The critical review of methodologies and approaches to assess the inherent skin sensitization potential (skin allergies) of chemicals Part II

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 66, Issue SUPPL.1, 2012, Pages 25-52

  Thyssen, Jacob P ^a   Giménez Arnau, Elena ^b   Lepoittevin, Jean Pierre ^b   Menné, Torkil ^a   Boman, Anders ^c   Schnuch, Axel ^d  

^a GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE STRASBOURG   (France)

^c KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

2 BROMO 2 BROMOMETHYLGLUTARONITRILE; CHEMICAL AGENT; CHROMIUM; COSMETIC; FORMALDEHYDE; FRAGRANCE; FUMARIC ACID DIMETHYL ESTER; HYDROXYISOHEXYL 3 CYCLOHEXENECARBOXALDEHYDE; ISOEUGENOL; ISOTHIAZOLINONE DERIVATIVE; NICKEL; PHENYLENEDIAMINE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; CONTACT ALLERGY; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; METHODOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PARAMETERS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRODUCT SAFETY; PROTECTIVE CLOTHING; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN SENSITIZATION; STANDARD; SURGICAL GLOVE;

CHROMIUM; CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY; COSMETICS; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NICKEL;

EID: 84858131075     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: 16000536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.02004_3.x     Document Type: Review

References (199)

1. Directive 2003/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending for the 26th time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (nonylphenol, nonylphenol ethoxylate and cement). Off J Eur Commun 2003: 178: 24-27.
2. Lidén C, Bruze M, Thyssen J P, Menné T., Metals. In: Contact Dermatitis, Johansen J D, Lepoittevin J-P, Frosch P J, (eds): Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Springer, 2010: 643-679.
3. Thyssen J P, Johansen J D, Menné T., Contact allergy epidemics and their controls. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 185-195. (Pubitemid 46365227)
4. Burckhardt W, Frenk E, de Sépibus D, Paschoud J M, Szadurski J, Schwarz K., Decrease of the eczematous effect of cement by ferrous sulphate. Dermatologica 1971: 142: 271-273.
5. Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Sandahl E., Reduction of chromate in cement by iron sulfate. Contact Dermatitis 1979: 5: 39-42. (Pubitemid 9089151)
6. European Communities. European Dir. 94/27/EC of 30 June 1994 amending for the 12th time Dir. 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances. Off J Eur Commun 1994: 37: 1-2.
7. Commission Directive 2004/96/EC of 27 September 2004 amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC as regards restrictions on the marketing and use of nickel for piercing post assemblies for the purpose of adapting its Annex I to technical progress. Off J Eur Union 2004: 301-302.
8. Lidén C., Nickel in jewellery and associated products. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 26: 73-75.
9. Menné T, Rasmussen K., Regulation of nickel exposure in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 23: 57-58. (Pubitemid 20211264)
10. European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). Body piercing post assemblies. Reference test method for determination of nickel content by flame atomic absorption spectrometry. EN 1810. 1998a.
11. European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). Reference test method for release of nickel from products intended to come into direct and prolonged contact with the skin. EN 1881. 1998c.
12. European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). Method for the simulation of wear and corrosion for the detection of nickel release from coated items. EN 12472. 1998b.
13. Fischer T, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Rystedt I., Nickel release from ear piercing kits and earrings. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 10: 39-41. (Pubitemid 14215887)
14. Ingber A, Hershko K H L., AISI 316L Stainless-steel ear piercing post assembly does not cause dermatitis in nickel sensitive subjects. Exog Dermatol 2003: 2: 195-200. (Pubitemid 38410687)
15. Menné T, Brandup F, Thestrup-Pedersen K, Veien N K, Andersen J R, Yding F, Valeur G., Patch test reactivity to nickel alloys. Contact Dermatitis 1987: 16: 255-259. (Pubitemid 17074210)
16. Menné T, Andersen K E, Kaaber K, Osmundsen P E, Andersen J R, Yding F, Valeur G., Evaluation of the dimethylglyoxime stick test for the detection of nickel. Derm Beruf Umwelt 1987: 35: 128-130. (Pubitemid 17127526)
17. Council Directive of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (76/768/EEC). Off J Eur Union 1976: L 262: 169-200.
18. Eigth Commission Directive 86/199/EEC of 26 March 1986 adapting to technical progress Annexes II, IV and VI to Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products. Off J Eur Union 1986: L149: 38-45.
19. Scientific Committee on Cosmetology. Report by the scientific committee on cosmetology on the use of formaldehyde in cosmetic products, 1986.
20. Marzulli F N, Maibach H I., The use of graded concentrations in studying skin sensitizers: experimental contact sensitization in man. Food Cosmet Toxicol 1974: 12: 219-227.
21. de Groot A C, Flyvholm M A, Lensen G, Menné T, Coenraads P J., Formaldehyde-releasers: relationship to formaldehyde contact allergy. Contact allergy to formaldehyde and inventory of formaldehyde-releasers. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 63-85.
22. Thyssen J P, Engkilde K, Lundov M D, Carlsen B C, Menné T, Johansen J D., Temporal trends of preservative allergy in Denmark (1985-2008). Contact Dermatitis 2010: 62: 102-108.
23. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. Opinion on the mixture of 5-chloro-2-methylisothiazolinon-3(2H)-one and 2-methylisothiazolinon-3(2H) one. 1238 2009.
24. Kligman A M., The identification of contact allergens by human assay. 3. The maximization test: a procedure for screening and rating contact sensitizers. J Invest Dermatol 1966: 47: 393-409.
25. Krasteva M, Cottin M, Cristaudo A, et al., Sensitivity and specificity of the consumer open skin allergy test as a method of prediction of contact dermatitis to hair dyes. Eur J Dermatol 2005: 15: 18-25. (Pubitemid 40254618)
26. SCCNFP/0129/99, final. Opinion of the Scientific Committe on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products Intended for Consumers concerning p-Phenylenediamine adopted by the SCCNFP during the 19th plenary meeting of 27 February 2002: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/sccp/out156-en.pdf (last accessed 7 January 2011).
27. SCCP/0989/06. Scientific Committe on Consumer Products SCCP. Opinion on p-Phenylenediamine COLIPA N A7. Adopted by the SCCP during the 9th plenary meeting of 10 October 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph-risk/committees/04- sccp/docs/sccp-o-069.pdf (last accessed 7 January 2011).
28. Thyssen J P, Andersen K E, Bruze M, et al., p-Phenylenediamine (PPD) sensitization is more prevalent in central and southern European patch test centres than in Scandinavian: results from a multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 60: 314-319.
29. Thyssen J P, White J M., Epidemiological data on consumer allergy to p-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 2008: 59: 327-343.
30. Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Frosch P J, Uter W., p-Phenylenediamine -the profile of an important allergen. Results of the IVDK. Br J Dermatol 2008: 159: 379-386. (Pubitemid 352009841)
31. European-Communities Commission-of-the. Commission directive 2003/83/EC of 24 September 2003. Off J Eur Union 2003: L238: 23-27.
32. Scientific-Committee-on-Consumer-Products. Opinion on methyl dibromoglutaronitrile (sensitisation only) (SCCP/0863/05), 2005. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph-risk/committees/04-sccp/docs/sccp-o-00f.pdf (last accessed 21 December 2010).
33. European-Communities Commission-of-the. Commission directive 2007/17/EC of 22 March 2007. Off J Eur Union 2007: L82: 27-30.
34. Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products. Off J Eur Union 2009: L342: 59-209.
35. Fragrance Association. http://www.ifraorg.org (last accessed 1 July 2010).
36. Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 (Text with EEA relevance).
37. Schneider K, Akkan Z., Quantitative relationship between the local lymph node assay and human skin sensitization assays. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2004: 39: 245-255. (Pubitemid 38596763)
38. Basketter D A, Andersen K E, Lidén C, van Loveren H, Boman A, Kimber I, Alanko K, Berggren E., Evaluation of the skin sensitizing potency of chemicals using existing methods and considerations of relevance for elicitation. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 39-43. (Pubitemid 40293090)
39. European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer Protection. ESIS: European Chemical Substances Information System. Available at: http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esis/index.php?PGM=ein (last accessed August 2010).
40. Nieboer C, de Hoop D, van Loenen A C, Langendijk P N J, van Dijk E., Systemic therapy with fumaric acid derivates: new possibilities in the treatment of psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989: 20: 601-608. (Pubitemid 19091258)
41. Mrowietz U, Christophers E, Altmeyer P., Treatment of psoriasis with fumaric acid esters: results of a prospective multicentre study. German Multicentre Study. Br J Dermatol 1998: 138: 456-460. (Pubitemid 28145514)
42. de Haan P, von Blomberg-van der Flier B M, de Groot J, Nieboer C, Bruynzeel D P., The risk of sensibilization and contact urticaria upon topical application of fumaric acid derivatives. Dermatology 1994: 188: 126-130. (Pubitemid 24031333)
43. Hansson C, Thörneby-Andersson K., Stereochemical considerations on concomitant allergic contact dermatitis to ester of the cis-trans isomeric compounds maleic acid and fumaric acid. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol 2003: 16: 117-122. (Pubitemid 36356899)
44. Imbert E, Chamaillard M, Kostrzewa E, et al., Chinese chair dermatitis: a new form of contact dermatitis. Ann Dermatol Venereol 2008: 135: 777-779.
45. Foti C, Zambonin C G, Cassano N, Aresta A, Damascelli A, Ferrara F, Vena G A., Occupational allergic contact dermatitis associated with dimethyl fumarate in clothing. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 122-124.
46. Giménez-Arnau A, Silvestre J F, Mercader P, et al., Shoe contact dermatitis from dimethyl fumarate: clinical manifestations, patch test results, chemical analysis, and source of exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 249-260.
47. Mercader P, Serra-Baldrich E, Alomar A., Contact dermatitis to dimethylfumarate in armchairs. Allergy 2009: 64: 818-819.
48. Rantanen T., The cause of the Chinese sofa/chair dermatitis epidemic is likely to be contact allergy to dimethylfumarate, a novel potent contact sensitizer. Br J Dermatol 2008: 159: 218-221. (Pubitemid 351874503)
49. Susitaival P, Winhoven S M, Williams J, et al., An outbreak of furniture related dermatitis ('sofa dermatitis') in Finland and the UK: history and clinical cases. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009: 24: 486-489.
50. Lammintausta K, Zimerson E, Hasan T, et al., An epidemic of furniture-related dermatitis: searching for a cause. Br J Dermatol 2010: 162: 108-116.
51. 2009/251/EU Commission Decision of 17 March 2009: requiring Member States to ensure that products containing the biocide dimethylfumarate are not placed or made available on the market, 2009.
52. Kontaktallergene in Spielzeug: Gesundheitliche Bewertung von Nickel und Duftstoffen. Stellungnahme Nr. 029/2010 des BfR vom 6. April 2010.
53. Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys. Off J Eur Union 2009: L 170: 1-36.
54. EN 1811+A1:2008. Reference Test Method for Release of Nickel from Products Intended to Come into Direct and Prolonged Contact with the Skin. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels. 2008.
55. EN 12472:2005+A1:2009. Method for the Simulation of Wear and Corrosion for the Detection of Nickel Release from Coated Items. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels. 2005.
56. EN 374-1:2003. Protective Gloves against Chemicals and Micro-organisms. Part 1: Terminology and Performance Requirements. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels. 2003.
57. EN 374-2:2003. Protective Gloves against Chemicals and Micro-organisms. Part 2: Determination of Resistance to Penetration. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels. 2003.
58. EN 374-3:2003. Protective Gloves against Chemicals and Micro-organisms. Part 3: Determination of Resistance to Permeation. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels. 2008.
59. Pegum J S, Medhurst F A., Contact dermatitis from penetration of rubber gloves by acrylic monomer. Br Med J 1971: 2: 141-143.
60. Moursiden H T, Faber O., Penetration of protective gloves by allergens and irritants. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc 1973: 59: 230-234.
61. Pegum J S., Penetration of protective gloves by epoxy resin. Contact Dermatitis 1979: 5: 281-283. (Pubitemid 10235134)
62. Waegemaekers T H, Seutter E, den Arend J A, Malten K E., Permeability of surgeons' gloves to methyl methacrylate. Acta Orthop Scand 1983: 54: 790-795. (Pubitemid 14210675)
63. Huggins R, Levy N, Pruitt P M., Testing of gloves for permeability to UV-curable acrylate coatings. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1987: 48: 656-659. (Pubitemid 17095682)
64. Mansdorf S Z, Berardinelli S P., Chemical protective clothing standard test method development. Part 1. Penetration test method. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1988: 49: 21-25. (Pubitemid 18034576)
65. Schwope A, Goydan R, Reid R C, Krishnamurthy S., State-of-the-art review of permeation testing and the interpretation of its results. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1988: 49: 557-565.
66. Carey R, Herman W, Herman B, Krop B, Casamento J A., Laboratory evaluation of standard leakage tests for surgical & examination gloves. J Clin Eng 1989: 14: 133-143. (Pubitemid 19108602)
67. Lönnroth E C, Ruyter I E., Permeability of medical gloves to mono- and dimethacrylate monomers in dental restorative materials. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2002: 8: 497-509.
68. Andreasson H, Boman A, Johnsson S, Karlsson S, Barreg¥rd L., On permeability of methyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate through protective gloves in dentistry. Eur J Oral Sci 2003: 111: 529-535. (Pubitemid 38010980)
69. Lönnroth E C, Ruyter E I., Resistance of medical gloves to permeation by methyl methacrylate (MMA), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate (1,4-BDMA). Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2003: 9: 289-299.
70. Lönnroth E C, Wellendorf H, Ruyter E., Permeability of different types of medical protective gloves to acrylic monomers. Eur J Oral Sci 2003: 111: 440-446. (Pubitemid 37467768)
71. Mäkelä E A, Vainiotalo S, Peltonen K., The permeability of surgical gloves to seven chemicals commonly used in hospitals. Ann Occup Hyg 2003: 47: 313-323. (Pubitemid 36713352)
72. Lind M L, Johnsson S, Meding B, Boman A., Permeability of hair dye compounds p-phenylenediamine, toluene-2,5-diaminesulfate and resorcinol through protective gloves in hairdressing. Ann Occup Hyg 2007: 51: 479-485. (Pubitemid 47357544)
73. Thomas S, Padmanabhan T V., Methyl methacrylate permeability of dental and industrial gloves. N Y State Dent J 2009: 75: 40-42.
74. Andersson T, Bruze M, Gruvberger B, Björkner B., In vivo testing of the protection provided by non-latex gloves against a 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-containing acetone-based dentin-bonding product. Acta Derm Venereol 2000: 80: 435-437. (Pubitemid 32156227)
75. Leinster P, Bonsall J L, Evans M J, Lewis S J., The application of test data in the selection and use of gloves against chemicals. Ann Occup Hyg 1990: 34: 85-90. (Pubitemid 20100589)
76. EN 455-1:2000. Medical Gloves for Single Use. Requirements and Testing for Freedom from Holes. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels. 2000.
77. EN 455-2:2009. Medical Gloves for Single Use. Requirements and Testing for Physical Properties. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels. 2009.
78. EN 455-3:2006. Medical Gloves for Single Use. Requirements and Testing for Biological Evaluation. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels. 2006.
79. EN 455-4:2009. Medical Gloves for Single Use. Requirements and Testing for Shelf Life Determination. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels. 2009.
80. Meding B, Fregert S., Contact urticaria from natural latex gloves. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 10: 52-53. (Pubitemid 14215899)
81. Wrangsjö K, Mellström G, Axelsson G., Discomfort from rubber gloves indicating contact urticaria. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 15: 79-84. (Pubitemid 16008130)
82. van der Meeren H L, van Erp P E., Life-threatening contact urticaria from glove powder. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 14: 190-191. (Pubitemid 16106507)
83. Estlander T, Jolanki R, Kanerva L., Dermatitis and urticaria from rubber and plastic gloves. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 14: 20-25. (Pubitemid 16204679)
84. Turjanmaa K., Incidence of immediate allergy to latex gloves in hospital personnel. Contact Dermatitis 1987: 17: 270-275. (Pubitemid 17164925)
85. Turjanmaa K, Laurila K, Mäkinen-Kiljunen S, Reunala T., Rubber contact urticaria. Allergenic properties of 19 brands of latex gloves. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 19: 362-367.
86. Morales C, Basomba A, Carreira J, Sastre A., Anaphylaxis produced by rubber glove contact. Case reports and immunological identification of the antigens involved. Clin Exp Allergy 1989: 19: 425-430. (Pubitemid 19201362)
87. Turjanmaa K, Reunala T, Alenius H, Brummer-Korvenkontio H, Palosuo T., Allergens in latex surgical gloves and glove powder. Lancet 1990: 336: 1588.
88. Alenius H, Turjanmaa K, Palosuo T, Mäkinen-Kiljunen S, Reunala T., Surgical latex glove allergy: characterization of rubber protein allergens by immunoblotting. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 1991: 96: 376-380.
89. Palosuo T, Mäkinen-Kiljunen S, Alenius H, Reunala T, Yip E, Turjanmaa K., Measurement of natural rubber latex allergen levels in medical gloves by allergen-specific IgE-ELISA inhibition, RAST inhibition, and skin prick test. Allergy 1998: 53: 59-67. (Pubitemid 28057364)
90. Tarlo S M, Sussman G, Contala A, Swanson M C., Control of airborne latex by use of powder-free latex gloves. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994: 93: 985-989. (Pubitemid 24187949)
91. Allmers H, Schmengler J, John S M., Decreasing incidence of occupational contact urticaria caused by natural rubber latex allergy in German health care workers. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004: 114: 347-351. (Pubitemid 39119035)
92. Filon F L, Radman G., Latex allergy: a follow up study of 1040 healthcare workers. Occup Environ Med 2006: 63: 121-125. (Pubitemid 43163780)
93. Vandenplas O, Larbanois A, Vanassche F, Franois S, Jamart J, Vandeweerdt M, Thimpont J., Latex-induced occupational asthma: time trend in incidence and relationship with hospital glove policies. Allergy 2009: 64: 415-420.
94. Merget R, van Kampen V, Sucker K, et al., The German experience 10 years after the latex allergy epidemic: need for further preventive measures in healthcare employees with latex allergy. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2010: May 4 E Publ Springerlink. Available at (last accessed August 2010).
95. Knudsen B, Lerbk A, Johansen J, Menné T., Reduction in the frequency of sensitization to thiurams. A result of legislation?. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 169-178.
96. Thyssen J P., The epidemiology of contact allergy. Allergen exposure and recent trends. G Ital Dermatol Venereol 2009: 144: 507-514.
97. Bhargava K, White I R, White J M., Thiuram patch test positivity 1980-2006: incidence is now falling. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 60: 222-223.
98. Uter W, Hegewald J, Pfahlberg A, Lessmann H, Schnuch A, Gefeller O., Contact allergy to thiurams: multifactorial analysis of clinical surveillance data collected by the IVDK network. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2010: 83: 675-681.
99. CEN/TR 15278:2006. Workplace Exposure -Strategy for the Evaluation of Dermal Exposure. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels. 2006.
100. CEN/TS 15279:2006. Workplace Exposure -Measurement of Dermal Exposure -Principles and Methods. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels. 2006.
101. Schneider T, Vermeulen R, Brouwer D H, Cherrie J W, Kromhout H, Fough C L., Conceptual model for assessment of dermal exposure. Occup Environ Med 1999: 56: 765-773. (Pubitemid 29488287)
102. van Wendel de Joode B, Brouwer D H, Vermeulen R, van Hemmen J J, Heederik D, Kromhout H., DREAM: a method for semi-quantitative dermal exposure assessment. Ann Occup Hyg 2003: 47: 71-87. (Pubitemid 36554283)
103. Fenske R A., Dermal exposure assessment techniques. Ann Occup Hyg 1993: 37: 687-703.
104. Surakka J, Johnsson S, Lindh T, Rosén G, Fischer T A., Method for measuring dermal exposure to multifunctional acrylates. J Environ Monit 1999: 1: 533-540. (Pubitemid 129736737)
105. ISO working paper 2009: Workplace atmospheres -Measurement of dermal exposure -Principles and methods (Draft).
106. Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area Deutsche Forschung sgemeinschaft. List of MAK and BAT Values Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2001.
107. Henschler D, Greim H, (Hrsg.), Gesundheitsschädliche Arbeitsstoffe. Toxikologischarbeitsmedizinische Begründungen von MAK-Werten, Wiley, Weinheim (1972/2010).
108. Commission Directive 96/54/EC of 30 July 1996 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-second time 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 Commun 1996: L 248: 1-230.
109. Lessmann H, Uter W, Diepgen TL., Classification of substances as sensitizing upon skin contact: a comparison between approaches used by the DFG-MAK Commission antd the European Union legislation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2011: 61: 1-8.
110. Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Schulz K-H, et al., When should a substance be designated as sensitizing for the skin ('Sh') or for the airways ('Sa')? Hum Exp Toxicol 2002: 21: 439-444, 111. (Pubitemid 35256453)
111. Kimber I, Dearman R J, Gerberick G F, Roggeband R, Basketter D A., Designation of substances as skin sensitizing chemicals: a commentary. Hum Exp Toxicol 2003: 22: 439-443. (Pubitemid 37038838)
112. Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Schulz K-H, et al., Designation of substances as skin sensitizing chemicals: a reply. Hum Exp Toxicol 2005: 24: 157-159. (Pubitemid 40605156)
113. Api A M, Basketter D A, Cadby P A, et al., Dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008: 52: 3-23.
114. Gerberick G F, Robinson M K, Felter S P, White I R, Basketter D A., Understanding fragrance allergy using an exposure based risk assessment approach. Contact Dermatitis 45: 333-340.
115. Friedmann P S., The immunology of allergic contact dermatitis: the DNCB story. Adv Dermatol 1990: 5: 175-196.
116. Api A M, Vey M., Implementation of the dermal sensitization Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for fragrance ingredients. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008: 52: 53-61.
117. SCCP. Opinion on dermal sensitization quantitative risk assessment (citral, farnesol and phenylacetaldehyde), 24 June 2008, 2008.
118. Emmett E A, Risby T H, Jiang L, Ng S K, Feinman S., Allergic contact dermatitis to nickel: bioavailability from consumer products and provocation threshold. J Am Acad Dermatol 1988: 19: 314-322.
119. Hindsen M, Bruze M, Christensen O B., Individual variation in nickel patch test reactivity. Am J Contact Dermat 1999: 10: 62-67. (Pubitemid 29269404)
120. Räsänen L, Lehto M, Mustikka-Mäki U P., Sensitization to nickel from stainless steel ear-piercing kits. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 28: 292-294. (Pubitemid 23196986)
121. Johansen J D, Frosch P J, Svedman C, Andersen K E, Bruze M, Pirker C, Menné T., Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, known as Lyral: quantitative aspects and risk assessment of an important fragrance allergen. Contact Dermatitis 2003: 48: 310-316. (Pubitemid 37330263)
122. SCCNFP. 1999: Notes of guidance for testing of cosmetic ingredients for their safety evaluation, 3rd edition 23 June 1999.
123. Schnuch A, Uter W, Dickel H, et al., Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing in hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde sensitive patients. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 61: 152-162.
124. Fischer L A, Menné T, Avnstorp C, Kasting G B, Johansen J D., Hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 2009: 161: 560-567.
125. 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. (Pubitemid 36683483)
126. Safford R J., The dermal sensitisation threshold -a TTC approach for allergic contact dermatitis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2008: 51: 195-200.
127. European Commission. 2009. Available at: http://publications.jrc.ec. europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/5430/1/reqno-jrc52455.pdf (last accessed 26 January 2012).
128. Kimber I, Basketter D A, Butler M, et al., Classification of contact allergens according to potency: proposals. Food Chem Toxicol 2003: 41: 1799-1809. (Pubitemid 37249347)
129. Basketter D A, Clapp C, Jefferies D, Safford R J, Ryan C., Predictive identification of human skin sensitization thresholds. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 260-267. (Pubitemid 41719275)
130. Rulis A M., De Minimis and the threshold of regulation. In: Food Protection Technology, Felix C W, (ed.): Chelsea, MI, Lewis Publishers Inc., 1986: pp. 29-37.
131. Gerberick G F, Ryan C A, Kern P S, Schlatter H, Dearman R J, Kimber I, Patlewicz G Y, Basketter D A., Compilation of historical local lymph node data for evaluation of skin sensitization alternative methods. Dermatitis 2005: 16: 157-202. (Pubitemid 43053764)
132. Allenby C F, Goodwin B F., Influence of detergent washing powders on minimal eliciting patch test concentrations of nickel and chromium. Contact Dermatitis 1983: 9: 491-499. (Pubitemid 14234309)
133. Basketter D, Horev L, Slodovnik D, Merimes S, Trattner A, Ingber A., Investigation of the threshold for allergic reactivity to chromium. Contact Dermatitis 2001: 44: 70-74. (Pubitemid 32055686)
134. Stern A H, Bagdon R E, Hazen R E, Marzulli F N., Risk assessment of the allergic dermatitis potential of environmental exposure to hexavalent chromium. J Toxicol Environ Health 1993: 40: 613-641. (Pubitemid 24025287)
135. Hansen M B, Rydin S, Menné T, Duus J J., Quantitative aspects of contact allergy to chromium and exposure to chrome-tanned leather. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 127-134. (Pubitemid 36051378)
136. Shelnutt S R, Goad P, Belsito D V., Dermatological toxicity of hexavalent chromium. Crit Rev Toxicol 2007: 37: 375-387. (Pubitemid 47035213)
137. Fowler J F Jr, Kauffman C L, Marks J G Jr, et al., An environmental hazard assessment of low-level dermal exposure to hexavalent chromium in solution among chromium-sensitized volunteers. J Occup Environ Med 1999: 41: 150-160. (Pubitemid 29135249)
138. 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.
139. Larsen F S, Brandrup F., Nickel release from metallic buttons in blue jeans. Contact Dermatitis 1980: 6: 298-299.
140. Fischer L A, Menné T, Johansen J D., Experimental nickel elicitation thresholds -a review focusing on occluded nickel exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 57-64. (Pubitemid 40343852)
141. Fischer L A, Johansen J D, Menné T., Nickel allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds. Br J Dermatol 2007: 157: 723-729. (Pubitemid 47389885)
142. Fischer L A, Menné T, Johansen J D., Dose per unit area -a study of elicitation of nickel allergy. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 255-261. (Pubitemid 46624101)
143. Lee H K, Alarie Y, Karol M H., Induction of formaldehyde sensitivity in guinea pigs. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1984: 75: 147-155. (Pubitemid 14060483)
144. 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. (Pubitemid 14145599)
145. de Groot A C, van Joost T, Bos J D, van der Meeren H L, Weyland J W., Patch test reactivity to DMDM hydantoin. Relationship to formaldehyde allergy. Contact Dermatitis 1988: 18: 197-201.
146. Fischer T, Andersen K, Bengtsson U, et al., Clinical standardization of the TRUE Test formaldehyde patch. Curr Probl Dermatol 1995: 22: 24-30.
147. Flyvholm M A, Hall B M, Agner T, Tiedemann E, Greenhill P, Vanderveken W, Freeberg F E, Menné T., Threshold for occluded formaldehyde patch test in formaldehyde-sensitive patients. Relationship to repeated open application test with a product containing formaldehyde releaser. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 36: 26-33. (Pubitemid 27077924)
148. Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Goon A T, Bruze M., Can an imidazolidinyl urea-preserved corticosteroid cream be safely used in individuals hypersensitive to formaldehyde? Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 29-34.
149. Horsfall F L., Formaldehyde hypersensitiveness -an experimental study. J Immunol 1934: 27: 569-581.
150. Jordan W P Jr, Sherman W T, King S E., Threshold responses in formaldehyde sensitive subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol 1979: 1: 44-48. (Pubitemid 11160087)
151. Flyvholm M A, Menné T., Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde. A case study focussing on sources of formaldehyde exposure. Contact Dermatitis 1992: 27: 27-36.
152. Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Goon A T, Bruze M., Can an imidazolidinyl urea-preserved corticosteroid cream be safely used in individuals hypersensitive to formaldehyde? Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 29-34.
153. Zachariae C, Hall B, Cottin M, Cupferman S, Andersen K E, Menné T., Experimental elicitation of contact allergy from a diazolidinyl urea-preserved cream in relation to anatomical region, exposure time and concentration. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 53: 268-277. (Pubitemid 41719276)
154. Basketter D A, Jefferies D, Safford B J, et al., The impact of exposure variables on the induction of skin sensitization. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 55: 178-185. (Pubitemid 44199276)
155. White J M, Gilmour N J, Jeffries D, Duangdeeden I, Kullavanijaya P, Basketter D A, McFadden J P., A general population from Thailand: incidence of common allergens with emphasis on para-phenylenediamine. Clin Exp Allergy 2007: 37: 1848-1853. (Pubitemid 350145342)
156. White J M, Basketter D A, Pease C K, Sanders D A, McFadden J P., Intermittent exposure to low-concentration paraphenylenediamine can be equivalent to single, higher-dose exposure. Contact Dermatitis 2007: 56: 262-265. (Pubitemid 46624098)
157. Yamano T, Shimizu M., Skin sensitization potency and cross-reactivity of p-phenylenediamine and its derivatives evaluated by non-radioactive murine local lymph node assay and guinea-pig maximization test. Contact Dermatitis 2009: 60: 193-198.
158. Xie Z, Hayakawa R, Sugiura M, Kojima H, Konishi H, Ichihara G, Takeuchi Y., Experimental study on skin sensitization potencies and cross reactivities of hair-dye-related chemicals in guinea pigs. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 270-275. (Pubitemid 30219359)
159. Warbrick E V, Dearman R J, Lea L J, Basketter D A, Kimber I., Local lymph node assay responses to paraphenylenediamine: intra- and inter-laboratory evaluations. J Appl Toxicol 1999: 19: 255-260. (Pubitemid 29360982)
160. Bonefeld C M, Larsen J M, Dabelsteen S, Geisler C, White I R, Menné T, Johansen J D., Consumer available permanent hair dye products cause major allergic immune activation in an animal model. Br J Dermatol 2010: 162: 102-107.
161. Rubin I M, Dabelsteen S, Nielsen M M, White I R, Johansen J D, Geisler C, Bonefeld C M., Repeated exposure to hair dye induces regulatory T cells in mice. Br J Dermatol 2010: 163: 992-998.
162. Krasteva M, Cristaudo A, Hall B, Orton D, Rudzki E, Santucci B, Toutain H, Wilkinson J., Contact sensitivity to hair dyes can be detected by the consumer open test. Eur J Dermatol 2002: 12: 322-326. (Pubitemid 34713096)
163. Şsted H, Menné T, Johansen J D., Patch test dose-response study of p-phenylenediamine: thresholds and anatomical regional differences. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 54: 145-149. (Pubitemid 43383810)
164. McFadden J P, Wakelin S H, Holloway D B, Basketter D A., The effect of patch duration on the elicitation of para-phenylenediamine contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 1998: 39: 79-81. (Pubitemid 28410013)
165. Jowsey I R, Basketter D A, McFadden J P, Kullavanijaya P, Duangdeeden I., Elicitation response characteristics to permanent hair dye in
166. Hextall J M, Alagaratnam N J, Glendinning A K, Holloway D B, Blaikie L, Basketter D A, McFadden J P., Dose-time relationships for elicitation of contact allergy to para-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 2002: 47: 96-99. (Pubitemid 35316227)
167. Chan P K, Baldwin R C, Parsons R D, Moss J N, Stiratelli R, Smith J M, Hayes A W., Kathon biocide: manifestation of delayed contact dermatitis in guinea pigs is dependent on the concentration for induction and challenge. J Invest Dermatol 1983: 81: 409-411. (Pubitemid 14228065)
168. 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. (Pubitemid 23093362)
169. Botham P A, Hilton J, Evans C D, Lees D, Hall T J., Assessment of the relative skin sensitizing potency of 3 biocides using the murine local lymph node assay. Contact Dermatitis 1991: 25: 172-177.
170. Basketter D A, Rodford R, Kimber I, Smith I, Wahlberg J E., Skin sensitization risk assessment: a comparative evaluation of 3 isothiazolinone biocides. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 40: 150-154. (Pubitemid 29101417)
171. Weaver J E, Cardin C W, Maibach H I., Dose-response assessments of Kathon biocide (I). Diagnostic use and diagnostic threshold patch testing with sensitized humans. Contact Dermatitis 1985: 12: 141-145. (Pubitemid 15133934)
172. Bjorkner B, Bruze M, Dahlquist I, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Persson K., Contact allergy to the preservative Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 14: 85-90.
173. Cardin C W, Weaver J E, Bailey P T., Dose-response assessments of Kathon biocide. (II). Threshold prophetic patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 15: 10-16. (Pubitemid 16070305)
174. Schwartz S R, Weiss S, Stern E, Morici I J, Moss J N, Goodman J J, Scarborough N L., Human safety study of body lotion containing Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 1987: 16: 203-207. (Pubitemid 17053781)
175. Hjorth N, Roed-Petersen J., Patch test sensitivity to Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 14: 155-157.
176. Meneghini C L, Angelini G, Vena G A., Contact allergy to Kathon CG. Contact Dermatitis 1987: 17: 247-249.
177. Frosch P J, Schulze-Dirks A., Contact allergy to Kathon CG. Hautarzt 1987: 38: 422-425. (Pubitemid 17098154)
178. Hannuksela M., Rapid increase in contact allergy to Kathon CG in Finland. Contact Dermatitis 1986: 15: 211-214. (Pubitemid 17175792)
179. Marks J G, Moss J N, Parno J R, et al., Methylchloroisothiazolinone/ methylisothiazolinone (Kathon CG) biocide: second United States multicenter study of human skin sensitization. Am J Contact Dermat 1993: 4: 87-89.
180. Menné T, Frosch P J, Veien N K, et al., Contact sensitization to 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one and 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (MCI/MI). A European multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis 1991: 24: 334-341.
181. Zachariae C, Lerbaek A, McNamee P M, Gray J E, Wooder M, Menné T., An evaluation of dose/unit area and time as key factors influencing the elicitation capacity of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) in MCI/MI-allergic patients. Contact Dermatitis 2006: 55: 160-166. (Pubitemid 44199273)
182. Bruze M, Gruvberger B, Hradil E., Occupational allergic contact dermatitis due to methylisothiazolinones in a cleansing cream. Contact Dermatitis 1990: 22: 235-237. (Pubitemid 20109394)
183. Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel of the Cosmetic Toiletry Fragrance Association. Final Report on the safety assessment of methylisothiazolinone and methylisochloroisothiazolinone. J Am Coll Toxicol 1992: 11: 75-128.
184. Frosch P J, Lahti A, Hannuksela M, Andersen K E, Wilkinson J D, Shaw S, Lachapelle J M., Chloromethylisothiazolone/methylisothiazolone (CMI/MI) use test with a shampoo on patch-test-positive subjects. Results of a multicentre double-blind crossover trial. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 32: 210-217.
185. Mathias C G., Contact dermatitis to a new biocide (Tektamer 38) used in a paste glue formulation. Contact Dermatitis 1983: 9: 418.
186. 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.
187. 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. (Pubitemid 23093362)
188. Wahlkvist H, Boman A, Montelius J, Wahlberg J E., Sensitizing potential in mice, guinea pig and man of the preservative Euxyl K 400 and its ingredient methyldibromo glutaronitrile. Contact Dermatitis 1999: 41: 330-338. (Pubitemid 30018889)
189. Tosti A, Guerra L, Bardazzi F, Gasparri F., Euxyl K 400: a new sensitizer in cosmetics. Contact Dermatitis 1991: 25: 89-93.
190. 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. (Pubitemid 34761675)
191. Gruvberger B, Andersen K E, Brandao F M, et al., Repeated open application test with methyldibromo glutaronitrile, a multicentre study within the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 19-23. (Pubitemid 40293086)
192. Schnuch A, Kelterer D, Bauer A, et al., Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing in methyldibromo glutaronitrile-sensitive patients. Contact Dermatitis 2005: 52: 197-206. (Pubitemid 40676599)
193. Kynemund P L, Agner T, Held E, Johansen J D., Methyldibromoglutaronitrile in leave on products elicits contact allergy at low concentration. Br J Dermatol 2004: 151: 817-822. (Pubitemid 39482115)
194. 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. (Pubitemid 38234011)
195. Tosti A, Vincenzi C, Smith K A., Provocative use testing of methyldibromo glutaronitrile in a cosmetic shampoo. Contact Dermatitis 2000: 42: 64-67. (Pubitemid 30077108)
196. Heratizadeh A, Killig C, Worm M, et al., Quantitative repeated open application testing with a rinse-off product in methyldibromo glutaronitrile-sensitive patients: results of the IVDK. Contact Dermatitis 2010: 62: 330-337.
197. Thyssen J P, Menné T, Schnuch A, Uter W, White I, White J M, Johansen J D., Acceptable risk of contact allergy in the general population assessed by CE-DUR -a method to detect and categorize contact allergy epidemics based on patient data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2009: 54: 183-187.
198. Thyssen J P, Linneberg A, Menné T, Nielsen N H, Johansen J D., The prevalence and morbidity of sensitization to fragrance mix I in the general population. Br J Dermatol 2009: 161: 95-101.
199. Thyssen J P, Johansen J D, Menné T, Nielsen N H, Linneberg A., Nickel allergy in Danish women before and after nickel regulation. N Engl J Med 2009: 360: 2259-2260.