Evaluation of allergic potential of rubber products: Comparison of sample preparation methods for the testing of polymeric medical devices

Journal of Toxicology - Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 169-185

  Nakamura, Akitada ^g   Kanazawa, Yukiko ^a   Sato, Hidetaka ^b   Tsuchiya, Toshie ^c   Ikarashi, Yoshiaki ^c   De Jong, Wim H ^d   Andersen, Klaus E ^e   Knudsen, Bodil B ^f  

^a HATANO RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Japan)

^b JAPAN FOOD RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (Japan)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SCIENCES   (Japan)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^e ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^f GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^g NONE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Extraction medium; ISO TC194 WGB; Mercaptobenzothiazole; Rubber; Sensitization potency; Zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate

Indexed keywords

ACETONE; CHLOROFORM; MERCAPTOBENZOTHIAZOLE; ORGANIC SOLVENT; RUBBER; SODIUM CHLORIDE; THIOCARBAMIC ACID DERIVATIVE; VEGETABLE OIL;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTACT ALLERGY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; EXTRACTION; GUINEA PIG; HUMAN; JAPAN; LABORATORY; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; NONHUMAN; PATCH TEST; SAMPLING; SENSITIZATION; SKIN ALLERGY; STANDARDIZATION;

ANIMALIA; CAVIA PORCELLUS; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 0041562483     PISSN: 07313829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/CUS-120022757     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. ISO 10993-1 Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing, 1997.
2. ISO 10993-10 Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 10: Tests for irritation and sensitization, 1995.
3. MHW Notification YAKUKI No. 99 (1995.6.27) Guidelines for basic biological tests of medical materials and devices, Part II, Sensitization test.
4. Kaniwa M-A, Momma J, Ikarashi Y, Kojima S, Nakamura A, Nakaji Y, Kurokawa Y, Kantoh H, Itoh M. A method for identifying causative chemicals of allergic contact dermatitis using a combination of chemical analysis and patch testing in patients and animal groups: application to a case of rubber boot dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1992; 27:166-173.
5. ISO 10993-12 Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 12: Sample preparation and reference materials, 1996.
6. Kaniwa M-A, Kojima S, Nakamura A, Kantoh H, Itoh M, Ishihara M. Chemical approach to contact dermatitis caused by household products (III). Analysis of dithiocarbamate-type accelerators in commercial rubber gloves and incidence of positive reactions in patch testing. Eisei Kagaku 1986; 32:197-211.
7. Sato Y, Katsumura Y, Ichikawa H, Kobayashi T, Kozuka T, Morikawa F, Ohta S. A modified technique of guinea pig testing to identify delayed hypersensitivity allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1981; 7:225-237.
8. Kimber I, Weisenberger C. A murine local lymph node assay for the identification of contact allergens. Assay development and results of an initial validation study. Arch. Toxicol. 1989; 63:274-282.
9. Vandebriel RJ, De Jong WH, Spiekstra SW, Van Dijk M, Fluitman A, Garssen J, Van Loveren H. Assessment of preferential T-helper 1 or T-helper 2 induction by low molecular weight compounds using the local lymph node assay in conjunction with RT-PCR and ELISA for interferon-gamma and interleukin-4. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2000; 162:77-85.
10. De Jong WH, Van Och FMM, Den Hartog Jager CF, Spiekstra SW, Slob W, Vandebriel RJ, Van Loveren H. Ranking of allergenic potency of rubber chemicals in a modified local lymph node assay. Toxicol Sci 2002; 66:226-232.
11. De Jong WH, Tentij M, Spiekstra SW, Vandebriel RJ, Van Loveren H. Determination of the sensitizing activity of the rubber contact sensitizers TMTD, ZDMC, MBT and DEA in a modified local lymph node assay and the effect of sodium dodecyl sulfate pretreatment on local lymph node responses. Toxicology 2002; 176:123-134.
12. Fisher A. Contact Dermatitis. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febriger, 1978:163-174.
13. Nakamura A, Momma J, Sekiguchi H, Noda T, Yamano T, Kaniwa M-A, Kojima S, Tsuda M, Kurokawa Y. A new protocol and criteria for quantitative determination of sensitization potencies of chemicals by guinea pig maximization test. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 31:72-85.
14. WHO/IPCS: International Chemical Safety Cards No. 1183 and No. 0505.
15. Emmett EA, Risby TH, Taylor J, Chen CL, Jiang L, Feiman SE. Skin elicitation threshold of ethylbutyl thiourea and mercaptobenzothiazole with relative leaching from sensitizing products. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30:85-90.
16. Fregert S. Cross-sensitivity pattern of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole. Acta Dermato-vereneol 1969; 49:45-48.
17. Blank IH, Miller OG. A study of rubber adhesive in shoes as the cause of dermatitis of the feet. J Am Med Assoc 1952; 149:1371-1374.
18. Kojima S, Momma J, Kaniwa M-A, Ikarashi Y, Sato M, Nakaji Y, Kurokawa Y, Nakamura A. Phosgene(chlorophenyl)hydrazones, strong sensitizers found in yellow sweaters, bleached with sodium hypochlorite, defined as causative allergens for contact dermatitis by an experimental screening methods in animals. Contact Dermatitis 1990; 23:129-141.
19. Kimber I, Basketter DA, Berthold K, Butler M, Garrigue J-L, Lea L, Newsome C, Roggeband R, Steiling W, Stropp G, Waterman S, Wiemann C. Skin sensitization testing in potency and risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 2001; 59:198-208.
20. Momma J, Kitajima S, Inoue T. The guinea-pig skin sensitization test revisited: an evaluation formula to predict possible sensitization levels for eight chemicals used in household products. Toxicology 1998; 126:75-82.
21. Andersen KE, Johansen JD, Bruze M, Frosch PJ, Goossens A, Lepoittevin JP, Rastogi S, White I, Menne T. The time-dose-response relationship for elicitation of contact dermatitis in isoeugenol allergic individuals. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2001; 170:166-171.