Hexavalent and trivalent chromium in leather: What should be done?

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 681-686

  Moretto, Angelo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis; Chromium; Content; Hexavalent; Leather; Regulation; Release; Risk; Trivalent

Indexed keywords

CHROMIUM; CHROMIUM HEXAVALENT ION;

ALLERGIC REACTION; HUMAN; LEATHER INDUSTRY; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIZATION; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN IRRITATION; SKIN MANIFESTATION; SWEAT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; ANIMAL; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

ANIMALS; CHROMIUM; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; HUMANS; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; TANNING;

EID: 84982152459     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.09.007     Document Type: Note

References (54)

1. Allenby C.F., Goodwin B.F. Influence of detergent washing powders on minimal eliciting patch test concentrations of nickel and chromium. Contact Dermat. 1983, 9(6):491-499.
2. Athavale P., Shum K.W., Chen Y., Agius R., Cherry N., Gawkrodger D.J. Occupational dermatitis related to chromium and cobalt, experience of dermatologists (EPIDERM) andoccupational physicians (OPRA) in the U.K. over an 11-year period (1993-2004). Br. J. Dermatol. 2007, 157(3):518-522.
3. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Chromium 2012, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp7.pdf.
4. Bajaj A.K., Gupta S.C., Chatterjee A.K., Singh K.G. Shoe dermatitis in India: further observations. Contact Dermat. 1991, 24:149-151.
5. Basketter D., Horev L., Slodovnik D., Merimes S., Trattner A., Ingber A. Investigation of the threshold for allergic reactivity to chromium. Contact Dermat. 2001, 44(2):70-74.
6. Bensefa-Colas L., Telle-Lamberton M., Paris C., Faye S., Stocks S.J., Luc A., Bourrain J.-L., Crepy M.N., Dupas D., Frimat P., Garnier R., Lehucher-Michel M.-P., Pairon J.-C., Soulat J.-M., Lasfargues D., Choudat D., the members of the French National Network of Occupational Disease Vigilance Prevention (RNV3P) and Moma I Occupational allergic contact dermatitis and major allergens in France: temporal trends for the period 2001-2010. Br. J. Dermatol. 2014, 171:1375-1385.
7. Bock M., Schmidt A., Bruckner T., Diepgen T.L. Occupational skin disease in the construction industry. Br. J. Dermatol. 2003, 149:1165-1171.
8. Bregnbak D., Thyssen J.P., Zachariae C., Johansen J.D. Characteristics of chromium-allergic dermatitis patients prior to regulatory intervention for chromium in leather, a questionnaire study. Contact Dermat. 2014, 71(6):338-347.
9. Bregnbak D., Thyssen J.P., Zachariae C., Johansen J.D., Menné T. Association between cobalt allergy and dermatitis caused by leather articles - a questionnaire study. Contact Dermat. 2014, 72:106-114.
10. Carøe C., Andersen K.E., Thyssen J.P., Mortz C.G. Fluctuations in the prevalence of chromate allergy in Denmark and exposure to chrome-tanned leather. Contact Dermat. 2010, 63(6):340-346.
11. Chowdhuru S., Ghosh S. Epidemio-allergological study in 155 cases of footwear dermatitis. Indian J. Dermatol. Venereol. Lepr. 2007, 73:319-322.
12. D'Erme A.M., Bassi A., Lotti T., Gola M. Dimethyl fumarate contact dermatitis of the foot, an increasingly widespread disease. Int. J. Dermatol. 2012, 51(1):42-45.
13. Dotterud L.K., Smith-Sivertsen T. Allergic contact sensitization in the general adult population, a population-based study from northern Norway. Contact Dermat. 2007, 56(1):10-15.
14. EC Commission regulation (EU) no 301/2014 of 25 March 2014 amending annex XVII to regulation (EC) no 1907/2006 of the European parliament and of the council on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) as regards chromium VI compounds. OJEU 2014, 26. March 2014.
15. EChA Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC) 2012, Background document to the Opinion on the Annex XV dossier proposing restrictions on Chromium VI in leather articles. http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/181c7157-76cf-4356-b1d8-664e43a1a3bd.
16. EFSA CONTAM Panel (EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain) Scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of chromium in food and drinking water. EFSA J. 2014, 12(3):261. 3595. 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3595.
17. Fischer L.A., Menné T., Voelund A., Johansen J.D. Can exposure limitations for well-known contact allergens be simplified? An analysis of dose-response patchtest data. Contact Dermat. 2011, 64(6):337-342.
18. Freeman S. Shoe dermatitis. Contact Dermat. 1997, 36(5):247-251.
19. Fregert S., Rorsman H. Allergy to trivalen chromium. Arch. Dermatol. 1964, 90:4-6.
20. Geier J., Krautheim A., Uter W., Lessmann H., Schnuch A. Occupational contact allergy inthe building trade in Germany, influence of preventive measures and changingexposure. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2011, 84(4):403-411.
21. Goon A.T., Goh C.L. Metal allergy in Singapore. Contact Dermat. 2005, 52(3):130-132.
22. Goossens A., Taylor J.S. Shoes. Contact Dermatitis 2011, 819-830. Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. J.D. Johansen (Ed.).
23. Hamann D., Hamann C.R., Thyssen J.P. The impact of common metal allergens in daily devices. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2013, 13(5):525-530.
24. Hansen M.B., Johansen J.D., Menné T. Chromium allergy: significance of both Cr(III) and Cr(VI). Contact Dermat. 2003, 49:206-212.
25. Hansen M.B., Rydin S., Mennè T., Johansen J.D. Quantitative aspects of contact allergy to chromium and exposure to chrome-tanned leather. Contact Dermat. 2002, 47:127-134.
26. Hansen M.B., Menne T., Johansen J.D. Cr(III) and Cr(VI) in leather and elicitation of eczema. Contact Dermat. 2006, 54(5):278-282.
27. Hedberg Y.S., Lidén C., Wallinder I.O. Chromium released from leather - I: exposure conditions that govern the release of chromium(III) and chromium(VI). Contact Dermat. 2015, 72(4):206-215. 10.1111/cod.12329.
28. Hedberg Y.S., Linden C., Walliner I.O. Correlation between bulk- and surface chemistry of cr-tanned leather and the release of Cr(III) and Cr(VI). J. Hazard. Mat. 2014, 280:654-661.
29. Holden C.R., Gawkrodger D.J. 10 years' experience of patch testing with a shoe series in 230 patients: which allergens are important?. Contact Dermat. 2005, 53:37-39.
30. Kosann M.K., Brancaccio R.R., Shupack J.L., Franks A.G., Cohen D.E. Six-hour versus 48-hour patch testing with varying concentrations of potassium dichromate. Am. J. Contact Dermat. 1998, 9(2):92-95.
31. Landeck L., Uter W., John S.M. Patch test characteristics of patients referred for suspected contact allergy of the feet-retrospective 10-year cross-sectional study of the IVDK data. Contact Dermat. 2012, 66:271-278.
32. Lidén C., Skare L., Nise G., Vahter M. Deposition of nickel, chromium, and cobalt on the skin in some occupations. Assessment by acid wipe sampling. Contact Dermat. 2008, 58(6):347-354.
33. Lindberg M., Edman B., Fischer T., Stenberg B. Time trends in Swedish patch test data from 1992 to 2000. A multi-centre study based on age- and sex-adjusted results of the Swedish standard series. Contact Dermat. 2007, 56:205-210.
34. Mathiason F., Lidén C., Hedberg Y.S. Chromium released from leather - II, the importance of environmental parameters. Contact Dermat. 2015, 72(5):275-285.
35. Meyndt R., Germann H.-P. Relationships in the Formation of Hexavalent Chrome (CrVI). World Leather 2011, 14-17. June/July.
36. Nardelli A., Taveirne M., Drieghe J., Carbonez A., Degreef H., Goossens A. The relation between the localization of foot dermatitis and the causative allergens in shoes, a 13-yearretrospective study. Contact Dermat. 2005, 53(4):201-206.
37. Nethercott J., Paustenbach D., Adams R., Fowler J., Marks J., Morton C., Taylor J., Horowitz S., Finley B. A study of chromium induced allergic contact dermatitis with 54 volunteers, implications for environmental risk assessment. Occup. Environ. Med. 1994, 51(6):371-380. 1994.
38. Nguyen S.H., Dang T.P., MacPherson C., Maibach H., Maibach H.I. Prevalence of patch test results from 1970 to 2002 in a multi-centre population in North America (NACDG). Contact Dermat. 2008, 58(2):101-106.
39. Pesonen M., Jolanki R., Larese Filon F., Wilkinson M., Krecisz B., Kieć-Świerczyńska M., Bauer A., Mahler V., John S.M., Schnuch A., Uter W., ESSCA network Patch test results of the European baseline series among patients with occupational contact dermatitis acrossEurope - analyses of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy network, 2002-2010. Contact Dermat. 2015, 72(3):154-163.
40. Rudzki E., Rebandel P., Karaś Z. Patch testing with lower concentrations of chromate and nickel. Contact Dermat. 1997, 37(1):46.
41. Samitz M.H., Shrager J. Patch test reactions to hexavalent and trivalent chromium compounds. Arch. Dermatol. 1966, 94:304-306.
42. Silvestre J.F., Toledo F., Mercader P., Giménez-Arnau A.M., Spanish Research Group of Allergic Contact Dermatitis due to Dimethyl Fumarate in Spain A summary of shoe allergic contact dermatitis caused by dimethyl fumarate in Spain. Contact Dermat. 2011, 65(2):122-123.
43. Susitaival P., Winhoven S.M., Williams J., Lammintausta K., Hasan T., Beck M.H., Gruvberger B., Zimerson E., Bruze M. An outbreak of furniture related dermatitis ('sofa dermatitis') in Finland and the UK, history and clinical cases. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2010, 24(4):486-489.
44. Svecova D., Simaljakova M., Dolezalova A. Footwear contact dermatitis from dimethyl fumarate. Int. J. Dermatol. 2013, 52:803-807.
45. Tegtmeyer D., Rabe V. Modern Chrome Tanning is Safe 2014, 18-19. International Leather Maker, July/August. http://internationalleathermaker.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/1055/Modern_chrome_tanning_is_safe.html.
46. Thyssen J.P., Menné T. Metal allergysa review on exposures, penetration, genetics, prevalence, and clinical implications. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2010, 23:309-318.
47. Thyssen J.P., Jellesen M.S., Møller P., Menné T., Johansen J.D. Allergic chromium dermatitis from wearing 'chromium-free' footwear. Contact Dermat. 2014, 70:183-192.
48. Thyssen J.P., Jensen P., Carlsen B.C., Engkilde K., Menné T. The prevalence of chromium allergy in Denmark is currently increasing as a result of leather exposure. Br. J. Dermatol. 2009, 161:1288-1293.
49. Thyssen J.P., Johansen J.D., Jellesen M.S., Møller P., Sloth J.J., Zachariae C., Menné T. Consumer leather exposure: an unrecognized cause of cobalt sensitization. Contact Dermat. 2013, 69:276-279.
50. Thyssen J.P., Linneberg A., Menné T., Johansen J.D. The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population - prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermat. 2007, 57:287-299.
51. Thyssen J.P., Strandesen M., Poulsen P.B., Menné T., Johansen J.D. Chromium in leather footwear - risk assessment of chromium allergy and dermatitis. Contact Dermat. 2012, 66(5):279-285.
52. Toledo F., Silvestre J.F., Cuesta L., Borrego L., Pérez M. Correlation between lesion site and concentration of dimethyl fumarate in different parts of shoes in patientswith contact dermatitis caused by dimethyl fumarate in footwear. Contact Dermat. 2011, 65(2):92-95.
53. van Coevorden A.M., Coenraads P.J., Pas H.H., van der Valk P.G. Contact allergens in shoe leather among patients with foot eczema. Contact Dermat. 2002, 46(3):145-148.
54. Van Lierde V., Chéry C.C., Roche N., Monstrey S., Moens L., Vanhaecke F. In vitro permeation of chromium species through porcine and human skin as determined by capillaryelectrophoresis-inductively coupled plasma-sector field mass spectrometry. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2006, 384(2):378-384.