The prevalence of chromate allergy has declined worldwide in the last decades.
Objectives
The aim of the study was to assess tendencies in chromate allergy in northern Israel and its possible causes.
Methods
Retrospective analysis of patch test data during 1999-2013 and a review of the medical records of patients with chromate allergy were conducted.
Results
A total of 4846 consecutive patients were patch tested, of whom 146 (3%) were found to be chromate sensitive. The prevalence of chromate allergy decreased significantly from 4.7% in 1999–2001 to 2.8% in 2002–2004 (P = 0.02). Since then, no significant fluctuations have occurred. A gradual and consistent decline in chromate allergy was recorded among women from 4.8% in 1999–2001 to 2.3% in 2008–2010. Cement (18.4%) was the most frequent source of exposure and was mainly observed in men. The frequency of clinically relevant cement exposure increased significantly from 7.7% in 2002–2004 to 28.7% in 2011–2013 (P = 0.04), whereas the frequency of relevant detergent exposure decreased significantly from 25% in 1999-2001 to 5.7% in 2011–2013 (P = 0.04). Hand (68.5%) was the most frequently involved anatomical site.
Conclusions
The prevalence of chromate allergy in northern Israel is stable in the general population and gradually decreasing among women. These changes may be caused by reduced exposure to water-soluble hexavalent chromium in detergents but not in cement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ProctorDM, FredrickMM, ScottPK, et al.The prevalence of chromium allergy in the United States and its implications for setting soil cleanup: a cost-effectiveness case study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 1998; 28: 27–37.
2.
NguyenSH, DangTP, MacPhersonC, et al.Prevalence of patch test results from 1970 to 2002 in a multi-centre population in North America (NACDG). Contact Dermatitis, 2008; 58: 101–106.
3.
FarmA.Changing patterns in chromate allergy. Contact Dermatitis, 1986; 15: 298–310.
4.
AvnstorpC.Follow-up of workers from the prefabricated concrete industry after the addition of ferrous sulphate to Danish cement. Contact Dermatitis, 1989; 20: 365–371.
5.
BasketterDA, Briatico-VangosaG, KaestnerW, et al.Nickel, cobalt and chromium in consumer products: a role in allergic contact dermatitis?. Contact Dermatitis, 1993; 28: 15–25.
6.
MarksJG, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for the detection of delayed-type hypersensitivity to topical allergens. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1998; 38: 911–918.
7.
OlsavszkyR, RycroftR, WhiteI, et al.Contact sensitivity to chromate: comparison at a London contact dermatitis clinic over a 10-year period. Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 38: 329–331.
8.
AthavaleP, ShumKW, ChenY, et al. Occupational dermatitis related to chromium and cobalt: experience of dermatologists (EPIDERM) and occupational physicians (OPRA) in the U.K. over an 11-year period (1993–2004). Br J Dermatol, 2007; 157: 518–522.
9.
Freireich-AstmanM, DavidM, TrattnerA. Standard patch test results in patients with contact dermatitis in Israel: age and sex differences. Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 56(2): 103–107.
10.
LazarovA.European Standard Series patch test results from a contact dermatitis clinic in Israel during the 7-year period from 1998 to 2004. Contact Dermatitis, 2006; 55(2): 73–76.
11.
MagenE, MishalJ, SchlesingerM. Sensitizations to allergens of TRUE test in 864 consecutive eczema patients in Israel. Contact Dermatitis, 2006; 55(6): 370–371.
12.
FeuermanE.Chromates as the cause of contact dermatitis in housewives. Dermatologica, 1971; 143: 292–294.
13.
PrattMD, BelsitoDV, DeLeoVA, et al.North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001–2002 study period. Dermatitis, 2004; 15: 176–183.
14.
ZugKA, RietschelRL, WarshawEM, et al.The value of patch testing patients with a scattered generalized distribution of dermatitis: retrospective cross-sectional analyses of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001 to 2004. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2008; 59: 426–431.
15.
HegewaldJ, UterW, AbererW, et al.The European Surveillance System of Contact Allergies (ESSCA): results of patch testing the standard series, 2004. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2008; 22: 174–181.
16.
UterW, RämschC, AbererW, et al.The European baseline series in 10 European Countries, 2005/2006—results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA). Contact Dermatitis, 2009, 61: 31–38.
17.
WangBJ, WuJD, SheuSC, et al.Occupational hand dermatitis among cement workers in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc, 2011; 110(12): 775–779.
18.
ThyssenJP, JensenP, CarlsenBC, et al.The prevalence of chromium allergy in Denmark is currently increasing as a result of leather exposure. Br J Dermatol, 2009; 161(6): 1288–1293.
19.
CarøeC, AndersenKE, ThyssenJP, et al.Fluctuations in the prevalence of chromate allergy in Denmark and exposure to chrome-tanned leather. Contact Dermatitis, 2010; 63(6): 340–346.
20.
HwangM, YoonEK, KimJY, et al.Safety assessment of chromium by exposure from cosmetic products. Arch Pharm Res, 2009; 32(2): 235–241.
21.
Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics data for 2011. Available at: cbs.gov.il. Accessed January6, 2016.
22.
ZachariaeCO, AgnerT, MennéT. Chromium allergy in consecutive patients in a country where ferrous sulfate has been added to cement since 1981. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 35(2): 83–85.
23.
Technical Report No. 45. Nickel, Cobalt and Chromium in Consumer Products: Allergic Contact Dermatitis. Brussels, Belgium: European Chemical Industry Ecology and Toxicology Center; 1992.
24.
IngberA, GammelgaardB, DavidM. Detergents and bleaches are sources of chromium contact dermatitis in Israel. Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 38(2): 101–104.
25.
GammelgaardB, FullertonA, AvnstorpC, et al.Permeation of chromium salts through human skin in vitro. Contact Dermatitis, 1992; 27: 302–310.
26.
Danish Working Environment Service. Statutory Order of the Danish Working Environment Service. No. 661 of November 28, 1983.
27.
MennéT, ChristophersenJ, KaaberK, et al.Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985–86 and 1997–98, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies. Br J Dermatol, 2000; 142: 490–495.
28.
RotoP, SainioH, ReunalaT, et al.Addition of ferrous sulfate to cement and risk of chromium dermatitis among construction workers. Contact Dermatitis, 1996; 34: 43–50.
29.
GeierJ, KrautheimA, UterW, et al.Occupational contact allergy in the building trade in Germany: influence of preventive measures and changing exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 2011; 84: 403–411.
30.
StocksS, McNameeR, TurnerS, et al.Has European Union legislation to reduce exposure to chromate in cement been effective in reducing the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis attributed to chromate in the UK?. Occup Environ Med, 2012; 69: 150–152.
31.
IrvineC, PughCE, HansenEJ, et al.Cement dermatitis in underground workers during construction of the Channel Tunnel. Occup Med, 1994; 44(1): 17–23.
32.
UterW, RühlR, PfahlbergA, et al.Contact allergy in construction workers: results of a multifactorial analysis. Ann Occup Hyg, 2004; 48: 21–27.
CahillJ, KeegelT, NixonR. The prognosis of occupational contact dermatitis in 2004. Contact Dermatitis, 2004; 51: 219–226.
35.
Directive 2003/53/EC of the European Parliament and the Council Directive of 18 June 2003 amending for the 26th time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (nonylphenol, nonylphenol ethoxylate und cement). Off J Eur Commun, 2003; 178: 24–28.
