The impact of exposure variables on the induction of skin sensitization

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 55, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 178-185

  Basketter, David A ^a   Jefferies, Donna ^a   Safford, Bob J ^a   Gilmour, Nicola J ^a   Jowsey, Ian R ^a   Mcfadden, John ^b   Chansinghakul, Wannisa ^c   Duangdeeden, Imelda ^d   Kullavanijaya, Preya ^d  

^a UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c Research Dynamics   (Thailand)

^d Institute of Dermatology Thailand   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Human repeated insult patch test; Induction threshold; Local lymph node assay; Risk assessment; Skin sensitization

Indexed keywords

PHENYLENEDIAMINE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSE RESPONSE; EXPOSURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMAN REPEATED INSULT PATCH TEST; LOCAL LYMPH NODE ASSAY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PATCH TEST; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ALLERGENS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATCH TESTS; PHENYLENEDIAMINES; REFERENCE VALUES; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 33745901131     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00906.x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Basketter D A, Lea L, Cooper K, Dickens A, Briggs D, Pate I, Dearman R J, Kimber I. A comparison of statistical approaches to derivation of EC3 values from local lymph node assay dose-responses. J Appl Toxicol 1999: 19: 261-266.
2. Kimber I, Basketter D A. Contact sensitization: a new approach to risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 1995: 3: 385-395.
3. Basketter D A, Blaikie L, Dearman R J et al. Use of the local lymph node assay for the estimation of relative contact allergenic potency. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 344-348.
4. Van Och F M M, Slob W, De Jong W H, Vandebriel R J, Van Loveren H. A quantitative method for assessing the sensitizing potency of low molecular weight chemicals using a local lymph node assay: employment of a regression method that includes determinations of uncertainty margins. Toxicology 2000: 146: 49-59.
5. Gerberick G F, Robinson M K, Ryan C A, Dearman R J, Kimber I, Basketter D A, Wright Z, Marks J G. Contact allergenic potency: correlation of human and local lymph node assay data. Am J Contact Dermat 2001: 12: 156-161.
6. Schneider K, Akkan Z. Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2004: 39: 245-255.
7. Basketter D A, Clapp C, Jefferies D, Safford R J, Ryan C A, Gerberick G F, Dearman R J, Kimber I. Predictive identification of human skin sensitisation thresholds. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 260-267.
8. Gerberick G F, Robinson M K, Felter S, White I, Basketter D A. Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure-based risk assessment approach. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 45: 333-340.
9. Felter S P, Robinson M K, Basketter D A, Gerberick G F. A review of the scientific basis for default uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment of the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 257-266.
10. Felter S P, Ryan C A, Basketter D A, Gerberick G F. Application of the risk assessment paradigm to the induction of allergic contact dermatitis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2003: 37: 1-10.
11. Dillarstone A. Cosmetic preservatives. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 190.
12. Menné T, Wahlberg J E. Risk assessment failures of chemicals commonly used in consumer products. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 189-190.
13. Farage M A, Bjerke D L, Mahony C, Blackburn K L, Gerberick G F. Quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis: uncertainty factors for mucosal exposures. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 49: 140-147.
14. Kligman A M. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. I. J Invest Dermatol 1966: 47: 369-374.
15. Kligman A M. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. II. Factors influencing the induction and measurement of allergic contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 1966: 47: 375-392.
16. Kligman A. The identification of contact allergens by human assay. III The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitises. J Invest Dermatol 1966: 47: 393-401.
17. Rees J L, Friedmann P S, Matthews J N. The influence of area of application on sensitization by dinitrochlorobenzene. Br J Dermatol 1990: 122: 29-31.
18. Upadhye M R, Maibach H I. Influence of area of application of allergen on sensitization in contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 27: 281-286.
19. Marzulli F N, Maibach H I. Use of graded concentrations in studying skin sensitizers - experimental contact sensitization in man. Food Cosmet Toxicol 1974: 12: 219-227.
20. Marzulli F N, Maibach H I. Contact allergy - predictive testing of fragrance ingredients in humans by Draize and Maximization methods. J Environ Pathol Toxicol 1980: 3: 235-245.
21. Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis. 1981. Copenhagen, Munksgaard.
22. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition, Volume 2. Cary, NC, SAS Institute Inc., 1989.
23. Basketter DA, Duagndeeden I, Gilmour N, Kullavanijaya P, McFadden J. Prevalence of contact allergy in an adult Thai population. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 128-129.
24. Nielsen N H, Kristiansen J, Borg L, Christensen J M, Poulsen L K, Menné T. Repeated exposures to cobalt or chromate on the hands of patients with hand eczema and contact allergy to that metal. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 43: 212-215.
25. Bruze M, Johansen J D, Andersen K E et al. Deodorants: an experimental provocation study with isoeugenol. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 260-267.
26. Schnuch A, Lessman H, Geier J, Frosch P J, Uter W. Contact allergy to fragrances: frequencies of sensitization from 1996 to 2002. Results of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 65-76.
27. Kligman A M, Epstein W. Updating the maximization test for identifying contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1975: 1: 231-239.
28. Marzulli F N, Maibach H I. Effects of vehicles and elicitation concentration in contact dermatitis testing. Contact Dermatitis 1976: 2: 325-329.
29. Friedmann P S. The immunology of allergic contact dermatitis: the DNCB story. Adv Dermatol 1990: 5: 175-196.
30. Friedmann P S. Clinical aspects of allergic contact dermatitis. In: Toxicology of Contact Hypersensitivity, Kimber I, Maurer T (eds): London, Taylor and Francis, 1996: pp. 26-56.
31. Friedmann P S, Moss C. Quantification of contact hypersensitivity in man. In: Models in Dermatology, Maibach H I, Lowe N J (eds): Basle, Karger, 1985: pp. 275-281.
32. Primka E J III, Taylor J S. Three cases of contact allergy after chemical burns from methylchloroisothiazolinone/ methylisothiazolinone: one with concomitant allergy to methyldibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1997: 8: 43-46.
33. Moss J N. Occupational dermatitis in a milk industry worked due to Kathon CG. Dermatitis 2004: 15: 215.
34. Tosti A. Prevalence and sources of Kathon CG sensitization in Italy. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 173-174.
35. Dawe S A, White I R, Rycroft R J G, Basketter D A, McFadden J P. Active sensitization to para-phenylenediamine and its relevance: a 10 year review. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 51: 96-97.
36. Devos S A, van der Valk P G M. The risk of active sensitisation to PPD. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 273-275.
37. Hextall J M, Algaratnam N J, Glendinning A K, Holloway D B, Basketter D A, McFadden J P. Dose/time relationships for elicitation of skin allergy to para-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 96-99.