Identification and classification of skin sensitizers: Identifying false positives and false negatives

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 55, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 268-273

  Basketter, David A ^a   McFadden, John ^b   Evans, Peter ^c   Andersen, Klaus E ^d   Jowsey, Ian ^a  

^a UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE   (United Kingdom)

^d ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

False negative; False positive; Regulatory classification; Skin sensitization

Indexed keywords

2 BROMO 2 BROMOMETHYLGLUTARONITRILE; ALLERGEN; BENZALKONIUM CHLORIDE; BUTYL PARABEN; COCAMIDOPROPYL BETAINE; DODECYL SULFATE SODIUM; LIMONENE; PRESERVATIVE; PROPYL PARABEN; SULFANILIC ACID;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CLASSIFICATION; DECISION MAKING; EVALUATION; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTION; REVIEW; SAFETY; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION;

ALLERGENS; ANIMALS; BENZALKONIUM COMPOUNDS; BETAINE; CYCLOHEXENES; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; NITRILES; PARABENS; PRESERVATIVES, PHARMACEUTICAL; SODIUM DODECYL SULFATE; SOLVENTS; SULFANILIC ACIDS; SURFACE-ACTIVE AGENTS; TERPENES;

EID: 33749561246     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2006.00930.x     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. EEC Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Off J Eur Comm 1967: 196: 1-98.
2. EEC Council Directive 92/32/EEC amending for the seventh time Directive 67/548/EEC. Off J Eur Comm Brussels, 1992: L154: 1-29.
3. EC Commission Directive 2001/59/EC adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council directive 67/548/EEC. Off J Eur Comm 2001: L225: 1-333.
4. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Test Guideline 429: The Local Lymph Node Assay. Paris, OECD, 2002.
5. NIH. The murine local lymph node assay: a test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals/compounds. National Institutes of Health (NIH) publication number 99-4494. 1999.
6. Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, Kimber I, Dearman R J, Lea L J, Basketter D A. Local lymph node assay: validation assessment for regulatory purposes. Am J Contact Dermat 2000: 11: 3-18.
7. Basketter D A, Andersen K E, Lidén C, van Loveren H, Boman A, Kimber I, Alanko K, Berggren E. Evaluation of the skin sensitising potency of chemicals using existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 39-43.
8. Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment. EUR 20418. 2003.
9. Basketter D A, Evans P, Fielder R J, Dearman R J, Kimber I. Local lymph node assay - validation, conduct and use in practice: a commentary. Food Chem Toxicol 2002: 40: 593-598.
10. Kligman A M, Basketter D A. A critical commentary and updating of the guinea pig maximisation test. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 32: 129-134.
11. Frankild S, Basketter D A, Andersen K E. The value and limitations of rechallenge in the guinea pig maximisation test. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 35: 135-140.
12. Andersen K E, White I R, Goossens A. Allergens from the standard series: paraben mix. In: Contact Dermatitis, 4th edition, Frosch P J, Menné T, Lepoittevin J-P (eds): Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, 2006: 471-473.
13. Andersen K E, Volund A, Frankild S. The guinea pig maximization test with a multiple dose design. Acta Derm Venereol 1995: 75: 463-469.
14. Basketter D A, Scholes E W. Comparison of the local lymph node assay with the guinea-pig maximization test for the detection of a range of contact allergens. Food Chem Toxicol 1992: 30: 65-69.
15. Fisher A A. Paraben dermatitis due to a new medicated bandage: the "paraben paradox". Contact Dermatitis 1979: 5: 273-274.
16. Wilkinson J D, Shaw S, Andersen K E et al. Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10 year overview (1991-2000). Contact Dermatitis 2002: 46: 207-210.
17. Bruynzeel D P, Diepgen T L, Andersen K E et al. Monitoring the European standard series in 10 centres 1996-2000. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 146-149.
18. Basketter D A, Scholes E W, Evans C D, Kimber I. Divergent responses to sulphanilic acid in the guinea pig maximization test and the local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 27: 209-213.
19. Basketter D A, Gerberick G F, Kimber I. Strategies for identifying false positive responses in predictive sensitisation tests. Food Chem Toxicol 1998: 36: 327-333.
20. Basketter D A, Marriott M, Gilmour N J, White I. Skin irritants masquerading as minor allergens: the case of benzalkonium chloride. Contact Dermatitis 2004: 50: 213-217.
21. Zinkke S, Gerner I, Schlede E. Evaluation of a rule base for identifying contact allergens by using a regulatory database: comparison of data on chemicals notified in the European Union with "structural alerts" used in the DEREK expert system. Altern Lab Anim 2002: 30: 285-298.
22. Cronin M T D, Basketter D A. Multivariate QSAR analysis of a skin sensitization database. SAR QSAR Environ Res 1994: 2: 159-179.
23. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) report. The murine local lymph node assay: a test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals/compounds. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Publication number 99-4494. 1999.
24. White I R, de Groot A C. Cosmetics and skin care products: cocamidopropyl betaine. In: Contact Dermatitis, 4th edition, Frosch P J, Menné T, Lepoittevin J-P (eds): Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, 2006: 500.
25. Fowler J F Jr, Zug K M, Taylor J S et al. Allergy to cocamidopropyl betaine and amidoamine in North America. Dermatitis 2004: 15: 5-6.
26. Pigatto P D, Bigardi A S, Cusano F. Contact dermatitis to cocamidopropylbetaine is caused by residual amines: relevance, clinical characteristics, and review of the literature. Am J Contact Dermat 1995: 6: 13-16.
27. Foti C, Bonamonte D, Mascolo G, Corcelli A, Lobasso S, Rigano L, Angelini G. The role of 3-dimethylaminopropylamine and amidoamine in contact allergy to cocamidopropylbetaine. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 194-198.
28. Fartasch M, Diepgen T, Kuhn, Basketter D A. Repeated open application testing of a CAPB containing shower gel. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 30-34.
29. Karlberg A-T, Boman A, Melin B. Animal experiments on the allergenicity of d-limonene - the citrus solvent. Ann Occup Hyg 1991: 35: 419-426.
30. Basketter D A, McFadden J. Current perspectives in fragrance allergy. Environ Dermatol 2005: 12: 178-183.
31. Cronin E. Contact Dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh 1980.
32. Karlberg A-T, Basketter D A, Goossens A, Lepoittevin J-P. Regulatory classification of substances oxidized to skin sensitizers by exposure to the air. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 40: 183-188.
33. Matura M, Skold M, Borje A et al. Selected oxidized fragrance terpenes are common contact allergens. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 320-328.
34. 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.
35. Hausen B M. The sensitizing potency Euxyl K 400 and its components 1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane and 2-phenoxyethanol. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 28: 149-153.
36. Van Ginkel C J, 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.
37. Bruze M, Goossens A, Gruvberger B. Recommendation to include methyldibromo glutaronitrile in the European standard patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 19-23.
38. Jensen C D, Johansen J D, Menné T, Andersen K E. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile in rinse-off products causes allergic contact dermatitis: an experimental study. Br J Dermatol 2004: 150: 90-95.
39. Tosti A, Vincenzi C, Smith K A. Provocative use testing of methyldibromo glutaronitrile in a cosmetic shampoo. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 64-67.
40. Zachariae C, Rastogi S, Devantier C, Menné T, Johansen J D. Methyldibromo glutaronitrile: clinical experience and exposure based risk assessment. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 150-154.
41. Basketter D A, Kimber I. Predictive tests for irritants and allergens and their use in quantitative risk assessment. In: Contact Dermatitis, 4th edition, Frosch P J, Menné T, Lepoittevin J-P (eds): Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, 2006: 179-188.
42. SCCP (Scientific Committee on Consumer Products). Opinion on methyldibromo glutaronitrile, 0863/05 (available from http://europa.eu.int/comm/ health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/sccp_opinions_en.htm). 2005
43. Basketter D A, Flyvholm M A, Menné T. Classification criteria for skin sensitizing chemicals: a commentary. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 40: 175-182.
44. McFadden J M, Basketter D A. Clinical and experimental aspects of the permanent hair dye chemical para-phenylenediamine (PPD). Environ Dermatol 2005: 12: 163-177.
45. Loden M, Andersson A C, Andersson C, Frodin T, Oman H, Lindberg M. Instrumental and dermatologist evaluation of the effect of glycerine and urea on dry skin in atopic dermatitis. Skin Res Technol 2001: 7: 209-213.