ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise

Content

List volumes - List articles in this issue

Routine Diagnostic Patch-testing with Formaldehyde 2.0% (0.6mg/cm2) may be an Advantage Compared to 1.0%

doi: 10.2340/00015555-0925

Abstract:

Our clinical experience has suggested that the presently recommended patch-test concentration (1.0%) for formaldehyde in the baseline series might be too low. Therefore, consecutively patch-tested dermatitis patients were tested simultaneously with formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% (w/v) in aqua. Formaldehyde 1.0% and 2.0% were applied with a micro-pipette (15 µl) to filter paper discs in Finn Chambers (0.30 mg/cm² and 0.60 mg/cm², respectively). A total of 1397 patients with dermatitis were patch-tested. In all, 68 (4.9%) patients reacted positively to formaldehyde; 37 reacted only to 2.0%, 29 reacted to both concentrations, and 2 reacted only to 1.0%. Significantly more patients were thus diagnosed with contact allergy to formaldehyde 2.0% compared with 1.0% (p < 0.001). We detected 0.1%, 0.4%, and 29.6% irritant reactions to 1.0%, 2.0%, and 3.0% formaldehyde, respectively. We conclude that, with an optimized patch-test technique, doubling the dose per area detects significantly more contact allergies to formaldehyde, but an even higher test concentration causes too many irritant reactions to be usable.

Authors:

Inese Hauksson, Ann Pontén, Birgitta Gruvberger, Marléne Isaksson, Magnus Bruze

References

  1. Trattner A, Johansen JD, Menne T. Formaldehyde concentration in diagnostic patch testing: comparison of 1% with 2%. Contact Dermatitis 1998; 38: 9–13. [CrossRef]
  2. Flyvholm MA, Hall BM, Agner T, Tiedemann E, Greenhill P, Vanderveken W, et al. 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. [CrossRef]
  3. Gruvberger B, Bruze M, Tammela M. Preservatives in moisturizers on the Swedish market. Acta Derm Venereol 1998; 78: 52–56. [CrossRef]
  4. Brasch J, Geier J, Henseler T. Evaluation of patch test results by use of the reaction index. An analysis of data recorded by the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 1995; 33: 375–380. [CrossRef]
  5. Andersen KE, White IR, Goossens A. Allergens from the standard series. In: Frosch PJMT, Lepoittevin J-P, editors. Contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer, 2006: p. 473–475. [CrossRef]
  6. Bruze M. Contact sensitizers in resins based on phenol and formaldehyde. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl 1985; 119: 1–83. [CrossRef]
  7. Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfeldt M, Bruze M. Which test chambers should be used for acetone, ethanol, and water solutions when patch testing? Contact Dermatitis 2007; 57: 134–136. [CrossRef]
  8. Bruze M, Andersen KE, Goossens A. Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) in the European baseline patch test series. Contact Dermatitis 2008; 58: 129–133. [CrossRef]
  9. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfelt M. Recommendation of appropriate amounts of petrolatum preparation to be applied at patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 2007; 56: 281–285. [CrossRef]
  10. Wilkinson DS, Fregert S, Magnusson B, Bandmann HJ, Calnan CD, Cronin E, et al. Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol 1970; 50: 287–292. [CrossRef]
  11. Edman B. Computerized patch data in contact allergy (thesis). Malmö: Department of Dermatology, Lund University, 1988. [CrossRef]
  12. Wilkinson JD, Shaw S, Andersen KE, Brandao FM, Bruynzeel DP, Bruze M, et al. Monitoring levels of preservative sensitivity in Europe. A 10-year overview (1991–2000). Contact Dermatitis 2002; 46: 207–210. [CrossRef]
  13. Meding B, Swanbeck G. Occupational hand eczema in an industrial city. Contact Dermatitis 1990; 22: 13–23. [CrossRef]
  14. Cronin E. Formaldehyde is a significant allergen in women with hand eczema. Contact Dermatitis 1991; 25: 276–282. [CrossRef]
  15. Flyvholm MA, Menne T. Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde. A case study focussing on sources of formaldehyde exposure. Contact Dermatitis 1992; 27: 27–36. [CrossRef]
  16. Bruze M, Conde-Salazar L, Goossens A, Kanerva L, White IR. Thoughts on sensitizers in a standard patch test series. The European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 41: 241–250. [CrossRef]
  17. Rietschel RL, Warshaw EM, Sasseville D, Fowler JF Jr., Deleo VA, Belsito DV, et al. Sensitivity of petrolatum and aqueous vehicles for detecting allergy to imidazolidinylurea, diazolidinylurea, and DMDM hydantoin: a retrospective analysis from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Dermatitis 2007; 18: 155–162. [CrossRef]
  18. Frick-Engfeldt M, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, Hauksson I, Pontén A, Bruze M. Comparison of 3 different application techniques for water solutions to Finn Chambers. Contact Dermatitis 2010 (in print). [CrossRef]

Share with your friends





Actions


Abstract

Full text

PDF

Supplementary


There is no supplementary for this article.

Print information


Volume 90, Issue 5

DOI: 10.2340/00015555-0925

Pages: 480-484

View at PubMed