Allergic contact dermatitis from mercapto compounds

Dermatitis

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 56-70

  Adams, Alison K ^a   Warshaw, Erin M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

2 METHYLANILINE; 2 NAPHTHYLAMINE; CAPTOPRIL; DIBENZOTHIAZOLE DISULFIDE; DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE INHIBITOR; DITHIOCARBAMIC ACID DERIVATIVE; MERCAPTOBENZOTHIAZOLE; MORPHOLINYLTHIOBENZOTHIAZOLE; N CYCLOHEXYL 2 BENZOTHIAZYLSULFENAMIDE; N ISOPROPYL N' PHENYL 4 PHENYLENEDIAMINE; PHENYLENEDIAMINE DERIVATIVE; PROPYLENE GLYCOL; RUBBER; THIOL DERIVATIVE; THIRAM; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; ZINC DIETHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE;

BIOTRANSFORMATION; BLADDER CANCER; CARCINOGENICITY; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CONTACT DERMATITIS; CONTACT URTICARIA; CROSS REACTION; DELAYED HYPERSENSITIVITY; DYSHIDROSIS; ERYTHEMA MULTIFORME; GENDER; GLOVE; GROUPS BY AGE; HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMMEDIATE TYPE HYPERSENSITIVITY; INDIAN; MINING; MORTALITY; MUTAGENICITY; NONHUMAN; NORTH AMERICA; OCCUPATIONAL ECZEMA; OXIDATION REDUCTION REACTION; PATCH TEST; PREVALENCE; PRICK TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSORIASIS; RADIOALLERGOSORBENT TEST; RAT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; RHINOCONJUNCTIVITIS; SHOE; SKIN ALLERGY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SWEDEN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TAIWAN; TERATOGENICITY; TINEA PEDIS; UNITED KINGDOM;

ALLERGENS; BENZOTHIAZOLES; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; DERMATITIS, OCCUPATIONAL; HUMANS; PATCH TESTS; SULFHYDRYL COMPOUNDS;

EID: 33745970477     PISSN: 17103568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2310/6620.2006.05028     Document Type: Review

References (165)

1. Bonnevie P. Etiologico-pathogenetical experiences of professional skin diseases with a view to their prophylaxis. Acta Derm Venereol 1938;20:645.
2. Bonnevie P, Marcussen P. Rubber products as a widespread cause of eczema. Report of 80 cases. Acta Derm Venereol 1944;25:163-78.
3. Marks J, DeLeo V, editors. Standard allergens. In: Contact and occupational dermatology. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 1997. p. 98-102.
4. Sasseville D, Muhn CY, Al-Sowaidi M. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from xanthates and carbamates in mining processes. Am J Contact Dermat 2003;14:166-8.
5. Uter W, Schnuch A, Geier J, Frosch PJ. Epidemiology of contact dermatitis: the information network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in Germany. Eur J Dermatol 1998;1:36-40.
6. Rudner EJ, Clendenning WE, Epstein E, et al. Epidemiology of contact dermatitis in North America: 1972. Arch Dermatol 1973;108:537-40.
7. North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Interim report 2003-2004. Chicago: North American Contact Dermatitis Group; 2005.
8. Pratt MD, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001-2002 study period. Dermatitis 2004;1:1-8.
9. Marks JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998-2000. Am J Contact Dermat 2003;14:59-62.
10. Marks JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1996-1998. Arch Dermatol 2000;136:272-3.
11. Marks JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998;38:911-8.
12. Krob HA, Fleischer AB, D'Agostino R, et al. Prevalence and relevance of contact dermatitis allergens: a meta-analysis of 15 years of published T.R.U.E. Test data. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;51:349-53.
13. Geier J, Lessmann H, Uter W, et al. Occupational rubber glove allergy: results of the information network of departments of dermatology (IVDK), 1995-2001. Contact Dermatitis 2003;48:39-44.
14. Blank IH, Miller OG. A study of rubber adhesives in shoes as the cause of dermatitis of the feet. JAMA 1952;149:1371-4.
15. Foussereau J, Benezra C, Maibach H, Hjorth N, editors. Rubber industry. In: Occupational contact dermatitis. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1982. p. 245-55.
16. Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM, et al. Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989: I. Frequency of response. Am J Contact Dermat 1991;2:122-9.
17. Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM, et al. Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989: III. Age and response. Am J Contact Dermat 1991;2:198-201.
18. Angelini G, Meneghini CL. Contact and bacterial allergy in children with atopic dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1977;3:163-74.
19. Levy A, Hanau D, Foussereau J. Contact dermatitis in children. Contact Dermatitis 1980;6:260-2.
20. Romaguera C, Vilaplana J. Contact dermatitis in children: 6 Years experience (1992-1997). Contact Dermatitis 1998;39:277-80.
21. Wohrl S, Hemmer W, Focke M, et al. Patch testing in children, adults, and the elderly: influence of age and sex on sensitization patterns. Pediatr Dermatol 2003;20:119-23.
22. Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM, et al. Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989: II. Gender and response. Am J Contact Dermat 1991;2:130-4.
23. Varigos GA, Dunt DR. Occupational dermatitis. An epidemiological study in the rubber and cement industries. Contact Dermatitis 1981;7:105-10.
24. Singhal V, Reddy BSN. Common contact sensitizers in Delhi. J Dermatol 2000;27:440-5.
25. Chen H-H, Sun C-C, Tseng M-P. Type IV hypersensitivity from rubber chemicals: a 15-year experience in Taiwan. Dermatology 2004;208:319-25.
26. Meding B, Swanbeck G. Occupational hand eczema in an industrial city. Contact Dermatitis 1990;22:13-23.
27. McDonald CJ. Dermatological problems in black skin. Prog Dermat 1973;4:15-20.
28. Fischer AA. Contact dermatitis in black patients. Cutis 1977;20:303-20.
29. DeLeo VA, Taylor SC, Belsito DV, et al. Understanding skin of color: the effect of race and ethnicity on patch test results. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002;46 Suppl:S107-12.
30. Dickel H, Taylor JS, Evey P, et al. Comparison of patch test results with a standard series among white and black racial groups. Am J Contact Dermat 2001;12:77-82.
31. Cronin E, editor. Rubber. In: Contact dermatitis. Edinburgh: Churchill-Livingstone; 1980. p. 714-70.
32. Hansson C, Agrup G. Stability of the mercaptobenzothiazole compounds. Contact Dermatitis 1993;28:29-34.
33. Rorsman H, Albertsson E, Edholm L-E, et al. Thiols in the melanocyte. Pigment Cell Res 1988;1 Suppl:54-60.
34. Persson B, Andersson A, Hultberg B, et al. The redox state of glutathione, cysteine and homocysteine in the extracellular fluid in the skin. Free Radic Res 2002;36:151-6.
35. Meister A, Anderson ME. Glutathione. Annu Rev Biochem 1983;52:711-60.
36. Belsito DV. The immunologic basis of patch testing. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989;21:822-9.
37. The pathogenesis of allergic contact hypersensitivity. In: Rietschel RL, Fowler JF, editors. Fisher's contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 1-7.
38. Wang X, Tabor MW. Studies of the reactivity of morpholine, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole and 2 of their derivatives with selected amino acids. Contact Dermatitis 1988;19:16-21.
39. Fregert S. Cross-sensitivity pattern of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole. Acta Derm Venereol 1969;49:45-8.
40. Vulcanization. In: Encyclopaedia britannica, 2005 [Online]. Available at: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?tocid=9075786 (accessed May 8, 2005).
41. Adams RM. Natural and synthetic rubber. In: Occupational contact dermatitis. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co; 1969. p. 150-7.
42. Stern EB, Callinan N, Hank M, et al. Neoprene splinting: dermatological issues. Am J Occup Ther 1998;52:573-8.
43. Allergy to rubber. In: Rietschel RL, Fowler JF, editors. Fisher's contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 533-60.
44. Hamann CP, Kick SA. Allergies associated with medical gloves. Dermatol Clin 1994;12:547-59.
45. Cronin E. Shoe dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 1966;78:618-25.
46. Mancuso G, Reggiani M, Berdondini RM. Occupational dermatitis in shoemakers. Contact Dermatitis 1996;34:17-22.
47. Ancona A, Arevalo A, Macotela E. Contact dermatitis in hospital patients. Dermatol Clin 1990;8:95-105.
48. Dermatitis from medical devices, implants, and equipment. In: Rietschel RL, Fowler JF, editors. Fisher's contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 323-4.
49. Harmon CB, Connolly SM, Larson TR. Condom-related allergic contact dermatitis. J Urol 1995;153:1227-8.
50. Ancona A, Torre RS, Evia JR. Dermatitis from mercaptobenzothiazole in a Foley catheter. Contact Dermatitis 1985;13:339-40.
51. Bransbury AJ. Allergy to rubber condom urinals and medical adhesives in male spinal injury patients. Contact Dermatitis 1979;5:317-23.
52. Reepmeyer JC, Juhl YH. Contamination of injectable solutions with 2-mercaptobenzothiazole leached from rubber closures. J Pharm Sci 1983;72:1302-5.
53. Airaudo CB, Gayte-Sorbier A, Momburg R, et al. Leaching of antioxidants and vulcanization accelerators from rubber closures into drug preparations. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 1990;1:231-41.
54. Alomar A. Occupational skin disease from cutting fluids. Dermatol Clin 1994;12:537-46.
55. Meding B, Torén K, Karlberg A-T, et al. Evaluation of skin symptoms among workers at a Swedish paper mill. Am J Ind Med 1993;23:721-8.
56. De Wever H, Besse P, Verachtert A. Microbial transformations of 2-substituted benzothiazoles. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2001;57:620-5.
57. Hinderer RK, Knickerbocker M, Koschier FJ. Mutagenic evaluations of two rubber accelerators. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1982;62:335-41.
58. Section II. Ingredients index. In: Gosselin RE, Smith RP, Hodge HC, Braddock JE, editors. Clinical toxicology of commercial products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1999. p. II320-1.
59. Ema M, Sakamoto J, Murai T, et al. Evaluation of the teratogenic potential of the rubber accelerator dibenzthiazyl disulphide in rats. J Appl Toxicol 1989;9:413-7.
60. Hinderer RK, Myhr B, Jagannath DR, et al. Mutagenic evaluations of four rubber accelerators in a battery of in vitro mutagenic assays. Environ Mutagen 1983;5:193-215.
61. National Toxicology Program. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (CAS No. 149-30-4) in F334/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. NTPTR 332. Research Triangle Park (NC): National Institutes of Health; 1988. Report No.: 88-2588.
62. Collins J, Strauss M, Riordan S. Mortalities of workers at the nitro plant with exposure to 2-mercaptobenzothiazole. Occup Environ Med 1999;56:667-71.
63. Sorahan T, Hamilton L, Jackson JR. A further cohort study of workers employed at a factory manufacturing chemicals for the rubber industry, with special reference to the chemicals 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT), aniline, phenyl-β-naphthylamine and ö-toluidine. Occup Environ Med 2000;57:106-15.
64. Brehler R. Contact urticaria caused by latex-free nitrile gloves. Contact Dermatitis 1996;34:296.
65. Fuchs T, Wahl R. Immediate reactions to rubber products. Allergy Proc 1992;13:61-6.
66. Belsito DV. Contact urticaria caused by rubber. Dermatol Clin 1990;8:61-6.
67. Turjanmaa K, Reunala T. Latex-contact urticaria associated with delayed allergy to rubber chemicals. In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goosens A, Lachapelle J-M, et al, editors. Current topics in contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1988. p. 460-4.
68. Shepard NA, Krall S. Poisons in the rubber industry. J Indust Hyg 1920;2:33-8.
69. Downing JG. Dermatitis from rubber gloves. N Engl J Med 1933;208:196-8.
70. Maurer T, Thomann P, Weirich EG, et al. Predictive evaluation in animals of the contact allergenic potential of medically important substances: II. Comparison of different methods of cutaneous sensitization with "weak" allergens. Contact Dermatitis 1979;5:1-10.
71. Wang X, Suskind RR. Comparative studies of the sensitization potential of morpholine, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole, and 2 of their derivatives in guinea pigs. Contact Dermatitis 1988;19:11-5.
72. Ikarashi Y, Tsuchiya T, Nakamura A. Evaluation of contact sensitivity of rubber chemicals using the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 1993;28:77-80.
73. De Jong WH, Tentij M, Spiekstra SW, et al. 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;176:123-34.
74. Maibach HI. Possible cosmetic dermatitis due to mercaptobenzothiazole. Contact Dermatitis 1996;34:72.
75. Emmett EA, Risby TH, Taylor J, et al. Skin elicitation threshold of ethylbutyl thiourea and mercaptobenzothiazole with relative leaching from sensitizing products. Contact Dermatitis 1994;30:85-90.
76. Conde-Salazar L, del-Río E, Guimaraens D, et al. Type IV allergy to rubber additives: a 10-year study of 686 cases. J Am Acad Dermatol 1993;29:176-80.
77. Correia S, Brandao FM. Contact dermatitis of the feet. Dermatosen 1986;34:102-6.
78. Varelzides A, Katsambas A, Georgala S, et al. Shoe dermatitis in Greece. Dermatologica 1974;149:236-9.
79. Ventura MT, Dagnello M, Matino MG, et al. Contact dermatitis in students practicing sports: incidence of rubber sensitization. Br J Sports Med 2001;35:100-2.
80. Levine N. Dermatologic aspects of sports medicine. J Am Acad Dermatol 1980;3:415-24.
81. Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM, et al. Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989: IV. Occupation and response. Am J Contact Dermat 1991;2:247-54.
82. Rietschel RL, Mathias CGT, Fowler JF, et al. Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000. Am J Contact Dermat 2002;13:170-6.
83. Dickel H, Kuss O, Schmidt A, et al. Occupational relevance of positive standard patch-test results in employed persons with an initial report of an occupational skin disease. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2002;75:423-34.
84. Nellis E, Marcandrea MC, Paradiso MT, et al. Results of standard series patch testing in patienls with occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Allergy 2003;58:1304-7.
85. Bara C, Milpied B, Geraul C, el al. Erythema multiforme with occupational rubber contact sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 2003;49:269-70.
86. Fregert S. Occupational dermatitis in a 10-year material. Contact Dermatitis 1975;1:96-107.
87. Heese A, von Hintzenstern J, Pelers K-P, et al. Allergic and irritant reactions to rubber gloves in medical health services. J Am Acad Dermatol 1991;25:831-9.
88. Fisher AA. Management of dermatitis due to surgical gloves. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1985;11:628-31.
89. Fisher AA. Contact dermatitis in surgeons. J Dermatol Surg 1975;1:63-7.
90. von Hintzenstern J, Heese A, Koch HU, et al. Frequency, spectrum and occupational relevance of type IV allergies to rubber chemicals. Contact Dermatitis 1991;24:244-52.
91. Knudsen BB, Hametner C, Seycek O, et al. Allergologically relevant rubber accelerators in single-use medical gloves. Contact Dermatitis 2000;43:9-15.
92. Fisher AA. "Hypoallergenic" surgical gloves and gloves for special situations. Cutis 1975;15:797-811.
93. American Contact Dermatitis Society. Hand and Foot Dermatitis Resources. Available at: http://www.contactderm.org/members/resource.html (accessed May 15, 2005).
94. Scheman A, Osburn A. Use of a breathable glove liner for prevention of delayed hypersensitivity to rubber accelerators [letter]. J Occup Environ Med 1997;39:605.
95. Lushniak B, Mathias CGT, Taylor JS. Barrier creams: fact or fiction. Am J Contact Dermat 2003;14:97-9.
96. Gaul LE. Results of patch testing with rubber antioxidants and accelerators. J Invest Dermatol 1957;29:105-10.
97. Shaw C. Dermatitis due to shoes. Arch Dermatol Syph 1944;49:191-3.
98. Marcussen PV. Rubber footwear as a cause of foot eczema. Acta Derm Venereol 1942-1943;23:331-42.
99. Shatin H, Reisch M. Dermatitis of the feet due to shoes. Arch Dermatol Syph 1954;69:651-66.
100. Epstein E. Shoe contact dermatitis. JAMA 1969;209:1487-92.
101. Nurse DS. Rubber sensitivity. Australas J Dermatol 1979;20:31-3.
102. Shackelford KE, Belsito DV. The etiology of allergic-appearing foot dermatitis: a 5-year retrospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002;47:715-21.
103. Jordan WP. Clothing and shoe dermatitis: recognition and management. Postgrad Med 1972;52:143-8.
104. Lear JT, English JSC. Hand involvement in allergic contact dermatitis from mercaptobenzothiazole in shoes. Contact Dermatitis 1996;34:432.
105. Rietschel RL. Role of socks in shoe dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 1984;120:398.
106. Foussereau J, Muslmani M, Cavelier C, et al. Contact allergy to safety shoes. Contact Dermatitis 1986;14:233-6.
107. Saha M, Srinivas CR, Shenoy SD, et al. Footwear dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1993;28:260-4.
108. Lynde CW, Warshawski L, Mitchell JC. Patch test results with a shoewear screening tray in 119 patients, 1977-80. Contact Dermatitis 1982;8:423-5.
109. Belsito DV. Common shoe allergens undetected by commercial patch-testing kits: dithiodimorpholine and isocyanates. Am J Contact Dermat 2003;14:95-6.
110. Lazzarini R, Duarte I, Marzagão C. Contact dermatitis of the feet: a study of 53 cases. Am J Contact Dermat 2004;15:125-30.
111. Weston JA, Hawkins K, Weston W. Foot dermatitis in children. Pediatrics 1983;72:824-7.
112. Trattner A, Farchi Y, David M. Shoe contact dermatitis in Israel. Am J Contact Dermat 2003;14:12-4.
113. Bjaj AK, Gupta SC, Chatterjee AK, et al. Shoe dermatitis in India. Contact Dermatitis 1988;19:372-5.
114. Adams RM. Possible substitution for mercaptobenzothiazole in rubber. Contact Dermatitis 1975;1:246.
115. Gaig P, Miguel-Moncin MMS, Bartra J, et al. Usefulness of patch tests for diagnosing selective allergy to captopril. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2001;11:204-6.
116. Rudzki E, Ostaszewski K, Grzywa Z, et al. Sensitivity to some rubber additives. Contact Dermatitis 1976;2:24-7.
117. Dickel H, Taylor JS, Bickers DR, et al. Multiple patch-test reactions: a pilot evaluation of a combination approach to visualize patterns of multiple sensitivity in patch-test databases and a proposal for a multiple sensitivity index. Am J Contact Dermat 2003;14:148-53.
118. Brasch J, Uter W, Geier J, et al. Associated positive patch test reactions to standard contact allergens. Am J Contact Dermat 2001;12:197-202.
119. Kaniwa M-A, Isama K, Nakamura A, et al. Identification of causative chemicals of allergic contact dermatitis using a combination of patch testing in patients and chemical analysis: application to cases from rubber footwear. Contact Dermatitis 1994;30:26-34.
120. Kaniwa M-A, Isama K, Nakamura A, et al. Identification of causative chemicals of allergic contact dermatitis using a combination of patch testing in patients and chemical analysis: application to cases from industrial rubber products. Contact Dermatitis 1994;30:20-5.
121. Kaniwa M-A, Isama K, Nakamura A, et al. 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;27:166-73.
122. Jung JH, McLaughlin JL, Stannard J, et al. Isolation, via activity-directed fractionation, of mercaptobenzothiazole and dibenzothiazyl disulfide as 2 allergens responsible for tennis shoe dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1988;19:254-9.
123. Kaniwa M-A, Ikarashi Y, Kojima S, et al. Chemical approach to contact dermatitis caused by household products. IV. Analysis of mercaptobenzothiazole- type accelerators in commercial rubber products and incidence of positive reactions in patch testing. Eisei Kagaku 1987;33:140-8.
124. Practical aspects of patch testing. In: Rietschel RL, Fowler JF, editors. Fisher's contact dermatitis. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 9-25.
125. Chemotechnique Diagnostics catalogue 2005. Rexdale (ON): Dormer Laboratories. Available at: http://www.dormer.com (accessed May 15, 2005).
126. Mitchell JC. Patch testing with mixes: note on the mercaptobenzothiazole mix. Contact Dermatitis 1981;7:98-104.
127. Epstein E. Simplified patch test screening with mixtures. Arch Dermatol 1967;95:269-74.
128. Mitchell JC, Cledenning WE, Cronin E, et al. Patch testing with mercaptobenzothiazole and mercapto-mix. Contact Dermatitis 1976;2:123-4.
129. Lynde CW, Mitchell JC, Adams RM, et al. Patch testing with mercaptobenzothiazole and mercapto-mixes. Contact Dermatitis 1982;8:273-4.
130. Geier J, Gefeller O. Sensitivity of patch tests with rubber mixes: results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology from 1990 to 1993. Am J Contact Dermat 1995;6:143-9.
131. Geier J, Uter W, Schnuch A, et al. Diagnostic screening for contact allergy to mercaptobenzothiazole derivatives. Am J Contact Dermat 2002;13:66-70.
132. Fregert S, Skog E. Allergic contact dermatitis from mercaptobenzothiazole in cutting oil. Acta Derm Venereol 1962;42:235-8.
133. Fisher AA. Condom dermatitis in either partner. Cutis 1987;39:281-5.
134. Jordan WP. 24-, 48-, and 48/48-hour patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 1980;6:151-2.
135. Sharma VK, Sethuraman G, Garg T, et al. Patch testing with the Indian standard series in New Delhi. Contact Dermatitis 2004;51:319-21.
136. Sharma VK, Chakrabarti A. Common contact sensitizers in Chandigarh, India: a study of 200 patients with the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 1998;38:127-31.
137. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, et al. National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Contact Dermatitis 1997;37:200-9.
138. Al-Sheikh OA, El-Rab MOG. Allergic contact dermatitis: clinical features and profile of sensitizing allergens in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Int J Dermatol 1996;35:493-7.
139. Marks JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, et al. North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard tray patch test results (1992 to 1994). Am J Contact Dermat 1995;6:160-5.
140. Wang XM, Lin WF, Cheng XF, et al. Patch testing with the European standard series in Shanghai. Contact Dermatitis 1994;30:173-4.
141. Lim JTE, Goh CL, Ng SK, et al. Changing trends in the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in Singapore. Contact Dermatitis 1992;26:321-6.
142. Fan WX, Zhao B. Study on Chinese common allergens of contact dermatitis. Dermatosen 1990;38:158-61.
143. Hogan DJ, Hill M, Lane PR. Results of routine patch testing of 542 patients in Saskatoon, Canada. Contact Dermatitis 1988;19:120-4.
144. Lammintausta K, Kalimo K. Sensitivity to rubber: study with rubber mixes and individual rubber chemicals. Dermatosen 1985;33:204-8.
145. Hiarano S, Yoshikawa K. Patch testing with European and American standard allergens in Japanese patients. Contact Dermatitis 1982;8:48-50.
146. Hammershoy O. Standard patch test results in 3,225 consecutive Danish patients from 1973 to 1977. Contact Dermatitis 1980;6:263-8.
147. Camarasa JMG. First epidemiological study of contact dermatitis in Spain-1977. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl 1979;59:33-7.
148. Song M, Degreef H, De Maubeuge J, et al. Contact sensitivity to rubber additives in Belgium. Dermatologica 1979;158:163-7.
149. Deguchi M, Tagami H. Contact dermatitis of the ear due to a rubber earplug. Dermatology 1996;193:251-2.
150. Corazza M, Maranini C, Venturing D, et al. Contact allergy to mercaptobenzothiazole in a bank clerk from a wet sponge. Contact Dermatitis 1999;41:105-6.
151. Ellison JM, Kapur N, Yu RC, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis from rubber bands in 3 postal workers. Contact Dermatitis 2003;49:311-2.
152. Kirton V, Wilkinson DS. Rubber band dermatitis in post office sorters. Contact Dermat Newsletter 1972;11:257-60.
153. Roed-Petersen J, Hjorth N, Jordan WP, et al. Postsorters' rubber fingerstall dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1977;3:143-7.
154. Fisher AA. Condom conundrums: Part II. Cutis 1991;48:433-4.
155. Fisher AA. Allergic reactions to contraceptives. Cutis 1974;13:337-8.
156. Wilson HTH. Rubber-glove dermatitis. Br Med J 1960;2:21-3.
157. Wilson HTH. Rubber dermatitis: an investigation of 106 cases of contact dermatitis caused by rubber. Br J Dermatol 1969;81:175-9.
158. Eriksson G, Östlund E. Rubber bank note counters as the cause of the eczema among employees at the Swedish post giro office. Acta Derm Venereol 1968;48:212-4.
159. Fisher AA. Allergic reactions to nonrubber products by testing with rubber mixes. Part II: The mercapto mix. Cutis 1995;56:197.
160. Kiéc-Swierczynska M, Krecisz B, Szulc B. An unusual case of contact allergy to mercaptobenzothiazole in antifreeze. Contact Dermatitis 1999;41:303-4.
161. Fisher AA. Dermatitis due to mercaptobenzothiazole in veterinary medication. Cutis 1975;16:21, 27.
162. Adams RM. Mercaptobenzothiazole in veterinary medications. Contact Dermatitis Newsletter 1974;16:514.
163. Rudzki E, Napioórkowska T, Czerwińska-Dihm I. Dermatitis from 2-mercaptobenzothiazole in photographic films. Contact Dermatitis 1981;7:43.
164. Alomar A, Conde-Salazar L, Romaguera C. Occupational dermatoses from cutting oils. Contact Dermatitis 1985;12:129-38.
165. Wilkinson SM, Cartwright PH, English JSC. Allergic contact dermatitis from mercaptobenzothiazole in a releasing fluid. Contact Dermatitis 1990;23:370.