

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HANSEN MK, LARSEN M, COHR K-H. Waterborne paints: A review of their chemistry and toxicology and the results of determinations made during their use. Scand J Work Environ Health 13 (1987) 473-485. This work presents information on the composition of waterborne construction paints used in Denmark, data from determinations of chemicals evaporating from paints applied with a brush or roller, and the toxicology of these chemicals. Seven product types were selected to illustrate the composition of the paints. Measurements at two workplaces were used as models for the work environment during painting. Evaporating chemicals were collected on Tenax TN"' and analyzed with capillary column gas chromatography after thermal desorption. In smudging work, waterborne paints may result in skin irritation and/or sensitization when safety precautions are not taken. Irritation of the mucous membranes may be expected if airing is not sufficient. This irritation may lead to headache mediated by trigeminal nerve stimulation. No other health hazards (eg, brain damage) are expected. The available information indicates that waterborne paints are a clear improvement over traditional paints which use white spirit as the main solvent.Key terms: biocides, headache, irritation, latex paint, monomers, sensitizers, siccatives, solvents, surface active compounds, trigeminal nerve.In the I970s there was a substantial change in the consumption of construction paints in Denmark. Before this time, most paints were formulated with white spirit as the main solvent. Today more than 90 070 of construction paints are waterborne. The reasons for this change may have been the public discussion of the possibility of brain damage due to solvent exposure, the technological developments, the information campaigns of the trade unions, and the regulation by the Danish Labour Inspectorate. The change has resulted in some further advantages, eg, fewer risks of fire or explosion and a decreased emission of solvents to the environment.The present review was initiated as a part of an investigation of whether or not health problems might be expected from work with waterborne construction paints. It is a compilation of a Danish report (21), and it deals with (i) the composition of waterborne paints according to specifications from the Danish manufacturers, (ii) the toxicology of the chemicals contained in these paints, with the main emphasis on effects related to exposure to these types of products, and (iii) analysis of chemicals evaporating from waterborne paints under work conditions. Review of the chemistry and the toxicology of waterborne paints Chemistry oj waterborne paintsThe following seven waterborne product types were examined: acrylic latex paint (flat), acrylic latex paint (semi-gloss), heavy-bodied latex wall paint, latex enamel, latex primer (micro disperse), latex wall paint, and sealing waterborne paint (for ceilings). They were chosen from the Danish market in collaboration with, among others, the Danish Painters' Union, representatives of the Dan...

show abstract

Patch testing with substances not included in the standard series

Cited by 17 publications

References 2 publications

Dermatitis and urticaria from rubber and plastic gloves

Dermatitis and urticaria from rubber and plastic gloves

Evaluation of a contact allergy clinic

Waterborne paints. A review of their chemistry and toxicology and the results of determinations made during their use.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About