Contact dermatitis · 2025
Results of GC-MS Analyses of 40 Extracts of Diabetes Devices.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van Oers Emma M, de Groot Anton C, Verolme Patrick, Ipenburg Norbertus A, Rustemeyer Thomas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic patch testing in patients with suspected allergic Contact Dermatitis from glucose sensors, insulin pumps, and infusion sets is seriously hampered by a lack of information on the chemical composition of these diabetes devices.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the chemicals present in diabetes devices.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty acetone extracts of 27 devices (10 sensors, 3 patch pumps, 12 infusion sets and 2 single adhesives) were investigated by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.
RESULTS: Two hundred eighty four individual chemicals were identified. All 40 extracts contained one or more chemicals that were previously identified as allergens in diabetes devices causing allergic Contact Dermatitis. Fourteen of 27 devices (52%) contained one or more acrylates, 8 (30%) colophonium derivatives, all 27 (100%) one or two phenolic allergens (2,4-di-tert-butylphenol, p-tert-butylphenol, butylated hydroxytoluene), and 9 (33%) 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone. None of the other chemicals were well-known haptens, with the exception of bisphenol A, which was present in half of the extracts, in some cases in very high concentrations.
CONCLUSIONS: All products investigated contained chemicals already known to be sensitizers in diabetes devices. The data can help determine the relevance of positive patch tests, facilitate targeted patch testing with potential allergens and aid in advising safer alternatives for sensitized patients.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the chemicals present in diabetes devices.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty acetone extracts of 27 devices (10 sensors, 3 patch pumps, 12 infusion sets and 2 single adhesives) were investigated by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.
RESULTS: Two hundred eighty four individual chemicals were identified. All 40 extracts contained one or more chemicals that were previously identified as allergens in diabetes devices causing allergic Contact Dermatitis. Fourteen of 27 devices (52%) contained one or more acrylates, 8 (30%) colophonium derivatives, all 27 (100%) one or two phenolic allergens (2,4-di-tert-butylphenol, p-tert-butylphenol, butylated hydroxytoluene), and 9 (33%) 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone. None of the other chemicals were well-known haptens, with the exception of bisphenol A, which was present in half of the extracts, in some cases in very high concentrations.
CONCLUSIONS: All products investigated contained chemicals already known to be sensitizers in diabetes devices. The data can help determine the relevance of positive patch tests, facilitate targeted patch testing with potential allergens and aid in advising safer alternatives for sensitized patients.