Classification criteria for skin‐sensitizing chemicals: a commentary

A formalized, standardized and effective mechanism for the identification of substances which possess significant skin sensitization potential is a necessary first step in the process of limiting the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis. Strategies to achieve such hazard identification are unified throughout the European Union and also have been publicised by the World Health Organization. Global harmonization of these and other approaches (e.g., in the USA) is being driven by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In this paper, the benefits and limitations of these classification systems are reviewed. A common element of all the systems is that they seek to distinguish important contact allergens from chemicals which are infrequent sensitizers. The European criteria are legal requirements in the EU member states and formal classification as a skin sensitizer leads to mandatory labelling. The most notable omission from current and proposed classification criteria relates to the relative potency of a classified skin sensitizer and the exposure dose. Such information is necessary for proper risk assessment and management measures to be implemented.

[1]  E. Epstein,et al.  New cell formation in human sebaceous glands. , 1966, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[2]  D. Basketter,et al.  A critical commentary and updating of the guinea pig maximization test , 1995, Contact dermatitis.

[3]  T. Agner,et al.  Threshold for occluded formaldehyde patch test in formaldehyde‐sensitive patients , 1997, Contact dermatitis.

[4]  C. Avnstorp Cement eczema. An epidemiological intervention study. , 1992, Acta dermato-venereologica. Supplementum.

[5]  Johannes Geier,et al.  A comparison of contact allergies among construction and nonconstruction workers attending contact dermatitis clinics in Germany: Results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology from November 1989 to July 1993*1, *2 , 1995 .

[6]  M. López-Botet,et al.  In vitro immune cell function in six cases of immunoproliferative small intestinal disease after long term remission. , 1983, Clinical and experimental immunology.

[7]  T. Agner,et al.  Formaldehyde allergy: A follow-up study. , 1999, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.

[8]  S. Wakelin,et al.  The effect of patch duration on the elicitation of para‐phenylenediamine contact allergy , 1998, Contact dermatitis.

[9]  T. Menné,et al.  Quantitative aspects of isoeugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests , 1996, Contact dermatitis.

[10]  D. Basketter,et al.  An arm immersion model of compromised skin , 1993, Contact dermatitis.

[11]  T. Menné,et al.  Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde , 1992, Contact dermatitis.

[12]  T. Menné,et al.  Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark. , 1992, Acta dermato-venereologica.

[13]  M K Robinson,et al.  A review of the Buehler guinea pig skin sensitization test and its use in a risk assessment process for human skin sensitization. , 1990, Toxicology.

[14]  S. Shuster,et al.  Quantitative relationships between sensitizing dose of DNCB and reactivity in normal subjects. , 1983, Clinical and experimental immunology.

[15]  Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,et al.  Organisation for economic cooperation and development , 1998 .

[16]  Skov,et al.  Allergens in combination have a synergistic effect on the elicitation response: a study of fragrance‐sensitized individuals , 1998, The British journal of dermatology.

[17]  M. Bruze,et al.  The significance of previous contact dermatitis for elicitation of contact allergy to nickel. , 1998, Acta dermato-venereologica.

[18]  H. Maibach,et al.  Influence of area of application of allergen on sensitization in contact dermatitis , 1992, Contact dermatitis.

[19]  A. Kligman Full Length ReportThe Identification of Contact Allergens by Human Assay: III. The Maximization Test: A Procedure for Screening and Rating Contact Sensitizers* , 1966 .

[20]  H. Salo,et al.  The repeated open application test (ROAT) , 1986, Contact dermatitis.

[21]  T. Agner,et al.  Chromium allergy in consecutive patients in a country where ferrous sulfate has been added to cement since 1981 , 1996, Contact dermatitis.

[22]  M. Isaksson,et al.  Systemic quinine photosensitivity with photoepicutaneous cross‐reactivity to quinidine , 1992, Contact dermatitis.

[23]  A. Vølund,et al.  Induction of formaldehyde contact sensitivity: dose response relationship in the guinea pig maximization test. , 1985, Acta dermato-venereologica.

[24]  D. Basketter,et al.  An arm immersion model of compromised skin , 1993, Contact dermatitis.

[25]  D A Basketter,et al.  Skin sensitization--a critical review of predictive test methods in animals and man. , 1991, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[26]  E. Cronin Formaldehyde is a significant allergen in women with hand eczema , 1991, Contact dermatitis.

[27]  I. Kimber,et al.  Sulphanilic acid: divergent results in the guinea pig maximization test and the local lymph node assay , 1992, Contact dermatitis.

[28]  J. Johansen,et al.  Identification of risk products for fragrance contact allergy: a case-referent study based on patients' histories. , 1998, American journal of contact dermatitis : official journal of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.