Sensitizing potential in mice, guinea pig and man of the preservative Euxyl® K 400 and its ingredient methyldibromo glutaronitrile

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 330-338

  Wahlkvist, Helen ^a   Boman, Anders ^b   Montelius, Johan ^a   Wahlberg, Jan E ^a,b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR WORKING LIFE   (Sweden)

^b STOCKHOLM COUNTY COUNCIL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

CCET; Contact allergen; Dose response; Euxyl K 400; GPMT; LLNA; Methyldibromo glutaronitrile; Patch testing; Predictive testing; Preservatives; Sensitization

Indexed keywords

CONTACT ALLERGEN; EUXYL K 400; PRESERVATIVE;

ALLERGENICITY; ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CONTACT ALLERGY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GUINEA PIG; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PATCH TEST; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0033400051     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1999.tb06182.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. 1. Tosti A, Guerra L, Bardazzi F, Gasparri F. Euxyl K 400: a new sensitizer in cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 1991: 25: 89-93.
2. 2. Fuchs T, Enders F, Przybilla B, Ippen H, Aberer W, Bauer R, Bàhm I, Schulze-Dirks A, Frosch P J, Peters K-P, Gailhofer G, Steffan M-A, Wassilew S W, Hensel O, Gehring W, Lischka G, Agathos M, Breit R, Bahmer F, Stary A, Brasch J. Contact Allergy to Euxyl K 400: Results of a multi-center study of the German Contact Allergy Group (DKG). Derm Beruf Umwelt 1991: 39: 151-153.
3. 3. De Groot A C, Bruynzeel D P, Coenraads P J, Crijns M B, Ginkel C J W, Van Joost T, Van Der Kley J J M, Meinardi M M H M, Smeenk G, Weyland J W. Frequency of allergic reactions to methyldibromoglutaronitrile (1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane) in The Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 1991: 25: 270-271.
4. 4. Motolese A, Seidenari S, Truzzi M, Gianetti A. Frequency of contact sensitization to Euxyl K 400. Contact Dermatitis 1991: 25: 128.
5. 5. Corazza M, Mantovani L, Roveggio C, Virgili A. Frequency of sensitization to Euxyl K 400 in 889 cases. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 28: 298-299.
6. 6. Tosti A, Vincenzi C, Trevisi P, Guerra L. Euxyl K 400: incidence of sensitization, patch test concentration and vehicle. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 33: 193-195.
7. 7. Van Ginkel C J W, Rundervoort G J. Increasing incidence of contact allergy to the new preservative 1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane (methyldibromoglutaronitrile). Br J Dermatol 1995: 132: 918-920.
8. 8. De Groot A C, De Cock P A J J M, Coenraads P J, Van Ginkel C J W, Jagtman B A, Van Joost T, Van Der Kley A M J, Meinardi M M H M, Smeenk G, Van Der Valk P G M, Van Der Walle H B, Weyland J W. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile is an important contact allergen in The Netherlands. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 118-120.
9. 9. De Groot A C, Van Ginkel C J W, Weijland J W. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile (Euxyl K 400): An important "new" allergen in cosmetics. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996: 35: 743-747.
10. 10. Okkerse A, Geursen-Reitsma A M, Van Joost T. Contact allergy to methyldibromoglutaronitrile and certain other preservatives. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 151-152.
11. 11. Vigan M, Bréchat N, Girardin P, Adessi B, Meyer J P, Laurent R, Vuitton D A. Sensitization to Euxyl K 400, a prospective study in 1,217 patients. Eur J Dermatol 1996: 6: 175-177.
12. 12. Gruvberger B, Bruze M. Preservatives. Clin Dermatol 1997: 15: 493-497.
13. 13. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch P J. Patch testing with preservatives, antimicrobials and industrial biocides. Results from a multicentre study. Br J Dermatol 1998: 138: 467-476.
14. 14. Mathias C G T. Contact dermatitis to a new biocide (Tektamer 38®) used in a paste glue formulation. Contact Dermatitis 1983: 9: 418-435.
15. 15. De Groot A C, Weyland J W. Contact allergy to methyldibromoglutaronitile in the cosmetics preservative Euxyl K 400. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1991: 2: 31-32.
16. 16. Torres V, Soares P. Contact allergy to dibromodicyanobutane in a cosmetic cream. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 27: 114-115.
17. 17. Hausen B M. The sensitizing potency of Euxyl® K 400 and its components 1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane and 2-phenoxyethanol. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 28: 149-153.
18. 18. Van Der Walle H B, Brunsveld V M. Dermatitis in hairdressers. (I) The experience of the past 4 years. Contact Dermatitis 1994: 30: 217-221.
19. 19. Aalto-Korte K, Jolanki R, Estlander T, Alanko K, Kanerva L. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by Euxyl K 400. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 35: 193-194.
20. 20. Anonymous. Final report on the safety assessment of methyldibromo glutaronitrile. J Am Coll Toxicol 1996: 15: 140-165.
21. 21. Bruze M, Gruvberger B, Agrup G. Sensitization studies in the guinea pig with the active ingredients of Euxyl® K 400. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 37-39.
22. 22. Magnuson B, Kligman A M. Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig. Identification of contact allergens. Springfield, Illinois: C C Thomas, 1970.
23. 23. Maurer T. The optimization test. In: Andersen K E, Maibach H I (eds): Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. Basel, London, New York: Karger, 1985: 114-151.
24. 24. Magnusson B, Kligman A. The identification of contact allergens by animal assay, the guinea pig maximization test method. J Invest Dermatol 1969: 52: 268-276.
25. 25. Wahlberg J E, Boman A. Guinea pig maximization test. In: Andersen K E, Maibach H I (eds): Contact allergy predictive tests in guinea pigs. Basel, London, New York: Karger, 1985; 57-106.
26. 26. Andersen K E, Boman A, Hamann K, Wahlberg J E. Guinea pig maximization tests with formaldehyde releasers. Results from two laboratories. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 10: 257-266.
27. 27. Andersen K E, Boman A, Vølund Aa, Wahlberg J E. Induction of formaldehyde contact sensitivity: Dose response relationship in the guinea pig maximization test. Acta Dermato-venereologica 1985: 65: 472-478.
28. 28. Andersen K E, Vølund Aa, Frankild S. The guinea pig maximization test - with a multiple dose design. Acta Dermato-venereologica 1995: 75: 463-469.
29. 29. Andersen K E, Vølund Aa. Potency evaluation of contact allergens; dose-response studies using the guinea pig maximization test. Nordiske Seminar-og Arbejds-rapporter 1993:570. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen 1993.
30. 30. Boman A, Jacobsen D, Klastrup S, Svendsen O, Wahlberg J E. Potency evaluations of contact allergens (II). Dose-response studies using the guinea pig maximization test. Tema Nord, 1996: 570.
31. 31. Tsuchiya S, Kondo M, Okamoto K, Takase Y. The Cumulative Contact Enhancement Test. In: Andersen K E, Maibach H I. (eds): Contact allergy test in guinea pigs. Basel: Karger: Curr Probl Dermatol 1985: 14: 208-219.
32. 32. Kimber I, Basketter D A. The murine local lymph node assay: a commentary on collaborative studies and new directions. Food Chem Toxicol 1992: 30: 165-169.
33. 33. Montelius J, Wahlkvist H, Boman A, Fernström P, Gråbergs L, Wahlberg J E. Experience with the local lymph node assay: inability to discriminate between allergens and irritants. Acta Dermato-venereologica 1994: 74: 22-27.
34. 34. Montelius J, Wahlkvist H, Boman A, Wahlberg J E. The murine local lymph node assay for predictive testing of allergenicity: Two irritants caused significant proliferation. Acta Dermato-venereologica 1998: 78: 433-437.
35. 35. Wahlberg J E. Patch testing. In: Rycroft R J G, Menné T, Frosch P J (eds): Textbook of contact dermatitis, 2nd edition, Berlin: Springer, 1995: 239-268.
36. 36. Fregert S. Manual of contact dermatitis, 2nd edition. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1981: 71-81.
37. 37. Wahlkvist H, Boman A, Lidén C. Dose-response studies of contact allergens using 3 guinea pig models. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 198-206.
38. 38. Tammela M. Konserveringsmedel i hudkrämer (preservatives in moisturizers). Rapport från kosmetika kontrollen 1998, no. 9. Medical Products Agency, Uppsala, Sweden. In Swedish.
39. 39. Tammela M. Konserveringsmedel i schampo och flytande duschtvål (preservatives in shampoos and liquid soaps). Rapport från kosmetika kontrollen 1998, no. 9. Medical Products Agency, Uppsala, Sweden. In Swedish.
40. 40. Steinberg D C. Frequency of use of preservatives. A review of the preservatives reported as used in products sold in the United States. Cosmetics & Toiletries Magazine 1997: 112: 57-65.
41. 41. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Guidelines 406 for Testing of Chemicals 1981. Reports on Chemicals Control Activities ENVIMCI CHEM (92) 1. Updated 1992.
42. 42. Viluksela M, Haasio K, Männistö P T. Studies on the contact sensitizing activity of dithranol (anthralin) and 10-butyryl dithranol (butantrone). Contact Dermatitis 1990: 23: 103-110.
43. 43. Frankild S, Basketter D A, Andersen K E. The value and limitations of rechallenge in the guinea pig maximization test. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 35: 135-140.
44. 44. Basketter D A, Scholes E W, Cumberbatch M, Evans C D, Kimber I. Sulphanilic acid: divergent results in the guinea pig maximization test and the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 27: 209-213.
45. 45. Karlberg A-T, Boman A, Nilsson J L. Hydrogenation reduces the allergenicity of colophony (rosin). Contact Dermatitis 1988: 19: 22-29.
46. 46. Sauer J-M, Smith R L, Bao J, Kattnig M J, Kuester R K, Sipes I G. Metabolic and dispositional fate of 1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane in the male fischer 344 rat. Drug Metab Dispos Biol Fate Chem 1998: 26: 429-436.
47. 47. Bao J, Sauer J-M, Smith R L, Kuester R K, Kattnig M J, Sipes I G. Sulfhydryl-dependent biotransformation and macromolecular binding of 1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane in blood. Metab Dispos Biol Fate Chem 1998: 26: 1001-1007.