Contact dermatitis · 2021
Allergic contact dermatitis from ("hypoallergenic") adhesives containing D-limonene.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Dendooven Ella, Foubert Kenn, Naessens Tania, Pieters Luc, Lambert Julien, Goossens An, Aerts Olivier
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Besides being a potential component of (some species of) colophonium, D-limonene is also used as a tackifier in the production of adhesives. Hydroperoxides of limonene are well-known skin sensitizers.
OBJECTIVES: To show that D-limonene may be present in colophonium-containing but also colophonium-free ("hypoallergenic") adhesives, and that patients suffering from allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from both types of adhesives might display positive patch test reactions to limonene hydroperoxides in this regard.
METHODS: Five patients with suspected ACD from adhesives were patch tested to the baseline series (containing limonene hydroperoxides 0.3 and 0.2% pet.), additional series and, if available, to the culprit adhesives. The adhesives labelled as containing colophonium (n = 3) or free from it (n = 2) were analysed with gas chromatography - mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for the presence of D-limonene.
RESULTS: All five patients sensitised to adhesives had (strong) positive patch test reactions to limonene hydroperoxides. The presence of D-limonene, and/or related components, could be demonstrated in all three colophonium-containing and, surprisingly, also in two colophonium-free ("hypoallergenic") tapes.
CONCLUSIONS: D-limonene may be present in both regular and "hypoallergenic" adhesives, with limonene hydroperoxides potentially contributing to ACD from such medical devices. The use of fragrance chemicals in adhesives deserves further research.
OBJECTIVES: To show that D-limonene may be present in colophonium-containing but also colophonium-free ("hypoallergenic") adhesives, and that patients suffering from allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from both types of adhesives might display positive patch test reactions to limonene hydroperoxides in this regard.
METHODS: Five patients with suspected ACD from adhesives were patch tested to the baseline series (containing limonene hydroperoxides 0.3 and 0.2% pet.), additional series and, if available, to the culprit adhesives. The adhesives labelled as containing colophonium (n = 3) or free from it (n = 2) were analysed with gas chromatography - mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for the presence of D-limonene.
RESULTS: All five patients sensitised to adhesives had (strong) positive patch test reactions to limonene hydroperoxides. The presence of D-limonene, and/or related components, could be demonstrated in all three colophonium-containing and, surprisingly, also in two colophonium-free ("hypoallergenic") tapes.
CONCLUSIONS: D-limonene may be present in both regular and "hypoallergenic" adhesives, with limonene hydroperoxides potentially contributing to ACD from such medical devices. The use of fragrance chemicals in adhesives deserves further research.