Mobile phones have been reported to cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).
Methods:
A comprehensive online literature review was conducted through the National Library of Medicine (Pubmed MEDLINE) using appropriate medical subject headings and keywords.
Results:
Thirty-seven cases of mobile phone-related ACD were found. Six studies evaluating allergen release from mobile phones were found.
Conclusions:
Case reports of mobile phone-associated ACD have risen rapidly in number since 2000. Case reports highlight mobile phone ACD in both pediatric and adult populations in many countries. Metal allergens, notably nickel and chromium, were frequently implicated in mobile phone associated ACD. Nickel release from mobile phones appears to be common and has been reported in both cheap and expensive mobile phones, including phones covered under the EU Nickel Directive.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ThyssenJP, LinnebergA, MennéT, JohansenJD. The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population—prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 57:287–299.
2.
MoennichJN, ZirwasM, JacobSE. Nickel-induced facial dermatitis: adolescents beware of the cell phone. Cutis, 2009; 84:199–200.
3.
HamannCR, HamannD, HamannC, ThyssenJP, LidénC. The cost of nickel allergy: a global investigation of coin composition and nickel and cobalt release. Contact Dermatitis, 2013; 68:15–22.
4.
ShahM, LewisFM, GawkrodgerDJ. Nickel as an occupational allergen: a survey of 368 nickel-sensitive subjects. Arch Dermatol, 1998; 134:1231.
5.
HamannCR, HamannDJ, HamannQJ, et al.Assessment of nickel release from earrings randomly purchased in China and Thailand using the dimethylglyoxime test. Contact Dermatitis, 2010e; 62:232–240.
6.
HamannD, HamannC, LiLF, et al.The sino-american belt study: nickel and cobalt exposure, epidemiology, and clinical considerations. Dermatitis, 2012; 23:117–123.
7.
HamannD, SchemanAJ, JacobSE. Nickel exposure from keys: alternatives for protection and prevention. Dermatitis, 2013; 24:186–189.
8.
ThyssenJP, SkareL, LundgrenL, et al.Sensitivity and specificity of the nickel spot (dimethylglyoxime) test. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 62:279–288.
9.
HamannD, HamannCR, ThyssenJP. The impact of common metal allergens in daily devices. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol, 2013; 13:525–530.
10.
LiK, BarankinB. Cutaneous manifestations of modern technology use. J Cutan Med Surg, 2011; 15:347–353.
11.
WarshawEM, BelsitoDV, TaylorJS, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results: 2009 to 2010. Dermatitis, 2013; 24:50–59.
12.
ThyssenJP, JensenP, CarlsenBC, EngkildeK, MennéT, JohansenJD. The prevalence of chromium allergy in Denmark is currently increasing as a result of leather exposure. Br J Dermatol, 2009; 161:1288–1293.
13.
HamannC, HamannD, HamannKK, ThyssenJP. Cobalt release from inexpensive earrings from Thailand and China. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 64:238–240.
ThyssenJP, JohansenJD, ZachariaeC, MennéT. The outcome of dimethylglyoxime testing in a sample of cell phones in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 59:38–42.
KlugerN, Raison-PeyronN, GuillotB. [Contact dermatitis to nickel related to cellular phone use]. Presse Med, 2009; 38:1694–1696.
24.
RobertsH, TateB. Nickel allergy presenting as mobile phone contact dermatitis. Australas J Dermatol, 2010; 51:23–25.
25.
GuarneriF, GuarneriC, Patrizia CannavòS. An unusual case of cell phone dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 62:117.
26.
RajparaA, FeldmanSR. Cell phone allergic contact dermatitis: case report and review. Dermatol Online J, 2010; 16:9.
27.
LeeDY, YangJM. Preauricular eczema: a sign of cellular phone dermatitis. Clin Exper Dermatol, 2010; 35:201–202.
28.
ÖzkayaE. Bilateral symmetrical contact dermatitis on the face and outer thighs from the simultaneous use of two mobile phones. Dermatitis, 2011; 22:116.
29.
BerkDR, BaylissSJ. Cellular phone and cellular phone accessory dermatitis due to nickel allergy: report of five cases. Pediatr Dermatol, 2011; 28:327–331.
30.
TanS, NixonR. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by chromium in a mobile phone. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 65:246–247.
DannepondC, ArmingaudP. [Breast eczema: mobile phones must not be overlooked]. Ann Dermatol Venereol, 2012; 1:142–143.
33.
WilliamsPJ, KingC, ArslanianV. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by a cell phone cover. Australas J Dermatol, 2012; 53:76–77.
34.
ValdiviesoR, Heras-MendazaF, Conde-SalazarL. Facial contact dermatitis and the irritant potential of mobile phone screens. Pediatr Dermatol, 2013; 30:e177–179.
35.
JørgensenT. Test om din telefon afgiver meget nikkel. Danish Broadcasting Corporation, 2008. Available at www.dr.dk/DR1/kontant/2008/10/14152657.htm. Accessed August4, 2013.
36.
ThyssenJP, JohansenJD. Mobile phones are now covered by the European Union Nickel Directive. Contact Dermatitis, 2009; 61:56–57.
37.
JensenP, ThyssenJP, JohansenJD, SkareL, MennéT, LidénC. Occupational hand eczema caused by nickel and evaluated by quantitative exposure assessment. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 64:32–36.
38.
AquinoM, MucciT, ChongM, LortonMD, FonacierL. Mobile phones: potential sources of nickel and cobalt exposure for metal allergic patients. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol, 2013; 26:181–186.
39.
ThyssenJP, MennéT, LidénC, et al.Cobalt release from implants and consumer items and characteristics of cobalt sensitized patients with dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2012; 66:113–122.
40.
JensenP, JohansenJD, ZachariaeC, MennéT, ThyssenJP. Excessive nickel release from mobile phones—a persistent cause of nickel allergy and dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis, 2011; 65:354–358.
41.
ThyssenJP, MennéT, JohansenJD. Identification of metallic items that caused nickel dermatitis in Danish patients. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 63:151–156.
42.
VOC-directiveEU. Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations. Official Journal of the European Communities: Brussels, 1999.
43.
JacobSE, BrodB, CrawfordGH. Clinically relevant patch test reactions in children—a United States based study. Pediatr Dermatol, 2008; 25:520–527.
